OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Hearing
Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule, Additional Sources of F - Gases Subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing), L (Fluorinated Gas Production), DD (Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use), QQ (Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside pre - charged equipment and closed- cell foams) and SS (Electrical Equipment Manufacture or

Refurbishment)

9:05 a.m. to 11:55 a.m. Tuesday, April 20, 2010

1310 L St, NW Washington, DCOLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 2
C O N T E N T S

PAGE Welcoming Remarks Paul Gunning , Presiding Officer...............3
Introductory Remarks Paul Gunning ..................................4

Morning Public Comments
David Stirpe, Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy...8 Thomas Diamond , Semiconductor Industry Association...........12 Peter Zalzal , Environmental Defense Fund.......25 Daniel Chartier , Edison Electric Institute.....29

- - -OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 3
P R O C E E D I N G S 1 Welcoming Remarks 2 MR. GUNNING: Good morning everybody. I 3 am Paul Gunning with the Environmental Protection 4 Agency here in the Climate Change Division, and I 5 welcome you all here this morning to our public 6 hearing on the Mandatory Reporting Ru le 7 specifically additional source categories 8 covering the fluorinated greenhouse gases. 9 Thank you all, first of all, for coming 10 this morning. We are looking forward to hearing 11 your comments and insights and perspectives on 12 these proposed subparts for Man datory Reporting 13 Rule. 14 Introductory Remarks 15 As you well know, the purpose of the 16 hearing today is to receive your comments and we 17 are looking forward to hear those comments. 18 We’re specifically covering five subparts under 19 the Mandatory Reporting Rule, specifically 20 Subpart I which covers electronics manufacturing, 21 Subpart L which covers fluorinated gas 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 4 production, Subpart DD which covers electric 1 transmission and distribution and equipment use, 2 Subpart QQ which covers importers and exporters 3 of fluorinat ed greenhouse gases contained in 4 charged equipment and closed
- cell foams and 5 finally Subpart SS, electrical equipment 6 manufacture or refurbishment. See if I said that 7 right this morning with my coffee. 8 Of course we’re covering this hearing and 9 holding th is hearing today in accordance and in 10 support of the Clean Air Act which does provide 11 interested parties the opportunity to present 12 their views, arguments and perspectives on this 13 proposed rule. We also of course had an open 14 docket and are requesting and encouraging you to 15 also submit written comments. This hearing this 16 morning provides the opportunity for your oral 17 presentations. 18 As you’ll note with the mikes

– I know 19 it’s a very small room, but we are recording this 20 public hearing and we will be deve loping a 21 transcript that will be made available and put in 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 5
the docket. 1 As a point of note the docket and the 2 docket number is HQ

– if you’re interested in 3 finding this

– OAR - 2009
- 0927. And again, we’ll 4 make that transcript available and the docket 5 will a lso be available electronically on 6 regulations.gov. 7 So this morning we’ll be conducting this 8 hearing in an informal manner. We will not be 9 applying the official rules of evidence. I will 10 be the presiding officer. 11 We have several other EPA officials i n 12 the room here today this morning that have worked 13 hard and diligently on the proposed rule and will 14 be working to make this a final rule. I’d like 15 to just quickly introduce those folks who have 16 put a lot of effort into this rule, Debbie 17 Ottinger, Kirste n Kappel, Scott Bartos who is not 18 here this morning

