UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 May!0,2019 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Austin R. Evers American Oversight I 030 15th Street. Suite B255 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request No. EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Dear Mr. Evers: This is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) on February 14, 2019. You requested the following: "All email communications sen/ by (1) former Administrator Pruilf. Acting Administrator Wheeler. Office of Policy Associate Administrator Brill any Bolen, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Assistant Adminislrator William Wehrum, OAR Deputy Assistant Administrator Clint Woods. OAR Senior Policy Advisor Mandy Gunasekara. and/or Office o.fTransporlalion and Air Quality Director Christopher Grundler; to (2) any email address ending in .com, .org..edu, .net..mail. or .biz, including emails in which such addresses were copied (cc) or blind copied (bee).'' The Office of Air and Radiation has concluded its search for records responsive to your request and has determined that your request is partially granted and partially denied. The Agency released 175 pages of responsive records through FOIAonline. Portions of documents were withheld pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6) because it contains personal information which would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy if released. There is no cost for the processing of this request. This letter concludes our response to your request. You may appeal this response by emaiI at hq.foia@epa.gov. or by mail to: National FOIA Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. (23 I 0A) Washington. D.C. 20460 /\Mlf ll Al\ pVERSIGHT Only items mailed through the United States Postal Service may be delivered to 1200 Pennsy lvania Avenue . If you are submitting your appeal by hand delivery , courier service , or overnight delivery , you must address your correspondence to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. William Jefferson Clinton North Building , Room 5315 , Washington , DC 20460. Your appeal must be in writing, and it must be received no later than 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. The Agency will not consider appeals received after the 90-calendar-day limit. Appeals received after 5:00 pm EST will be considered received the next business day . The appeal letter should include the FO IA tracking number listed above. For quickest possib le han dling. the subject line of your email. the appeal letter, and its envelope, if applicable , should be marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal. '' Additionally , you may seek dispute resolution services from EPA's FO IA Pub lic Lia iso n at hq .foia @epa.gov or (202) 566-1667, or from the Office of Governn1ent Informat ion Services (OG IS). You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways : email , og is@nara .gov; telephone , (202) 741-5770 or (877 ) 684-6448; facsimile (202) 741-5769; or by mail at: Office of Government lnfonnat ion Services National Archives and Records Administra tion , Room 25 l 0 8610 Ade lphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 We appreciate your interest in the EPA and our mission to protect publ ic hea lth and the environme nt. Shou ld you choose to appeal this determination, please be sure to ful ly address all factors requi red by EPA's FOIA Regu lations , located at 40 C.F. R., Part 2 . I 04. Sincerely. ~0:- Director Office of Air Policy and Program Support /\MERll Al\ pVERSIGHT EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Subject: Location: Kime, Robin [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=7EF7B76087A6475B80FC984AC2DD4497-RKIME] 8/14/2017 2:25:29 PM Inge, Carolyn [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en= 7f763e42702a4f468cdf42323ee94520-Cinge]; Lovell, Wil I (William) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=3b150bb6ade640f68d744fadcb83a73e-Lovell, Wil]; Dravis, Samantha [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=ece53f0610054e669d9dffe0b3a842df-Dravis, Sam]; 'Paul Balserak' [pbalserak@steel.org]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Dominguez, Alexander [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =5ced433b4ef54171864ed98a36cb 7 aSf-Dominguez,] Follow-up Meeting with Iron & Steel re: NSR DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 8/21/2017 7:30:00 PM 8/21/2017 8:30:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 minutes prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call (202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin Kime (202) 564-6587. Objective: Discuss the NSR program. Contact: Paul Balserak Vice President, Environment American Iron and Steel Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20001 . ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-, [________ EX.___ 6 _______ loffice) : Ex. 6 !(mobile) i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000001 ED_002409_00000506-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 EPA-19-0240-A-000002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Wehrum, Bill [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=33D96AE800CF43A3911D94A7130B6C41-WEHRUM,WIL] 10/22/2018 1:17:13 PM Wehrum, Bill [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=33d96ae800cf43a39 lld94a7130b6c41-Wehru m, Wil]; Grundler, Christopher [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=d3be58c2cc8545d88cf74f3896d4460f-Grundler, Christopher]; Cook, Leila [cook.leila@epa.gov]; Hengst, Benjamin [Hengst.Benjamin@epa.gov]; Charmley, William [charmley.william@epa.gov]; Moran, Robin [moran.robin@epa.gov]; Olechiw, Michael [olechiw.michael@epa.gov] Subject: Attachments: Meeting with National coalition for Advanced Transportation re: SAFE(CONFIRMED) CONFIRMED RE: Request for Meeting on Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-26 Location: WJC - N 5400 + Video with AA+ !____________ Conference _ph_one _and_code_I_Ex. _6·-·-·-·-·-·i 10/24/2018 7:00:00 PM 10/24/2018 8:00:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: CONFIRMED RE: Request for Meet. .. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000003 ED_002409_00004801-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Rakosnik, Delaney [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=274573739A9F446883072599086EDEDD-RAKOSNIK, D] 10/16/2018 7:37:31 PM Robert.Wyman@LW.com [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=3386628dfac1492691741359d34f7fcf-Robert .Wyman@LW .com] Devin.O'Connor@lw .com; Stacey.VanBelleghem@lw.com; Lewis, Josh [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b22dld3bb3f84436a524f76ab6c79d7e-JOLEWIS]; Atkinson, Emily [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=bb2155adef6a44aea 94107 41 f0c01d27-Atkinson, Emily] CONFIRMED RE: Request for Meeting on Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)Vehicles Rule for Model Years 202126 From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Dear Bob, You are confirmed Directions for an hour long meeting with Bill and procedures to 1200 Pennsylvania Wehrum on 10/24 starting at 3pm. Avenue NW: Metro: If you come by Metro get off at the Federal Triangle metro stop. Exit the metro station and go up two sets of escalators to the surface level and turn right. You will see a short staircase and wheelchair ramp leading to a set of glass doors with the EPA logo - that is the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, North Entrance. Taxi: Direct the taxi to drop you off on 12th Street NW, between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, at the elevator for the Federal Triangle metro stop - this is almost exactly half way between the two avenues on 12th Street NW. Facing the building with the EPA logo and American flags, walk toward the building and take the glass door on your right hand side with the escalators going down to the metro on your left - that is the North Lobby of the William Jefferson Clinton building. Security Procedures: A government issued photo id is required to enter the building and it is suggested you arrive 15 minutes early in order to be cleared and arrive at the meeting room on time. Upon entering the lobby, the meeting attendees will be asked to pass through security and provide a photo ID for entrance. If you are a foreign national entering on a non-us passport, please let us know in advance, as there is a separate clearance process. Upon arrival, let the guards know that Please send me a list of participants need any additional information. you were instructed to call 202-564-7404 in advance of the meeting and feel free for a security to contact escort. me should you Many thanks, Delaney Rakosnik Staff Assistant Immediate office of the Assistant Administrator office of Air and Radiation, USEPA Room 5406A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Voice: 202-564-2229 Email: rakosnik.delaney@epa.gov AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000004 ED_002409_00004802-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Simon, Karl [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=4D781D1AD595415DB3A4E768C2D2B3FC-SIMON, KARL] 10/26/2018 8:44:16 PM Bond, Alexander [ABond@eei.org] Grundler, Christopher [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDI BOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/ en=d3be58c2cc8545d88cf7 4f3896d4460f -Gru nd ler, Christopher] Re: EEiComments Regarding the proposed Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE)Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and LightTrucks (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283and NHTSA-2018-0067) Thanks Alex. Good to see you the other night. Will find some time soon to chat. Karl > on Oct 26, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Bond, Alexander wrote: > > Chris/Karl - > > FYI here. We'd love to set up time to talk in the coming weeks. > > Alex > > > From: Bond, Al exander > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 4:29 PM > To: 'elaine.chao@dot.gov' ; 'wheeler.andrew@epa.gov' > cc: 'wehrum.bi ll @epa.gov' ; 'Heidi.king@dot.gov' > subject: EEI Comments Regarding the proposed safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger cars and Lig ht Trucks (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283 and NHTSA-20180067) > > Dear Secretary Chao and Acting Administrator Wheel er: > > The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached comments to the National Highway Traffic safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (collectively, the Agencies) regardi ng the proposed safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rul e for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger cars and Light Trucks (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283 and NHTSA2018-0067) published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2018. > > Thank you! > > > > > Alex Bond > Associate General counsel, Energy & Environment > 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. .•._.D__c_. 2o004 - 2696 > ,w.a.s.hi1J.a!.rul > !_______________ Ex ..6-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-! >www.eei.org > Follow EEI on Twitter, Facebook< http://www.facebook.com/pages/Edison-Electric-Institute/253118344285>, YouTube. > [cid:94C01F3C-3F79-431A-97F9-93E58F91EBC6] and > > > > AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000005 ED_002409_00005879-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Location: Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 11/2/2018 5:13:06 PM Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Alexander Dominguez (dominguez.alexander@epa .gov) [dominguez.alexander@epa .gov]; Gunning, Paul (Gunning.Paul@epa .gov) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=f65040017f05429aa05572f096a50463-PGUNNING]; Fawcett, Allen [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =c42c443c02834519bd99d9826afccf54-AFA WCETT] Call: Composite Panel Association RE: CPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule 5426 WJCN +i.__ Conference__ phone__ and _codeI_Ex. _6___ i 11/7/2018 4:00:00 PM 11/7/2018 4:30:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: To: Mandy Gunasekara, Alex Dominguez, Paul Gunning, Allen Fawcett r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-1 i Conference phone and code / Ex. 6 i i ! i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ Mandy will open the line AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000006 ED_002409_00007696-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message To: Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 11/2/2018 5:12:22 PM David Beaudreau [dbeaudreau@dclrs .com] Subject: RE: CPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule From: Sent: Great. Confirmed for a call on Wednesday, November 7th at 11:00AM. We can use the conference line below. I Conference phone and code I Ex. 6 I ' i.·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j ' Anything else let me know. Alex From: David Beaudreau [mailto:dbeaudreau@dclrs.com] Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 10:31 AM To: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: Re: CPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule Great, let's go with 11:00 a.m. on November 7. Will you send a call in number or do you need me to provide one? On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:13 AM Dominguez, Alexander wrote: David - Please let me know if any of the times below would work for a call. Wednesday, Nov 7th Friday, Nov 9th - - 11:00; 4:00 3:00; 3:30 Moving Mandy to bee. Best, Alex Dominguez Policy Advisor to the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000007 ED _002409_00007697-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 From: David Beaudreau [mailto:dbeaudreau@dclrs.com] Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:07 AM To: Gunasekara, Mandy Cc: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: Re: CPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:27 PM, Gunasekara, Mandy wrote: Hi David, Thank you for sending your comments and I'd be happy to discuss. I've ccd Alex Dominguez who can help follow up regarding the logistics. I look forward to talking soon. Best, Mandy Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2018, at 8:46 PM, David Beaudreau wrote: Hi Mandy, Hope you're well. I wanted to attach the comments the Composite Panel Association submitted yesterday regarding the ACE rule. I wanted to use this opportunity to check in with you to see if there are any developments with respect to the carbon neutrality issue. When Jackson Morrill and I met with you a while ago EPA was still determining how to best address the carbon neutrality policy change that had been recently made. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000008 ED _002409 _00007697-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Would you have time for a conference call with me and Jackson for sometime next week? Thanks for considering this request. David G. Beaudreau Jr. Senior Vice President D.C. Legislative and Regulatory Services, Inc. 2221 S. Clark Street, 11thFloor Arlington, VA 22202 Main: 202-872-8440 Direct: 202-872-6884 www.dclrs.com The content image00l.jpg of type has been blocked. David G. Beaudreau Jr. Senior Vice President D.C. Legislative and Regulatory Services, Inc. 2221 S. Clark Street, 11thFloor Arlington, VA 22202 Main: 202-872-8440 Direct: 202-872-6884 www.dclrs.com 1-·· ··=· AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000009 ED_002409 _00007697-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: CC: BCC: Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 10/29/2018 3:07:45 PM Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en=53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Alexander Dominguez (dominguez.alexander@epa .gov) [dominguez.alexander@epa .gov]; Cazzie, David [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrat ive Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=ee8c3582a39d4d81ac38f29a2b3abb2d-DCOZZIE]; Culligan, Kevin [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=5ab7ef4a59614fd4b4485668c42818c7-KCULLIGA]; Hutson, Nick [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=b7e6dc331d 174 798a3a269070576d896-H utson, Nick]; Mike Koerber (Koerber.Mike@epa.gov) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=9c513901d4fd49f9a b101a6f7a7a863e-Koerber, Mike]; Peter Tsirigotis (Tsirigotis.Peter@epa.gov) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=d19c179f3ccb4fadb48e3ae85563f132-PTSIRIGO]; Sarah Dunham (Dunham.Sarah@epa.gov) [Dunham.Sarah@epa.gov]; Harvey, Reid [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recipi ents/ en=f8ec3 lcaad5048db83f21003284 7 de32-RH ARVE02] ___! Kevin Cul Iigan :.__________ Personal_Email_/_ Ex. 6 _______ DCRoomARN5428PolyTB/DC-ARN-OAR [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=user4e076598] Subject: Attachments: Meet ing: Duke Energy ACE Meeting Request - Confirmat ion; RE: Meet ing Attendees - Duke Energy; Duke Energy ACE comments overview.pdf; Duke Energy ACE Comments (submitted to docket).pdf; RE: Attendees Location: 5428 WJCN Conference Room+ Conference Line:! Conference line and code ! i-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-j 11/16/2018 4:30:00 PM 11/16/2018 5:30:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: To: Mandy Gunasekara, Alexander Dominguez, David Cazzie, Kevin Culligan, Nick Hutson, Mike Koerber, Peter Tsirigotis, Sarah Dunham, Reid Harvey ! Conference line and code i l·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i Mandy will open the line In-person Mike Geers Venu Ghanta Kris Knudsen By phone Derek Picklesimer Vicky Sullivan AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000010 ED_002409_00007698-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 11/6/2018 5:20:20 PM Ghanta, Venu G [Venu.Ghanta@duke -energy.com] ACE Mee t ing Request - Confirmation Venu, Good talking with you and per our conversa t ion you are confirmed for a 60 minute meeting on Friday, November 16th at 11:30AM with Mandy Gunasekara. Please have anyone calling in use: .·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·. ' i Conference phone and code I Ex. 6 ' i ' ' i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i Directions and procedures to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW: Metro: If you come by Metro get off at the Federal Triangle metro stop. Exit the metro station and go up two sets of escalators to the surface level and turn right. You will see a short staircase and wheelchair ramp leading to a set of glass doors with the EPA logo - that is the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, North Entrance. Taxi: Direct the taxi to drop you off on 12th Street NW, between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, at the elevator for the Federal Triangle metro stop - this is almost exactly half way between the two avenues on 12th Street NW. Facing the building with the EPA logo and American flags, walk toward the building and take the glass door on your right hand side with the escalators going down to the metro on your left - that is the North Lobby of the William Jefferson Clinton building. Security Procedures: A government issued photo id is required to enter the building and it is suggested you arrive 15 minutes early in order to be cleared and arrive at the meeting room on time. Upon entering the lobby, the meeting attendees will be asked to pass through security and provide a photo ID for entrance. If you are a foreign national entering on a non-US passport, please let us know in advance, as there is a separate clearance process. Upon arrival, let the guards know that you were instructed to call 202-578-5985 for a security escort. Please send me a list of participants and any handouts at least two days in advance of the meeting. Feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. Best, Alex Alex Dominguez Policy Advisor to the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environ m ental Protection Agency D: 202-564-3164 M: 202-578-5985 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000011 ED_002409_00007699-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 From: Ghanta, Venu G [mailto:Venu.Ghanta@duke-energy.com] Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 12:42 PM To: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: RE:ACE meeting request Hi Alex- We are open on the 16th and defer to you as to the best time to meet with Mandy. What works best on your end? Thanks, Venu From: Dominguez,Alexander [mailto:dominquez.alexander@epa.gov] Sent: Monday,October 29, 2018 2:35 PM To: Ghanta, Venu G Subject: RE:ACEmeeting request Venu -I just received word Mandy is tentatively in a meeting with AA Wheeler on the 16th from 11- 12:45. I can also move her 1:30 if necessary so her updated availability is realistically 1:30 - 4:00. Hope this helps with logistics. Alex Sent from my iPhone From: Ghanta, Venu G [mailto:Venu.Ghanta@duke-energy.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 7:21 PM To: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: Re: ACE meeting request Hi AlexThe 16th looks best for us, but I am still trying to nail down times for the folks traveling from out of town. I'll try to let you know next week. Thanks and have a great weekend. -Venu On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Dominguez, Alexander wrote: *** Exercise caution, This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. *** Hey Venu, Happy to set something up. Any dates in particular work best? If not, below is Mandy's current availability. If you need a few days to confirm just let me know if you want me to hold any times as I'm going through quite a few meeting requests this afternoon. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000012 ED _002409 _00007699-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Thursday, November pt 4:00 -cob Friday, November 2 nd 12:00 - 1:00 Wednesday, November 7th is pretty open after 9:30am. Friday, November 9th 11:00 - 1:00 Friday, November 16th 11:00 - 1:30; 3:00 - 4:00 Best, Alex Alex Dominguez Policy Advisor to the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D: 202-564-3164 M: 202-578-5985 From: Ghanta, Venu G [mailto:Venu.Ghanta@duke-energy.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:45 AM To: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: ACE meeting request Hi AlexHope you are doing well. I wanted to check in and see if Mandy would be interested in meeting with Duke Energy to hear our thoughts on the proposed ACE rule? It would essentially be around a few of the key issues in our soon-to-be submitted comments. Thanks and regards, Venu Venu Ghanta Federal Regulatory Affairs Director 325 7th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20004 Office: 202-824-8013 Cell: 202-699-2337 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000013 ED_002409 _00007699-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 COM~IENTS OF DUKE ENERGY on the EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERA TING UNITS; REVISIONS TO EMISSION GUIDELINE IMPLEl\fENTING REGULATIONS; REVISIONS TO NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM DOCKET ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355 83 Fed. Reg. 44746 (August 31, 2018) I. Introduction and Summary Duke Energy Business Services LLC (Duke Energy), on behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, Duke Energy Indiana LLC, Duke Energy Ohio LLC, Duke Energy Kentucky LLC, Duke Energy Florida LLC and Duke Energy Progress LLC, submits the attached comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed rulemaking entitled "Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program." 