DRAFT Meeting Agenda

August 7, 2014 from 1 – 2 PM (PDT); 10 – 11 AM (HDT)

HDOH, DBEDT, PUC, Governor’s Office

Teleconference: 1.866.299.3188, 202.343.9113#

Purpose: Opportunity 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-pollutionstandards/how-comment-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule

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

Discussion Questions for EPA

1. Structure of State 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 

flexibility and clear guidance on what would constitute an approvable state plan,” and “a need for 

rigor and consistency in calculating emissions reductions reflecting the best system of emission 

reduction (BSER) and a need to provide the states with flexibility in establishing 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 commitment approach,’’ in which there is a federally-enforceable commitment by the 

state itself to implement state-enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that would 
achieve 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 directly 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 CO2 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 of affected units?

Hawaii currently has State-enforceable mandates for RE generation and EE savings. If 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?

If 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. 

Suppose a processing plant connected to the grid had an unaffected boiler fired on biomass for 

powering the plant. Can CO2 reductions from burning biomass as a renewable energy at this facility

be used in determining the state’s 111 (d) emission rate performance?

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 connected 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 any further CO2 reductions and compare the actual emission performance 

level with the final 111(d) emission rate goal on a three-year 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? If 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 this 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 by several distinct types of flexibility: (i) Choices as to the measures 

employed, including the timing of their implementation; (ii) the ability to translate from a 

rate-based 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 by current law from specifying in the rules that states are allowed to propose and 

justify alternative emission rate (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 Abatement 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. Note 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 Laboratory (NREL) efforts to forecast renewable energy

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 NREL or EPA document the potential uncertainty 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. It results 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 overly 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 removed 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 relatively minor corrections to CO2 emission calculation details? 

(The 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? Is this 

considered an “action?” 

15. Hawaii has established energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, requirements, definitions, 

specifications, measurement and verification, and incentive and penalty systems. The development 

of these programs took place over several years, in legislative sessions and docketed proceedings, 

and involved many 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 systems? 

16. Going back to question #1, which approach would allow Hawaii to continue with the least amount of 

regulatory uncertainty, 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. Would EPA be open to Hawaii exploring a carbon credit system with another separate region like 

Alaska? We both are our own regions under the Section 111(d) compliance state groupings.