– I’m looking around the room

– 19 there’s Sally Rand, okay, Sally Rand, and is that 20 everybody that’s here this morning? Okay. So 21 they’ll be here and listening closely to the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 6 comments you’re providing. 1 In terms of the process and the order for 2 this morning, I’d like to ask everyone to try to 3 keep their comments and thoughts to around ten 4 minutes. I’d like to please ask everybody to 5 turn off your cell phones, cell phones and 6 Blackberries. They do disturb the hearing. 7 A number of you have signed in already. 8 I will be calling folks up in order of who signed 9 up. And please in advance of delivering your 10 comments, note your name and your organizational 11 affiliation if appropriate. 12 In addition, again, to emphasize this is 13 an opportunity for oral statements. We will ask 14 clarifying questions, but we also encourage you 15 to submit your comments to the docket especially 16 if there is a variation between your written and 17 oral presentations. 18 It looks like at the moment we only have 19 a few speakers signed up this morning, so as a 20 point of order we’ll just proceed and see if 21 there are additional individuals that are 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 7 interested in commenting and take breaks 1 accordingly. One other logistical note, the 2 restrooms are loca ted just right down this 3 hallway if you haven’t found them already. 4 And let me return to my seat here and 5 we’ll begin the hearing. Okay, so I will start 6 introducing the first person, David Stirpe. I’d 7 like to invite you to come up please for your 8
comme nts. 9 One additional note, obviously we’re 10 dealing with many subparts this morning and I 11 realize that some of you may be commenting on 12 several subparts. So, as you deliver your 13 comments, please preface them with which subpart 14 or subparts you’re addressing this morning. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. STIRPE: Good morning. My name is 17 Dave Stirpe and I’m with the Alliance for 18 Responsible Atmospheric Policy. On behalf of the 19 Alliance and the industry coalition, I am pleased 20 to make some comments regarding the proposed ru le 21 addressing mandatory reporting of certain 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 8 fluorinated greenhouse gases. I’m going to 1 comment mostly on Subpart L. 2 The Alliance is an industry coalition 3 that was organized in 1980 to address the issue 4 of stratospheric ozone depletion. It is composed 5 of manufacturers and businesses including 6 associations that produce and rely on CFCs, HCFCs 7 and HFCs. Today, the Alliance coordinates 8 industry participation and the development of 9 reasonable international government policies 10 regarding ozone protection clima te change. 11 The Alliance has a long history of 12 working in a positive manner with EPA on these 13 issues. We believe that accurate and timely data 14 is necessary when decision makers and businesses 15 work to formulate policy. 16 In addition to working with EPA ov er 17 several decades to voluntarily report and 18 ascertain certain emissions of HCFCs and HFCs, 19 Alliance members are mindful of efforts to reduce 20 emissions of these compounds including 21 containment, recovery, recycling, reclamation and 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 9 destruction. We’ve alway s advocated the 1 responsible use of these compounds in ways that 2 have significantly reduced emissions, allowed the 3 phase down of HCFCs, encouraged a smooth 4 transition of alternatives and provided societal 5 value for citizens who rely on energy
- efficient 6 air conditioning, refrigeration and foam 7 insulation. 8 The Alliance appreciates EPA’s careful 9 consideration of the public comments submitted by 10 the Alliance and its members last year on the 11 original proposal to report greenhouse gases. 12 We thank you for revis ing and re
13 proposing significant pieces of the proposal. It 14 appears to us that EPA addressed many concerns 15 including the monitoring and emissions reporting 16 procedures that appear to have improved. 17 We plan to more close examine the rule of 18 the next days a nd we will elaborate on our 19 comments in writing by June 11 t h