1 This proposed rulemaking is also known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy is one of the largest 1 83 FR 44746 1 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000014 ED_002409_00007700-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 energy holding companies in the United States, serving approximately 7.5 million customers through our electric utilities and infrastructure business and 1.6 million customers through our gas utilities and infrastructure business in the Southeast and Midwest. We also operate a growing renewable energy portfolio across the United States. Duke Energy supports EPA' s efforts to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) 2 and replace it with a rule that provides more regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry. We have long advocated for regulatory certainty in regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as reducing emissions cost-effectively remains an important issue for our customers and a tenet of our investment strategy. Duke Energy's path forward includes the continued retirement of coal units that will reduce our emissions even further - likely at a greater level than what the ACE rule would require. However, regulatory clarity from the federal government is needed in order to ensure that the technological transformation occurring in the electric utility industry will continue. We have been planning for a low-carbon energy future for more than a decade and continue to take actions that drive carbon emissions out of our system. We have already reduced our CO2 emissions by 31 percent compared to a 2005 baseline, and our goal is to reduce them by 40 percent by 2030. We will invest $11 billion in cleaner energy generation over the next 10 years to achieve and surpass this goal.3 Without the regulatory certainty and clarity EPA is working to provide, our ability to ensure continued safe, reliable and affordable energy for our millions of customers will be challenged. 2 80 FR 64662 Duke Energy. (2018). 2017 Duke Energy Sustainability Report. Retrieved from https://sustainabilityreport.dukeenergy.com/downloads/2017-DukeSR.pdf 3 2 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000015 ED_002409 _00007700-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Key to this process of repealing and replacing the CPP is recognizing these substantial reductions in CO 2 emissions that companies like Duke Energy have already made through strategic planning and investment in multi-purpose emissions reductions technologies. For example, Duke Energy has modernized our current system of more than 52,400 megawatts, investing more than $9 billion in state-of-the-art coal and natural gas generating facilities, representing approximately 6,600 megawatts of highly efficient generating capacity. Duke Energy also operates the largest regulated nuclear fleet in the nation, which has consistently set industry benchmarks for safety and reliability. We also have a large and growing portfolio of solar and wind facilities in more than 15 states, which will play a significant role in further decarbonizing our operations. Over 38 percent of the power Duke Energy generated in 2017 was from carbon-free sources including nuclear, hydropower, solar and wind. 4 Providing compliance flexibility to states and utilities is essential to ensuring that such investments are acknowledged for their contribution to reducing CO 2 emissions, sparing customers from having to bear additional costs for emission reduction projects at older, less efficient plants. Duke Energy supports EPA' s proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan with a lawful interpretation of the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Duke Energy also supports two other critical aspects of the ACE rule: the proposed revisions to the existing 11 l(d) implementing regulations to better harmonize with the statutory text, and EPA's proposed changes to the New Source Review (NSR) program to provide certainty that actions taken to comply with the standards of performance do not present the risk of triggering NSR permitting requirements. 4 Ibid. 3 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000016 ED_002409 _00007700-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Duke Energy's comments focus on the following provisions: • Establishment ofBSER: EPA's proposed BSER for steam generating EGUs is properly based on heat rate improvement (HRI) measures that can be applied at an affected source, and Duke Energy agrees that the proposed list of HRI "candidate technologies" for states to use in establishing unit-specific standards of performance in a state plan is appropriate. • Flexibility for States and Sources: EPA unnecessarily constrains state flexibility by requiring that any emission reduction measures must be implemented and measurable at the source itself As a result, EPA prevents proven, cost-effective methods for reducing emissions, such as emission averaging and trading, from being utilized. In doing so, EPA falls short ofrecognizing the electric sector's progress in reducing CO 2 emissions, and our plans to continue to retire older, less efficient plants and reduce emissions in a manner that does not burden customers. Duke Energy strongly encourages EPA to explicitly allow the states to utilize averaging and trading between units. • Affected Sources: EPA has properly not included stationary combustion turbines and IGCC units in the BSER after finding that the potential emission reductions would be small and expensive as compared to the proposed BSER at coal-fired units. For the same reasons, EPA should specifically exclude steam generating units which exclusively burn natural gas. • Establishment of Standards of Performance: EPA must provide additional information to states to allow them to set standards of performance that are representative of expected future operation and that allow for compliance with those 4 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000017 ED_002409 _00007700-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 standards on an ongoing basis. Duke Energy recommends that the standards factor in the variability in emission rate due to the changing nature of coal-fired units' role on the electric grid, as well as the uncertainty associated with emission rate measurement. We specifically recommend that EPA require states to take expected future operation into account when establishing standards, and that EPA allow for states to establish multiple standards for a given unit corresponding to its load range or capacity factor. • Demonstration of Compliance: EPA should ensure that states establish standards of performance that are achievable by the source. Duke Energy is concerned that individual sources may not be able to demonstrate compliance on an ongoing basis despite the source being properly operated and maintained and implementing the applicable HRI measures as determined by the state. This is due to variability associated with typical unit operation coupled with the uncertainty associated with CO 2 measurements. These concerns are exacerbated by EPA' s insistence that averaging and trading across units is not permitted. • Revisions to the 11 l(d) Implementing Regulations: Duke Energy generally supports EPA' s proposed changes to the implementing regulations, in particular EPA' s codification of the variance provision, the allowance of source-specific compliance deadlines, and the extensions in the timing of submission and approval of state plans. • New Source Review: Duke Energy strongly supports EPA's proposal to reform the New Source Review (NSR) program's applicability provisions. NSR reform is essential to ensuring that sources have the ability to implement HRI measures without triggering burdensome and uncertain NSR requirements. Duke Energy supports 5 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000018 ED _002409 _00007700-00005 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 EPA' s inclusion of an hourly emissions increase test based on maximum achievable hourly emissions. II. EPA's Proposal Appropriately Implements the Purpose and Statutory Text of Section 111 Duke Energy supports EPA' s proposal, also known as the ACE rule, to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) with a lawful interpretation of its statutory authority under the CAA Section l l 1(b)(l)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to establish "standards of performance" for emissions of air pollutants from new sources in a source category, known as new source performance standards (NSPS). Once EPA establishes an NSPS for a source category under section 111(b), EPA must also prescribe regulations for states to submit plans establishing standards of performance for existing sources for any air pollutant under Section 11 l(d), provided that air quality criteria have not been issued for the pollutant, the pollutant has not been included in a list published under Section 108(a), or the pollutant is not emitted from a source category regulated under Section 112.5 CAA Section 11l(a)(l) defines standard of performance as a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction that the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated, taking into account costs and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. Under Section 11 l(d)(l), states, when establishing standards of performance for a given existing source, are permitted to take into account source-specific considerations, including the source's remaining useful life. 6 5 6 42 U.S.C. §74ll(d)(l)(A) 42 U.S.C. §74ll(d)(l)(B) 6 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000019 ED_002409 _00007700-00006 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 The proposed ACE rule appropriately recognizes that performance standards under Section 11 l(d) apply to individual sources within a regulated source category, based on a BSER that can be implemented at those individual sources. The proposed ACE rule also correctly recognizes that when performance standards are set for existing sources under section 11 l(d), EPA's role is limited to identifying the BSER for the source category and developing a procedure for states to establish standards of performance for existing sources. It is the states' role to apply that BSER to the affected sources within their borders and to set performance standards for those sources. 7 EPA's proposed BSER is properly based on heat rate improvement (HRI) measures that can be applied at an affected source. This is consistent with Duke Energy's previously submitted comments on EPA's proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. 8 EPA's proposed interpretation of the BSER comports with the plain language of Section 111 of the CAA, to be applicable only at the facility of an affected source. Furthermore, the proposal rightly recognizes that states have the primary role in developing standards of performance consistent with application of the BSER and are afforded a great deal of flexibility in doing so. Critically, in August 2015, EPA issued a final rule entitled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 9 which established CO 2 emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units under Section 111(b) of the CAA This is a source-specific, "inside the fence" rule applying to new, modified, and reconstructed sources, consistent with the statutory direction 7 This is not to say that EPA cannot provide guidance on how to set a performance standard consistent with the BSER. For example, EPA may determine that perfomiance standards set by the states for existing sources need not (and should not) be more restrictive than the standards of performance for new, modified or reconstructed sources. 8 "Duke Energy Comments on the Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,035 (October 16, 2017)." April 26, 2018, EPA-HQOAR-2017-0355-20347 9 80 FR 64510 7 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000020 ED_002409 _00007700-00007 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 in the Clean Air Act and EPA' s historical interpretation of its authority under Section 111. With section 111(b) as the prerequisite and underpinning for regulation under 111(d), EPA must not deviate from the approach undertaken in its 11 l(b) rule when promulgating its 11 l(d) rule. Even though EPA attempted to expand the scope of its statutory authority with the CPP, it is telling that EPA did nothing similar under section 111(b). The section 111(d) rule should also adhere to this principle and practice. An "emission limitation" "limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under [the CAA]." 10 Thus, BSER must be capable of "limit[ing] the quantity, rate, or concentration" of each source's emissions on a "continuous basis," and BSER must be capable of being "appl[ied]" 11 to each individual source, rather than only to the electric grid operating as a whole. 12 The proposed ACE rule satisfies these requirements, comporting with the statutory text and purpose of Section 111. III. Flexibility for States and Sources EPA' s proposal recognizes that states have the primary role in developing standards of performance consistent with application of the BSER and are to be afforded a great deal of flexibility. Specifically, states have considerable flexibility in establishing source-specific standards of performance, and sources are able to meet the standard using the specific BSER technologies evaluated by the state or with non-BSER technologies. However, EPA constrains 42 U.S.C. §7602(k) 42 U.S.C. §74ll(a)(l) 12 However, while the BSER must be capable of being applied to each individual source, that only dictates how the standard of perfonnance must be established, not the method of compliance with such a standard. JO 11 8 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000021 ED_002409 _00007700-00008 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 this flexibility considerably by requiring that any measures must be implemented and measurable at the source itself EPA proposes to allow emissions averaging among EGUs at a given facility and takes comment on a number of other options, including averaging of affected EGUs with non-affected EGUs at the same facility, averaging across multiple affected sources, and averaging and trading between affected sources. Duke Energy supports policies that provide the incentive to reduce emissions in the most economically efficient way possible. EPA has, in previous stationary source programs, incorporated flexible compliance mechanisms such as emissions averaging and trading. These mechanisms have resulted in significant emission reductions at a lower cost than command-andcontrol programs. Use of these flexibilities has allowed Duke Energy to achieve significant emission reductions while still maintaining reliability and affordability for its customers. In addition, allowing sources a range of options for compliance allows for harmonization of compliance with the long-term planning needed to accommodate the technology-driven transformation and rapid change in generation mix in the electric sector. EPA acknowledges in the proposal that CO 2 emissions in the electric sector are being reduced at a faster rate than expected and that emissions are expected to continue to decline. By not allowing averaging and trading, EPA fails to fully recognize this fact and may be forcing companies to comply with the ACE rule in ways that run counter to already established plans to continue reducing emissions in the most cost-effective manner. For instance, Duke Energy has already announced that we expect to retire a number of older, less efficient coal units in the coming years and replace the generation with low-cost and lower-emitting natural gas and 9 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000022 ED_002409 _00007700-00009 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 renewables. 13 This will have the effect of significantly reducing CO 2 emissions, likely at an even greater level than what the ACE rule would require, yet EPA' s prohibition on averaging and trading would not allow Duke Energy to capture any of those emission reductions. This will have the effect of unnecessarily raising costs on customers. Duke Energy agrees with EPA's proposal to allow averaging among affected units at a given facility and also agrees that reductions at non-affected units should not be allowed to demonstrate compliance. However, EPA' s reluctance to allow states to utilize flexible options for demonstrating compliance among affected EGUs at different facilities is misplaced, especially in light of CAA Section 11 l(d)(l)(B) specifically assigning the role of providing for the implementation and enforcement of the standards of performance to the states. Duke Energy encourages EPA to allow states to avail themselves of the full flexibility permitted under the statute to determine how sources can meet the standards of performance. Mechanisms such as averaging and trading should explicitly be allowed, so long as they are restricted to only affected EGU s of the same type. The CAA Title IV NOx averaging program 14 is an example of a simple but effective program that has provided for compliance in a cost-effective manner by allowing emissions averaging across multiple facilities. An individual state could emulate the basic format of this program and develop an averaging program that would include all its sources within the state. Furthermore, there could even be programs that encompass sources in multiple states, provided the individual state programs are compatible. 13 Duke Energy. (2018). 2017 Duke Energy Sustainability Report. Retrieved from https://sustainabilityreport.dukeenergy.com/downloads/2017-DukeSR.pdf 14 40 CFR Part 76.11 10 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000023 ED_002409_00007700-00010 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 IV. BSER Determination A. EPA's Candidate Technologies Approach Is Appropriate and Comprehensive As noted above, EPA has proposed to determine that the BSER for affected existing coal- fired EGUs is heat rate improvements. Specifically, EPA is proposing a list ofHRI "candidate technologies" for states to use in establishing unit-specific standards of performance in a state plan. Rather than require the states to evaluate an exhaustive list of potential HRI measures, EPA has directed states to only evaluate those measures that are anticipated to be the most impactful in reducing the CO 2 emissions rate for each individual unit. EPA correctly recognizes that some owners/operators will have already deployed some or all of these measures and operated and maintained the unit to optimize its efficiency, such that there may be no further applicable HRI measures to employ. Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA explicitly requires EPA to take cost into account when determining the best system of emission reduction. EPA has followed this statutory direction by evaluating the cost in dollars per kilowatt (kW) of a number of HRI measures and establishing cost thresholds of $50/kW and $100/kW for their application. For a given unit, there may be additional HRI measures that can be considered cost-effective based on the cost thresholds established by EPA but may not be available or cost-justified across the universe of coal-fired EGUs. It is appropriate for EPA to allow these additional HRI measures to be utilized for compliance at a given unit, but it would not meet the statutory definition of "adequately demonstrated" for EPA to require such measures at every unit across the country. Duke Energy recommends that EPA additionally provide these cost threshold values on the basis of dollars per ton of CO 2 removed, as it had done in the analysis for the Clean Power Plan. 15 This would better 15 80 FR 64791 11 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000024 ED_002409_00007700-00011 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 inform states in their evaluation of source-specific measures, particularly for units that have a short remaining useful life or operate at a very low capacity factor. B. EPA Has Correctly Excluded CCS and Co-firing from the BSER but Should Allow These Technologies to be Utilized to Demonstrate Compliance EPA has proposed that carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fuel co-firing should not be included in the BSER. EPA has determined that these technologies are not adequately demonstrated or readily available on a nationwide basis at a reasonable cost. Duke Energy agrees with this determination. Duke Energy is retrofitting coal-fired units at several facilities to allow for the co-firing of natural gas. 16 However, due to several factors, gas co-firing is not intended or even available to be applied on a continuous basis. We have invested in co-firing with natural gas particularly where there is volatility in fuel prices for a given facility. The flexibility to utilize gas when market conditions are favorable serves to enhance the viability of coal-fired generating assets by allowing the EGU to continue to economically dispatch. Requiring co-firing as a practice to be included in a BSER evaluation would remove that flexibility and would redefine the source by replacing a market-driven decision with a command-and-control requirement to utilize a specific quantity of natural gas in order to meet a specific performance standard. In contrast, any requirement to burn natural gas has implications for the natural gas market as well by affecting wholesale electricity prices, creating potential reliability concerns, and increasing heating costs for consumers. For example, under such a requirement, a coal-fired unit may be required to co-fire natural gas even in a situation where the gas market is constrained 16 Duke Energy. (2018). 2017 Duke E,nergy Sustainability Report. Retrieved from https://sustainabilityreport.dukeenergy.com/downloads/2017-DukeSR.pdf 12 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000025 ED_002409_00007700-00012 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 due to high demand during the winter heating season, and/or situations of limited supply due to pipeline constraints. Duke Energy has experienced situations, such as during the 2014 polar vortex, where high natural gas demand has made gas unavailable and precluded units from operating. EPA notes correctly in the proposal "that co-firing of natural gas in co-fired utility boilers is not the best, most efficient use of natural gas and ... can lead to inefficient operation of utility boilers." 17 In addition, EPA states," .. .it would not be an environmentally positive outcome for utilities and owner/operators to redirect natural gas from the more efficient NGCC EGUs to the less efficient coal-fired EGUs in order to satisfy an emission standard at the coalfired unit." 18 EPA should therefore leave any decisions about co-firing up to individual utilities and states that may choose to use it as a compliance tool, rather than considering it for BSER. Regarding CCS, in the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA stated: However, application of CCS at existing units would entail additional considerations beyond those at issue for new units. Specifically, the cost of integrating a retrofit CCS system into an existing facility would be expected to be substantial, and some existing EGUs might have space limitations and thus might not be able to accommodate the expansion needed to install CCS. Further, the aggregated costs of applying CCS as a component of the BSER for the large number of existing fossil fuel-fired steam EGUs would be substantial and would be expected to affect the cost and potentially the supply of electricity on a national basis. 