Answered Questions (3)

-------------------------- 1. Lori Tussey: Are the presentation materials available? * Lori Tussey : The presentation slides are available at: http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox/epa
-webinar
-series
- proposed
- clean
- power- plan 2. Lori Tussey: I have lost sound completely. W hat should I do? * Lori Tussey: You m ay h ave been disconnted from webinar. You will need to logout of Adobe Connect and log back in. 3. Lori Tussey: The audio is choppy. W hat should I do? * Lori Tussey : Try

the "Audio Setup W izard" under "Meeting" in the upper left side of your screen. Open Questions (38)

-------------------------- 4. Donna Rogers: this is a test question 5. MontanaDEQ: Is it possible for an existing facility that is currently unaffected to becom e an affected facility after state plan approval (based on increased MWh )? How should states treat such potential future affected facilities in a state plan? 6. IN. Dept. of Env. Mgm t, Office or air quality: W hat happens if a State is unable to submit a plan within the 2 year time frame or if a State declines to submit a plan? 7. Utah PSC: Other than a extended time to comply, what are the benefits of a regional , or multi
-state, approach to compliance? W ill a m ulti
-state approach allow individual states to “average” emission rates thus possibly lowering what a state is required to achieve? 8. Charles Boritz: W hat m easures must a state implement in order to take credit for at risk nuclear generation in the state plan? 9. Guest 6: How might measurements for com pliance be different than the measurements used to set the individual state goals? 10. Cindy Hollenberg: If our state chooses a mass
- based plan, it seems as though programs already in place will not "count" for reducing emissions. H ow do we account fo r a coal
-fired retirement scheduled for 2016? H ow do we account for energy efficiency programs already begun, but not come to full fruition? How do we account for RPS that are in place for 2020 and beyond? 11. Ana Ortega: Referring to slide 7, what is me ant by "non
- EGU affected entities" and please provide an example. 12. Guest 3: Can an existing EGU that is currently an "excluded" source become subject to the rule in the future? I f so, how does a state plan incorporate the source? 13. Guest 3: W ould a u nit closure under a regional haze SIP be included in a state plan for this rule? 14. Steven Jenks: Wi ll EPA be publishing a model state plan for an emission rate plan and mass
- based plan? T his will help States understand EPA's expectations for the plan an d better digest the rule. 15. Brooke Bassell
- Herman: Is there a three year rolling average for both the rate
- based and mass
- based methods, or is there a twelve month average for rate
- based and a three year average for mass
- based? 16. Charles Boritz: Wh at a re the implications of having an emission rate greater than the 2030 goal after im plem enting all of the "building blocks"? 17. Gene Therriault: Are all statewide increases in renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements elligible to be used in achieving the goal? 18. Guest 3: How are EE/RE programs that are im plemented by a nother state agency

i ncluded and deem ed federally enforceable in a state plan? 19. Katie Southworth, Tennessee: Is the EPA considering development of a calculator for EE and RE p rogram measures that states may elect to use? (Under the DOE Recovery Act programs, DOE allowed states to use a "recovery act benefits calculator" to report the impacts of state EE and RE programs. This calculator was very helpful for state
- level EE and RE programs that do not have form al requirem ents at the state level regarding EE EM&V reporting protocols. 20. Mark Leath: If a state goes with a ma ss - based goal, and then electricity dem and changes significantly in the future, would the state be allowed to adjust the mass
- based goal upwards or downwards after it has already been approved 21. Gene Therriault: W ill new, im poundm ent hydroelectric generation be elligible as a renwable source?22. Guest 3: Wi ll it be possible to see the presumptive mass based eq uivalent of our rate based goal PRIOR

to when we need to submit comments? 23. Merrily Gere: If a state chooses mass
- based compliance, will compliance in 2030 be the actual tons of em issions from the stack of each affected unit? O r would the conversion fro m a rate to a mass
- based me asure mean that it would be different? 24. Kyrik Rombough: You state EPA has the authority to produce a FIP but do you have the authority to require energy effiiciency since it essentially regulates private individuals and smal l businesses, not a coal
-fired power plant? Especially now since the U.S. Supreme Court didn't allow you to regulate beyond what Congress intended recently. 25. Mark Leath: One of the slides indicated that under a rate
- based standard EGUs compliance averag ing period cannot be greater than 1 year. U nder rate
- based, EM&V must be done after the fact to determine how much credit an EE project would generate. W ith this in mind, how can an EGU demonstrate com pliance each year if they have to wait for EM&V to se e how m uch credit they get for their EE projects.? 26. Eddy Moore: Could a statewide appliance standard (i.e., only residential AC above 13 SEER) count as an EE measure, and what type of EM&V would be needed? 27. Charles Boritz: Wh at other methods does EPA recommend other than the building blocks used to calculate the state goals? 28. Aditya Jayam P rabhakar (MISO): Some of the utilities in the Midwest have their generation solely in one state (with higher rate goals) with all of its customers residing in an other with a stringent target (with much lower target)
- can you please throw some light on how state(/s) should consider compliance in such a situation? 29. Guest 6: Could a state modify its goal to include emissions associated with its consumption of en ergy from a coal plant located in a different state and then track its reductions as part of its compliance as an alternative to collaborating with another state? 30. CPUC: If a state were to base its plan on a policy
- a renewable portfolio standard, for example
- and then the state wished to change that policy after EPA had approved of its plan, would the state have to seek EPA approval of that revised RPS policy, or would the state have to refile its plan to reflect the revised RPS? 31. Cindy Hollenberg: More clarification on mass
- based plans. Reading the CO2 Projections TSD, creating the reference case scenario calls for i ncluding "firm builds and retirements" and other programs already in place, then applying the rate
- based goal to the projections for that reference case scenario. This seems contradictory to your previous answer of determining "projections using the same assumptions as EPA used in calculating state goals." O r does this "complementarity" have a particular cut
-off date? 32. Melanie Verzwyvelt: Are multi
-state plans limited to the regions in which states were grouped in the proposal? 33. Guest 3: W ould an existing NG fired EGU that EPA "excluded" due to "low utilization" become an affected source if production increases? W ould the goal be adjusted? 34. Merrily Gere: Do all the states in a mu ltistate program have to participate in a multistate state plan filing, or could some file jointly and others file individually? F or examples, do all the states in RGGI have to participate in a mult istate state plan filing for it to be approvable? 35. NCTCOG: can the people answering the questions speak louder, please? 36. Guest 6: In a multistate implementation, could the states participating have an adjusted goal due to elim ination of the import adjustment for EE? 37. Gene Therriault: How will a currently naptha
-fired combined cycle EGU that is converted to natural gas im pact the target rate? W ill it's lower emission rate be able to be captured and applied to achieving the goal. T he emmissions are currently excluded from the target calcultation. 38. Brooke Bassell
- Herman: Is there a difference between BSER for a FIP and a SIP? 39. Guest 6: Could a state m odify its goal to include emissions associated with it's share of consumption of energy fro m a coal plant located in a different state and then track its reductions as a part of its com pliance as a form of collaborating with another state as long as the plant was removed as an obligation in the collaborating state? 40. Ohio EPA: How will the Q&A portion of these calls be provided to participants? 41. Lynn Deahl: The moderator's voice is overpowering the other speakers. Their voices are extremely low. please adjust