. 20 The Alliance appreciates EPA’s efforts to 21 integrate Subpart L and last year’s Subpart OO to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 10 minimize overlap. Both the proposed Subpart L 1 and the final Subpart OO require fluorinated 2 greenhous e gas reporting. EPA should develop a 3 method to consolidate production reporting 4 between the two subparts. 5 As much of the required reporting 6 information is confidential business information, 7 the Alliance supports EPA developing appropriate 8 confidential b usiness information protections in 9 the pending part 98 reporting tool. 10 The Alliance appreciates EPA allowing 11 best available monitoring methods for the entire 12 2011 calendar year since there’s a large amount 13 of preparation, monitoring and record keeping, 14 that each reporting facility must establish to 15 comply with proposed Subpart L. However, some 16 may be concerned that a one - year implementation 17 period may not be adequate. The Alliance will 18 examine the requirement for importers and 19 exporters of pre - charged equipment and closed 20 cell foam to report their imports and exports to 21 EPA and may elaborate on this further in written 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 11
comments. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment 2 today. 3 MR. GUNNING: Thanks, David. 4 Okay. The next speaker, I’d like to ask 5 Tom Diamond to come up, please. Thank you. 6 MR. DIAMOND: My name is Tom Diamond. 7 [Pause.] 8 Good morning. My name is Tom Diamond. 9 I’m the Director of Environmental Health and 10 Safety for the Semiconductor Industry 11 Association. On behalf of the SIA, let me take 12 this opportunity to thank you for this 13 opportunity to testify today on the mandatory of 14 reporting of greenhouse gases. 15 The SIA understands that the USEPA faces 16 a mandate from Congress to develop regulations 17 for reporting greenhouse gas emissions 18 i nformation. We want to work cooperatively with 19 the Agency as we have in the past under our 20 voluntary MOU program. We give our full support 21 to its implementation of this mandate. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 12 We also greatly appreciate EPA’s 1 responsiveness to our comments on the or iginal 2 proposal and decision to defer greenhouse gas 3 reporting regime for our industry and to engage 4 in additional rulemaking. The SIA is now engaged 5 in an internal process with our members to 6 evaluate carefully the reporting rule re
7 proposal. 8 As you kn ow, for the original proposal, 9 SIA commissioned a survey by an independent 10 entity, the International SEMATECH Manufacturing 11 Initiative, with whom the USEPA itself has 12 partnered on a mission reporting method 13 development. That survey indicated compliance 14 wi th the original proposal would have 15 necessitated extensive operational and 16 infrastructure changes which where technically 17 feasible, would far exceed the $3.6 million 18 estimate by the USEPA and instead would run into 19 the tens of millions. Moreover, under no 20 circumstance, could those changes have occurred 21 in the reporting timeframe specified in the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 13 original proposal. The SIA has commissioned a 1 supplemental survey by ISMI keyed to address the 2 technical requirements and costs that would be 3 associated with the re - proposal. We expect to 4 have a preliminary report from ISMI on the 5 supplemental survey by mid May. At that time, we 6 will share those results with the Agency and 7 engage in further dialogue. 8 In addition to the ISMI supplemental 9 survey, the SIA has been working with our members 10 to analyze the re - proposal from a technical, 11 policy and legal standpoint. We have not yet 12 completed our analysis process, but I can 13 highlight today several aspects of the re
14 proposal that our members have identified as 15 being of p otential concern. 16 The reporting threshold equation. The 17 equation for semiconductor manufacture is to 18 calculate whether or not a facility exceeds the 19 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 20 reporting threshold appears flawed. The equation 21 itself lacks a CO2e conversion step based on the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 14 global warming potential of the individual gases. 1 It also appears to constitute a potential to emit 2 equation based on 100 percent of the 3 manufacturing capacity factor as opposed to an 4 actual emission calculation that sh ould serve as 5 a trigger for reporting obligations. 6 Process categories. The re
- proposal sets 7 out nine semiconductor manufacturing process 8 categories and subcategories. The re
- proposal 9 would require annual reporting on both usage and 10 mass emission informa tion for each of these 11 categories and subcategories on an individual gas 12 by gas basis as well as for a tenth, nitrous 13 oxide, other category. The SIA appreciates the 14
re - proposal in contrast to the original would 15 allow semi
- conductor manufacturers to calcul ate 16 emissions instead of requiring individual tool 17 measurements or continuous emissions monitoring 18 neither of which are technically or economically 19 feasible at this time. 20 Nevertheless, the re - proposal process 21 based reporting scheme raises several potent ial 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 15 concerns. First, protection of trade secret 1 information