19 EPA has proposed to reaffirm that conclusion in the ACE proposal, stating that it " ... has previously determined that CCS (or partial CCS) should not be a part of the BSER for existing 17 83 FR 44762 Ibid. 19 79 FR 34857 18 13 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000026 ED_002409_00007700-00013 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 fossil fuel-fired EGUs because it was significantly more expensive than alternative options for reducing emissions and may not be a viable option for many individual facilities." 20 Duke Energy agrees and is not aware of any new information which would suggest CCS is viable for broad application on EGUs, particularly existing EGUs. EPA proposes to allow both BSER and non-BSER measures to be used by sources to demonstrate compliance, so long as the measures are implemented at the source itself and are measurable at the source of emissions using data, emissions monitoring equipment, or other methods to demonstrate compliance. EPA specifically notes that there are emissions reduction technologies that are not candidate technologies; CCS and fuel co-firing are examples of measures that would meet these criteria. Duke Energy is a strong supporter of allowing states and affected EGU s extensive flexibility in meeting the standards of performance and agrees that measures such as co-firing of natural gas should be allowed as voluntary options for compliance. However, as discussed above, even broader flexibilities should be extended to sources in meeting their standards of performance. This will help ensure that compliance can be readily achieved, consistent with our longer-term plans to modernize our system and reduce emissions in a manner to ensure reliability and affordability for our customers. C. EPA Was Correct in Not Identifying a BSER for Combustion Turbines By establishing CO 2 emissions standards for stationary combustion turbines under Section l l 1(b), EPA must also prescribe regulations developing a procedure by which states establish standards of performance for combustion turbines under Section 111(d). However, in the ACE proposal, EPA has not included stationary combustion turbines that meet the definition of either a combined cycle or combined heat and power combustion turbine as affected EGUs 20 83 FR 44761 14 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000027 ED_002409_00007700-00014 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 under this rule. EPA made this determination after evaluating the potential opportunities for emission reductions at natural gas-fired combustion turbines and finding that the reductions would be small and expensive as compared to the proposed BSER of heat rate improvements at coal-fired EGUs. This is consistent with EPA's conclusion in the final Clean Power Plan, 21 where it also determined that HRI measures at combustion turbines were not adequately demonstrated and thus could not constitute BSER. Duke Energy agrees with EPA' s determination. As detailed in an attachment to the Utility Air Regulatory Group's comments, actions that might improve combustion turbines' heat rates are highly unit- and manufacturer-specific and costs are rarely reported. In fact, some manufacturers do not off er such upgrades for gas turbines at all. 22 Further, as noted in that report, improvements to the steam cycle in natural gas combined cycle units would similarly provide marginal benefit, and EPA was therefore correct in not identifying changes to natural gas simpleor combined cycle units as BSER. Duke Energy further notes that the variable nature of combustion turbine utilization would make ascertaining the effect of a heat rate improvement upon the unit's CO 2 emission rate difficult, if not impossible. As EPA acknowledged in its proposal and in the CPP final rule, it does not have sufficient information to justify establishing a BSER for this source category. If EPA does decide to regulate combustion turbines under 11 l(d), EPA should initiate a separate rulemaking to take comment on the newly acquired information that would be necessary to underpin such a determination. In addition, in any such BSER determination, EPA should recognize that it previously established 111(b) standards of performance for new and reconstructed base load 21 80 FR 64 728 Cichanowicz, J. Edward, Availability and Cost of Heat Rate Improvement (HRI) Actions Applicable to Gas Turbines in the Context of the Ajjbrdable Clean Energy Rule, October 2018. 22 15 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000028 ED_002409_00007700-00015 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 natural gas-fired units of 1,000 lb/MWh-gross. 23 This value should be considered a backstop, as no existing combustion turbine should have a standard of performance more stringent than the standard for a new combustion turbine. Thus, any existing units that emit at a lower rate than that standard should not be subject to further regulatory requirements beyond reporting of emission rate. D. EPA Should Exclude Steam Generating Units Burning Exclusively Natural Gas EPA has proposed that an affected electric generating unit (EGU) under this rule is any fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating unit that is not an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) unit and that was in operation or had commenced construction as of August 31, 2018, with certain exclusions as identified in the proposal. In particular, the rule would only apply to fossil fuel-fired EGUs with a "nameplate" generator rating of 25 MW or greater and a fossil fuel heat input rating of 250 MMBtu/hr or greater. Duke Energy recommends that EPA explicitly exclude steam generating units that burn exclusively natural gas from being an affected EGU under this rule. Very little opportunity for heat rate improvements exist at natural gas-fired boilers, and many of the candidate HRI projects in EPA's proposal would not even be applicable. In Duke Energy's experience, EGUs that have been converted from coal to gas typically operate at a low capacity factor, which undermines the cost-effectiveness of HRI measures. Emissions from natural gas-fired boilers are also inherently lower than emissions from comparable coal-fired boilers, because the fuel is less carbonintensive. In fact, with few exceptions, 24 existing natural gas-fired boilers have a CO 2 emissions rate that is below the performance standard that applies to modified or reconstructed steam 23 80 FR 64513 Duke Energy reviewed the EPA CAivID database and found that, of 260 natural gas fired EGU boilers that reported generation values, 90% of the units had a calculated emissions rate less than 1,800 lb CO/ivIWh-gross. 24 16 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000029 ED_002409_00007700-00016 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 generating units (1,800 or 2,000 lb/MWh, depending on size of the unit). 25 Including natural gasfired boilers would require states to expend significant resources in evaluating the candidate HRI technologies and sources to incur regulatory burden without providing commensurate emissions reductions. E. EPA Was Correct in Excluding IGCC Units from the BSER Duke Energy owns and operates Edwardsport Station, a 618-MW IGCC facility in Knox County, Indiana. The facility began commercial operation in 2013, and is one of only two existing IGCC facilities in operation. These facilities are, by design, constructed, operated, and maintained to provide highly efficient generation utilizing available coal resources. The electric generation process for an IGCC facility is very similar to a natural gas-fired combined cycle unit, and in fact these facilities typically operate as a natural gas-fired combined cycle unit when the coal gasification system is not producing syngas. However, the coal gasification process is radically different than any conventional coal boiler system, and the elements that EPA has proposed as BSER have no meaning for an IGCC. Just as there are no demonstrated costeffective heat rate improvement measures applicable to natural gas-fired combined cycle EGUs, there are no such measures applicable to IGCCs. Duke Energy therefore agrees with EPA's determination to exclude IGCC facilities from the BSER determination and the 11 l(d) rule. V. EPA Must Ensure that the Standards of Performance Are Achievable EPA's proposed rule requires that states determine unit-specific standards of performance for affected EGUs within their state. In order to ensure continuity and simplicity, EPA proposes that states must express the standard in the form of an emissions rate in terms of mass of CO 2 25 80 FR 64513 17 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000030 ED_002409_00007700-00017 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 emitted per unit of energy, such as pounds CO 2 per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh). EPA solicits comment on whether other forms of the standard of performance should be allowed. CAA 11 l(a)(l) specifically requires that the standard of performance reflect "the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction ...." Duke Energy is very concerned that EPA has not provided sufficient information to states to ensure that they can establish a standard of performance that is achievable for a given source and that EPA has unnecessarily limited state flexibility by requiring only one form of the standard. In the proposal, EPA acknowledges that not only do heat rates vary substantially among coal-fired EGUs, but units themselves also experience significant variability in heat rates during normal operation. EPA specifically notes several factors that impact the efficiency and performance of individual units and that are largely out of the operator's control, such as geography, elevation and weather, unit size, coal type, pollution controls, cooling system, firing method, and utilization rate. 26 While EPA uses this to justify its proposed approach of tailoring measures to a source-by-source basis of application, EPA fails to mention that this variability in and of itself makes it challenging to establish a source-specific standard of performance in the first place that is representative of the unit's baseline operation and expected future operation, and accounts for degradation over time of the HRI measures established as BSER for a given source. EPA proposed to allow states flexibility in establishing unit-specific emission rates but, aside from noting specific factors that may allow for a variance from the emission guideline, EPA provides little detail around the criteria states must take into account in setting standards of 26 83 FR 44755 18 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000031 ED_002409_00007700-00018 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 performance. Duke Energy suggests that EPA ensure that states take these following factors into consideration. A. Standards of Performance Should Factor in Representative Historic Operation and Expected Future Operation Duke Energy recommends that multiple years of historical operation should be used to establish unit-specific standards of performance. As discussed in detail later, because maintenance outage cycles for major boiler and generator components may be five years or more, a reasonable lookback period for determining the emission rate is at least 10 years. Review of historical emissions within the lookback period should include an evaluation of emission rates achieved during a variety of operating and maintenance conditions. The figures below demonstrate how sensitive emission rate is to unit load for a representative coal-fired unit in Duke Energy's fleet, Marshall Unit 4. Figure 1 indicates that the average load at Marshall Unit 4 has declined by approximately 14% between 2007 and 2017, resulting in an annual average CO 2 emissions rate increase of approximately 6%. 19 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000032 ED_002409_00007700-00019 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Figure l: Marshall Unit 4 Operation from 2007-2017 Figure 2 depicts the unit's average CO 2 emissions rate in 2017, from typical full load operation (approximately 700 MW) to typical minimum load (approximately 275 MW). The emission rate varies from approximately 1,840 to 2,000 lb C0 2/MWh-gross, about a 9% difference from full load to minimum load. 20 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000033 ED_002409 _00007700-00020 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 MarshanUnit 4 2017 Hourly Data {ExdudesData Below 100 MW) $ I"" ,,x,u ·\------4----i-~_:::::o ,I ,,/:'\"" ·~ ,,.@«••«•@••«•@••@«f•«•@••«•@••«•@•·@{@•«•@•·"'"""••«ft''+,•"· w N t@}t) 8 ·i----~----;------,,---;,---------'-~ Figure 2: Marshall Unit 4 Operation in 2017 from Typical Full Load to Typical Minimum Load The standards must also reflect expected future unit operation, in light of the rapidly changing nature of how coal-fired EGU s are utilized on the electric grid. EPA requires in the proposed § 60.5740a (a)( 4)(i) that states include in their plan a summary of each affected EGU's anticipated future operation. This information should be utilized by states to consider how an EGU will operate in the future in the process of determining an achievable standard of performance. EPA should explicitly require that states include in their plan submittal a description of how expected future operation was taken into account in establishing the standard of performance. 21 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000034 ED_002409 _00007700-00021 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 B. Standards of Performance Can Take Multiple Forms Coal-fired EGUs are expected to experience increased cycling and to function more as load-following resources as natural gas and renewable generation on the electric grid increases. This operation results in significant variation in capacity factors and thus in heat rates on an annual, daily, or even hourly basis. As many coal-fired units will operate at lower or highly variable load ranges going forward, EPA should explicitly provide states the flexibility to establish differing standards corresponding to a unit's anticipated load range or capacity factor as a factor that a state considers under Section 11 l(d). This could be implemented by determining multiple standards of a performance for a given unit, based on anticipated future operation. These standards could consist of variations of the same form (e.g., lb/MWh at different load levels) or possibly a different form than an emission rate. This would allow the applicable standard for the unit to be more representative of its actual utilization and thus achievable. Figure 3 demonstrates the day-to-day variability in hourly emissions rate for Marshall Unit 4 due to frequently changing load levels, and the impracticality of trying to demonstrate compliance with a single emissions rate established for all load levels. 22 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000035 ED_002409 _00007700-00022 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 ~/{f} ........................................ ,...................................... , ............................................................................................................................................................................................. , ....................... , ........ .. ihn:c.JJ Pth•.•17 fria:t;Jl Apt,·1? :M:&>/y Comments on the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule. 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830 (June 18, 2014), December 1, 2014," EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0602-27188, pp. 184-186. 25 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000038 ED_002409 _00007700-00025 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 requirements in the current 40 CFR Part 75 and with other output-based emissions standards for existing EGUs, and with the EPA's gross output standard for new EGUs under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart TTTT. 2) To calculate net heat rate, net MWh generation must be measured, which will require significant and costly changes to the way auxiliary power usage is measured at EGU facilities. For many components, electrical consumption is not measured directly at the component but aggregated at various load centers. 3) Net heat rate entails measuring electricity used by numerous auxiliary support processes that are not part of the affected source, such as fuels and materials handling systems, water intake structures and cooling towers, and general facility systems such as HV AC and instrument air compressors. Those facilities are beyond the scope of the affected source but essentially become regulated by requiring the use of net generation. 4) Net heat rate may also be challenging for multiple unit facilities. It is very common that certain auxiliary equipment at a facility is shared between multiple generating units. For example, Duke Energy has multiple facilities where common FGD systems are shared between two or more generating units. The auxiliary power used for these support systems is not measured and attributed to an individual generating unit in a consistent fashion across the industry. A further complication comes when a facility has one or more generating units in service and has others that are shut down but that still consume some amount of auxiliary power even when not operating. However, to provide full flexibility, states should retain the option to allow a source to demonstrate compliance based on net heat rate to allow for implementation of any cost-effective 26 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000039 ED_002409 _00007700-00026 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 measures that an EGU may choose to implement which would reduce overall auxiliary power consumption. To facilitate this process, two things must happen. First, EPA would have to establish an option parameter in Part 75 to allow sources to begin reporting net generation. Second, individual sources would need to work with their states to agree upon exactly how net generation would be reported on a unit-by-unit basis. There are substantial differences between individual units, and it would be cost-prohibitive to force all EGUs to fit into a single model monitoring plan. States can best decide what factors are quantified as auxiliary power, which constitutes the difference between gross and net generation for each unit, and the requirements for the equipment that measures this generation. VI. EPA M:UstProvide Specificity to States to Facilitate Demonstration of Compliance As required in CAA Section 11 l(d)(l)(B), state plans must provide for the implementation and enforcement of the standards of performance. EPA proposes that state plan components, such as monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, are sufficient to meet that requirement. EPA further proposes in § 60.5755a(b) that the unit-specific standards of performance established by the states must be quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, and enforceable for each affected EGU. EPA solicits comment on whether other measures may be needed for states to meet the 11 l(d)(l)(B) requirements. Duke Energy believes that EPA must provide more specificity to inform states and sources how compliance with the standard of performance will be determined to meet the proposed § 60.5755a(b) requirements. As noted above, the variability associated with typical unit operation coupled with the uncertainty associated with the CEMS measurements could easily overwhelm the improvements that would come from the application ofHRI or other measures a source may implement to comply with the performance standard. As a result, sources may not be 27 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000040 ED_002409 _00007700-00027 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 able to demonstrate compliance on an ongoing basis despite the source being properly operated and maintained and implementing the applicable HRI measures as determined by the state. This is very concerning, because as noted previously, the terms "emission limitation" and "emission standard" in CAA 302(k) require that a source "assure[s] continuous emission reduction." Duke Energy strongly recommends that EPA provide the states a procedure for enforcing a standard to ensure that sources can demonstrate compliance when they have implemented the applicable HRI measures and the unit has been properly operated and maintained. EPA should also allow states the option, as an alternative to using Part 75 monitoring to determine compliance, to provide for periodic verification of performance through a defined full load testing protocol to demonstrate that the EGU meets the performance standard. To assure continuous compliance, the state plan could provide for additional parametric monitoring and maintaining records of operations, maintenance, and corrective actions to restore performance, such as via use of a Compliance Assurance Monitoring Plan. This approach would assure that the focus of the rule is on implementing and achieving best practices to maintain or improve heat rate (and the CO2 emissions rate) at an EGU. A. EPA Should Provide Additional Guidance Around Averaging Times and Compliance Deadlines EPA' s proposal notes that states have discretion to establish averaging times for affected EGUs in order to demonstrate compliance with the standards of performance. EPA specifically asks for comment on whether there should be bounds to the averaging times states are allowed to consider. For the following reasons, Duke Energy believes that the averaging time for a standard of performance should be a five-year block averaging time, consistent with typical planning and maintenance cycles. 