►
Description
As the 2016 legislative season began, NCSL held an in-depth update on state implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Are you from a state whose legislature will be involved with the CPP process? Is your legislature discussing the issue? What is your role, as a legislator or legislative staff, in this process? We explored all these questions as well as the legal and practical questions related to the rule. We were joined by the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the final rule and the role of state legislatures. Additionally, Thomas Lorenzen provided a detailed overview on the legal issues surrounding CPP and potential outcomes of the ongoing court challenges while David Hoppock of Duke University highlighted what states need to know before they submit their implementation plans.
A
Good
afternoon
and
thank
you
for
joining
us
for
today's
National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures
webinar,
our
webinar
today
is
hosted
by
npsl
natural
resources
and
infrastructure
committee.
My
name
is
Ben
hush
and
I'm.
The
committee
staff
director
for
the
NRI
committee
that
will
be
ma
during
moderating
today's
webinar
clean
power
plan.
What
clean
power
plan
implementation?
What
you
need
to
know,
MP
FL
has
been
covering
the
clean
power
plan
and
state
reactions
to
the
rule.
Since
it
was
first
proposed.
A
A
Today
we
are
joined
by
Jacob
Moss
of
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
to
discuss
the
components
of
the
final
rule
and
state
implication
requirements.
Additionally,
Tom
lorenzen
from
crowel
moring
will
provide
a
detailed
overview
on
the
legal
issues
around
in
the
clean
power
plan
and
potential
outcomes
of
the
ongoing
court
challenges.
Finally,
David
topic
of
Duke
University.
You
highlight
what
states
need
to
know
and
the
different
avenues
for
compliance
before
they
submit
their
implementation
plan.
Before
we
begin,
I
want
to
review
a
few
housekeeping
items.
A
Our
webinar
today
is
being
recorded
and
registrants
will
be
able
to
access
a
recording
of
webinar
and
presentation
slides
on
NC
as
Wells
website.
We
will
send
out
a
notice
shortly
with
link
to
these
resources.
You
can
also
download
today's
webinar
slides
right
now
by
clicking
on
the
media
library
button,
which
is
in
the
upper
right
hand,
corner
and
is
a
blue
and
yellow
icon
just
to
the
right
of
the
microphone
icon.
Our
presenters
will
be
answering
questions
after
all
presentations.
A
A
So
without
further
ado,
let
me
introduce
our
first
speaker:
Jacob
Moss,
acting
deputy
director
of
USDA's
climate
protection
partnerships,
division
where
he
helps
lead
efforts
to
protect
the
climate
and
public
health
by
advancing
energy
efficiency.
Previously
he
was
a
principal
architect
of
the
Global
Alliance
for
clean
cookstove,
and
he
has
over
25
years
of
experience
in
leading
international
federal
state
and
local
environmental
programs
programs.
Jacob
the
floor
is
yours.
B
B
B
Does
why
we
took
the
action
of
the
clean
power
plan
in
other
actions,
last
October
or
last
August
to
suggest
climate
change,
we're
already
feeling
the
dangerous
and
costly
effects
of
the
climate
change
in
the
country,
economic
impacts
to
people
flies
and
family
budgets,
as
well
as
to
businesses
around
the
country
on
august
third,
last
year
we
did
finalize
two
actions
in
proposed
additional
action
to
adjust
carbon
pollution
from
the
largest
source
of
carbon
pollution
in
the
US,
which
is
powered.
The
power
sector
on
the
reception
will
spend
most
of
day
talking
about.
B
Is
the
clean
power
plan
adjusting
existing
sources
within
the
power
sector?
Second,
one
that
we
finalized
must
honest.
Was
the
carbon
carbon
pollution
standards
that
we're
looking
at
new
modified
and
reconstructed
sources
within
the
power
sector?
And
the
last
thing
we
did,
which
I'll
finish
up
talking
about
today,
is
a
proposal
for
a
federal
plan
and
the
motto
rule.
Those
both
relates
to
the
clean
power
plan
on.
We
are
confident
that
these
actions
will
achieve
significant
pollution
reductions
for
conferences.
B
To
see
on
this
slide,
that
EPA
is
not
doing
this
in
the
vacuum.
There
are
states
and
communities.
The
country
that
are
taking
actions
are
just
climate
change.
Many
of
these
states
are
doing
things
in
the
mandatory
fashion,
other
states
of
doing
it
in
a
voluntary
fashion
and
cities
and
communities
around
the
country
as
part
of
the
the
mayor's
climate
protection
agreement
are
taking
action
so
that
all
of
that
is
working
together
to
create
the
climate
to
to
adjust
carbon
pollution.
B
As
I
say,
it's
done
under
a
very
specific
portion
of
the
clean
air
act
called
the
section
111
D
and
under
Section
111.
Do
we
have
we
set
carbon
dioxide
emission
performance
rates
for
the
affected
sources?
The
power
plants
according
to
what's
called
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction?
I'll
walk
through
the
three
building
blocks
that
we
identified
for
bser
in
a
few
moments,
but
essentially
we
identify
that
the
building
blocks.
We
calculated
performance
rate
for
the
the
fossil
fuels
that
ihe
use
and
for
natural
gas
combined
cycle
units
and.
B
That
into
a
state
go
on
the
mask
ball
and
I
on
the
slide.
This
would
watch
that
through
a
much
more
detail,
but
it
gives
States
the
ability
to
develop
your
own
plans
or
the
AEG
you
that
the
electric
generating
visit
of
the
affected
sources
under
the
plan,
but
the
plan
gives
States
the
ability
to
develop
their
own
plans
for
these
sources
and
to
give
either
the
former
formance
rates
directly
or
attached
state
goals
with
guidelines
for
the
development
of
middle
and
implementation
plan.
B
B
A
B
The
slides
of
talks
about
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction
again
under
Section
111
d
of
the
clean
power
plan
or
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
first
building
block
that
we
use
has
to
do
with
improving
the
literally
the
energy
efficiency
of
the
power
plant
itself.
If
so,
that
can
do
that
cannot
do
with
you
know
anything
from
you
know
the
see.
B
On
the
right,
boylar
chemical
cleaning,
including
the
air
pre-order
pre,
heater
coil,
but
essentially
it's
increasing
the
efficiency,
the
operational
efficiency
of
the
plant
itself.
The
second
building
block
has
to
do
with
shifting
generation
within
fossil
fuel
categories,
from
higher
genetics
team
unit
supposed
to
coal
plants
to
lower
emitting
natural
gas
power
plants,
and
then
the
third
building
block
is
shifting
generation
to
clean.
C
B
We
didn't
do
the
vfc
are
in
a
vacuum.
We
didn't
look
at
each
power
plant
on
its
own.
We
recognize
that
they
exist
in
the
context
of
a
regional
grid
and
we
sort
of
busy
analysis
and
based
in
three
regional
sections.
One
is
the
western
part
of
the
country
and
then
there's
the
eastern
interconnect
for
covers
most
of
the
eastern
part
of
the
United
States
and
then
in
the
Midwest
portion
of
the
country
and
then
the
Texas
Eric.
Are
you
the
lecture,
Reliability
Council
those
taxes
as
a
separate
grid
for
most
of
that
state?
B
B
So
I
12
is
a
starts
to
get
into
some
of
the
weeds
of
what
we
did.
So
we
have
five
KFC
are
and
we
developed
a
very
specific
standard
for
all
fossil
steam
units
occur
in
the
country,
mostly
go
for
our
plants
and
then
also
separately
for
the
natural
gas
combined
cycle
units.
