DRAFT Meeting Agenda August 7, 2014 from 1
– 2 P M (PDT) ; 10 – 11 AM (HDT) HDOH, DBEDT, PUC, Governor’s Office **Teleconference: 1.866.299.3188, 202.343.9113#**
Purpose: O pportunity for Hawaii officials to ask questions regarding EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan. I. Welcome and Introductions 5 min II. Questions and Discussion (see below) 50 min
III . Summarize Next Steps 5 min

 How to submit comments on proposal: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon

- pollution
standards/how

- comment - clean
- power - plan
- proposed
- rule  Spreadsheets and Technical Support Documents : http://www2.epa.gov/carbon

- pollution
standards/clean

- power - plan
- proposed
- rule
- technical
- documents



## Discussion Questions for EPA **1. Structure of Sta**  **te Plans.** Several possible approaches are being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve the 111(d) plan performance goal. In the Clean Power Plan preamble (Page 34837) , EPA discusses the “simultaneous need for both f lexibility an d clear guidance on what would constitute an approvable state plan,” and “a need for rigor and consistency

in calculating emissions reductions reflecting the best sy stem of emission reduction ( BSER) and a need to provide the states with flexibility in esta blishing and implementing the standards of performance that reflect those emissions reductions.” Then it discusses the “Plan Approach” for State Plans , stating that, “[e]ach state will determine, and include in its plan, emission performance levels for its affected electric generating units ( EGUs ) that are equivalent to the state
- specific goal in the emission guidelines, as well as measures needed to achieve those levels and the overall goal.” The possible approaches include: a. A “portfolio approach,” which includes a combination of emission limitations that apply directly to the affected sources, and other measures that have the effect of limiting generation by , and therefore emissions from, the affected sources; b. A ‘‘state comm itment approach , ’’ in which there is a federall y - enforceable commitment by the state itself to implement state
- enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that wouldachieve a specified portion of the required emission performance level on behalf of affected

EGUs but which, if emission reductions are not achieved, could result in the State being held liable for Clean Air Act penalties (Page 34902).
c. Solely

emission limitations that apply directl y to the affected sources (the affected EGUs would be the sole entities legally responsible for achieving the emission performance level) (Page 34901). What does EPA mean by: “Emission performance levels” for affected EGUs ? “Enforceable CO 2 emission limits that apply to affected EGUs” ? The “portfolio approach”? Do specific sources of energy efficiency

(EE) savings or renewable energy (RE) generation need to be explicitly

allocated to affected EGUs? Does it matter if the EE savings and RE generation exceed the maximum theoretical production capacity o f affected units? Hawaii currentl y has State
- enforceable mandates for RE generation and EE savings . I f we can demonstrate that these programs will lead to fulfillment of the rate
- based goal, would additional measures be required? Could states use an approach that relied solely on RE and EE measures to achieve the emission rate performance goal without specifying emission limits for the affected sources or does each affected EGU need to reduce its emissions? I f we were to hold emissions from affected EGUs constant and achieve the rate
- based goal through RE and EE alone, would this be approvable? **2.** On grid renewables. The Federal Register for 111(d) guidelines proposes on Page 34853 that BSER would be applied to affected units on a statewide basis. Suppos e a processing plant connected to the grid had an unaffected boiler fired on biomass for powering the plant. Can CO 2 reductions from burning biomass as a renewable energy at this facility be used in determining the state’s 111 (d) emission rate performanc e? **3.** Off grid renewables. Could the renewable energy supplied by

a biodiesel fired engine generator be used in determining the state’s 111(d) emission rate performance if the generator supplies power to a plant (e.g., rock crushing plant) that is not connect ed to the grid? **4.** If the 111(d) emission rate performance goal is met prior to 2030 (for example, met by 2020), can a state choose not to require an y further CO 2 reduction s and compare the actual emission performance level with the final 111(d) emission rate goal on a three
- ye ar rolling average in accordance with state reporting requirements in 40 CFR§60.5812(d)?**5.** Does the EPA have a list of all comment requests given in the Federal Register of the proposed

rules? I f not, could EPA confirm the search terms sufficient to find all requests for comment?; it appears that "requests comment", "requests comments", "requesting comment", and "request comment" may