28 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000041 ED_002409 _00007700-00028 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 A five-year block averaging time makes sense because power generators are required to meet customer demand instantaneously, even though it varies seasonally and hourly. Because complex equipment can fail unexpectedly, utilities must have generation capacity in reserve, ready to operate at a moment's notice. As a result, EGUs must be available to operate for extended periods whenever called upon. At the same time, to be ready for varying and instantaneous demand, planned maintenance outages require extensive tear-down and restoration of large components that may require weeks to months out of service. Typical schedules for major maintenance outage vary by the individual unit but can be five years or more on a unit that has been operated and maintained in accordance with routine procedures to assure ongoing operational reliability. Gradual degradation of mechanical components and systems is inherent between scheduled maintenance outages, and this degradation impacts heat rate and the CO 2 emissions rate relative to electrical output. In addition to normal degradation, EGUs may experience unavoidable malfunctions or breakdowns of mechanical/physical components that may impact heat rate and CO 2 emission rate. EGUs require a high degree of resiliency so that operation can continue following temporary repairs or corrective actions in response to failure of certain components (e.g., damage to turbine blades, failure of a feedwater heater, or boiler steam tubes), where full repair would require a long lead time to secure materials and/or would require an extended outage. If an EGU were forced to remain offline until full repairs can be made to restore short-term heat rate and CO 2 emissions rate following unavoidable malfunctions, there could be serious implications for electric reliability. Duke Energy also appreciates EPA' s proposal to allow states the flexibility to establish custom compliance schedules. This tailoring will allow states to take source-specific 29 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000042 ED_002409 _00007700-00029 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 considerations into account when establishing deadlines rather than having to enforce a uniform compliance period. Similar to averaging time, these compliance timelines should also be informed by a unit's typical planning and maintenance cycles. As a result, EPA should require states to harmonize the averaging period and compliance schedule for a source to reduce burden and facilitate compliance. B. EPA Should Consider Providing a Numerical Backstop EPA proposed not to provide states a default methodology for determining standards of performance consistent with the BSER. Specifically, EPA references the standard for modified sources, which was based on historical emissions rate of the unit. EPA notes that the circumstances for establishing a standard for modified units are different from those for existing units. In addition, EPA posits that such a presumptive standard could be seen as limiting states' ability to deviate from such a standard and would have the overall effect of binding state flexibility, in conflict with the statutory direction in 11 l(d). Duke Energy largely agrees with this rationale and believes that EPA has accordingly determined BSER and the procedure for states to establish standards of performance. However, Duke Energy believes that EPA should consider specifying the 111(b) modified or reconstructed standard (or an alternative less stringent emission rate) as a floor for the emission rate for existing EGUs established in this rule. For modified or reconstructed steam generating units, EPA based the standards "on the performance of the most efficient generating technology for these types of units as the BSER (i.e., reconstructing the boiler if necessary to use steam with higher temperature and pressure, even if the boiler was not originally designed to do so)." 30 The standards are 1,800 lb CO2/MWh-gross for large sources (heat input rating greater than 2,000 30 80 FR 64514 30 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000043 ED_002409 _00007700-00030 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 MMBtu/hr), or 2,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross for small sources (heat input rating of 2,000 MMBtu/hr or less). Because these standards were based on EPA's determination of the "most efficient generating technology" for existing units that undergo reconstruction, it would not be appropriate to subject existing units that are not undergoing modification or reconstruction to a more stringent performance standard. From a practical point of view, it is cost-prohibitive to upgrade an existing EGU to higher-pressure steam, make significant increases in steam temperature, or convert from a sub-critical to a supercritical technology, and such measures would go well beyond the candidate technologies EPA has proposed as the BSER for existing sources. In setting the NSPS for modified or reconstructed coal-fired EGUs, EPA determined that BSER was the EGU's best one-year historical performance and could be met through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. 31 Duke Energy believes this standard should be the floor for existing units, although EPA could establish a higher floor that is more representative of existing steam generating units based on the data in the record. C. States Should Allow for Process Steam from Cogeneration Units to be Used for Compliance The proposed rule does not address how states should evaluate an EGU that supplies part of the steam produced to an industrial process. Duke Energy's Cayuga Station operates with a contractual obligation to provide steam to a neighboring manufacturing facility. The proposed rule does not include combined heat and power facilities as affected units, but there are a number of EGUs in the United States that provide some amount of steam for other industrial or commercial uses that would be affected units. It would be helpful for EPA to provide a formula 31 80 FR 64513 31 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000044 ED _002409 _00007700-00031 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 for how steam generated for other useful purposes can be counted by states toward compliance with the performance standard. VII. EPA's Revisions to the lll(d) Implementing Regulations Are Appropriate Section 111(d) requires EPA to issue regulations establishing a procedure under which states submit plans establishing standards of performance for existing sources. The plans must also provide for the implementation and enforcement for such standards. The regulations must be similar to those provided by Section 110 and must allow states to take into account remaining useful life of a source, among other factors, in determining a source's standard of performance. These regulations, first issued by EPA in 1975, are known as the 11 l(d) implementing regulations. EPA is proposing changes to these implementing regulations to reflect post-1975 changes to the statutory language in Sections 110 and 111. Rather than permanently revise the current implementing regulations in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60, which could impact the implementation of previously finalized rules and approved state plans, EPA is proposing to establish a new Subpart Ba that would apply to this rule and future actions under Section 11 l(d). Duke Energy generally supports this approach and EPA' s proposed changes to the implementing regulations. A. Updates to Timing Requirements EPA proposes a number of changes applicable to this rule and future emission guidelines to the timing requirements in the existing 11 l(d) implementing regulations, all of which are informed by EPA' s experience implementing the requirements of Section 110, and the statutory direction to align with State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission under Section 110. Duke Energy supports these changes. 32 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000045 ED_002409 _00007700-00032 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 In particular, the current implementing regulations in 40 CFR 60.23(a)(l) require states to submit state plans within nine months after the publication of an emission guideline document, unless otherwise specified. While this provides some flexibility to EPA to provide a longer timeline for state plan submission, as was allowed in the Clean Power Plan, it would be logical for EPA to extend that timeline to a more reasonable duration and allow state discretion to submit state plans on an earlier timeline. EPA has done so by proposing to allow three years for plan submission but leaves the option open of requiring a shorter timeline for a future action. While Duke Energy appreciates that EPA wishes to retain the option of a shorter timeline going forward, three years is a reasonable time frame, particularly in light of the effort required by states to evaluate the candidate HRI technologies and establish standards of performance on a unit-specific basis. EPA also proposes changes to the time frame for review of state plan submittals. The proposed changes require EPA to make a determination about the plan's completeness within six months after it is submitted, with a 12-month period for evaluation of the state plan after the determination of completeness. Duke Energy strongly supports EPA' s inclusion of specific completeness criteria in order to prevent any confusion or ambiguity about the state plan requirements and the criteria against which EPA is evaluating them for completeness. The state plan review time frame being specifically tied to the time frame for the determination of completeness also provides additional clarity to all parties regarding the review process. Finally, EPA proposes to allow two years from the date EPA disapproves a state plan or finds that it is incomplete to issue a federal plan. This is also reasonable because EPA would also have to establish unit-specific standards of performance with the same rigor applied by the states. Additionally, allowing for two years could provide sufficient time for the state to attempt to 33 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000046 ED_002409 _00007700-00033 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 provide an approvable state plan by remedying any of the elements of the state plan that led to EPA disapproval. B. Variance Provisions and Remaining Useful Life EPA proposes changes to 40 CFR 60.24(±), which allows states to apply less stringent emissions standards or longer compliance schedules than what the emission guidelines would require. This is also known as the variance provision. The new variance provision would specifically enumerate remaining useful life as a factor states may consider in determining a source's standard of performance. This is critical, as it now clearly aligns the implementing regulations with the statutory language in Section 11 l(d)(l)(B). However, the statutory language also states that states may take "other factors" into account. EPA specifically requests comment on what "other factors" states should be allowed to consider besides remaining useful life. In addition, EPA solicits comment on what a standard might look like for a source with a short remaining useful life or one that has already implemented all of the HRI measures identified as the BSER. While the revision to include remaining useful life is a useful and necessary change in light of the statutory text, it is unnecessary for EPA to provide a comprehensive list of sourcespecific factors that a state may consider, and, in fact, doing so may have the effect of constraining state flexibility in establishing standards. As noted above, it is critical that states take future operation into account in establishing source-specific standards of performance. EPA specifically requires that state plans include a summary of each affected EGU's anticipated future operation characteristics in the proposed§ 60.5740a(a)(4). This information, which will help inform states in determining the overall cost-effectiveness and applicability of HRI measures, may give meaning to the statutory term "other factors." In general, it would be helpful 34 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000047 ED_002409 _00007700-00034 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 for EPA to provide specific examples of how these other factors could be utilized to allow states to provide source-specific flexibility in an approvable plan. C. Compliance Deadlines Duke Energy appreciates EPA' s efforts to provide state flexibility by allowing states to establish custom compliance schedules for each source. Coupled with the variance provision in the implementing regulations, this will provide a significant degree of latitude to states in tailoring plan requirements on a source-specific basis. This flexibility is under the authority of the proposed applicability provisions, which allow for each emission guideline to include specific provisions that supersede the requirement that the EPA Administrator must establish the time within which compliance is to be achieved. The current implementing regulations require legally enforceable increments of progress to be established for any compliance schedule extending more than 12 months from the date required for plan submittal. EPA proposes to extend this timeline to 24 months, which better comports with EPA' s proposal to allow states to establish tailored compliance deadlines for sources. However, as noted earlier, an averaging period of at least five years would be logical to allow for implementation of required HRI measures and to account for expected operational variability. As a result, if EPA requires sources to demonstrate incremental progress prior to the established compliance date, the legally enforceable metrics should be demonstration of proper operation and maintenance, as well as completion of or plans to implement the applicable measures required in the approved state plan. VIII. Revisions to the New Source Review Program Are Needed EPA' s current interpretation of the New Source Review (NSR) provisions under the Clean Air Act has been a source of protracted litigation and regulatory uncertainty that has 35 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000048 ED_002409 _00007700-00035 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 strongly discouraged unit owners/operators from carrying out projects that would maintain or improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of their units. This is particularly important in the context of the ACE rule, as the measures that states may require sources to implement are precisely the type of projects where EPA has litigated utilities over alleged NSR violations. If NSR is not reformed in conjunction with the ACE rule, the costs of implementing HRI measures could increase significantly beyond the estimates made in this rule. As a result, unit owners/operators could choose to shut their units down instead of dealing with the burden associated with NSR permitting. As a result, Duke Energy strongly supports EPA's efforts to reform the NSR program's applicability provisions and recommends the following changes to EPA's proposal. A. Duke Energy Supports an Hourly Emissions Rate Test Duke Energy supports adoption of a "maximum achievable" hourly emissions rate test as the first step to determine whether a project is a "modification" of the existing stationary source. An NSR maximum achievable hourly emissions test, consistent with the "maximum hourly" emissions test used under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program, 32 provides a clear standard for comparing pre-project and post-project hourly emissions and would encourage projects at EGUs to maintain safe, reliable and efficient operation. Unlike the ambiguous annual emissions tests of "actual to potential actual" or "actual to future actual" that have been the subject of extensive litigation, the NSPS hourly emissions test focusing on pre-project compared to post-project hourly emissions is clear-cut and has withstood judicial challenge since the inception of the NSPS program in the 1970s. 32 40 CFR 60.14 36 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000049 ED_002409 _00007700-00036 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 An NSR maximum achievable hourly emissions test isolates whether the project directly and specifically causes an increase in the unit's hourly emissions by evaluating a unit's performance under the same conditions before and after the project or change in the method of operation. Additionally, the proposed maximum hourly emissions test allows the stationary source's operator to evaluate potential emission changes based on the specifics of the individual project, emission factors and the operating characteristics of the unit. The basic premise is that if a project does not expand the size or capacity of the source (i.e., increasing its fuel firing capability, or throughput), or does not increase the emissions rate of an existing pollutant or cause the unit to begin emitting a new pollutant, then it will not increase its hourly emissions. Thus, if there is no increase in hourly emissions attributable to the project, then the project is not considered a modification. For example, like-kind replacement of equipment, as demonstrated by decades of operational experience, would not be expected to cause an increase in hourly emissions during the post-project period. Therefore, the proposed maximum achievable test allows the operator to reasonably exclude conditions that may increase emissions but are not related to a project or physical change, such as fuel constituents and costs, climate conditions, and variable operating costs. Conversely, Duke Energy does not support EPA' s proposed Alternatives I and 2, which are based on "maximum achieved" emissions. These alternative proposals for calculating maximum achieved emissions rate pre-project and post-project are confusing, do not account for causation, and create a cumbersome recordkeeping burden on the operator. As noted above, emissions measurement is subject to significant uncertainty, limiting the ability to calculate maximum achieved hourly emissions with sufficient accuracy and precision for purposes of this review. 37 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000050 ED _002409 _00007700-00037 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 EPA has the authority to utilize an hourly emissions rate test because when Congress enacted the NSR program, it did not specify the basis for calculating emissions increases. That was left to EPA's discretion in balancing environmental goals with economic impacts. Additionally, EPA is correct in asserting that an "achievable" test is equivalent to an evaluation of actual emissions. The maximum achievable hourly emissions rate test is not a theoretical maximum capability test (maximum potential test); rather, it is a measure of what a source was actually able to emit based on physical and operational capacities demonstrated during a representative period prior to the change. Moreover, EPA' s NSPS regulations state that if a source cannot clearly demonstrate through the use of emission factors or engineering analysis that an emissions increase will not occur, then the source must conduct actual testing under conditions representative of the baseline period to ensure that no increase has occurred. 33 Use of a maximum achievable hourly emissions rate test is consistent with this requirement. B. EPA M:UstClarify that "Causation" Is Required Under the One-Hour Test Obviously, the purpose of having a one-hour test is to determine whether a physical or operational change may be a "modification" for which an NSR permit is required. The statutory definition of a modification is as follows: The term "modification" means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source, ~whichincreases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. 34 33 34 40 CFR 60.14(b)(2) 42 U.S.C. §7411(a)(4) 38 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000051 ED_002409 _00007700-00038 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Thus, as a legal matter, the relevant question is whether a physical or operational change "increases" emissions from the source or "results in" emissions of a pollutant not previously emitted- i.e., whether the change will cause an emissions increase. This is why EPA's NSR regulations have always provided that, when a source is projecting what future emissions will be after a physical or operational change, it should exclude emissions that are "unrelated to the particular project, including any increased utilization due to product demand growth." 35 We are concerned, however, that the proposed rule does not explicitly state that causation is a required element under any of the proposed EGU hourly emission test alternatives. To the contrary, there is language in the preamble suggesting that "any increase in the emissions under the hourly emissions tests [after a change] would logically be attributed to the change." 36 This is simply incorrect. There are several reasons why the hourly emissions rate of a pollutant can increase that have nothing to do with any physical or operational change. For example, when it comes to SO2 emissions, natural variability of the sulfur content in the fuel could easily cause an increase in the hourly SO2 emissions. Unless a source made a change to accommodate higher sulfur coal, such an increase is unrelated to any change. Second, ambient conditions have an effect on an EGU' s hourly emissions rate. If a unit is operating in ambient conditions that it did not experience during the baseline period (or if there is combination of operations and ambient conditions that did not occur during the baseline period), its hourly emissions may increase regardless of whether there has been any physical or operational change. Likewise, changes in market conditions can influence a unit's hourly emissions. While Duke Energy expects that capacity factors on coal-fired EGUs will generally continue to decline due in part to the availability of low-cost natural gas, the price of natural gas 35 36 40 CFR 52.2l(b)(41)(ii)(c) 83 FR 44 778 39 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000052 ED _002409 _00007700-00039 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 could increase significantly for a short period of time. If a coal-fired unit has been operating in a certain manner during the baseline period when natural gas prices are low, operation may be different during periods of higher natural gas prices, thus impacting the ability to demonstrate that the unit did not exceed the hourly emissions test. Thus, in the final rule, EPA should clarify that, under any hourly test, the question is whether a particular physical or operational change will cause (or has caused) an increase in hourly emissions. If there is an increase that is unrelated to a physical or operational change, then the change is not a modification and there is no need to apply the annual test to determine whether there will be (or has been) a major modification that requires an NSR permit. C. EPA Should Simplify the M:ethod for the Emission Rate Test Duke Energy promotes the use of a maximum achievable hourly emission rate test but recommends that the method EPA has proposed should be simplified. Through use of the maximum achievable test, there are only two reasons why a project could potentially result in an emission rate increase: Either there is an increase to the hourly heat input capability of the unit (the amount of fuel fired), or there is an increase to the emission rate of a pollutant. As stated above, there are numerous projects, as demonstrated through engineering analysis and operating experience, that would not be expected to show an emission rate increase. Examples of this include the replacement of electric motors, piping, boiler tubing, leaking valves, air heater seals, soot blower components, surfaces subject to wear, bearings, and turbine blading with new components that have the same function and capability. In cases like these, it is not necessary to perform a detailed numerical analysis for every instance when a project is conducted to justify whether a project would result in an emissions increase. An engineering evaluation is all that is 40 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000053 ED_002409 _00007700-00040 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 needed to determine that a particular project would change neither the heat input nor an emission rate. D. EPA Should 1\-fakeNSR Reforms Broadly Applicable Duke Energy agrees with EPA that the hourly emissions rate test should be applicable to all EGUs regardless of whether the unit is subject to the ACE rule or where the unit is located. Although some EGUs may not be subject to the ACE rule, these units should still be able to costeffectively implement efficiency or reliability projects that would result in environmental benefits. The current NSR program dis-incentivizes these sorts of HR.I projects. Duke Energy also agrees that the hourly emissions rate test should apply to all pollutants. As EPA states, " ... the candidate technologies being considered under this proposal may affect annual emissions of not only GHGs but of all pollutants from the power sector. ... " 37 Limiting the proposed hourly emission rate test to specific pollutants is not consistent with the NSR process articulated in the statute. Sources are required to assess NSR applicability for all regulated NSR pollutants prior to commencing construction of any project so there should be no discrimination. Furthermore, Duke Energy urges EPA to not give states flexibility as to whether to adopt the proposed NSR changes into their rules. EPA should instead make the changes applicable on a nationwide basis. The burdens from current NSR implementation apply to each jurisdiction, and the benefits of reform should be available to the entire regulated community. Additionally, making adoption mandatory would create consistency across all states. Duke Energy has operations spanning multiple states, and having NSR requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction would increase regulatory burden and uncertainty. 