So
those
those
specific
unit
which
we
can
call
me
sort
of
called
subcategorized
great,
we
start
with
their
and
States,
can
use
those.
B
A
D
A
B
Come
up
with
a
state
rate
baseball,
we
also
help
support
that
into
a
mass
baseball
and
then
the
third
option
that
we
provided
for
States
is
in
a
skull
with
what
we
call
a
new
source
comment
in
a
new
source.
Compliments
allows
States
to
choose
to
include
some
resources
that
they
expected
to
be
coming
online,
in
fact,
within
their
their
vast
base
goal
from
the
outset
of
the
green
power
plane
so
that
they
can
take
that
into
account
in
their
planning.
B
The
compliance
fat
for
the
clean
power
plan
is
I,
think
fairly
straightforward
and
changed
lot
from
the
from
the
proposal
that
we
had
so
now.
There's
three
steps.
The
first
is
from
20
22
to
24
and
then
20
25
to
20
27
and
finally,
the
last
two
years
of
20
28
and
20
29.
The
final
standards
have
to
be
met
in
January,
first
of
20
30
the
day
interim
period
from
2022
to
20
29.
B
We
think
provides
a
lot
of
a
good
glide
path
with
three
interim
goals
and
steps
to
allow
that
the
performance
rates
are
met
over
time
and
it
states
can
have
the
flexibility
to
in
the
operational
building
some
sense
to
to
make
the
goals
in
a
flexible
way.
We
do
expect
that,
but
it's
renewable
energy
and
energy
efficiency
will
be
significant
assistance
to
States
as
they
try
to
meet
their
goals.
We
see
renewables
is
helping
under
all
the
plan
types
that
can
be
a
great
base
type
or
the
mass
based
approach
or
another
one.
B
That
I'll
mention
your
moment
on
to
achieve
a
nuclear
power
plant
emissions
goals
and
that
that
will
in
turn
they
create,
and
not
just
you
know,
encourage
zero
emission
power
production,
but
it
would
also
create
economic
growth
in
jobs
or
the
manufacturers
for
these
dollars
of
the
lower
all
overall
pollution
and
help
diversify.
The
energy
efficiency
is
very
similarly
expected
to
play
an
important
part.
Compliance
across
the
country
under
all
state
plan
types
it
will
like
with
renewables,
provide
additional
investment
jobs
as
well
as
lowering
electricity,
builds
and
reducing
emissions.
B
Benefits
of
the
clean
power
plan
are
substantial
and
you
can
see
in
the
chart
on
this
page.
They
are
in
the
tens
of
billions
of
dollars.
Much
of
that
is
in
the
form
of
health
benefit,
but
it
substantial
proportion
as
well
in
the
form
of
global
climate
benefits,
about
34,
254
billion
dollars
and
estimated
total
benefits
compared
to
the
estimated
cost,
is
a
range
of
8.4
million
dollars.
B
It's
talking
about
state
plans
a
little
bit
more
in
detail
now
the
time
on
thoughts
about
this
a
little
bit,
but
the
hard
way
was
finalized.
Last
August,
the
first
sort
of
important
date
in
the
in
the
compliance
timeline,
is
next
September's
September
six
December
sixth
of
this
year
and
that's
the
date
by
which
states
ft
states
have
to
either
submit
the
final
plan
or
submit
a
request
for
an
extension
or
dirt
middle.
B
B
I've
mentioned
a
different
state
flames
and
state
playing
designs
already
in
two
different
ways,
but
essentially
there's
two
types
of
mayors
that
states
can
take.
One
is
the
emission
standards
plant
in
this
case,
States
plays
federally
enforcers
on
the
affected
units
that
have
to
meet
this.
The
foliage
guidelines
that
can
be
done
neither
a
with
either
a
great
baseball
or
math
based
goals,
as
I
said,
states
can
also
do
call
the
state
measures
plan.
B
B
In
terms
of
state
plan
development.
Some
states
over
are
going
to
probably
go
it
alone.
Other
states
will
work
with
those
states
to
sort
of
development.
Formal
multi-state
plans,
Manila
States,
linked
with
other
states
in
less
formal
ways,
and
we've
tried
to
enable
that
through
what
we
call
our
trading,
ready
of
which
allows
States
to
use
creditable
reductions
from
out
of
state
to
meet
their
goal
without
having
to
set
up
formal
structures.
For
you
know,
via
interstate
agreements
in.
B
Developing
their
state
plan,
States
watchu
to
collaborate
with
EPA
EPA
is
willing
to
support
the
option
for
trading
on
as
a
suitable
choice,
both
for
both
TPA
and
four
states,
diplomat
cpp,
and
we
have
done
that
many
times
in
the
past,
related
to
nox
emissions
and
knocks,
if
column,
the
clean,
stick
a
cross-state
air
pollution
rule
in
the
a
string
program.
We
think
that's
appropriate
for
carbon
emissions
and
we
also
feel
it
would
probably
eat
the
administrative
burdens
on
states
and
reduced
costs
to
both
the
utilities.
B
Inc,
electricity,
consumers,
EPA
is
finalizing
state
plan,
design
that
would
suit
state
needs
and
giving
States
disability
and
we're
also
proposing
an
option
for
a
model
training
program
that
I'll
discuss
in
a
few
slide
now
be
there's
a
gap,
as
I
mentioned
a
few
minutes
ago
between
when
the
state
plans
are
finally
do.
Member
of
2018
and
January
first
of
20
22
when
the
compliance
period
begins.
That's
not
three
years
in
four
months
and
we
wanted
to
use
that
perry
to
not
sort
of
slow
down
any
momentum
towards
clean
energy
investments
that
are
happening.
B
So
we
facilitate
that.
We
created
something
called
a
clean
energy
incentive
program
or
the
CIP
to
sanitize
investments
in
wind
and
solar
on
the
one
hand,
and
then,
on
the
other
hand,
in
low-income
communities
using
energy
efficiency
in
those
communities
during
those
two
years
of
twenty
twenty
and
twenty.
B
We
we
hope
that
the
CIP
will
spur
that
investment
over
the
over
the
first
couple
years,
advances
the
compliance
period
of
the
clean
power
plan
and
we've
held
quite
a
few
calls.
Over
the
past
several
months,
we
had
a
docket
that
was
open
in
November
and
December
to
take
comments
on
that
and
get
feedback
from
the
states
and
from
community
groups
in
industry
and
others.
B
So,
even
though
the
non-regulatory
docket
for
the
CIP
program
that
ostensibly
closed
in
December,
although
it's
still
open,
those
comments
can
still
be
submitted
to
that
pocket
and
though
the
comment
period
for
the
federal
plan
and
model
rules
that
I'll
speak
to
in
a
few
moments
is
remains
open.
For
another
week,
a
half
or
so
there
will
be
another
additional
opportunity
for
the
public
to
comment
on
the
design
of
the
clean
energy
incentive
program
for
this
additional
action
that
we're
planning.
B
Let
me
finish
up
by
talking
about
the
federal
plan
and
model
rules.
The
federal
plan
is
essentially
was
proposed
in
August.
With
said
earlier,
with
the
final
clean
power
plan,
essentially
what
it
is
is:
if
states
either
choose
not
to
submit
a
plan
or
they
don't
submit
an
approvable
plan,
then
the
federal
plan
is
like
EPA
would
implement
in
that
state.
In
the
the
goal
is
to
ensure
the
safe
co2
reduction
that
would
be
achieved
into
the
final
clean
power
plan
goals
to
preserve
reliability.
