**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: July

30, 2015 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Gavin Lau , EPA Region 2/CASD
- APB SUBJECT: August 1 9 , 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants **SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 1 9 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014
. **ATTENDEES New York State Department of Environmental Conservation**  **:** Ms. L ois New, Acting Director, Office of Climate Change Mr. Robert Sliwinski, Director , Bureau of Air Quality Mr. Scott Griffin Mr. Michael Sheehan **New York State Energy Research and Development Authority**  **:** Mr. David Coup, Assistant Director **New York State**  **Department of Public Service :**  Mr. James AustinQuestions Submitted for August 13, 2014 call

Building Block #2: Natural Gas : New York would like to discuss a number of issues regarding the equity of EPA’s approach to this building block, including the following questions:  How did EPA take into account limitations of a state’s electricit y and natural gas distribution sy stems, the impact on a state’s diversity of fuel mix, and other issues regarding technical implementation (e.g., reliability rules and transmission constraints that impact dispatch) when setting a target of 70% natural gas utilization?  States with deregulated electricity s ys tems, like New York, hav e extremel y limited ability to regulate the dispatch of power plants. Did EPA consider the differences between regulated and deregulated sy stems in determining the potential emission reductions under this building block? Building Block #3: Renewables an d nuclear: In addition to discussing how EPA applied this building block, New York would like to discuss alternative approaches to this building block, including the alternative based on technical and market potential. Specific questions include:  The cal culation for the northeastern regional renewables target uses a 29% figure for NY’s RPS, but that includes existing hy dro, but states are not allowed to count existing hydro for compliance purposes. Instead, NY’s renewables target excluding existing hydro is in the vicinit y of 10%. Will EPA correct this apparent inconsistency if it adheres to this approach for setting a renewables target?  Has EPA considered using an energy target (MWh) in lieu of a percentage?  How does EPA propose that states would mai ntain at
- risk nuclear plants, given that the NRC and federal regulatory s ys tem could deem such plants no longer safe for operation or otherwise dictate their status?  Discuss how new imported hy dropower can be used to meet either a rate
- based or mass
base d target? Building Block #4: Energy Efficiency : The current methodology in the energy

efficiency building block is setup to assume that all states reach a point where incremental annual energy efficiency additions are 1.5% of retail sales.  Has EPA consi dered using a methodology that instead requires all states to get to a cumulative annual energy efficiency level as a percentage of retail sales? Such an approach would allow early acting states like New York to build upon their cumulative 2012 efficiency level (almost 7% of NY retail sales vs. national average of about 4%) while encouraging other states to “pick the low hanging fruit” more rapidly to result in more substantial emissions reductions overall. Rate to Mass Conversion : The EPA documents provide an illustrative example of making this conversion and staff have emphasized that this is merel y “guidance”. The RGGI states are considering modeling that would help us comment productively on the methodology

as well as inform us on what our mass
- based limit might look like. We have three assumptions that we would like to discuss: Because EPA indicates that states will get credit for all RE/EE measures after the

proposal date, and since RE/EE are alread y included in setting our states’ intensity targets, we assume no RE/EE bey ond 2014 in establishing our mass
- based limit.  We assume the cap is our only enforceable measure (and modeling will show what complementary

policies, including RE/EE measures, we expect will help us achie ve the cap).  We assume that we can incorporate projections of demand growth due to increased reliance on electric vehicles.