37 83 FR 44781 41 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000054 ED_002409 _00007700-00041 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 E. NSR Reforms Are Critical to the ACE Rule Duke Energy agrees that the NSR revisions are "appropriate policies in their own right" 38 and severable from the other actions proposed in the ACE rule. NSR is a stand-alone program that is not reliant on the existence of other regulatory programs, and sources are required by statute to evaluate the applicability ofNSR regardless of the applicability of other regulatory programs. However, the NSR amendments are vitally important to the viability of the ACE rule. As a result, the NSR reforms must be finalized on the same time frame as the ACE rule. If the NSR amendments are delayed in going into effect for any reason, the ACE rule must be delayed or reconsidered entirely to avoid the NSR permitting problems sources could face. IX. Conclusion We appreciate EPA's continued efforts to repeal and replace the CPP. The ACE rule limits CO 2 emissions from existing power plants in a manner that follows the Clean Air Act's requirements while respecting the important role of the states. Our suggestions herein focus on how the ACE proposal can be improved to provide appropriate flexibility to the states and ensure that compliance with emission standards can be achieved far into the future as the role of different generation sources on the electric grid change over time. We support EPA' s proposed revisions to the existing 11 l(d) implementing regulations, as well as changes to the NSR program in order to allow for common-sense projects at power plants that would increase efficiency and lower emissions. Thank you for your consideration of our comments, and we look forward to working productively with you through the implementation of a final rule. 38 83 FR 44 783 42 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000055 ED_002409 _00007700-00042 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 ■ 11■ 11■ 111 ■■■ Bi■II ® ® ® ® ® DukeEnergyis oneof thelargestelectricholding companies in the U.S.,witha regulated generating capacityof morethan52,000MW. Ourregulatedutilityoperations provideelectricityto approximately 24 millionpeoplelocatedin six states. Weprovideregulatednaturalgastransmission and distribution servicesto approximately 1.6million customers in the Carolinas, Tennessee, southwestern Ohio,andnorthernKentucky. DukeEnergyRenewables includesmorethan3,000 MWof windandsolargeneration across15states. DukeEnergyis theownerandoperatorof the nation'slargestregulatednuclearfleet. PVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000057 ED_002409_00007701-00002 2 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 m m m m m m p DukeEnergysupportsEPA'seffortsto repealtheCleanPowerPlanandreplaceit witha rulethatprovidesmoreregulatory certaintyfor the industry.Thiscertaintywill allowusto continueto providesafe,reliable,andaffordableenergyfor ourcustomers. DukeEnergysupportsthe proposedBestSystemof EmissionReduction in theACERule as an appropriate interpretation of CleanAir Act Section111. WealsosupportEPA'sproposed changesto the NewSourceReview(NSR)programto providecertaintythatactionstakento complywiththestandardsof performance do notpresent the riskof triggeringNSRpermittingrequirements. DukeEnergysupportsthe proposedrevisions to theexisting111(d) implementing regulations to betterharmonize withthestatutorytext. WehavealreadyreducedCO2 emissionsby 31% from2005levelsandplanto reducethemby 40%by 2030.It is importantthatEPAacknowledges ourstrategicplanningandinvestments to reduceemissionsby allowingfor compliance flexibility.Thiswill helpto reducecostsfor customers. In theseslides,we providesomesuggestions to makethefinalrulemorecost-effective and McJika , [e. GHT EPA-19-0240-A-000058 ED_002409_00007701-00003 3 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 11111 ■111■• t1l l•i11i111 llel1t1lit11 1111111 m m EPAhasproperlybasedthe BSERon heatrateimprovement measures thatcanbe appliedat an affectedsource.Theproposedlistof "candidate technologies" for statesto usein establishing unit-specific standardsof performance in a stateplanis appropriate. EPAappropriately excludedcarboncaptureandstorage(CCS)andco-firingfromthe BSER butshouldallowthesetechnologies to be utilizedfor compliance. Weareretrofitting severalcoal-firedunitsto allowfor co-firingof naturalgasto takeadvantage of fuel pricevariability(coalandgas);however,thisis notuniversally practical,efficient,or economicandwe agreewithEPAthatco-firingshouldnotbe BSER. iii m EPAhascorrectlynotidentifieda BSERfor combustion turbines(simpleandcombined-cycle) Measures to improveturbineheatratesareunit-andmanufacturer-specific andmaynotevenbe offered.Costsof suchactionsareoftennotwellknown. If EPAdoesintendto establisha BSERfor CTsandCCs,it mustdoso in a separaterulemaking. iii iii EPAhasappropriately excludedIGCCsfromapplicability; EPAshouldadditionally exclude steamgeneratingunitsthatexclusively burnnaturalgas. Alv1L 1 m 11 •• PVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000059 ED_002409_00007701-00004 4 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 DukeEnergysupportspoliciesthatprovidetheincentiveto reduceemissionsin the mosteconomically efficientwaypossible. EPA'spreviousallowance of flexiblecompliance mechanisms hasresultedin significant emissionsreductions at lowercostto customers.Thishasbeenallowedin other111(d)rulemakings (e.g.,EPA'semissions guidelines for largemunicipal waste combustors). Furthermore, CAA111(d)(1)(B)specifically assignstheroleof providingfor the implementation andenforcement of thestandards of performance to thestates. m FortheACErule,nothing in EPA'ssource-specific establishment of the BSER precludes compliance beingachievedusingaveraging or tradingbetweensources. m EPAshouldexplicitly allowmechanisms suchas averaging andtradingbetweenunits at differentfacilities,so longas theyarerestrictedto onlyaffectedEGUsof thesame A type . N MM MM MM PVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000060 ED_002409_00007701-00005 5 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 iii iii iii 11 11 TheTitleIV NOxAveragingProgram is an exampleof a simplebutcosteffectiveemissions averaging program. A limitwouldbeestablished for each unitindividually andaveraging could be usedto demonstrate compliance for a groupof units. Companies couldproposeplansto covertheirunitsin a givenstate. Averaging acrossmultiplestatesis evenpossibleprovidedthatthestate programs arecompatible. Averagingplanscouldalso accommodate creditfor unit retirements. J PVERSIGHT GHG Averaging Plan Example with Credit Given for Retirements, etc. Emission Actual Emissions Annual Plant Unit Limitation, lbs Rate, lbs CO2/ Generation, Name ID# CO2/ MWH MWH MWH Plant A 1 2,000 2,100 525,600 Plant A 2 2,000 2,000 788,400 Plant A 3 2,000 2,050 3,504,000 Plant B 1 1,950 1,925 4,292,400 Plant B 2 1,975 1,900 4,599,000 Plant C 1 2,100 2,175 1,095,000 Generation weighted annual emission rate averaged over the units if they are operated in accordance with t he averaging plan Generation weighted annual emission rate for the same units operated in compliance with their established limits 1,976 1,985 rr=l(EL; XGEN;) rr=1 GEN; Where, EL; = Emission limit for unit i, in lbs CO 2/ MWH AEL; = Averaging plan emission limit for unit i, in lbs CO 2/ MWH GEN; n CO 2 credit = = = Generation for unit i, in MWH Number of units in averaging plan 6 EPA-19-0240-A-000061 Amount of credit in tons given by a state for actions taken such as unit retirements, etc. ED_002409_00007701-00006 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 m m Standards of performance mustbe "achievable" for a givensource,as requiredunder CAA111(a)(1): "...thedegreeof emissionlimitationachievable throughtheapplication of thebestsystemof emissionreduction ..." EPAshouldprovideguidanceto allowstatesto establishstandardsof performance that areachievable. Statesshould: iii iii fflii iii Considerrepresentative historicoperationaswellas expectedfutureoperation. Incorporate realisticassumptions on theeffectiveness of HRImeasures overtime. Considerthecost-effectiveness of HRImeasures on units,particularly thosewithlimited remainingusefullifeor lowcapacityfactor.Provideguidanceon costpertonof CO2 reduction,as EPAprovidedin the CPP. Accountfor inherentvariabilityin emissionratesfromincreasedcyclingandloadfollowing dueto thechangingmarketrolefor coalunits. Addressmeasurement uncertainty associated withcontinuous emissionmonitoring systems otheralternative formsof monitoring. EPA-19-0240-A-000062 PvE FEfr)~ fflii ED_002409_00007701-00007 7 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Standards of Performance mustbesetsuchthata sourcethatis properlyoperatedand maintained andhasimplemented appropriate HRImeasures shouldbedeemedin compliance. Considerations fflli fflli fflll fflli fflli fflli NormalVariationin Performance: Thestandardshouldaccountfor variationacrossthe rangefrom minimumto maximumloadandstatisticalvariability. Measurement Accuracy:CEMSmeasurement uncertainty mayexceedthe magnitude of HRI measures. MultipleFormsof the Standard:EPAshouldallowstandardsto be setthattrackaverageload. Long-Term AveragingTime:5-yearblockto accountfor typicalutilitymaintenance cycles. AlternativeMeasures: e.g.,demonstrate compliance usingperiodiccompliance testsat representative conditions. Providea Backstop:Unitsthatachievethe NSPSfor modified/reconstructed EGUsshouldbe in compliance. PVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000063 ED_002409_00007701-00008 8 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Marsha!! Unit 4 Annual Average Load and CO2 Emissions Rate JOO );CtD +----------------------------------------; (l) .., ~ 1,0(() -,--------------------------------------- 0 r:: .2 0 2007 to 2017Trend: Average Load Decreased14% Average CO2Rate Increased6% VJ E ill N 0 u SO:}+-------------------------------------~ 100 AMf HICA pVE 200} 2003 1009 2010 2011 2012 1013 2014 2015 2015 201? EPA-19-0240-A-000064 ED_002409_00007701-00009 9 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 MarshallUnit4 2017 HourlyData (Excludes DataBelow100 MW) Di ± noo ·~-------<----------+----~-----+---------+----~ 3:·:a: ~ 2100 .;---------,-~--~--+-+--------+---------+-----------; ~ t:.• 2000 Cc:joel.roberson@hklaw.com; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: RE:ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request H1Alexander., We would like to confirm a meeting at noon on Thursday, October 11. I will send over the meeting participants ASAP. Thanks, Madssa AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000073 ED _002409_00007707-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Marissa Serafino I Holland & Knight Senior Public Affairs Advisor & Law Clerk Holland & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 Phone 202.469.5414 I Mobile marissa.serafino@hklaw.com I Washington, DC 20006 802.779.5647 I www.hklaw.com From: Serafino, Marissa C (WAS - X75414) Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 11:31 AM To: 'Dominguez, Alexander' Cc: Roberson, Joel E (WAS - X77264) ; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: RE:ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request Hi Alexander, Thank you for getting back to us. We are checking with our member companies to see if noon works, and we will get back to you ASAP. Best, Madssa Marissa Serafino I Holland & Knight Senior Public Affairs Advisor & Law Clerk Holland & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 Phone 202.469.5414 I Mobile marissa.serafino@hklaw.com I Washington, DC 20006 802.779.5647 I www.hklaw.com From: Dominguez, Alexander [mailto:dominguez.alexander@)epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 10:45 AM To: Serafino, Marissa C (WAS - X75414) Cc: Roberson, Joel E (WAS - X77264) ; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: RE:ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request Marissa, Mandy has availability Thursday, October 11th at 12:00 - 12:30, but the rest of her day is back-to -back. Please let me know if this works or we can look at alternative dates. Best, Alex Dominguez Policy Advisor to the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D: 202-564-3164 f IVlt fll 11 1\1 pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000074 ED_002409 _00007707-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 M: 202-578-5985 From: Madssa,Serafino(whklaw,com [mailto:Marissa.Serafino(@hklaw.com] Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:27 AM To: Gunasekara, Mandy ; Dominguez, Alexander Cc: joeLroberson@hklaw.com Subject: RE:ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request Thanks, Mandy. Marissa Serafino I Holland & Knight Senior Public Affairs Advisor & Law Clerk Holland & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 Phone 202.469.5414 I Mobile marissa.serafino@hklaw.com I Washington, DC 20006 802.779.5647 I www.hklaw.com From: Gunasekara, Mandy [mailto:Gunasekara.Mandy@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, October OS, 2018 10:26 AM To: Serafino, Marissa C (WAS - X75414) ; Dominguez, Alexander Cc: Roberson, Joel E (WAS - X77264) Subject: RE:ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request Hey Marissa, I'm looping in Alex to help with the logistics. Talk soon. Mandy From: Marissa.Serafino@hklaw.corn [mailto:Marissa.Serafino@hklaw.com] Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 2:43 PM To: Gunasekara, Mandy Cc: ioel. roberson (iil hklaw .com Subject: ACC Automotive Team Meeting Request Hi Mandy, I am writing with a meeting request on behalf of the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Automotive Team for Thursday, October 11. The ACC Auto Team is a coalition of companies that manufacture innovative lightweight plastic and composite auto parts that make vehicles sold in the United States safer and more fuel efficient, including DowDuPont, Lyondell BaselI, and Solvay. U.S. light-duty automotive manufacturing is a growth sector for lightweight plastic and composite leading to the employment of over 55,000 high-skilled manufacturing jobs and generating over $18 billion in revenue in the United States. We wanted to introduce you to the ACC Auto Team members and discuss issues under EPA's jurisdiction related to the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, including the EPA-NHTSAproposed SAFEVehicles Rule's treatment of lightweight plastic and composite manufacturing. Is there a good time for you to meet with the group the morning of Thursday, October 11th? AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000075 ED _002409 _00007707-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Thank you, Marissa Marissa Serafino I Holland & Knight Senior Public Affairs Advisor & Law Clerk Holland & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W ., Suite 1100 Phone 202.469.5414 I Mobile marissa.serafino@hklaw.com I Washington, DC 20006 802.779.5647 I www.hklaw.com NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed . If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anyth ing in this e-ma il to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you proper ly received th is e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should mainta in its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney -client or work product privilege that may be available to prot ect confident iality. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000076 ED_002409 _00007707-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Location: Wehrum, Bill [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=33D96AE800CF43A3911D94A7130B6C41-WEHRUM, WIL] 10/2/2018 7:16:35 PM Wehrum, Bill [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=33d96ae800cf43a39 lld94a7130b6c41-Wehru m, Wil]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3ca a8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f 45-G u naseka ra,]; Tsirigoti s, Peter [Tsirigotis.Peter@epa.gov]; Culligan, Kevin [Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov]; Dunham, Sarah [Dunham.Sarah@epa.gov]; Harvey, Reid [Harvey.Reid@epa.gov]; Woods, Clint [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =bc65010f5c2e48f 4bc2aa050d b50d 198-Woods, Clin] Meet with Frank Prager (Xcel) re: ACE proposal RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy WJC - N 5400 10/9/2018 3:45:00 PM 10/9/2018 4:30:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: TO: Bill Wehrum, Mandy Gunasekara, Clint Woods, Peter Tsirigotis, Kevin Culligan, Sarah Dunham, Reid Harvey RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000077 ED_002409_00007708-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message To: Rakosnik, Delaney [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=274573739A9F446883072599086EDEDD-RAKOSNIK, 10/1/2018 6:46:56 PM Osse, Sherri G [sherri.g.osse@xcelenergy.com] Subject: RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy From: Sent: D] Dear Sherri, Frank is confirmed for a 45 min meeting with Bill W ehrum on I 0/9 starting at 11:45am. Directions and procedures to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW: Metro: If you come by Metro get off at the Federal Triangle metro stop. Exit the metro station and go up two sets of escalators to the surface level and turn right. You will see a short staircase and wheelchair ramp leading to a set of glass doors with the EPA logo - that is the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, North Entrance. Taxi: Direct the taxi to drop you off on 12th Street NW, between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, at the elevator for the Federal Triangle metro stop - this is almost exactly half way between the two avenues on 12th Street NW. Facing the building with the EPA logo and American flags, walk toward the building and take the glass door on your right hand side with the escalators going down to the metro on your left- that is the North Lobby of the William Jefferson Clinton building. Security Procedures: A government issued photo id is required to enter the building and it is suggested you arrive 15 minutes early in order to be cleared and arrive at the meeting room on time. Upon entering the lobby, the meeting attendees will be asked to pass through security and provide a photo ID for entrance. If you are a foreign national entering on a non-US passport, please let us know in advance, as there is a separate clearance process. Upon arrival, let the guards know that you were instructed to call 202-564-7404 for a security escort. Please send me a list of participants in advance of the meeting and feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. Many thanks, Delaney Rakosnik Staff Assistant Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation, USEP A Room 5406A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Voice: 202-564-2229 Email: rakosni ledelanev(d>epa.gov From: Osse, Sherri G [mailto:sherri.g.osse@xcelenergy.com] Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 12:56 PM To: Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: FW: Meeting with Xcel Energy AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000078 ED _002409_00007709-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Hi!! Frank would love the opportunity meet with Bill on 10/12 at 10:00 am. However, he is supposed to depart DC on 10/11. after being there all week. Is there any availability on 10/9 or the morning of 10/11? Can you please let me know? Thank you so much for your help and have a great day!! From: Prager, Frank P Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:52 PM To: Osse, Sherri G Subject: FW: Meeting with Xcel Energy Let's talk From: Rakosnik,Delaney [mailto:rakosnik.delaney@epa.gov] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 12:09 PM To: Prager, Frank P Cc: Atkinson, Emily; Lewis, Josh Subject: RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy XCEL ENERGY SECURITY NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Exercise caution before clicking on any links or attachments and consider whether you know the sender. For more information please visit the Phishing page on XpressNET. Hi Frank, Bill can meet on Oct 12th at 10am. How does that work for your calendar? Many thanks, Delaney Rakosnik Staff Assistant Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA Room 5406A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Voice: 202-564-0935 Email: rakosnik.delaneyri7>epa.gov From: Prager, FrankP[mailto:Frank.Prager@XCELENERGY .COM] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 1:56 PM To: Wehrum, Bill Cc: Rakosnik@Epa.gov; William Bumpers Subject: Meeting with Xcel Energy Bill, it was great to see you yesterday at the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee meeting. Thanks for spending so much time at the meeting and providing such a detailed overview of your Clean Air Act Agenda. It's clear you're going to be very busy. Thanks also for offering to sit down with us to talk about Xcel Energy's views regarding the Affordable Clean Energy rule and in particular the proposal's treatment of state flexibility. We would very much appreciate the opportunity. Please let me know some dates and times that might work for you. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000079 ED_002409 _00007709-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Thanks! Frank Prager Xcel Energy Inc. 303-294-2108 Cell: 303-898-8391 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000080 ED _002409 _00007709-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Subject: Location: Bolen, Brittany [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=31E872A6911143 72B5A6A88482A66E48-BOLE N, BRIT] 8/21/2017 5:57:30 PM Bolen, Brittany [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=31e872a691114372b5a6a88482a66e48-Bo len, Brit]; Inge, Carolyn [lnge.Carolyn@epa.gov]; Lovell, Will (William) [lovell.william@epa .gov]; Dravis, Samantha [dravis .samantha@epa .gov]; 'Paul Balserak' [pbalserak@steel.org]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Dominguez, Alexander [dominguez.alexander@epa.gov] Follow-up Meeting with Iron & Steel re: NSR DCRoomARN3500/OPEI 8/21/2017 7:30:00 PM 8/21/2017 8:30:00 PM Show Time As: Busy Start: End: Directions: Please use the William Jefferson Clinton North Entrance located on your right as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station. Please arrive 10 m inutes prior to the meeting with photo IDs to clear Security. EPA Contact: For an escort from Security to the meeting call {202) 564-4332; for all other matters call Robin Kime {202)564 -6587 . Objective: Discuss the NSR program. Contact: Paul Balserak Vice President, Environment American Iron and Steel Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20001 ! ! i ](office) Ex. 61 (mobile) L---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000081 ED_002409_00007793-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Harlow, David [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=B5A9A34E31FC4FE6B2BEADDDA2AFFA44-HARLOW, DAV] 10/24/2018 5:45:28 PM Pagano (US), Peter A [peter.a .pagano@boeing .com] Lewis, Josh [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =b22d ld3bb3f84436a524f76a b6c79d7 e-JOLEWIS]; Atkinson, Emily [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =bb2155adef6a44a ea 94107 41 f0c01d27-Atki nson, Emily]; Gu naseka ra, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=53dla3caa8bb4ebab8a2d28ca59b6f45-Gunasekara,]; Rogers (US), Steven [Steven. Rogers@boei ng. com] RE: Background Document for tomorrow's meeting - Comments on Draft NSR Guidance Peter, I was pleased to be introduced to you yesterday evening as well. I appreciate your sending along these comments. While I suspect those from our OAQPS staff who will be participating tomorrow were generally aware of Boeing's views and concerns, having already reviewed the NEDA/CAP comments, for purposes of preparation for tomorrow I took the liberty a short while ago of bringing those comments to our staffs specific attention. I look forward to meeting with you and your colleague Steven tomorrow. DavidS. Harlow SeniorCounsel ImmediateOffice of the AssistantAdministrator Office of Air and Radiation,USEPA WJC-NRoom5409K 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW Washington,DC 20460 202-564-1233 Harlow,David@epa.gov From: Pagano (US), Peter A [mailto:peter.a.pagano@boeing.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:15 AM To: Harlow, David Cc: Lewis, Josh ; Atkinson, Emily ; Gunasekara, Mandy ; Rogers (US), Steven Subject: RE: Background Document for tomorrow's meeting - Comments on Draft NSRGuidance David Good to meet you last nite. As discussed, just wanted to send along the coalition comments on the draft guidance which we will refer to in our meeting tomorrow. The key point is in section (f) on page 5. See you tomorrow. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000082 ED_ 002409 _ 00008167-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 All the best, Peter A. Pagano Director, Environment The Boeing Company 703-414-6486 Email: peter.a.pagano@boeing.corn From: Harlow, David [mailto:harlow.david@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:24 PM To: Pagano (US), Peter A Cc: Lewis, Josh ; Atkinson, Emily ; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: RE: Meeting Request - Draft NSR Guidance Document Peter, Yes, I would be delighted to meet with you and your colleague to discuss this issue. Of the three days you mentioned, either the 24 th or the 25 th would work well for me. My calendar for October 23 rd is already a bit full. But either that Wednesday or Thursday should be fine. If you would be so good as to reach out to Emily Atkinson, our Office ~1anager here in the OAR Immediate Office who, among her many duties, also keeps track of my calendar - e.g., scheduling such meeting, and making sure that the relevant people from our program office are invited to participate - I would appreciate it. She will able to work with you to find a mutually agreeable time next week for us to meet. Thank you. David S. Harlow SeniorCounsel ImmediateOffice of the AssistantAdministrator Office of Air and Radiation,USEPA WJC-NRoom5409K 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW Washington,DC 20460 202-564-1233 Harlow.David@epa.gov From: Pagano (US), Peter A [mailto:peter.a.pagano@_boeing.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:31 PM To: Harlow, David Cc: Gunasekara, Mandy (EPW) ; Lewis, Josh Subject: Meeting Request - Draft NSR Guidance Document Hi David, AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000083 ED_ 002409 _ 00008167 -00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 I was referred to you by Mandy regarding the Draft Guidance Memorandum: Interpreting "Adjacent" for New Source Review and Title V Source Determination in All Industries Other Than Oil and Gas. Boeing has \vorked with a number of coalition partners to provide comments to the FR notice. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you next week to review some of the comments to provide a context on how the final guidance document could affect Boeing's future manufacturing operations. My colleague Steven Rogers and I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on either October 23, 24 or 25. Sorry for the short notice but neAi week Steven will be in DC from the west coast and we would like for him to be able to participate in person. Please let me know what may be convenient times for you on any of those days. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. All the best, Peter A. Pagano Director, Environment The Boeing Company 703-414-6486 Email: peter.a.paga_no@boefng.com AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000084 ED_ 002409 _ 00008167 -00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Culligan, Kevin [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5AB7EF4A59614FD4B4485668C42818C7-KCULLIGA] 10/22/2018 8:52:20 PM Mike Cashin (MP) [MCASHIN@mnpower.com]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recipi ents/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,] RE: ALLETE (Minnesota Power) Meeting request to discuss Affordable Clean Energy Act provisions with EPA staff From: Sent: To: Subject: Mike, Thanks for the follow-up. I can meet tomorrow at 2:30. I will relay anything we chat about to Mandy. Best way to get here is to come to the entrance by the Federal Triangle metro (on 12th ). Use the north entrance (away from mall/towards Pennsylvania Avenue). Guard will call up to my desk You'll need my number (202)564-0611. Kevin From: Mike Cashin (MP) [mailto:MCASHIN@mnpower.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 4:18 PM To: Culligan, Kevin ; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: ALLETE(Minnesota Power) Meeting request to discuss Affordable Clean Energy Act provisions with EPA staff Kevin and Mandy, Minnesota Power (ALLETE)has been reviewing EPA's proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule and would like to meet with EPA staff to discuss some areas that we see warrant particular consideration by EPA as ACE rulemaking proceeds. I plan on being in Washington, DC to attend an event, "Insights into Environmental Law & Policy: A Conversation with Key Regulators" the afternoon of Wednesday, October 24 and welcome the opportunity to meet with EPAwhen in DC around that timing. I can also adjust my travel plans to accommodate EPA available during other times. One area of concern with the proposed ACE rule is proper recognition and integration of how heat rate shifts across the load range of an operating unit. Shifting from lowest turndown load to peak load to support energy demand under ISO economic dispatch has become an increasingly frequent component for supporting electricity grid, energy and reliability support needs. Another concern stems from how utilities' expanding deployment of variable renewable energy resources is translating to the need to provide for compensating measures by more frequently varying the output of load following resources, essential to supporting reliability. When we meet, I will share information about a "Load Bins" approach we are refining that can address ACE compliance management during load range shifts on our generating units and related heat rate performance, with and without the overlay of ACE BSERHeat Rate Improvement measures. I will also share information about how more granular (e.g. sub one minute to five minute) operational data and modeling is exhibiting a more pronounced need for preserving load following capability on generating units that, previous to larger scale variable renewable energy deployment, were more typically operating for base load. I look forward to the opportunity to meet soon. Best regards, Mike lv'lu:hael,G.C~ Michael G. Cashin, PE Environmental Policy Advisor AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000085 ED_002409_00008282-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Minnesota Power (ALLETE) 30 w. Superior St. Duluth, MN 55802 mcashin@Jrnnpower Cc: Dominguez, Alexander Subject: Re: CPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:27 PM, Gunasekara, Mandy wrote: Hi David, Thank you for sending your comments and I'd be happy to discuss. I've ccd Alex Dominguez who can help follow up regarding the logistics. I look forward to talking soon. Best, Mandy Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2018, at 8:46 PM, David Beaudreau wrote: Hi Mandy, Hope you 're well. I wanted to attach the comments the Composite Panel Association submitted yesterday regarding the ACE rule. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000087 ED_002409_00008284-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 I wanted to use this opportunity to check in with you to see if there are any developments with respect to the carbon neutrality issue. When Jackson Morrill and I met with you a while ago EPAwas still determining how to best address the carbon neutrality policy change that had been recently made. Would you have time for a conference call with me and Jackson for sometime next week? Thanks for considering this request. David G. Beaudreau Jr. Senior Vice President D.C. Legislative and Regulatory Services, Inc. 2221 S. Clark Street, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22202 Jviain: 202-872-8440 Direct: 202-872-6884 www.dc lrs.com 1 ...... -... ... : The content image001.jpg of type has been blocked. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000088 ED_002409_00008284-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Appointment From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Location: Rakosnik, Delaney [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=274573739A9F446883072599086EDEDD-RAKOSNIK, D] 10/2/2018 7:20:41 PM Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Woods, Clint [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=bc65010f5c2e48f4bc2aa050db50d198-Woods, Clin]; Tsirigotis, Peter [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=d 19cl 79f3ccb4fadb48e3ae85563f132-PTSI RIGO]; Cull igan, Kevin [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =Sab 7 ef 4a59614fd4b4485668c42818c7-KCU LUGA]; Dunham, Sarah [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/en=a9444681441e4521ad92ae 7d42919223-SDU NHAM]; Harvey, Reid [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =f8ec3 lcaad5048d b83f21003284 7 de32-RHARVE02] Meet with Frank Prager (Xcel) re: ACE proposal RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy WJC - N 5400 10/9/2018 3:45:00 PM 10/9/2018 4:30:00 PM Show Time As: Tentative Start: End: TO: Bill Wehrum, Mandy Gunasekara, Clint Woods, Peter Tsirigotis, Kevin Culligan, Sarah Dunham, Reid Harvey RE: Meeting with Xcel Energy AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000089 ED_002409_00008423-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message CC: Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 9/20/2018 3:47:03 PM Baer, Louis [LBaer@cement.org ] Franklin, Charles [CFranklin@cement.org]; Derby, Rachel [RDerby@cemen t .org]; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; De Luca, Isabel [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =0b02 lc30cbee463 7a 7 c7 ca683e5e044a-l DELUCA] RE: PCA Environment & Energy Committee Meeting - October 4 Attachments: Event Information From: Sent: To: Form.docx Louis - Thursday, October 4 th from 10:00 - 10:30 works perfectly. If you could please fill out and return the attached form that would be great. I'm also including Isabel in our communications office in case she need any additional information. Anything else just let me know. Best, Alex Alex Dominguez Policy Analyst to the Principal Deputy Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D: 202-564-3164 M:: Ex. 6 i i·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· From: Baer, Louis [mailto:LBaer@cement.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:17 PM To: Gunasekara, Mandy Cc: Franklin, Charles ; Derby, Rachel ; Dominguez, Alexander Subject: RE: PCA Environment & Energy Committee Meeting - October 4 Thank you very much Mandy! We look forward to hearing from you. I'll coordinate with Alex on timing. Thanks. Best, Louis Louis A. Baer, Esq., CPEA Director/Assistant Counsel, Government Affairs Portland Cement Association 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Office: 2.02.-719-1981 Ce11:!_____________________ Ex._6-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·___: lbaer(wcement.org \f✓Ww.cemenLorg AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000090 ED_ 002409 _ 00008775-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 From: Gunasekara, Mandy [maflto:Gunasekara.Mandy(Wepa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: Baer, Louis Cc: Franklin, Charles ; Derby, Rachel ; Subject: Re: PCA Environment & Energy Committee Meeting - October 4 Dominguez, Alexander Hi Louis, I'd be happy to speak to the group. I'm ccing Alex to help with the logistics. Best, Mandy Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Baer, Louis wrote: Mandy, I am following up on our invitation last week to speak at PCA's Environment & Energy Committee Meeting on Thursday, October 4. Our meeting will take place at the National Association of Manufacturers (733 10th SL NW 7th Floor). Please let us know if you available that day for 30 minutes and our group would love to hear you speak on the current priodties and progress you are making at the Office of Air & Radiation. Thank you! Best, Louis Louis A. Baer, Esq., CPEA Director/Assistant Counsel, Government Affairs Portland Cement Association 1.150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Office: 202-719-1981 CelI: l___________________ Ex._6-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-___i lbaer(dlcement.mg www.cemenLorg From: Baer, Louis Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 4:25 PM To: 'gunasekara.mandy@lepa.gov' Cc: Franklin, Charles ; Derby, Rachel Subject: PCA Environment & Energy Committee Meeting - October 4 Mandy, We hope you are doing well and having a great summer. Thank you again for meeting with us and our members in April to discuss the air issue priorities for the cement industry. PCA's Fall Environment & Energy Committee Meeting is being held here in D.C. at the National Association of Manufacturers (733 10 th St. NW) on Thursday, October 4 and we would like to invite you to speak to our members. Our members would be very interested to hear further about the progress you and your colleagues at the Office of Air & Radiation are making on various air issues, such as the NAAQS and the recently proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. AM[ h. ,, I pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000091 ED_ 002409 _ 0000877 5-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Are you available to speak to our members at 10 AM on Thursday, October 4 for 30 minutes? The Environment & Energy Committee Meeting will have around 30-35 people and consist of senior environmental and government affairs leaders at our member companies. Our schedule is flexible so if there is a better time on Thursday, October 4, we can accommodate your schedule. Please let us know if you are available to speak. We look forward to hearing from you . Best, Louis Louis A. Baer, Esq., CPEA Director/Assistant Counsel, Government Affairs Portland Cement Association 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Office: 202-719-1981 Ex. 6 ! Cell: i ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· lbaer(dlcernent,org www.cemenLorg AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000092 ED_ 002409 _ 0000877 5-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Wilcox, Jahan [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=88FD588E97D3405D869BCAE98D391984 -WI LCOX, JAH] 5/16/2018 1:25:23 PM Jennifer A. Dlouhy [jdlouhyl@bloomberg .net]; Smith, Abby [asmith@bloombergenvironment.com] Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,]; Abboud, Mi cha el [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =b6f5af79 la 1842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] Hey Today, at 10:15 AM ET, Bill Wehrum will testify at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce's hearing on "Legislation Addressing New Source Review Permitting Reform. Below is our release that will be going out at 10:00 AM ET. You are welcome to report on this now if you want. Jahan EPA'sNew SourceReviewActionsin Review Consistent with President Trump's priorities and under Administrator Pruitt's direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to clarify, revise, and streamline preconstruction requirements under the New Source Review (NSR)permitting program. EPA's current NSRpermitting process has imposed significant costs and regulatory uncertainty, serving as an impediment to or even resulting in the cancellation of projects which would otherwise improve reliability, efficiency, and safety of facilities. Under the leadership of Administrator Pruitt, EPAis committed to improving the NSR process and, to date, has pursued that goal through the issuance of a number of guidance memoranda that are intended to provide clarity and reduce delay. The longterm goal of EPA's NSRreform and improvement initiative is to have in place permitting requirements that will no longer operate to stifle a company's ability to invest in the latest and greatest technologies or make continued improvements to their operations, all the while protecting the environment as is mandated under the Clean Air Act. On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing entitled "Legislation Addressing New Source Review Permitting Reform." Given his unique expertise and expansive knowledge of the NSR AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000093 ED_ 002409_00009836-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Program, William Wehrum, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, will testify at Wednesday's hearing. More information, including a live stream of the hearing, is available at: December 7, 2017. New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Requirements: Enforceability and Use of the Actual-to-Projected-Actual Applicability Test in Determining Major Modification Applicability. Link to memorandum Summary "' Clarifies that, under the existing regulatory language, so long as a company complies with the procedural requirements for making a preconstruction "projected actual emissions" analysis, then EPAwill not come in and "second guess" that analysis. January 25, 2018. Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Link to memorandum Summary "' "' Withdraws the 1995 "once-in-always-in" policy that determined that any facility subject to major source hazardous air pollutant ("HAP") standards must always remain subject to those standards, even if production processes changed or controls were implemented that eliminated or permanently reduced the facility's potential to emit hazardous pollutants below the applicable 10 tons per year/25 tons per year "major source" thresholds. With the new guidance, which is based on the plain language of the Clean Air Act, sources of hazardous air pollutants previously classified as "major sources" may be reclassified as "area" sources (that is, any source of HAPemissions that is not a "major source") when the facility limits its potential to emit below major source thresholds. ICYMI " Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "The EPA's decision today is consistent with President Trump's agenda to keep America's air clean and our economy growing," Barrasso said. "Withdrawal of this policy means AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000094 ED_ 002409 _ 00009836-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 manufacturers, oil and gas operations, and other types of industrial facilities will have greater incentive to reduce emissions. Now these companies can help protect the environment without wasting time and money on unnecessary red tape." * .:..:..::.::.: ..:.:...:·::.:::: ..·:.