B
We
propose
two
different
approaches
to
the
federal
plan:
I'm
sort
of
mirror
sort
of
mirror.
When
I
said
earlier
about
the
state
options,
one
would
be
a
great
base
trading
plan
type
program
and
the
other
would
be
a
mass
based.
Training
type
plan
on
both
of
these
would
require
the
affected
sources.
The
ed
is
to
meet
emission
standards
set
under
the
clean
power
plan,
and
the
proposal
also
opens
the
Clean
Energy
Center
program
that
I
just
discussed
under.
B
The
time
the
time
of
proposal
and
still
today,
is
to
only
finalize
a
single
approach.
So
we
wouldn't
do
some
states
of
math
space
plan
and
some
states
of
race-based
plan,
but
we
would
just
finalized
one
approach:
either
am
a
space
to
our
rate
based
approach
and
do
that
in
every
state
for
which
the
we're
finalizing
a
federal
plan
in
terms
of
the
model
rules,
which
were
also
proposed
as
part
of
the
Federal
Rule
back
in
August
on
with
this
is
intended
to.
B
These
is
a
for
both
rate
based
in
that
mask
based
approaches,
a
model
trading
rule
that
gift
states
that
cost
effective
pathway
to
adopt
a
trading
system
to
support
the
decay
would
support,
and
it
makes
it
easy
for
states
and
power
plants
use
emissions
trading.
We
the
model
role
essentially
does
the
heavy
lifting
for
the
state.
It
demonstrates
a
readily
available
path,
province's
to
proceed.
Emissions
trading
under
the
clean
power
plan
and
presents
a
flexible,
affordable,
implemented
implementation
options
for
the
state.
It
does
include
these
presumptively
approvable
provisions
for
issuance
of
emission
rate
credits
perks.
B
It
also
includes
standalone
portions,
such
as
the
MV
evaluation
measurement
and
verification
procedures
for
the
emission
rate
credit
and
those
would
be
approvable.
Even
if
adopted,
an
approach
that
differs
from
the
model
rule
in
essentially
the
other
way
so
estates
I
can
follow
either
the
model
rules
that
were
developing.
We
propose
them
we're
taking
comment
on
them
right
now.
The
docket
for
that
closes
I.
Think
in
the
next
slide,
you'll
see
on
the
21st
of
this
month
and
that's
the
federal
plan
and
for
the
Model
Rules.
B
The
state
training
program
that
we
produce
would
adhere
to
the
model
trading
rule
provision
specified
in
the
rulemaking
and
when
final
would
be
presumably
present.
Presumptively
approvable
said
earlier:
we've
done
tremendous
amount
of
outreach,
the
state's
related
to
these
two
rules
in
in
the
entire
cpp.
I
mentioned
some
of
the
sort
of
head
like
to
that
earlier.
I
will
go
through
all
of
the
different
resources
that
we
have,
but
I
encourage
you
to
take
advantage
of
these.
These
are
pretty
extensive
resources
and
different
pages.
B
I
think
they're,
fairly
well,
designed
and
designed
to
be
useful
by
States
and
by
the
second
sources
that
are
thinking
through
the
process
of
complying
under
the
clean
power
plan,
and
then
the
last
slide
here
is
just
simply
a
plug
for
submitting
your
comments
on
the
federal
plan
and
the
model
rules.
These
were
published
in
in
October
with
a
90
day
comment
period
and
our
will
be
accepting
comments
until
january
twenty
first
of
this
month.
B
A
Bit
great
Thank,
You
Jacob,
very
informative.
We
were
to
hearing
your
response
to
some
of
the
questions
that
I
got
in
while
you
were
presenting
as
a
reminder,
you
can
type
your
question
the
chat
box
at
any
time
and
we
will
hold
them
until
the
end
of
all
the
presentations
and
that
chat
box
is
in
the
lower
left-hand
corner.
Now.
A
I
am
pleased
to
have
our
to
introduce
Tom
lorenzen
tom
is
a
partner
at
growling,
moorings,
DC
office
and
a
member
of
the
firm's
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
and
government
affairs
group
previously
from
2004
to
2013
tom
was
an
assistant
chief
at
the
US
Department
of
Justice,
where
he
supervised
the
whole
government's
legal
defense
of
all
EPA
rules.
He
oversaw
many
of
the
last
decades
seminal
environmental
cases,
including
assets,
chooses
versus
ETA
Tom.
With
that
the.
C
So
let's
talk
about
the
key
legal
issues
that
this
rule
raises
and
then
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
litigation
schedule.
So
the
coital
issues,
shoes
in
the
clean
power
plan
are
listed
right
here.
There
is
what
we
call
the
section
one
ball
of
exclusion,
offer
to
federalism,
issues
the
definition
that
EPA
is
provided
for
the
best
system
of
a
mission,
the
fact
that
these
standards
are
actually
more
stringent
than
the
new
source
performance
standards
that
were
issued
on
the
same
day.
C
There
are
two
issues
that
some
parties
are
raising
and
then
we
have
what
we
call
the
programmatic
and
secondary
usage
I'll
go
through
each
of
these
things.
In
turn,
the
section
112
exclusion
argument
is
a
really
fascinating
argument.
It
it
depends
on
a
bit
of
a
legislative
goof.
You
know
normally,
when
such
each
paths
in
the
US
Congress
are
signed
into
law,
competing
House
and
Senate
versions
of
a
provision
are
reconciled
in
a
conference
committee
and
those
then
go
to
back
to
the
both
houses.
C
For
final
passage
and
then
on
to
the
President's
desk
for
signature,
I,
section
111
d
didn't
have
that
usual
history.
There
was
a
bit
of
a
foul
up
in
that
the
house
of
Senate
each
passed
their
own
versions
of
111
d.
They
were
never
reconciled
through
an
old
light
and
both
ended
up
on
the
President's
desk
and
were
signed
into
law
and
depending
on
which
of
those
two
versions
governs.
The
statute
could
have
some
very
different
meanings
under
the
House
version.
C
Under
the
House
version.
There
is
a
slightly
bent
approach,
and
that
is
that
a
source
category
that
is
regulated
under
section
112
cannot
simultaneously
be
regulated
under
Section
111
d
for
any
putin's.
So
here,
if
the
House
version
is
the
version
of
section
111
d
that
governs,
you
cannot
have
a
regulation
of
greenhouse
gases
under
Section
111
d,
because
there
is
currently
a
regulation
of
power
plants
under
section
112
in
the
form
of
the
mercury
and
air
toxic
standards
which
regulate
mercury
and
other
hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions.
C
This
argument
could
not
only
defeat
this
rule,
but
any
subsequent
rule
that
EPA
wishes
to
issue
under
111
d
to
regulate
power
plants,
because
there
is
an
existing
standard
for
hazards.
Airports
on
you
will
see
that,
in
my
slant
listed
as
a
possible
weakness
of
this
argument
that
it
could
be
mooted
if
the
mercury
and
air
toxic
standards
were
vacated
by
the
DC
Circuit.
Ultimately,
that
didn't
happen.
The
DC
Circuit
left
those
standards
in
place,
while
remaining
them
to
the
agency
to
fix
an
error,
the
end
of
it,
the
Supreme
Court,
found.
C
Another
issue
with
this
argument
is
because
it's
a
threshold
argument
that
would
simply
say
EPA
has
no
authority
to
issue
this
rule
here.
You
would
never
resolve
when
I
consider
to
be
a
very
important
issue,
which
is
what
is
the
scope
of
EPA's
authority
to
define
the
best
system
of
a
mission
without
reducing
emissions
of
a
pollutant?