– information about which gases a 2 facility uses and which processes and the amount 3 would reveal competitively valuable trade secret 4 information. Indeed, such details of greenhouse 5 gas usage and emissions by process would provide 6 those familiar with our industry specific 7 knowledge of proprietary device designs and 8 manufacturing process, and also effectively may 9 reveal customer sensitive product information 10 based on manufacture or loading. Annual 11 production levels and/or facilities capacities 12 also could be used by competitors to characterize 13 manufacturing efficiencies and to influence 14 prospective customer decisions. Under the 15 circumstances, our members likely would have no 16 choice but to claim much of the information that 17 would be required under the re
- proposal as 18 confidential including the mass emission 19 information broken down by gas and by process. 20 We understand the EPA may wish to receive 21 some of this kind of information from our members 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 16 to veri fy their compliance. We question, 1 however, the need of the Agency to receive it 2 routinely especially in view of the trade secret 3 nature of the information. 4 CO 2 equivalent conversion. The re
5 proposal would appear to require gas by gas 6 reporting of usage and emission information by 7 process category or subcategory on a mass basis 8 without any CO 2 e conversion. The SIA is concerned 9 this reporting approach in particular, the re
10 proposal provides no indication of whether the 11 EPA plans to make this information publicly 12 available or instead will undertake to convert it 13 to CO 2 e. 14 If the EPA intends to undertake a 15 conversion, the SIA would question what 16 methodology and what GWP factors will get used 17 and how the resulting numbers will get displayed 18 and explained t o the public. 19 Compliance burden and cost. As noted 20 above, the SIA greatly appreciates that the re
21 proposal would allow for an emission factor 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 17 approach and also is responsive to the SIA’s 1 suggestion in our comments on the original 2 proposal to allow gas u sage fuel factors based on 3 cylinder
- change triggers. The re
- proposal, 4 however, may end up imposing an equal or even 5 greater burden as compared with the original 6 proposal. 7 In particularly, the re
- proposal would 8 require semi
- conductor manufacturers to br eak 9 emissions down on a gas by gas basis for each of 10 the nine process categories plus the tenth 11 nitrous oxide category. Moreover, the re
12 proposal would mandate that such breakdown occur 13 based on quantifiable indicators and not based on 14 engineering judgmen t. This reporting scheme may 15 result in significant compliance burdens and 16 cost. The ISMI supplemental survey aims to 17 assess these burdens and costs. Based on the 18 supplemental survey results, the SIA will address 19 whether these burdens and costs are reaso nable or 20 not in view of the USEPA’s apparent objective to 21 reduce uncertainty. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 18
Default factors. The re - proposal would 1 not adopt the SIA’s suggested alternative in our 2 comments to the original proposal. Under that 3 alternative, facilities would report emis sions 4 based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 5 Change or the IPCC emissions assessment methods 6 that are now being used by our industry but with 7 several enhancements. Instead, the re - proposal 8 envisions that the USEPA would establish its own 9 default emission factors for each of the process 10 categories and subcategories on an individual gas 11 basis. The re
- proposal provides little detail on 12 how the Agency will derive these factors. 13 We understand that the USEPA has 14 solicited information from equipment suppliers to 15 our industry through the Semiconductor Equipment 16 Manufacturers International or SEMI trade 17 association. But the process by which this 18 solicitation occurred has not been transparent to 19 the SIA. We were informed during the USEPA’s 20 electronics industry sector outreach 21 teleconference last week that all the information 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 19 provided by SEMI through the solicitation has 1 been claimed as confidential and therefore is not 2 available to us. 3 Although the USEPA indicated in the re
4 proposal that it may issue a notice of 5 availability of data for comment on the default 6 emission factors, it does not commit to do so and 7 indeed suggests the agency may decide in the 8 interest of time simply to include the factors as 9 part of the final rule without any notice and 10 oppo rtunity for comment. The SIA does not 11 believe that this approach would comport with 12 basic administrative process mandates of the 13 Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedures Act. 14 Moreover, as stated in our February 25 t h 15 letter to the EPA, SIA would consider supporting 16 the development in the future of process specific 17 emission factors through a collaborative effort 18 such as the next IPCC evaluation by working with 19 our tool suppliers to gather more data and to 20 share the cost of testing. This approach would 21 p rovide the best path forward. Not only would it 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 20 provide an international collaboration and 1 acceptance that is necessary to avoid serious 2 damage to competitiveness of the U.S.
- based 3 semiconductor operations, but it also would 4 ensure greater transparency and burden sharing. 5 Indeed, the SIA continues to believe that until 6 an international community moves beyond the 7 current IPCC factors, a reporting rule that 8 allows existing sources to use the IPCC Tier 2B 9 factors would provide a robust scheme for 10 semiconducto r manufacturing, greenhouse gas 11 emission reporting with suitable accuracy to 12 satisfy the agency’s objectives. Under the 13 circumstances, the burdens and cost associated 14 with other approaches in the name of greater 15 precision are difficult to justify, particu larly 16 given that greenhouse gas emissions from the 17 semiconductor industry are less than 0.1 percent 18 of the U.S. inventory of greenhouse emissions, 19 perfluorocarbons are critical to the 20 semiconductor manufacturing process, and that the 21
re - proposal would impo se greenhouse gas reporting 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 21 burdens far exceeding other regions of the world 1 and therefore would place the domestic 2 semiconductor industry, the country’s second 3 leading export sector and source of approximately 4 200,000 high
- paying jobs, at a distinct 5 compe titive disadvantage. 6 Abatement technology. The re - proposal 7 would prohibit semiconductor manufacturers from 8 obtaining full credit for the emission reductions 9 provided by the greenhouse gas abatement devices 10 unless the source undertakes the following 11
measu res on an annual basis. First, 12 certification that each abatement system has been 13 installed and is maintained and operated in 14 accordance with the manufacturer’s specification. 15 Second, an accounting of each system’s up time. 16 Third, a random sampling of thr ee units or 20 17 percent of the installed units whichever is 18 greater following the EPA’s DRE protocol. 19 The SIA is concerned that the foregoing 20 measures would require semiconductor 21 manufacturers to generate a large amount of 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 22 information on an annual basis for the hundreds 1 of point of use abatement devices used for 2 greenhouse gas control on individual process 3 tools. Doing so would provide quite costly and 4 burdensome. 5 We acknowledge that the re - proposal would 6 allow the use of default DREs in lieu of the 7 f oregoing and appreciate the EPA’s willingness to 8 provide this option in contrast to the original 9 proposal which had not provided any such option. 10 The re - proposal’s 60 percent default DRE value, 11 however, falls well short of the GHG control 12 offered by our po int of use devices and therefore 13 penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have 14 operated voluntarily in good faith under our MOU 15 and other greenhouse gas reduction programs to 16 install and maintain control devices. 17 The ISMI supplemental survey, the SIA 18 hopes to gain a clearer picture of the cost 19 associated with the re
- proposal’s abatement 20 requirements and looks forward to discussing the 21 alternative approaches and a more appropriate DRE 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 23
value. 1 In closing, we look forward to continuing 2 to work with the EPA to meet the objectives of 3 the rule. We believe that the objective can be 4 met with an alternative reporting structure that 5 is more closely aligned with the capabilities of 6 our sector. Thank you. 7 MR. GUNNING: Thanks for your comments. 8 Okay. Our third speaker, I’d like to ask 9 Peter Zalzal. 10 MR. ZALZAL: Good morning. My name is 11 Peter Zalzal. I’m an attorney with the 12 Environmental Defense Fund and thank you for the 13 opportunity for giving comments today. 14 I’m just going to touch on three brief 15 points and they relate generally to all the 16 fluorinated greenhouse gas rules. 17 First, I’d like to say we appreciate 18 EPA’s action to require reporting from 19 fluorinated greenhouse gas sources given the 20 nature of these gases. Fluorinated greenhouse 21 gases are atmos pherically persistent and have an 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 24 extremely high global warming potential. In its 1 fourth assessment report, IPCC recognized that 2
non - CO 2 gases from manufacturing