be sufficient. In th is case, it would also be helpful to know the total number of comment requests. **6.** If comments result in EPA changing the state goals, after EPA documents the rationale for changes, is it correct to conclude that states have no administrative recourse if errors or misinterpretations are identified?
o Background: VII. D: State Flexibilities of the rules state: "As promulgated in the final rule following consideration of comment, the state
- specific goals will be binding emission guidelines. States' ability to achieve emission performance levels consistent with the binding goals is enhanced b y s everal distinct ty pes of flexibility : (i) Choices as to the measures employed, including the timing of their implementation; (ii) the ability to translate from a rate - bas ed form of goal to a mass
- based form of goal; and (iii) the opportunity to pursue multi
- state plan approaches." ( Page 34897) **7.** Is EPA prohibited b y current law from specifying in the rules that states are allowed to propose and justify alternative emission r ate (lb/MWh) goal levels in their state plans? **8.** We would like to clarify the value of the RE generation growth factor for Hawaii discussed in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing stationary sources "GHG Abate ment Measures". On Page 4
- 18, it is stated in the text that the value is 8%. In Table 4.5, the value given is 9%. Since Table 4.5 is not referenced in the text, while it appears to conflict with the 8% value, the 9% value may refer to something else. N ote also that the "Alternative RE Approach" TSD references the "GHG Abatement Measures" TSD when noting the annual growth factor for Hawaii was calculated to be 7.9%. **9.** Are there National Renewable Energy L aboratory (NREL) efforts to forecast renewable ener gy growth for Hawaii that extend upon the approach outlined in the "Alternative RE Approach" TSD? Also, though it does not appear to be included in the "Alternative RE Approach" or "GHG Abatement Measures" TSDs, did NRELor EPA document the potential unce rtaint y associated with basing annual growth factors for 2020 to 2030 on the difference between 2002 and 2012 renewable energy generation?
o Background: this annual growth factor was developed by the NREL and is held fixed from 2020 to 2030. Itresults in EPA's estimate for Hawaii renewable energy target growing from 1,368 GWh in 2020 to 1,948 GWh in 2025 and 2,600 GWh in 2030. Note that this assumption of a constant renewable energy growth rate factor seems overl y simplistic considering the importance of renewable energy for goal attainment.**10.** The draft rules include the simple cycle turbine at Kapaia Power Station in the list of affected

facilities. The unit does not burn natural gas, so it appears to have been included erroneously
. Will this unit be rem oved from the list, and Hawaii’s goal adjusted accordingly?
o Background: Based on preliminary discussions with EPA technical representatives, we believe the answer is yes. **11.** Should entities comment on some relativel y minor corrections to CO 2 emission calculat ion details ? (T he EPA used US Department of Energy , Energy Information Administration (EIA) data to compute affected unit emissions .)
o Background: Based on preliminary discussions with EPA technical representatives, we believe the answer is yes. **12.** Could EPA please discuss the various components required for approvable state plans under 40 CFR § 60.23 that are described on Page 436? **13.** What is the role of the Alternate RE approach? We do not agree with using historical growth rates to forecast future growth in RE. **14.** Do we get credit for an energy efficiency

measure that was implemented in 2012 and still saves (subject to measurement and verification) kWh in a year during the compliance period? I s this considered an “action?” **15.** Hawaii has established energ y efficiency and renewable energy standards, requirements, definitions, specifications, measurement and verification, and incentive and penalty s ys tems. The development of these programs took place over several ye ars, in legislative sessions and docketed proceedings, and involved man y experts, consultants, stakeholders, and intervenors. Will Hawaii be able to continue to use these definitions and measurements in its energy efficiency

and renewable energy measurement and reporting s ys tems? **16.** Going back to question #1, which approach would allow Hawaii to continue with the least amount of regulatory

uncertaint y, risk, or loss of momentum? **17.** If there are additional carbon reduction measures identified by states, would it be possible to include them as a 5th building block? **18.** W ould EPA be open to Hawaii e xploring a carbon credit sy stem with another separate region like Alaska ? W e both are our own regions under the Section 11 1(d) compliance state groupings.