C
Let's
go
on
a
cooperative
federalism,
and
this
is
an
issue
that
I
know
is
of
concern
to
many
in
the
states.
I'm
section
111
has
very
different
regimes
in
it.
One
is
for
new
sources
and
one
is
for
existing
sources.
We're
talking
about
existing
way
of
contrast
for
new
sources
under
Section
111,
be.
It
is
very
clear
that
EPA
has
tool.
C
If
second
role
is
to
actually
establish
those
standards
of
performance,
elf,
using
that
defined
best
system
of
emission
reduction
and
come
up
with
a
numerical
target
that
the
source
in
chapter
two
meet
111
d,
contemplates
in
a
very
different
system,
one
under
which
EPA
still
defines
what
is
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction
is
to
be
used.
But
then
the
states
are
assigned
very
specifically
and
explicitly
the
task
of
establishing
the
source
of
performance
for
the
existing
sources
and
then
applying
those
standards
to
the
existing
sources
within
their
murders.
D
C
Now
in
this
rule,
EPA
argues
that
it
has
recognized
the
state's
rights
to
establish
the
standards
of
performance
for
those
existing
sources
and
has
given
them
sufficient
flexibility
to
consider
factors
such
as
remaining
useful
life.
The
counter-argument
is
that
because
the
standards
are
binding
and
because
a
state,
if
it
gives
one
particular
source,
a
break
that
it's
on
its
consideration
of
factors
such
as
a
remaining
useful
life
but
then
make
some
other
source
do
more.
In
other
words,
it
has
to
stick
to
the
same
target.
C
You
really
deprived
the
state
of
their
expressly
granted
authority
under
Section
111
d
to
establish
these
standards,
so
there
is
going
to
be
a
battle
in
the
courts
over
whether
EPA
has
overstepped
its
role
and
has
trod
on
the
role
the
Congress
specifically
assigned
to
the
states.
This
is
what
we
call
a
Chevron
step.
One
argument
that
the
statute
is
clear
on
its
face
that
the
states
are
assigned
this
role
I.
C
C
C
C
One
should
pay
attention
to
this
argument.
If
the
court
rules
for
the
challengers
here
it
would
have
a
fairly
profound
effect
on
the
clean
power
plan.
The
plan
could
still
go
forward,
but
it
might
well
be
limited
to
just
those
measures
that
that
could
be
implemented
under
building
block
one.
That
is
the
individual
unit.
Heat
rate
improvement
projects
which
might
reduce
emissions
by
perhaps
two
to
four
percent
tops
would
get
nowhere
near
the
thirty
two
percent.
C
That
was
the
decision
in
which
the
court
upheld
most,
but
not
all,
of
the
EPA's
first
suite
renounced
gas
regulations,
and
in
that
the
Supreme
Court
said
that
it
would
look
skeptically
on
agencies
that
comport
to
find
vast
authority
regulate
broad
swath
of
the
economy
based
on
long
extant
statutory
provisions,
visions
that
aren't
explicit-
and
here
you
have
very
vague
language
in
Section
111
d.
That
says
that
EPA
may
define
the
best
system
of
emission
reduction.
You
do
not
have.
C
The
more
explicit
type
in
court
may
be
looking
for
to
get
this
kind
of
a
very
broad
regulatory
program.
Seeks
you
really
fundamentally
transform
the
way
we
produce
electricity
in
this
country,
so
watch
for
how
the
DC
Circuit,
ultimately
the
Supreme
Court,
treat
that
you
are
decision.
Is
it
just
dicta
from
the
court
just
cautionary
language,
or
is
this
really
now
the
Turing
test
of
whether
EPA
can
proceed
with
a
regulation?
That
is
this
ambitious
ETA
is
likely
response
to
this
argument
is
going
to
be.
C
The
best
system
of
emission
reduction
is
undefined
by
the
statute,
because
it
is
undefined.
The
agency
gets
substantial
deference
that
provision
means,
and
it
will
cite
the
well-respected
Chevron
decision,
so
watch
that
argument.
I
think
that
this
is
going
to
be
the
fundamental
issue
in
this
case,
I
had
mentioned
earlier
that
one
of
the
issues
is
that
the
standards
EPA's
promulgated
here
for
existing
sources
are,
in
fact
more
stringent
than
the
standards
for
new
sources
that
were
issued
the
same
day.
C
C
Compare
that
to
the
new
source
form
standard
for
new
sources
in
the
industry.
They
have
used
partial
carbon
capture
and
sequestration,
the
latest
greatest
technology
that
is
only
now
starting
to
come
online
at
places
like
the
boundary
dam
project
in
Canada,
and
that
is
still
under
development
at
say.
The
kemper
facility
here
in
the
United
States.
C
It
is
curious
that
EPA
should
promulgate
a
standard
where
existing
sources,
those
that
are,
by
definition,
the
ones
that
can
do
the
least
to
reach
their
emissions,
are
being
held
to
a
more
stringent
standard
than
new
sources.
Not
even
a
new
source
using
carbon
capture
and
sequestration
can
meet
that
thirteen
hundred
and
five
pound
per
megawatt
hour
standard
and
be
the
only
way
existing
sources
can
do.
C
C
Leakage
is
the
idea
that
someone
who
has
an
existing-
let's
say
an
existing
gas
fired
power
plant
subject
to
the
770
one
pound
per
megawatt
hour
standard
that
EPA
is
issued
for
that
plant
might
choose
to
shut
that
plant
down
and
build
a
new
gas
plant,
because
the
new
gas
plants
are
subject
to
a
less
stringent
standard.
I
believe
it's
1100
pounds
per
megawatt
hour.
C
That's
create
this
interesting
incentive
to
shut
down
old
and
switch
to
new.
That
would
defeat.
Ejs
purpose
in
this
rule
may
therefore,
as
I
think
Jacob
outlines
had
to
create
things
like
a
program
under
which
you
would
include
new
sources
in
your
existing
source
target
or
would
have
to
have
other
provisions
in
your
plan
to
prohibit
that
kind
of
shifting
of
generation
from
old
to
new
generally
under
Section
111.
C
Finally,
we
have
some
constitutional
issues
that
are
sort
of
lurking
here
in
this
case,
on
one
issue
is
a
temp
Amendment
issue
very
similar
to
our
cooperative
federalism
issue
that
I
discussed
earlier.
That
is
that
the
clean
power
plan
is
impermissible.
Trampling
on
states
rights
on
the
second
argument
is
a
Fifth
Amendment
argument
that,
because
this
rule
will
require
the
shuttering
of
a
number
of
coal-fired
power
plants
that
may
constitute
a
regulatory
taking
without
due
process
or
just
compensation.
C
Whatever
you
think
of
these
arguments
on
the
merits
and,
however
likely
or
unlikely,
you
think
it
may
be
that
the
court
will
rule
on
them.
There
is
also
a
very
important
principle,
known
as
constitutional
avoidance
that
these
arguments
raised,
and
that
is
that
the
courts
and
the
federal
government
generally
should
not
read
statutes
in
ways
that
raise
constitutional
concerns.
So
look
for
these
arguments
to
reinforce
some
statutory
claims
challengers
have
raised.
C
Finally,
we
have
what
I
will
call
the
programmatic
and
secondary
issues,
and
these
are
myriad
in
the
case.
A
calculation
of
the
individual
state,
emission
reduction
rates
and
targets,
diddy
epa
correctly
calculate
all
those
it
all
or
are
their
errors
and
some
of
them
unit
specific
issues
such
as
the
achievability
of
this
standard.