– HFCs, PFCs, SF 6 3 and N 2 0 are increasing and such gases have 4 extremely long lifetimes

– thous ands of years and 5 GWP values thousands of times those of CO 2 6 resulting in virtually irreversible atmospheric 7 impacts. 8 EPA has recognized he critical nature of 9 these gases given their potency and long 10 atmospheric lifetimes. EPA has entered into 11 voluntary partnerships with industry aimed at 12 reducing fluorinated greenhouse gases. And EPA’s 13 ozone protection regulatory programs are working 14 to limit emissions through mandatory recycling or 15 use restrictions. 16 The proposed greenhouse gas reporting 17 rule will pr ovide EPA with indispensable data as 18 it moves forward with these and other efforts to 19 address high GWP gas omissions in the most 20 effective manner. 21 Second, I’d like to talk briefly about 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 25 the scope of the rule. EDF applauds EPA’s 1 inclusion of manufacturers or refurbishers of 2 electrical equipment and importers and exporters 3 of pre - charged equipment and closed cell phones. 4 Inclusion in the MRR of refrigeration and air 5 conditioning equipment that holds large banks of 6 fluorinated gas omissions is a key step tow ards 7 improving the responsible disposal and 8 destruction of high GWP gases contained within 9 them. 10 Likewise, given their potentially 11 significant greenhouse gas footprint, EDF 12 supports the Agency’s proposal to include 13 fluorinated greenhouse gases emitted as a 14 byproduct of the production of CFCs and HCFCs, 15 and fluorinated greenhouse gases emitted as a 16 feedstock or byproduct of a transformation 17 process. 18 EDF also encourages EPA to include 19 fluorinated gases that while neither reactants 20 nor products are genera ted as byproducts, are 21 intermediaries of another reaction. 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 26 Finally, where there are very high 1 numbers of sources in many different locations as 2 is the case for SF 6 from electrical equipment, it 3 may be appropriate to provide an alternative 4 facility defin ition. And we look forward to 5 providing more detailed written comments on 6 effective approaches to address the applicability 7 of the emissions reporting requirements for this 8 sector. 9 Lastly, EDF shares the Agency’s interest 10 in accurate, reliable data and we recognize that 11 system - wide accuracy can often be achieved 12 through a combination of monitoring methods. We 13 know that EPA has generally expanded the 14 monitoring methods available to fluorinated gas 15 facilities including proposing a refined method 16 for estimating emissions factors from 17 semiconductor facilities in lieu of the 2006 IPCC 18 Tier 3 method and allowing producers of 19 fluorinated greenhouse gases increased 20 flexibility in using mass balance measurements to 21 monitor their emissions. EDF encourages the 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 27 Age ncy to ensure that these revised methods do 1 indeed provide accurate data and we look forward 2 to providing more detailed analyses of the 3 proposal in our written comments. 4 EDF greatly appreciates the Agency’s 5 leadership in developing the Fluorinated 6 Greenho use Gas Reporting Rule which will provide 7 extremely important data. 8 Thank you again for the opportunity to 9 testify today and we look forward to offering 10 more detailed comments on the Agency’s proposal 11 in our written submissions. Thanks. 12 MR. GUNNING: Th anks, Peter. I’d like to 13 ask Dan Chartier to come up, please. 14 MR. CHARTIER: Good morning. My name’s 15 Dan Chartier. I’m here today representing the 16 Edison Electric Institute or EEI as it is also 17 known. 18 I appreciate the opportunity to address 19 EPA’s r evisions to the greenhouse gas reporting 20 requirements for sources of fluorinated gases 21 specifically Subpart DD on electric transmission 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 28 and distribution equipment use. 1 The Edison Electric Institute is the 2 association of U.S. shareholder
- owned electric 3 uti lities. Our members serve 95 percent of the 4 ultimate customers in the shareholder
- owned 5 segment of the industry and represent roughly 70 6 percent of the U.S. electric power industry over 7 all. We also have more than 70 international 8 electric companies as a ffiliate members and more 9 than 200 industry suppliers in related 10 organizations as associate members. 11 In addition to generating electricity, 12 EEI’s members own and operate electric power, 13 transmission and distributions that use a 14 fluorinated gas, sulfur he xafluoride or SF 6 for 15 short as insulation and would be required to 16 report SF 6 emissions once this part of the 17 mandatory reporting rule is finalized. 18 EEI provides these preliminary comments 19 on the proposed revision now and intends to file 20 written comments at the appropriate time. EEI 21 notes that EPA’s initial proposal for reporting 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 29