There
is
not
a
single
unit
in
the
country
that
can
actually
get
individually
meet
this
standard.
C
C
C
While
the
court
focuses
on
issues
that
I've
discussed
earlier
section,
111
112
issue
cooperative
federalism,
the
definition
of
bser
the
constitutional
issues
wide,
because
those
issues
may
resolve
this
case
entire
and
you
wouldn't
need
to
get
into
the
many
hundreds
or
thousands
of
pages
of
briefing
that
dealing
with
these
issues
would
take.
The
one
thing
that
everyone
is
waiting
to
see
is:
does
the
court
agree
that
the
case
ought
to
be
split
into
two
segments,
or
does
it
instead
wish
to
treat
everything
at
once?
C
So
where
are
we
in
the
case?
Right
now,
petitions
for
review
had
to
be
filed
by
December
22nd
many
dozens
were
filed.
In
addition
to
the
petitions,
there
were
nine
stay
motions
filed
with
the
court
briefing
on
those
same
oceans,
commotions
concluded
on
December
23rd.
I
would
therefore
expect
a
decision
from
the
DC
Circuit
on
whether
a
stain
will
be
granted,
probably
by
the
use
of
this
month-
I'm
guessing
it
might
even
be
within
the
next
week
to
two
weeks
that
will
likely
dictate
this
case
proceeds.
C
If
the
Court
denies
a
stay,
then
I
would
expect
to
see
them
establish
a
very
expedited
schedule
to
try
to
address
the
needs
of
those
who
had
press
space
day.
If
the
court
grants
us
stay,
you
might
well
see
EPA
in
the
Department
of
Justice
pressing
for
a
quick
decision,
because
they
will
want
this
rule
back
in
force
in
the
event
paper
mail
as
quickly
as
possible.
C
So
it
is.
It
is
possible
that
we
will
see
merits
briefing
on
this
case
in
the
spring
of
this
year,
with
argument
likely
as
early
as
May
of
this
year
and
a
decision
in
July
or
possibly
in
the
fall
with
a
decision
from
the
DC
Circuit
by
December
Supreme
Court
review
is
likely
to
be
over
the
next
year
in
2017
and
I.
C
Think
that
you
know,
while
one
is
sort
of
playing
with
fire,
trying
to
predict
whether
the
Supreme
Court
will
take
the
case,
this
is
one
I
think
they
will
take,
because
the
court
has
shown
a
tremendous
appetite
for
climate
change
cases
Massachusetts
case
the
aep
versus
Connecticut
case
a
few
years
back
to
you
are
in
case
two
years
ago,
I
think
principally
because
this
is
one
of
the
most
important
environmental
regulatory
issues
of
our
time.
The
Supreme
Court
is
going
to
want
to
weigh
and
determine
what
is
the
extent
of
the
EPA's
of
30
year.
C
A
Thanks
Tom
really
helpful
overview
and
obviously
a
lot
to
watch
in
the
coming
months.
Our
final
speaker
today
is
David
topic.
David
is
a
senior
policy
associate
with
the
Nicholas
Institute
for
environmental
solutions
at
Duke,
University
Davis
current
work
focuses
on
state
compliance
options
under
the
clean
power,
including
trade
off
between
compliance
approaches,
interstate
trade
of
compliance
instruments,
relative
cost
of
different
approaches
and
how
the
clean
power
plan
interacts
with
other
trends
in
the
industry
David
the
floor
is
yours,.
D
Thank
You
Ven
and
I'd
like
to
thank
National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures
for
the
opportunity
to
present
today
today
for
anyone
who's
not
familiar
with
the
Nicholas
Institute,
we
offer
a
non-partisan
Policy
Institute
housed
at
Duke.
University
are
focusing
a
variety
of
energy
and
environmental
topics,
and
we've
been
focused
on
the
clean
power
in
the
clean
power
plan
for
quite
a
while
now
so
I'm
going
to
do
it.
Hunger
for
what
I
think
are
the
likely
compliance
pathways,
there's
quite
a
lot.
D
So
this
figure
more
or
less
laid
out
graphically
the
primary
option
that
the
Jacob
describes
that
are
available
to
States,
and
so
the
first
grouping
I'm
going
to
take
is
waiting
versus
at
so,
let's
start
at
the
top
of
the
figure
and
look
at
rate
based
compliance
approaches
all
the
rate
based
compliance
approaches.
Our
mission
standard
approaches,
meaning
the
entire
compliance
obligation,
is
on
the
affected
unit
and,
if
are
basically
three
types
of
rate
based
compliance
approaches.
D
So
there
are
the
sub
categorize
rates
where
you
have
rates
for
fossil
units,
I'll
steam
units
and
our
natural
guideline
cycle
units,
and
these
are
the
standard
across
the
country,
but
they
have
two
different
levels:
I'll
actually
shown
in
at
a
table
in
a
bit.
And
then
you
have
this
alternative
statewide
booted
rates
where
eta
is
calculated,
or
you
want
a
single
rate
that
you
could
use
for
all
of
your
units
in
your
state.
And
then
you.
D
Option
of
coming
up
with
your
own
rate,
so,
for
example,
it
could
assign
a
specific
list
rate
to
a
set
of
plants
or
utility
and
rates
could
differ
across
your
up
fleet,
including
within
combined
cycle
units
and
fossil
Stevie.
It
I
don't
think
this
is
very
likely
not
going
to
talk
about
it.
It's
also
actually
pretty
hard
to
do
next.
Turning
mass
based
options,
kind
of
the
bottom
half
of
presentation
screen
here,
the
first
two
again
emission
standard
approaches,
so
the
entire
comic
compliant
obligation
again
is
on
the
affected
units.
D
You
can
just
cover
existing
units
bowling
book
or
you
can
cover
existing
sources
and
new
sources
sources.
So
these
new
sources
would
be
new
natural
gas
combined
sudden
units-
and
this
is
what
the
industry
is
basically
building
for
new
intermediate
and
base
load
units
right
now,
just
based
on
economics
for
fossil
units,
so
most
of
what's
being
billed,
that
is
not
a
peaker
plant.
D
These
are
plants
that
running
frequently
are
the
natural
gas
combined
cycle
units,
and
then
you
also
have
this
alternative
of
a
state
measures
approach,
whereas
Jacob
described
you
have
obligations
placed
on
somebody
other
than
the
the
affected
unit.
So
it
can
be
a
combination
with
obligations
on
the
affected
units.
So
these
can
be
things
like
renewable
folio
standards
or
stringent
building
codes.
Lots
lots
of
other
things
that
states
are
typically
using
today,
they're
a
lot
more
complicated
because
you
essentially
have
to
come
up
with
two
sets
of
rules.
D
You
have
your
state
measures
rules
and
then
you
have
this
federal
backstop
and
I'm
not
hearing
much
interest
in
this
other
than
potentially
from
California,
so
I'm
not
going
to
spend
much
time
on
that.
So
the
next
thing
I
want
to
briefly
address
is
this
concept
of
trading
ready,
which
I've
got
written
in
red
places
so
for
rate
based
training?
Ready
is
just
the
subcategorized
reproach
where
you
have.
These
two
separate
rates
for
fossil
seemed
a
natural
gas
combined
cycle
that
are
constant
across
all
units
in
in
the
country.
D
Taking
that
approach
and
then
math
based
training
ready,
could
potentially
apply
to
all
of
the
math
based
options
and
for
some
background
on
trading
ready.
Basically,
what
you
do
is
you
tell
you
ka?
We
want
to
be
trading
ready.
You
have
a
common
definition
such
that
you're,
treating
the
same
thing
across
state
boundaries,
and
then
you
have
to
have
a
link
or
common
tracking
system.
Eta
is
Jacob
has
as
described.
It
is
basically
offering
to
create
this
tracking
system.
D
For
you,
such
that,
if
you're
in
the
mad
face
world,
you
could
trade
allowances
with
other
affected
units,
other
parties
in
other
states,
basically
you're
getting
a
wider
market
and
same
thing
for
rape
base,
so
you
could
trade
these
emission
rate
credits
across
state
boundaries.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
economic
reasons.
Why
you'd
want
to
do
that.
B
D
D
Make
good
guesses
is
how
much
your
different
types
of
plants
are
going
to
operate
the
future.
So
my
coal
plant
is
going
to
likely
be
at
this
mini
megawatt-hours,
my
gas
plant
at
this
many
megawatt
hours
and
so
forth.
This
is
really
hard
to
do
it
simply
because
there's
so
much
uncertainty
about
things
like
fuel
prices,
in
twenty
twenty,
eight,
twenty,
twenty,
nine
thirty,
we
don't
know
what
the
man
will
be.
Technology
is
changing.
The
cost
of
lots
of
technologies
such
as
renewable
technologies
are
falling.
D
So
it's
really
hard
to
say
what
would
be
the
least
cost
way
to
get
there
if
you're
deciding
literally
how
much
plants
are
running
in
20-30.
Additionally,
markets
provide
a
lot
of
flexibility,
for
example,
for
small
utilities,
so
maybe
cooperatives
or
municipal
utilities
that
maybe
only
old
water
to
fossil
units,
don't
have
experience,
building
or
mine,
say
wind
power
and
then
for
individual
unit
owners.
D
D
This
adjustment,
if
needed,
and
this
adjustment
basically
generation
from
eligible
non
emitting
sources
like
new
nuclear
power,
energy
efficiency
and
renewable
energy
and
the
adjustment
does
the
compliant
instrument.
What
has
been
referred
to
as
an
earth
or
our
missions
rate
credit.
So
this
is
the
thing
you're
affected
units,
if
you
were
going
with
a
rate
based
plan,
would
literally
be
turning
in
your
state
air
regulator,
EPA
to
comply
with
the
rule,
and
it
represents
one
megawatt
hour
of
emissions,
free
generation
and
it
added
to
the
denominator
of
the
the
rate
equation.
D
So
the
bottom
of
the
fraction-
you
you
add
these
er
seeds
as
needed
to
get
below
your
regulated
rate
and
there's
a
number
of
things
that
are
eligible
to
create
emission
reduction
credits.
You
mentioned
rape,
edits,
excuse
me
so
qualifying
renewable
energy.
It's
basically
all
renewable
energy,
energy
efficiency,
new
and
operated
nuclear
units
of
the
five
new
nuclear
units
coming
in
and
the
southeast
are
all
going
to
be.
D
This
is
post-2012,
so
it
was,
for
example,
wind
that
comes
on
2012
or
energy
efficiency,
where
the
investment
made
is
is
after
2012
2012,
and
then
it's
generation
actually
occurring
or
avoided
generation
during
the
compliance
period,
so
2022
and
on
so
next
I
wanted
to
just
dive
a
bit
into
so
what
happen?
Archit
react:
how
are
your
utility
is
going
to
change
their
behavior
in
there
under
a
rate
based
compliance
mechanism
in
the
clean
power
plan,
so
it
depends
on
where
you
are
relative
to
your
rate.
D
So
if
your
unit
is
operating
below
the
regulated,
I
you're,
actually
creating
these
emission
rate
credits,
so
operation
literally
creates
a
product
you
can
sell
to
some
else,
so
this
effectively
creates
subsidy
for
sources
similar
to
how
the
production
tax
credit
works,
for
example,
for
wind
power.
If
your
unit
is
operating
above
a
regulated
rate,
you
have
to
buy
perks
or
ER
c
such
that
you
know,
you
can
add
them
to
the
bottom
of
a
fraction
and
get
below
your
regulated,
and
this
creates
an
additional
operating
costs.
D
And
so
there
can
be
pretty
big
differences
in
how
this
plays
out
between
gas
units
and
coal
unit.
So
gas
combined
cycle
units
may
actually
be
below
their
category
specific
rate,
especially
at
the
beginning
of
the
interim
compliance
period,
and
the
blended
rates
are
higher
still
than
the
category
specific
rates
for
gas
and,
if
you're,
in
the
sub
category
specific
rate
based
compliance
mechanism,
you're
also
earning
gas
shift
emission
rate
credits,
regardless
of
what
what
your
emissions
are.
D
So
lowest
gas
units
in
it
around
750
to
1,000
pounds
per
megawatt
hour
than
to
your
units
are
around
750
and
maybe
even
a
little
bit
below,
and
you
can
see
that
that
is
a
ways
below
877
and
then,
even
once
you
get
to
the
final
rates.
Another
and
70
you're
still
below.
Where
is
coal
units
I
existing
coal
plants
tend
to
admit
between,
say,
1800
pounds
per
megawatt
hour,
2,300
pounds
per
megawatt
hour,
which
is
a
ways
above
the
range,
the
declining
numbers
for
the
fossil
scene.
D
Category
specific
rates,
so
Cole
would
have
to
buy
a
lot
of
emission
rate
credits,
whereas
gas
might
actually
be
producing
them
and
then,
because
things
like
you,
energy
efficiency,
renewable
energy,
operated
nuclear
new
nuclear
are
producing
year
sees
that
they
can
then
go
sell.
This
high
compliance
mechanism
literally
has
the
effect
of
subsidizing.
D
So
next
I'm
going
to
turn
to
mass,
based
and
under
a
math
based
plan,
you
have
to
submit
an
emissions
allowance
for
every
ton
of
emissions
that
you
emit,
how
the
sack
or
your
cupboards
lists
and
EPA
have
calculated,
am
a
space
goal
for
existing
sources
for
each
state.
So
this
is
basically
your
emissions
budget
for
each
state.
It
is
also
calculated
a
new
source
complement
that
is
an
add
on
to
that
budget.
D
If
you
decided,
you
wanted
to
include
new
natural
gas
combined
cycle
units
under
budget
under
the
regulation,
so
EPA
has
set
the
caps
essentially
for
you.
What
you,
as
states,
get
to
decide
is
how
to
hand
out
or
the
mechanism
for
distributing
these
allowances
that
lets
you
admit,
a
ton
of
co2
from
your
effectiveness,
and
this
is
what
economist's
are
going
to
call
allowance
allocation.
The
policy
wants
the
world,
but
that's
what
they're
talking
about
their
say:
okay,
here's
the
budget,
here's,
how
we're
going
to
disperse
the
these
allowances
to
the
affected
units.
D
So
how
does
a
math
based
system
affect
operation?
It's
pretty
different
and
I'm,
going
to
recall
and
contrast
with
the
rate
based
system.
So
if
you
have
a
mass
based
system,
you
have
a
market
there's
going
to
be
some
market
price
of
a
co2
allowance,
but
you
have
to
have
to
admit
a
tournament
of
the
mission.
I
mean
this.
This
cost
of
buying
the
allowance
or,
if
you
have
at
the
opportunity,
cost
selling
the
allowance
or
not
not
telling
me
allowed.
D
Is
it
poss
signal
to
your
coal
and
gas,
so
it's
proportional
to
their
emission?