SF 6 emissions from electrical transmission and 1 distribution equipment used a definition of the 2 term “facility” that is dependent on the physical 3 proximity of possible emission so urces. This 4 definition which makes sense for other source 5 categories is difficult to apply to transmission 6 and distribution systems which can span hundreds 7 if not thousands of miles. 8 Moreover, transmission and distribution 9 system components from the poin t at which 10 electricity is generated to the point at which it 11 is delivered to the ultimate customer, may have 12 multiple owners or operators. For this reason, 13 in comments filed last year in EPA’s initial 14 proposal, EEI urged the Agency to require 15 reporting of SF 6 emissions at the corporate level 16 consistent with the methodology employed by the 17 voluntary SF 6 emissions reduction partnership 18 program. 19 In comments filed last year, EEI also 20 noted other practical concerns for using the 21 facility approach to SF 6 repor ting. EEI 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 30 appreciates EPA’s recognition of the concerns and 1 the Agency’s prior decision not to finalize the 2 initial proposed rule for this source category at 3 the end of last year. EEI also appreciates the 4 Agency’s willingness to revisit the definition of 5 source category and the term “facility” as they 6 relate to SF 6 emissions in the current proposal. 7 In the proposed revisions, EPA does not 8 adopt corporate level reporting for SF 6 emissions 9 and instead focuses on system
- wide reporting. 10 EEI is in the proces s of reviewing EPA’s proposed 11 definition of “electric power system” and 12 considering the implications distinguishing 13 between electric power systems on the basis of 14 ownership or control. EEI will address these 15 issues in more detail in its written comments. 16 Also at this time, EEI raises the 17 following concerns. 18 First, there are a myriad of ownership 19 and operational relationships for electric power 20 systems across regions and companies. Some of 21 these may be quite complex and not amenable to 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 31 reporting the sys tem - wide level. 1 Second, given the unique definition of 2 “facility” that EPA proposes to use for reporting 3 emissions from only electric transmission and 4 distribution equipment, EPA should not include 5 this subcategory in the list of all in sources in 6 40 CFR of Section 98 2A1. Moreover, assuming for 7 the sake of argument that reporting is required 8 at the electric power system level, EPA should 9 clarify that SF 6 emissions need only be reported 10 by the appropriate electric power system and need 11 not be included in the facility
- level reports 12 that are required by other subcategory of 13 emission sources. 14 EPA’s proposal to hold both owners and 15 operators of electrical power systems responsible 16 for SF 6 , may lead to double counting of emissions. 17 If EPA continues with this approach, the Agency 18 should provide guidance in how to minimize or 19 eliminate that double counting. 20 EEI looks forward to continuing to work 21 with EPA and crafting workable reporting schemes 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 32
for SF 6 . And we wish to thank you for the 1 opportunity to provide t hese oral comments today. 2 MR. GUNNING: Thanks, Dan. 3 At this point, we’ve gone through the 4 list of signed
- up speakers and I’d like to ask 5 additional folks if they would like to make 6 comments this morning. Anybody. Everybody’s 7 here to listen. That’s good. 8 Okay, so in lieu of that, we are open for 9 comment until noon today. What I’d like to do at 10 this point is take a 10 minute break and see if 11 there are additional folks after that break that 12 are interested in commenting. And then we will 13 be here an d available through noon today if there 14 are additional comments that folks would like to 15 provide. So, we’ll take a ten
- minute break and 16 then we’ll touch back in to see if there’s more 17 people that want to address. 18 [Break.] 19 MR. GUNNING: Okay, everyone. If I could 20 reengage for a moment. I want to check in now to 21 see if there are

– I know a couple of people are 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 33 walking in and out

– additional individuals that 1 would like to make comments this morning at this 2 point. No. Okay. 3 What I’ll do at this time is I am going 4 to be transitioning the hearing over to Debbie 5 Ottinger. We will have

– we will be here armed 6 and ready to listen to your comments through 7 approximately noon today. 8 And if at this point moving forward if 9 there are individuals that would l ike to make 10 comments, I’d ask that you just please come up 11 and notify Debbie of your desire to do so and we 12 will open up the mike again for your thoughts. 13 So at this time, we’ll break indefinitely until 14 someone approaches us with additional comments. 15 And for those of you here today and before I 16 leave, I just want to thank everybody for coming. 17 These subparts are really important, we believe, 18 to a full, robust, successful mandatory reporting 19 rule and program. And I’d like to thank you all 20 for the thoughts that you offered today. And I 21 also encourage you and emphasize that we have an 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 34 open door policy, and these are in many cases, 1
re - proposals. We do our best to make sure that 2 we reflect comments and respond to comments 3 diligently to make our rule the most efficient 4 and effective it possibly can be. So in the 5 coming weeks, days, if individuals would like to 6 meet with us to discuss your perspectives and 7 thoughts further, we welcome that. We believe 8 that will make a more effective rule in the end. 9 So I enco urage you to contact me or Debbie or 10 Kirsten or Sally or any of the EPA staff involved 11 in these rulemakings. We welcome that and we 12 appreciate that and it’ll make our jobs easier 13 and more effective eventually. 14 So thank you for those who came this 15 morni ng. We will take a pause now. And again, 16 to reiterate, if you have additional comments 17 you’d like to offer, please approach Debbie and 18 we’ll open up the floor again for additional 19 commenters. Thank you. 20 [Waiting

– 9:51 to 11:54.] 21 MS. SIBOLD: Hello. This Katherine 22OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington: (202) 898
- 1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752
-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445
-3376 35 Sibold. It is 11:54 in the morning. We have 1 completed this public hearing for the additional 2 sources of F - gases. There have been no persons 3 in the room for roughly the last two
- plus hours, 4 so we are going to go ahead and close this public 5 hearing at this time. 6 [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Public 7 Hearing concluded.] 8