So
the
price
of
an
allowance
say,
for
example,
is
ten
dollars
a
ton
colum
it's
more
co2
per
megawatt-hour
than
gas,
but
they've
been
both.
Have
this
kind
of
constant
try
to
single
curtain
of
emissions?
And
if
you
recall,
with
rape
based
systems,
you
can
actually
have
some
units
that
are
seeing
a
subsidy
and
then
those
other
units,
namely
your
cool
units,
have
to
buy
a
lot
of
the
erc.
D
So
if
you
auction
the
allowance,
that
is,
they
have
to
bid
into
an
option
to
buy
them
from
the
state
or
if
you
literally,
give
the
allowances
to
your
ear
affected
units,
they
will
make
operations
decisions
exactly
the
same,
and
this
is
because
what
what
the
cost
appears
as
in
the
the
dispatch
decision,
is
the
opportunity
cost
of
using
the
allowance.
So
if
you
use
the
allowance,
you
lose
the
ability
to
sell
it
to
somebody
else
and
any
cost
that
was
incurred
to
actually
acquire
the
analysis.
D
Initially
is
a
sunk
cost
and
you're
not
going
to
make
future
decisions,
it's
done.
Son
cost.
So
this
is
actually
happening
in
so2
markets
in
the
existing
co2
part.
The
one
exception
to
this
is,
if
you're,
using
it
allowances
the
to
incentivize
generation
that
is,
people
are
burning.
Allowance
is
based
on
operations,
and
this
is
often
referred
to
its
output
based
on
occasion.
D
So
if
you've
set
up
a
scheme
whereby
your
dash
units
are
given
some
amount
of
allowance
for
every
megawatt
hour
generation
or
your
coal
units
are
in
a
similar
situation
on
the
active,
creating
is
creating
these
allowances
that
have
value
and
this
encourages
generation.
So
again,
it
acts
as
a
as
a
subsidy,
and
you
can
create
this
output
based
allocation,
not
just
for
your
fossil
units,
but
you
could
also
do
it
safe
or
encouraging
energy
efficiency,
renewable
energy,
new
and
existing
nuclear
and
so
forth.
D
And
then
you
know
I
said
earlier
that
how
you
give
up
the
amount
unless
you're
doing
this
output
based
allocation
does
not
impact
how
units
operate,
but
it
does
have
big
impacts
for
any
news
prices,
meaning
the
prices
that
your
your
your
rape
hair
is
interstate
are
going
to
face,
and
this
is
especially
true
in
restructured
markets,
where
you
basically
face.
There's
competition
to
supply
your
retail
customers
in
traditional
cost
of
service
utility
regulation.
D
D
Another
question
that
I've
seen
become
a
fair
amount
is
well
what
about
load
rope
and
what
about
this
decision
to
build
new
units?
What
if
I,
need
to
build
a
bunch
of
new
gasket?
So
the
first
thing
I
would
note
is
that
the
rule
does
not
restrict
low
growth
restriction
missions
through
covered
sources.
So
it's
it's
certainly
possible
to
generate
more
to
meet
more
load
without
increasing
your
carbon
emissions
through
things
like
increased
energy
efficiency,
you
could
increase
your
imports.
You
can
build
new
nuclear
units,
you
know
renewables
and
so
forth.
D
In
the
rate
based
world
I
knew
half
of
gas
combined
cycle
units
are
outside
of
the
regulation,
so
you
can
build
new
natural
gas
lines
like
the
units
that
the
rate
based
regulation
will
be
creating
market
signals
that
will
affect
the
decision
to
do
that,
but
basically
there's
nothing
that
says
you
can't
just
still
build
as
much
new
natural
gas
life
cycle
as
you
need
for
math
faith,
hovering
just
existing
units.
You
can
build
new
natural
gas.
D
Cycle
generation,
but
what
media
is
attempting
to
do
is
to
create
a
economic
incentives,
basically
operating
your
existing
gas
units
and
Tom
earlier
mentioned
this
issue
of
addressing
leakage.
This
is
what
EPA
is
trying
to
do
their
times,
create
a
signal
to
continue
to
run
your
existing
gas
units
as
well
as
some
other
signals
to
encourage
renewable
energy,
and
this
is
this-
is
through
some
output
based
allocation
students
and
then,
if
you
went
with
a
mass
based
system
covering
new
and
existing
units,
so
including
your
natural
gas
plants,
I
believe
it.
D
D
B
D
D
So
if
you
do
this,
you
need
to
have
a
rationale,
so
why
you
know
what
what
are
you
using
as
the
metric?
Is
it
past
generation
or
passed
emissions
passed
emissions,
your
generation?
When
what
is
your
ear?
Is
it
a
series
of
news
and
then,
if
you're
continuing
to
give
allowances
to
utilities
and
others
based
on
what
happened
in
the
past,
there's
a
chance
that
some
of
those
units
are
so
you
can
retire
in
the
future,
and
then
people
are
still
being
given
allowances
and
allowances
have
values.
D
So
you
could
be
in
a
situation
where
the
state
plan
is
getting
allowances
to
someone
who
is
no
longer
operating
power
plant
and
then
maybe
can
just
sell
those
allowances.
So
there's
the
potential
for
windfall
profits
with
these
grandfathering
allowance
mechanisms.
The
other
thing
you
can
do
is
you
can
auction
allowances.
This
is
essentially
leaving
it
up
to
the
market
to
decide
how
allowances
are
initially
distributed.
People
have
to
buy
them.
D
This
is
going
to
generate
some
revenue,
and
this
revenue
can
be
used
for
a
number
of
different
things,
but
form
thing
that
has
often
been
done.
Is
it's
given
back
to
ratepayers,
especially
you
can
use
it
to
reduce
rate
impacts
and
then
finally,
there's
updating,
so
this
earned
by
operating
such
that
you
earn
allowances
by
running
your
gas
plants
while
running
your
coal
plants
and
then
finally,
I
wanted
to
touch
briefly
on
the
training,
ready
provisions
included
in
the
the
final
rule
and
from
a
cost
perspective.
D
This
is
this
is
a
pretty
big
deal
and
it
should
should
states
decide
to
take
advantage
of
this
reduced
cost
and
ease
compliance
simply
because
wider
markets
will
low
lower
total
system
costs
when
there's
more
opportunity
to
buy
and
sell.
So
if
you
have
a
market-based
mechanism,
market
is
going
to
find
the
lowest
cost
way
to
meet
the
constraint
of
the
rule
and
the
wider
the
market
better
and
find
those
least
cost
mechanisms
and
also
training
mechanism,
especially
why
trading
mechanisms
are
essentially
the
ultimate
reliability
safety
valve.
There
is
no
transmission
constraint
in
emissions
markets.
D
Florida
could
buy,
for
example,
allowances
from
Washington
State
and,
if
there's
a
very
wide
supply,
there
should
always
be
allowances
or
ER
seeds
out
there
for
your
utilities
to
purchase.
You
know,
there's
some
events
like
a
nuclear
unit
going
offline,
the
price
for
those
might
rise,
but
you'll
still
be
able
to
essentially
go
and
buy
them
and
there's
all
gains
from
essentially
wide
markets
just
because
of
geography.
So
different
states
have
lots
of
winds.
Some
have
lots
of
solar
saw
that
very
low
gas
prices.
You
know
a
wider
mark
can
take
advantage
of
that.
D
So
if
you
are
a
state,
very
low
cost
say
market
clearing
price
for
an
allowance
say
it's
just
one
dollars:
100
ton,
but
you
joined
a
wider
training
group
and
that
increased
to
ten
dollars
of
time.
You
would
still
be
better
off
because
you're
going
to
literally
make
money,
reducing
emissions
and
you're
only
going
to
do
it
if
it's
cost
effective.
D
A
A
Don't
forget
if
you
have
a
question,
please
type
it
in
the
box
in
the
lower
left
hand,
corner
and
of
course,
but
we
thought
I
do
just
want
to
thank
our
three
speakers
today.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
know
you
can't
hear
me
clapping,
but
I
am
anyway
to
the
questions.
We
got
a
couple,
I'm
actually
more
than
a
couple.
While
the
presentations
were
on
me
and
the
first
one
Jake,
it
was
probably
best
I
guess
addressed
to
you,
but
Tom
or
David
feel
free
to
chime
in.
B
Sure
so
I
think
the
simplest
way
to
answer
that
is
referred.
The
question
or
illicit
to
section
8
D
of
the
clean
power
plan,
which
lays
out
the
approve
ability
criteria
which
essentially
we
point
to
the
components
of
the
state
plan.
Submittal
and
some
of
those
components
are,
are
the
same
for
all
types
of
state
plans.
A
Great,
thank
you.
This
next
question
is
probably
best
for
Tom
and
Jacob,
and
really
kind
of
Bay
stone
the
fact
that
EPA
issued
an
endangerment
finding
for
carbon
dioxide
in
2009
and
is
more
or
less
compelled
by
the
President
to
issue
regulations
for
carbon
dioxide
from
power
plants.
What
happens
if
this
you
know
if
the
clean
power
plan
does
not
survive?
You
know
the
current
legal
challenges.
I
mean
to
put
it.
Maybe
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
too
blunt,
but
it
does
it
kind
of
go
back
to
the
drawing
board.
I
think.
B
C
What
I
thought
you
would
say?
Ok,
so
you
much
of
this
depends
on
how
the
court
rule,
if
the
court
rules
in
favor
of
the
challengers
on
the
111,
112
argument
or
essentially
guts
the
rule
by
saying
all
but
building
block
one,
which
is
the
heat
rate
improvement.
That
gets
you
only
maybe
two
to
four
percent
emission
reductions.
If
that's
the
way
it
comes
down,
then
I
think
you
know
ETA
not
a
couple
of
options.
One
is
they
could
try
to
do
national
ambient
air
quality
skater
that
hasn't
tried.
C
Yet
that
would
be
difficult
because
it's
not
clear
how
you
would
ever
assess
whether
any
particular
area
the
country
is
in
a
team
of
that
standard.
But
that's
that's
sort
of
the
remaining
tool.
I
guess
you
could
also
try
to
characterize
co2
as
a
hazardous
air
Putin
and
do
a
standard
under
section
112,
but
I
haven't
thought
through
the
implications
of
that.
The
other
obvious
option
is
legislation.
You
know
this
is,
and
there
have
been
attempts
to
legislate
this
area
before
they've
been
unsuccessful.
C
There
will
likely
be
a
tense
again
in
the
future.
So
you
know
those
are
the
things
that
I
see
now,
if
the
court
issues
a
more
narrow
ruling
such
as
saying
that
EPA
overstepped
and
interfered
on
the
state's
roles
in
this,
then
EPA
could
essentially,
we
promulgate
a
very
similar
rule,
but
the
states
established
the
targets
so
Jacob.
Any
comment
diminish
your
farm
at.
B
C
Yeah
no
I'm
talking
about
a
ruling
on
the
merits,
know
what
stay
is
a
state.
The
DC
Circuit
tends
to
be
very
cautious
when
the
issue
stays.
They
say
almost
nothing
about
the
merits
of
the
case
because
they
are
not
prejudge.
Donna
and
stays
are
oftentimes
really
dependent.
On
the
issue
of
your
reparable
harm.
Have
you
shown
that
the
challengers
to
a
rule
will
be
harmed
abstinence
day
while
the
litigation
is
going
on
and.
A
C
A
couple
possible
timelines,
the
most
ambitious
ambitious,
would
have
the
case
argued
by
the
DC
Circuit
in
mid-may
with
a
decision
from
the
DC
Circuit,
probably
by
the
end
of
line.
That
is
very
cute,
very
ambitious.
It's
you
know
it's
waiting
to
see
here,
including
the
parties
that
I'm
representing,
but
whether
the
DC
Circuit
will
will
acquire
it
is
here.
A
Thank
you
David.
This
next
question
is
for
you
and
I
guess.
Maybe
to
summarize
you
know,
given
your
work
for
Duke
University,
what
have
you
with
regard
to
you
know
whether
states
will
submit
implementation
plans
this
year
or
have
you?
You
know
heard
more
that
they're
going
to
be
the
mitting
a
request
for
an
extension.
D
I
believe
the
vast
majority
of
states,
through
articles
and
so
forth
that
either
through
services
like
green
wire,
climate
wire,
have
indicated
that
they
are
going
to
ask
for
extensions
I,
think
there
might
be
one
or
two
that
are
crying
going
to
transmit
a
final
state
state
plans,
tember
but
I.
Think
for
the
vast
majority
of
states.
People
are
going
to
ask
for
the
extension
great.
A
B
So
the
baby
sick
trigger
is
when
the
state
submits
its
final
plan.
So
if
a
state
submitted
its
final
plan
by
September
of
2016
later
this
year,
then
any
any
wind
or
solar
that
began
construction
after
that
point
or
any
low-income
energy
to
see
that
began
operations
after
that
point
would
be
eligible
for
the
power
zero
carbon
power
generated
or
for
the
winner.
B
So
when
a
solar
or
the
zero
emissions
offset
or
not
even
the
power
to
emissions
not
emitted
as
a
result
of
the
low-income
energy
efficiency
during
2020
in
2021,
that
makes
sense,
so
imagine
a
a
wind
power
plant
that
starts
construction
immediately
on
a
day
and
they
start
generating
power
on
january.
First
2019.
Okay,
do
not
get
credit
for
into
power
in
9
20
19,
but
they
do
get
what
we
prepare.
This
is
all
be
proposed
in
the.
B
What
we
you
know
put
into
the
final
power
plant
clean
power
plan
is
that
they
would
then
get
credit
20,
20
and
20
21
for
that,
but
if
they,
if
they
completed
the
construction
before
that
they
sign
that
would
not
count
in
the
same
corollary,
thing
for
energy
efficiency.
All
of
these,
some
of
these
to
the
final
implementation
decisions
will
be
made
in
the
course
of
this
additional
action
that
were
planning
later
for
this
spring.
So
there
will
be
an
additional
opportunity
to
comment
on
all
of
that
and
feedback
on
all
of
that.
A
B
A
Great
thanks
thanks
well,
that
is
all
the
questions
that
I've
got.
You
know
I
really
just
want
to
once
again
I'd
like
to
extend
a
thank
you
to
you,
Jacob,
Tom
and
David,
for
joining
us
today,
as
speakers
on
a
really
great
job
kind
of
breaking
down
on
the
clean
power
plan.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
all
of
our
attendees
for
participating
in
today's
weather
minder.
A
recording
of
today's
webinar
will
be
made
available
shortly
at
the
website.
A
You
can
see
on
your
screen
and
again
you
can
download
today's
slides
in
the
media
library
icon,
which
is
in
the
kind
of
upper
right-hand
corner.
It
is
a
blue
and
yellow
icon
just
to
the
right
of
the
microphone.
So
again,
thank
you
for
your
continued
interest
and
support
of
NCSL
have
a
great
day
and
a
happy
belated
new
year.
Thank
you
again.