·.,·.: ...::·:·::.::::·:.:.:.:·.:·.:.:·.::· ..:., 1/ 2 5/ 18) Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee: "Maintaining the outdated and misguided 'once-in-always-in' policy just doesn't make sense. Rather than reward facilities for doing the right thing and working to decrease emissions, it makes it harder for them to innovate and improve operations," Senator Capito said. "By deciding to withdraw this counterproductive policy, Administrator Pruitt is once again proving that the Trump administration is committed to rolling back harmful regulations that do nothing but hold back companies and industries that are critical to our economy and already working to improve environmental quality." ,:...:....:.:.:.::.:: .... :·:·:: ..:.:·.:.:·.:·.:·:: ..:;...:.: ...:·::.:·::: ...:·: ....:·:·:.:·::·.;::.:.::.:·::., 1/2 5 / 18) March 13, 2018. Project EmissionsAccounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program. Link to memorandum Summary * $3 Provides EPA's interpretation of the existing New Source Review regulations with respect to the accounting of emissions changes from a project under Step 1 of the NSRapplicability process. Clarifies that the current NSRregulations already allow companies to consider projected decreases in emissions of air pollution, as well as projected emissions increases, during Step 1, rather than requiring that the source undergo timeconsuming and potentially complicated "contemporaneous netting" under Step 2, in order to take account of those emissions decreases. ICYMI * RossEisenberg, Vice President, National Association of Manufacturers: "There is no good reason for the permitting process to create unnecessary obstacles for a manufacturer that wants to make efficiency upgrades or install modern pollution control equipment. In fact, manufacturers have been leaders in this space, working to successfully reduce emissions while adding to the overall economy. The NAMhas made NSRa priority in its regulatory reform filings with the EPAand the White House. It's clear that Administrator Pruitt agrees and is committed to fixing the permitting process for manufacture rs. " , ..,.::,.:, ..::: ... ,..::,.: ... ,... ,..::: ..:..... .:: ... :.,,,.,::..:::. ... ,,, ..,.::.::: ..::: ..:.::,:: ..:...::,:.:., .... :..:.,:,::: ..:.::,::.: ..:,.:,.:,:,:.::,:.::,:: ...::,: ..:...:,:: 3/13/18) $3 Howard Feldman, Senior Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, American Petroleum Institute: "EPA's practical clarification to the language in the NSR regulations is a positive step that will help reduce uncertainty in the permitting process, while protecting public health," said Feldman. "Balanced, effective NSR AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000095 ED_ 002409 _ 00009836-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 regulations allow our industry to invest in new facilities and energy infrastructure in ways that improve envi ran mental perform a nee. " ,:..:,,.,: ..:..:,:.:.: ...:..:,: ..:,:.:,.: ..,...:..... :,: ..:,.: ...:.:,: ..:,..:,: ..,:.:,.: ..:..,.... ,.: ..,.:,: ...:,.,.,:,.,.:, ..:,.:,:.:., 3/13/18) April 30, 2018. Meadowbrook Energy and Keystone Landfill Common Control Analysis. Link to analysis Summary ~ "' While EPA's longstanding practice and view that determinations of common control are fact-specific and should continue to be made by permitting authorities on a case-by-case bases, EPA believes it should realign its approach to common control determinations to minimize the potential for entities to be held responsible for decisions of other entities over which they have no power or authority. For reasons discussed at length in the analysis, EPA believes clarity and consistency can be restored to source determinations if the assessment of "control" for title V and NSRpermitting purposes focuses on the power or authority of one entity to dictate decisions of the other that could affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements. Additional information on EPA's New Source Review Permitting Program is available at: AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000096 ED_ 002409 _ 00009836-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Wilcox, Jahan [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=88FD588E97D3405D869BCAE98D39 1984 -WI LCOX, JAH] 5/16/2018 1:24:47 PM valerie.vo lcovici@thomsonreuters.com; timothy.gardner@thomsonreuters.com; Richard.Valdman is@thomsonreuters .com; David.Shepardson@thomsonreu t ers.com Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f 45-G u naseka ra,]; Abboud, Mi cha el [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =b6f5af79 la 1842fladcc088cbf9ed3ce-Abboud, Mic] Sending this to you first. Today, at 10:15 AM ET, Bill Wehrum will testify at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce's hearing on "Legislation Addressing New Source Review Permitting Reform. Below is our release that will be going out at 10:00 AM ET. You are welcome to report on this now if you want. Jahan EPA'sNew SourceReviewActionsin Review Consistent with President Trump's priorities and under Administrator Pruitt's direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to clarify, revise, and streamline preconstruction requirements under the New Source Review (NSR)permitting program. EPA's current NSRpermitting process has imposed significant costs and regulatory uncertainty, serving as an impediment to or even resulting in the cancellation of projects which would otherwise improve reliability, efficiency, and safety of facilities. Under the leadership of Administrator Pruitt, EPAis committed to improving the NSR process and, to date, has pursued that goal through the issuance of a number of guidance memoranda that are intended to provide clarity and reduce delay. The longterm goal of EPA's NSRreform and improvement initiative is to have in place permitting requirements that will no longer operate to stifle a company's ability to invest in the latest and greatest technologies or make continued improvements to their operations, all the while protecting the environment as is mandated under the Clean Air Act. On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing entitled "Legislation Addressing New Source Review Permitting Reform." Given his unique expertise and expansive knowledge of the NSR AM[ HICA, pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000097 ED_ 002409 _ 00009837-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Program, William Wehrum, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, will testify at Wednesday's hearing. More information, including a live stream of the hearing, is available at: December 7, 2017. New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Requirements: Enforceability and Use of the Actual-to-Projected-Actual Applicability Test in Determining Major Modification Applicability. Link to memorandum Summary "' Clarifies that, under the existing regulatory language, so long as a company complies with the procedural requirements for making a preconstruction "projected actual emissions" analysis, then EPAwill not come in and "second guess" that analysis. January 25, 2018. Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Link to memorandum Summary "' "' Withdraws the 1995 "once-in-always-in" policy that determined that any facility subject to major source hazardous air pollutant ("HAP") standards must always remain subject to those standards, even if production processes changed or controls were implemented that eliminated or permanently reduced the facility's potential to emit hazardous pollutants below the applicable 10 tons per year/25 tons per year "major source" thresholds. With the new guidance, which is based on the plain language of the Clean Air Act, sources of hazardous air pollutants previously classified as "major sources" may be reclassified as "area" sources (that is, any source of HAPemissions that is not a "major source") when the facility limits its potential to emit below major source thresholds. ICYMI " Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "The EPA's decision today is consistent with President Trump's agenda to keep America's air clean and our economy growing," Barrasso said. "Withdrawal of this policy means AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000098 ED_ 002409 _ 00009837 -00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 manufacturers, oil and gas operations, and other types of industrial facilities will have greater incentive to reduce emissions. Now these companies can help protect the environment without wasting time and money on unnecessary red tape." * .:..:..::.::.: ..:.:...:·::.:::: ..·:.·.,·.: ...::·:·::.::::·:.:.:.:·.:·.:.:·.::· ..:., 1/ 2 5/ 18) Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee: "Maintaining the outdated and misguided 'once-in-always-in' policy just doesn't make sense. Rather than reward facilities for doing the right thing and working to decrease emissions, it makes it harder for them to innovate and improve operations," Senator Capito said. "By deciding to withdraw this counterproductive policy, Administrator Pruitt is once again proving that the Trump administration is committed to rolling back harmful regulations that do nothing but hold back companies and industries that are critical to our economy and already working to improve environmental quality." ,:...:....:.:.:.::.:: .... :·:·:: ..:.:·.:.:·.:·.:·:: ..:;...:.: ...:·::.:·::: ...:·: ....:·:·:.:·::·.;::.:.::.:·::., 1/2 5 / 18) March 13, 2018. Project EmissionsAccounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program. Link to memorandum Summary * $3 Provides EPA's interpretation of the existing New Source Review regulations with respect to the accounting of emissions changes from a project under Step 1 of the NSRapplicability process. Clarifies that the current NSRregulations already allow companies to consider projected decreases in emissions of air pollution, as well as projected emissions increases, during Step 1, rather than requiring that the source undergo timeconsuming and potentially complicated "contemporaneous netting" under Step 2, in order to take account of those emissions decreases. ICYMI * RossEisenberg, Vice President, National Association of Manufacturers: "There is no good reason for the permitting process to create unnecessary obstacles for a manufacturer that wants to make efficiency upgrades or install modern pollution control equipment. In fact, manufacturers have been leaders in this space, working to successfully reduce emissions while adding to the overall economy. The NAMhas made NSRa priority in its regulatory reform filings with the EPAand the White House. It's clear that Administrator Pruitt agrees and is committed to fixing the permitting process for manufacture rs. " , ..,.::,.:, ..::: ... ,..::,.: ... ,... ,..::: ..:..... .:: ... :.,,,.,::..:::. ... ,,, ..,.::.::: ..::: ..:.::,:: ..:...::,:.:., .... :..:.,:,::: ..:.::,::.: ..:,.:,.:,:,:.::,:.::,:: ...::,: ..:...:,:: 3/13/18) $3 Howard Feldman, Senior Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, American Petroleum Institute: "EPA's practical clarification to the language in the NSR regulations is a positive step that will help reduce uncertainty in the permitting process, while protecting public health," said Feldman. "Balanced, effective NSR AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000099 ED_ 002409 _ 00009837 -00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 regulations allow our industry to invest in new facilities and energy infrastructure in ways that improve envi ran mental perform a nee. " ,:..:,,.,: ..:..:,:.:.: ...:..:,: ..:,:.:,.: ..,...:..... :,: ..:,.: ...:.:,: ..:,..:,: ..,:.:,.: ..:..,.... ,.: ..,.:,: ...:,.,.,:,.,.:, ..:,.:,:.:., 3/13/18) April 30, 2018. Meadowbrook Energy and Keystone Landfill Common Control Analysis. Link to analysis Summary ~ "' While EPA's longstanding practice and view that determinations of common control are fact-specific and should continue to be made by permitting authorities on a case-by-case bases, EPA believes it should realign its approach to common control determinations to minimize the potential for entities to be held responsible for decisions of other entities over which they have no power or authority. For reasons discussed at length in the analysis, EPA believes clarity and consistency can be restored to source determinations if the assessment of "control" for title V and NSRpermitting purposes focuses on the power or authority of one entity to dictate decisions of the other that could affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements. Additional information on EPA's New Source Review Permitting Program is available at: AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000100 ED_ 002409 _ 00009837 -00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Dominguez, Alexander [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5CED433B4EF54171864ED98A36CB7A5F-DOMINGUEZ,] 11/30/2018 2:43:51 PM Miche lle Bloodworth [mbloodworth@americaspower.org] From: Sent: To: CC: Paul Bailey [pbailey@amer icaspower.org]; Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recipi ents/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,] RE:SpeakerReque~ Subject: Yes - en route Sent from my iPhone From: Michelle Bloodworth Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 9:42 AM To: Gunasekara, Mandy Cc: Paul Bailey ; Dominguez, Alexander Subject: Re: Speaker Request Just confirming you are coming. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 27, 2018, at 10:23 PM, Gunasekara, Mandy wrote: I think I can make this work. I'm ccing Alex to help. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:04 PM, Michelle Bloodworth wrote: Mandy, I know this is short notice but would you be available to speak on the ACE Rule this Friday on a panel at ALEC. It's from 10:00 until 11:15 a.m. I'm on the panel along with Allison Wood of UARG. Clint was going to speak but is going to be out of town. You'd be perfect and we could really use someone from EPA . Please let me know as soon as you can. you are available. I can give you the details if Thanks, Michelle l\'lkhdle Bloodworth President and CEO 460 I N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 1050 • Arlington, VA..22203 T 2024594803 • M: L______________ Ex._6______________ ___! mbloodworth/wamericaspower.org AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000101 ED_002409_00010944-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000102 ED_ 002409_00010944-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Rakosnik, Delaney [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=274573739A9F446883072599086EDEDD-RAKOSNIK, D] 11/26/2018 3:24:02 PM Richard Westerdale [richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com]; Humphreys, Hayly [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrat ive Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=4f4a7b4aeaf143bf806b0dd5b7884324-Humphreys,] Gunasekara, Mandy [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =53d la3caa8bb4eba b8a2d28ca59b6f45-G u naseka ra,] RE: Coal Industry Opportunity Hi Rick, We will discuss this with the team and get back to you. Thanks, Delaney Delaney Rakosnik Staff Assistant Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation, USEP A Room 5406A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Voice: 202-564-0935 Email: rakosni k. delanev(i{;,epa.gov From: Richard Westerdale [mailto:richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:09 AM To: Humphreys, Hayly Cc: Rakosnik, Delaney ; Subject: RE: Coal Industry Opportunity Gunasekara, Mandy Hayly / Delaney I trust you all had a restful Thanksgiving holiday with friends and family. We had a good meeting with the NSC last Tuesday and Francis Brooke encouraged JET to meet with the EPA and he solicited our input on improvements to NSR. The reason for this note is to follow up with each of you to see if we can schedule a meeting on either 12/5 or 12/6 with Acting Administrator Wheeler and Assistant Administrator Wehrum. JNG would like to cover the following topics during our meeting: • • • • Introduce JET and demonstrate the value to the U.S. of implementation. Review JET's acquisition strategy and business models for coal fired power plants. Discuss the President's Executive Order to streamline project approvals for major infrastructure projects. Solicit an update on EPA's efforts to reform New Source Review and discuss potential enhancements. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000103 ED_002409_00011375-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Please let me know if either date works for you all. I appreciate your continued assistance in this regard. Thanks, Richard (Rick) W. Westerdaie II Senior Vice President Tel: +1 (201) 641-3868, ext. 222 Email: richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com Website: www .jet-inc.com Address: 65 Challenger Rd, Suite 420 Ridgefield Park, NJ, 07660, USA What you choose to give life today will determine what life will give you tomorrow. From: Humphreys, Hayly Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:28 AM To: Richard Westerdale Cc: Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE: Coal Industry Opportunity Hi Rick, Unfortunately, the Acting Administrator inconvenience. is unavailable to meet on Wednesday morning as well. Apologies for the Best, Hayly HaylyHumphreys Office of the Administrator U.S. EPA From: Richard Westerdale Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:14 AM To: Humphreys, Hayly Cc: Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE: Coal Industry Opportunity Hayly / Dalaney Thank you for your quick response. We welcome a meeting with Assistant Administrator Wehrum. If helpful, we could meet with Acting Administrator Wheeler on Wednesday morning if his schedule permits. Please confirm availability for either meeting. Thanks, Richard (Rick) W. Westerdale II ) pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000104 ED_002409_00011375-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Senior Vice President Tel: +1 (201) 641-3868, ext. 222 Email: richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com Website: www.jet-inc.com Address: 65 Challenger Rd, Suite 420 Ridgefield Park, NJ, 07660, USA J What you choose to give life today will determine what life will give you tomorrow. From: Humphreys, Hayly Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03 AM To: Richard Westerdale Cc: Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE: Coal Industry Opportunity Hi Rick, Unfortunately, Acting Administrator Wheler's schedule is very hectic tomorrow. I apologize for the inconvenience. I am looping in my colleague, Delaney Rakosnik, in office of Air and Radiation to see if our Assistant Administrator, Bill Wehrum, is available. Best, Hayly HaylyHumphreys Office of the Administrator U.S. EPA From: Richard Westerdale Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 9:36 AM To: Humphreys, Hayly Subject: Coal Industry Opportunity HaylyIt was good speaking with you this morning. I am just trying to confirm our meeting tomorrow with the EPA. have been working with Mandy to determine if it is possible to meet with Acting Administrator Wheeler and his staff tomorrow. We have a confirmed a meeting with the White House and National Security Council on 11/20@ 11 AM. As background, JET'stechnology is well aligned with the Administration's efforts on the coal industry as a whole. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000105 ED_002409_00011375-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 JETit wn interrwtionai corpor@t!onand !@@ding provider of advanceddesuifudxatJontechnology for the power, oH and n@turnigas sectors, Our patented technok,gy is a game ehnnger and converts harmful sm1ssicns, speciflCaHySulphur diOxkis, into a v@iue•added ferU!Iter, This Is a proven technology wi'th over 300 currnnt app!ic@tiOnsint&.rnationaHy. JET has on•going negcUaHon with n1or0 than 50 coaJfired pov/er plants ht the U,S. By knp!en10ntingJt:T1t technology, the ut@fui iife of these power plants 1.viHbe extended by a n1inimum.of 10 to 15 years while meeting the most stringent smitsktn standards, This it good nevts for ths coal industry! What • • • $1.611 $22$ $88:l;M • JET's technology ensurn;; reHatde and stab!® bass load operations for local povtsr grids, On a personal note, I recently left the U.S. Department of State to join JNG. While I will miss serving our country and the incredible people I have had the privilege of working with throughout the years, I am excited to join JNG as Senior Vice President . Thanks, Richard (Rick) W. Westerdale II Senior Vice President Tel:+ 1 (201) 641-3868, ext. 222 Email: richard.wes t erdale@jet-i nc.com Website: www .jet-inc.com Address: 65 Challenger Rd, Suite 420 Ridgefield Park, NJ, 07660, USA What you choose to give life today will determine what life will give you tomorrow. From: Brooke, Francis J. EOP/WHO l__________________________ EOP_I_ Ex._6 ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ! Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 4:45 PM To: Richard Westerdale i Cc: Bottari, Joseph U. EOP/WHO Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 11:09 AM To: Brooke, Francis J. EOP/WHO: EOP / Ex. 6 i.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: Introduction/ Meeting ] Francis I trust you are well. I reached out to Landon and he suggested I contact you. Our Chairman would like to come to Washington and brief NSCstaff on the potential benefits to the U.S. from JET's business. We would also like to discuss the necessary project approvals and the President's executive order to streamline reviews for infrastructure projects. For awareness, we are also scheduling meetings with Sec. Perry's office as well as Administrator Pruit's office. If you have additional suggestions for meetings within the inter-agency, it would be appreciated. I have two windows of opportunity and wanted to check schedule - Thurs/ Fri (11/8-11/9) or Mon/Tues (11/19-11/20). We are also scheduling meetings with EPAAdministrator Pruitt and the NSCduring this time, so as you can imagine, it is quite challenging to get the planets to align. As background: I recently left the U.S. Department of State to join JNG. While I will miss serving our country and the incredible people I have had the privilege of working with throughout the years, I am excited to join JNG as Senior Vice President. JNG is an international corporation and leading provider of advanced desulfurization technology for the power, oil and natural gas sectors. Specifically, our patented technology is a game changer and converts harmful emissions, specifically Sulphur dioxide, into a value added fertilizer (see attached brochure). This is a proven technology with over 300 current applications internationally. We are currently targeting more than 40 coal fired power plants (negotiations on-going) in the U.S. for implementation. Through implementation of our technology, the useful life of these power plants will be extended by 10 to 15 years while meeting the new emission standards. This is a game changer! Here are a just a few of the highlights of JET's U.S. Value Proposition: I look forward to your response and meeting in person. Thanks, Richard (Rick) W. Westerdale II Senior Vice President Tel: +1 (201) 641-3868, ext. 222 Email: richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com Website: >www.jet-inc.com< Address: 65 Challenger Rd, Suite 420 Ridgefield Park, NJ, 07660, USA f IVlt fll 11 1\1 pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000107 ED_002409_00011375-00005 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 What you choose to give life today will determine what life will give you tomorrow. From: Derentz, Landon R. EOP/NSC1 EOP / Ex. 6 : Sent: Thursday, Nave m be r 1, 2018 3 5 ·PM·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·; 5: To: Richard Westerdale Subject: RE: Introduction/ Meeting i Rick····I'm happy to meet up. On the domestic issues, Francis 1slikely your best in: Frands.1Srookel_ ____ EO_P_ / _Ex.__ 6 _____ The morning of Thursday, November 8, 1sgenerally good for me. Let me know what works for you. From: Richard Westerdale Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:27 PM To: Dere ntz, Landon R. EOP/ NSC!._______________________________ EOP_I_Ex._6-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·___: Subject: [EXTERNAL]Introduction/ Meeting Landon I trust you are well. As you know, I recently left the U.S. Department of State to join JNG. JNG is an international corporation and leading provider of advanced desulfurization technology for the power, oil and natural gas sectors. Specifically, our patented technology is a game changer and converts harmful emissions, specifically Sulphur dioxide, into a value added fertilizer (see attached brochure). This is a proven technology with over 300 current applications internationally . We are currently targeting more than 40 coal fired power plants in the U.S. for implementation. The initial assessment is that through implementation of our technology, the useful life of these power plants will be extended by 10 to 15 years while meeting the new emission standards. Our Chairman would like to come to Washington and brief NSCstaff on the potential benefits to the U.S. We would also like to discuss the necessary project approvals and the President's executive order to streamline reviews for infrastructure projects. Thus, I would like to propose a meeting on Thursday, November 9th. For awareness, we are also scheduling meetings with Sec. Perry's office as well as Administrator Pruit's office. If you have additional suggestions for meetings within the inter-agency, it would be appreciated. I look forward to your response and meeting in person. Thanks, Richard (Rick) W. Westerdale II Senior Vice President Tel: +1 (201) 641-3868, ext. 222 Email: richard.westerdale@jet-inc.com Website: »www.jet-inc.co m« AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000108 ED_002409_00011375-00006 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Address: 65 Challenger Rd, Suite 420 Ridgefield Park, NJ, 07660, USA What you choose to give life today will determine what life will give you tomorrow. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000109 ED_002409_00011375-00007 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Gunasekara, Mandy [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=53D1A3CAA8BB4EBAB8A2D28CA59B6F45-GUNASEKARA,] 10/26/2018 9:39:40 PM David Schwietert [DSchwietert@autoalliance.org] Jackson, Ryan [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=38bc8e18791a47d88a279db2fec8bd60-Jackson, Ry]; Wheeler, Andrew [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=l 7a 1669ef5b54fba8cb457845308787e-Wheeler, An]; Wehrum, Bill [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =33d96a e800cf 43a391 ld94a 7130b6c41-Weh rum, Wil] Re: Auto Alliance comments From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Thanks, David. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2018, at 4:57 PM, David Schwietert wrote: I wanted to ensure you had the following preview of the more expansive comments that will be submitted by the close of the comment period today. I will also ensure you get the 15-page summary and the related comments once they are transmitted. Dave Automakers Call for CAFE/GHG Progress Reflecting Marketplace The Auto Alliance will be submitting comments by the end of today (Friday, Oct. 26) to NHTSA and EPA on the Safer Affordable Fuel-efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule/or MYs 2021-2026. Here is a preview of those comments, and the full executive summary will be available on Monday, Oct. 29: "The Alliance has consistently and actively supported a single national program covering all 50 states that spurs continued improvements in fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while recognizing marketplace realities such as consumer choice, fuel prices and technology costs. "Automakers have invested substantially in technologies so consumers can visit dealerships and select from approximately 500 models that achieve 30 MPG or more (highway), including 45 hybrid-electric and over 50 plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel cell models. "With respect to fuel economy and GHG emissions, automakers are committed to ongoing progress in a journey with no end date. That commitment has not wavered. At the same time, future government mileage and emission standards need to align with marketplace realities. The CAFE and GHG programs evaluate automakers based on a sales-weighted average of vehicles sold, not on models offered for sale. "The Alliance appreciates NHTSA and EPA issuing a joint Proposed Rule that incorporates the latest data and will consider standards for MYs 2021 to 2026. Many of the projections and assumptions upon which MYs 2022-2025 standards were based have proven to be incorrect; the AM[~ pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000110 ED_002409_00012088-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 level of technology modeled by the agencies in 2012 is insufficient to meet the standards, and the actual level of technology that industry projects is needed to comply with the standards is misaligned with market realities. Data from the past few years have also disproven assumptions regarding the market share of cars and trucks, future gas price projections, and the adoption rate of alternative powertrain vehicles. "The Alliance remains committed to supporting One National Program. This program was developed in cooperation by NHTSA, EPA, California and automakers, and was based on the shared recognition that harmonized standards that maintained the authorities of all agencies were the best path forward. "The Alliance urges the federal government to set achievable future standards that continue to advance environmental and energy goals while recognizing marketplace realities, incentivizing innovative new technologies, harmonizing government programs, maintaining a strong auto manufacturing sector, and keeping new vehicles affordable so more Americans can replace older vehicles with newer models that are cleaner, safer, and more energy-efficient." ### David Schwietert Executive Vice President, Federal Government Relations & Public Policy P: 2.02.-32.6-552.l I dschv,netert(iilautoaHiance.on; ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBlLE MANUFACTURERS 803 7'" Street, I\JVV Main Phone: 202-326-5500 Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Main Fax: 202-326-5567 .ht.tP.$._;//autoalliance.orgj Curious to know how the Auto sector impacts your state or district -- Click here. To get a better understanding of how America s automobile industry is one of the most powerful engines driving the US, economy, click here. 1 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000111 ED_ 002409_00012088-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Gunasekara, Mandy [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=53D1A3CAA8BB4EBAB8A2D28CA59B6F45-GUNASEKARA,] 8/2/2018 12:37:38 PM sscales3@ford.com FW: EPA and U.S. DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles From: EPA Press Office [mailto:press=epa.gov@cmail20.com] On Behalf Of EPA Press Office Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 8:30 AM To: Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: EPAand U.S. DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles WASHINGTON (August 2, 2018) - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFEVehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment. The SAFEVehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet. In today's proposal, EPA and NHTSAare seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies' preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000112 ED_002409_00012417-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 "We are delivering on President Trump's promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards," said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. "Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public's input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner." "There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026," said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. "More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public." The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more-out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years. safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits. On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible. EPA and NHTSAare seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today's proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter. The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register. Details can be found at NHTSA's website AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT and EPA's website EPA-19-0240-A-000113 ED_002409_00012417-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Gunasekara, Mandy [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=53D1A3CAA8BB4EBAB8A2D28CA59B6F45-GUNASEKARA,] 12/8/2017 9:02:11 PM Timothy Cama [tcama@thehill.com] From: Sent: To: CC: Wilcox, Jahan [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =88fd588e97 d3405d869bcae98d391984-Wi Re: Flagging an EPA item for you ... Subject: Icox, Jah] Bill is recused from DTE matters, because of his former firms involvement, and has complied with recusal requirements. As such, I have been the point person on DTE matters from OARs perspective. I would also note this memo has been in the works since well before Bill was confirmed. The first draft from our technical team dates back to early October following a September meeting. Broadly speaking on NSR reform and forward looking policy decisions, Bill has been involved in those conversations. The ongoing case is a separate issue. I will note that the latest DOJ/SG brief to the Court on the pending case included a footnote alluding to this very memo. So while it is separate issue, the Court has been on notice of the forthcoming policy shift from EPA When my computer starts working- I'll send you that brief! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 8, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Timothy Cama wrote: Two little things I forgot to ask: - Was W ehrum involved in this? I mostly ask because his old firm represented DTE. - Does this amount to changing EPA's position in the ongoing case, or is that a separate decision? Thanks. Timothy Cama, Staff writer The Hill (202) 695-6245 Secure: timothy.cama@.protonmail.com On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2: 11 PM, Gunasekara, Mandy wrote: Thanks, Jahan. Tim - I'll call you at 2:45. From: Wilcox, Jahan Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 2:07 PM To: Timothy Cama ; Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: RE: Flagging an EPA item for you ... AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000115 ED_ 002409_00012835-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 I am adding Mandy to this email. She is a policy expert who can talk and walk you through this. Please cite it as Background or Background from an EPA official. From: Timothy Cama [mailto:tcama@thehill.com] Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 12:41 PM To: Wilcox, Jahan Subject: Re: Flagging an EPA item for you ... Alright, no problem. Thanks. Timothy Cama, Staff writer The Hill (202) 695-6245 Secure: timothy .cama(a)protonmail.com On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12: 18 PM, Wilcox, Jahan wrote: I just flagged it for Politico after calling you. From: Timothy Cama [mailto:tcama@thehill.com] Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 12:17 PM To: Wilcox, Jahan Subject: Re: Flagging an EPA item for you ... Actually could you give me another hour or two to see if I'm interested/can translate it before sending it elsewhere? If it's not too late. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000116 ED_ 002409_00012835-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Timothy Cama, Staff writer The Hill (202) 695-6245 Secure: timothy.cama(a)protonmail.com On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Wilcox, Jahan wrote: FYI ... Wanted to make sure you got this memo and EPA statement. Draft Desk Statement Dec. 7 DTE/NSR :Memo To provide certainty to companies as facilities plan projects that may change or expand their operations, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has issued a memo to the agency's 10 regional administrators clarifying the EPA' s current understanding of certain elements of Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) regulations and when they should apply to projects at facilities that may increase emissions. NSR regulations require facilities to project, before beginning work, whether a construction project will cause a significant emissions increase. If the construction project results in a significant emissions increase and NSR applies, then the facility must take extra steps to control emissions before beginning work on the project. If a project does not result in a significant emissions increase - and does not trigger NSR- a facility must still provide notice of the project to either the EPA or the state designated regulator. As an accountability mechanism for the relied upon justifications that NSR does not apply, a facility must record and report actual emissions every year for either five or 10 years after a project is complete. Specifically, the memo discusses issues raised by litigation and addresses EPA's current intended approach concerning 1) consideration of post-project emissions management in determining NSR applicability; 2) the role of post-project actual emissions in major modification applicability; 3) the EPA oversight and enforcement of pre-project NSR applicability analyses involving the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test; and 4) the role of EPA-approved state and local NSR programs in implementing NSR requirements. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000117 ED_ 002409_00012835-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 The primary purpose of the memo is to clarify that so long as a company complies with the procedural requirements of a preconstruction analysis, then EPA will not second-guess that analysis. Providing certainty and clarity on this issue is an important first step to encouraging investments across all industrial sectors to move forward with incorporating new technologies and improving operational efficiencies yielding both economic and environmental benefits. The memo is not a final agency action and does not change or substitute for any law or regulation. Nor is it legally enforceable. Depending upon individual facts and circumstances, it may not apply to a particular situation. More information: https://www.epa.gov/nsr AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000118 ED_ 002409_00012835-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, 5/3/2018 7:30:51 PM Ryan N. Mod lin [Ryan.Modlin@o-i.com] From: Sent: To: CC: Har low, David [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Adm inistrat ive Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en =b5a9a34e31 fc4fe6b2beaddda2affa44-H Re: IECA Meeting Follow Up Subject: CUN] a rl ow, Dav] Ryan, Thanks so much - I really appreciated the opportunity to speak with you. I had mentioned this April 12 presidential memorandum (relevant section 9 below) but you can also find our recent NSR/PSD activity & memos at: https ://1t✓W'W .epa .gov /nsr /new-sou n::e-revi ew-po Iicy-a nd-gu ida nce-docu rn ent-i ndex Copied here is David Harlow, our Office's Senior Counsel and resident guru on these issues. Would you mind sending a link to the PSD guidance you mentioned, and we may be able to follow up with any related actions? Thanks! Clint 202.564.6562 Sec.~- Review of Rules, Guidance, Memoranda, and Procedures Relating to State Implementation Plans and Permitting. The Administrator shall evaluate EPA's existing rules, guidance, memoranda, and other public documents relating to the implementation of NAAQS, including documents that relate to the submission and consideration of preconstruction permit applications. The Administrator shall, consistent with law, determine whether any such documents should be revised or rescinded to ensure more timely permitting decisions under the NAAQS. Any resulting revisions or rescissions should seek, among other things, to provide States with additional implementation flexibility. The Administrator should also evaluate the adequacy of existing internal review procedures to determine whether they can be improved to ensure prompt evaluation and timely action on new and pending SIPs and permit applications. On May 2, 2018, at 8:58 AM, Ryan N. Modlin wrote: Clint, Thank you for presenting at the IECA meeting about what the EPA is doing on issues that affect manufacturers - all great information. You highlighted a specific EPA memo dated April 12 yesterdaymay I get a copy of that memo? I am very interested in what the EPA plans to do about the PSD guidance . Thank you in advance, Ryan Ryan N. Modi!n Vice President North American Govemmient Affairs 0-1 Pubiic Affr:,irs AM[~ pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000119 ED_002409_00015559-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 1401 \Nilson Blvd, Suite 1005 Arlington, VA 22209 f>hone: (202) 384 2'.358 '\!VVVVV, o-l .corn AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000120 ED_ 002409_00015559-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Deluca, Isabel [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=0B021C30CBEE4637A7C7CA683E5E044A-IDELUCA] 2/5/2019 9:36:59 PM Paul Bailey [pbailey@americaspower.org] Woods, Clint [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Adm inistrat ive Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=bc65010f5c2e48f4bc2aa050db50d 198-Woods, Clin]; Lewis, Josh [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =b22d ld3bb3f84436a524f76a b6c79d7 e-JOLEWIS]; Atkinson, Emily [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/en=Recipients/en=bb2155adef6a44aea9410741f0c01d27-Atkinson, Emily]; Rakosnik, Delaney [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ en=Recip ients/ en =27 45 73 739a9f 446883072599086ededd-Ra kosn i k, D] FW: NARUC Feb 12 Event Form OAR AA.DOCX Hi Paul, I'm following up on your recent discussion with Clint regarding the invitation for Bill to speak at NARUC next week. As Clint noted, Bill is interested in this opportunity - to make sure we have all the details for scheduling, is there someone who could fill out the attached speaker request form? Many thanks, Isabel Deluca Deputy Director of Communications Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA (202) 343-9247 From: Woods, Clint Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 5:43 PM To: Paul Bailey Cc: Lewis, Josh Subject: RE: NARUC Feb 12 Paul, Just wanted to follow up with you - Any idea if anyone else would be on the panel? Bill Wehrum is taking a look and interested in participating. Thanks! Clint From: Paul Bailey Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:05 PM To: Woods, Clint Subject: RE: NARUC Feb 12 Thanks, Clint. Sorry you'U be in I--foustonbut others on your tearn could do a good job too. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000121 ED_ 002409_00022263-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 From: Woods, Clint Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 2:53 PM To: Paul Bailey Subject: Re: NARUC Feb 12 Paul, Thanks so much! Unfortunately, I'll be in Houston on the 12th, but I'm checking on availability for rest of the team (I believe Bill may be doing a sideline bfast thing for NARUC that morning, so he might be able to stick around for the panel). Clint On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Paul Bailey wrote: ClintNARUC is holding a panel discussion on the ACE rule. I've agreed to be on the panel, and I've been asked to invite someone from EPA to also serve as a panelist. I'm not sure if they intend to invite other panelists. Would you be available and interested? The panel is scheduled for 10:45 -11:45 . I can provide more color if that would be helpful. Thanks, Paul Paul Bailey 4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 1050 • Arlington, VA 22203 T: 202.459.4818 I M: 703.586.2422 pbailey@americaspower.org AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000122 ED_ 002409 _ 00022263-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Wehrum, Bill [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=33D96AE800CF43A3911D94A7130B6C41-WEHRUM, WIL] 11/20/2017 7:00:29 PM 'cjlongo@comcast .net' [cjlongo@comcast.net]; 'maryannell@msn.com' [maryannell@msn.com] Law 360 Interview 10 Questions For The EPA's Bill Wehrum Share us on: By ,foan Carlos Rodriguez Law360, New York (November 17, 2017, 7:11 PM EST)-The US Envfrnnmental Protection Agency's new air chief Bill Wehrum won't just be helping the Trump administration roll back Obama -era rules like the Clean Power Plan, he'll also be taking a close look at the agency's 2009 carbon dioxide endangerment finding and its New Source Review permitting program, he told Law360 in an exclusive interview. Wehrum, who previously headed Hunton & Williams LLP's administrative law practice, which includes the environmental practice group, spoke with Law360 about a wide range of issues Friday, three days after formally taking over as assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. What are your top priorities? If I had to pick two or three things that are at the top of the list, of course the Clean Power Plan is up there. We've already proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and the public hearings on that are coming up the week after next. So we've started a process on a very important rule and very important issues, and seeing that through is going to be a very high priority, if not a top priority, for us here. The second thing is - again, begun prior to my arrival, but I'll definitely be working on this - we announced the intent to reconsider the midterm review for greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. I'm going to be talking to the transportation office about what kind of comments were submitted and begin thinking about how to handle those issues. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000123 ED_ 002409 _ 00084 7 57-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Then there's a big category of everything else. This office is responsible for a lot of issues big and small, and I think maybe the most important thing I'll do, especially in the short term, is try to gain an understanding of what the landscape looks like big and small, and then begin working with the offices to start talking those issues out. From a procedural standpoint, I think a lot of good work has been done prior to my arrival, but now that I'm here, I think the office is poised to really start getting into gear and working on a lot of issues and getting a lot done . Do you feel the New Source Review permitting program needs revision? I think it can be improved, you bet. It was a very high priority to reform the program when I was at EPAthe first time, back in the Bush 43 administration, and we did a series of pretty large-scale regulations that were directed at trying to make it work better . So this time around, the program is still there, it 's still big, it's still complicated, and I absolutely think that there are ways it could be improved and that will be a priority of mine. Do you believe the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding regarding carbon dioxide was correct? That's one of many, many things I need to spend time with my staff coming up to speed on and one of many, many things I need to talk with the administrator and others in the administration about. So I'm in a learning phase right now, and it will take me some time to get my arms around it. There's a mountain of data and a mountain of science related to climate right now, and I have never climbed that mountain, but I fully intend to . So there's a lot I have to learn and it's a very important issue, it's a very high priority, so believe me, it's something I'll be spending some time on . Do you think the California vehicle emissions waiver should stay in place or be withdrawn? That's another very important issue, but not something I've had an opportunity to come up to speed on yet. Is there any pending litigation that you know for sure you will recuse yourself from? Absolutely. I was counsel of record in a number of cases challenging EPA regulations that I handled in my capacity as a lawyer in private practice, and I can't touch any of those cases now that I'm here at EPA. There are very, very stringent rules that apply to people like me that transition from the public sector into government service. I'm subject to lawyer rules of ethics, government rules of ethics and the additional Trump ethics pledge. So all of those combine to create a very strict set of rules that govern what I can and can't do now that I'm here at EPA. I've already met and had a lengthy discussion with EPA ethics officials to make sure that we absolutely follow the rules and follow the law. Does that apply to the regulatory process as well? The absolute recusals apply to what are typically called "particular matters," and litigation is a particular matter because there are defined parties on each side of it. A general rulemaking, like the methane rule, is not a particular matter . So if we go forward with rule amendments on the methane rule, that is not something I would be recused from. How do you think the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry could affect the broader energy sector, and renewables in particular? The way in which power is generated and distributed and used is influenced by lots of factors, one of which is EPA regulatory programs . So yes, we will be taking a hard look at the regulatory programs that apply to the power sector, at least the ones we regulate. But do we regulate solar in the air office? No. Do we regulate fossil combustion in the air office? Yes, we do. So we'll be taking a look at those regulations. The CPP is a good case in point. My job is to look at those rules and make sure we faithfully implement the Clean Air Act and do it as smartly and efficiently as we can. AIVlt HIC..,AI\J pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000124 ED_ 002409 _ 00084 7 57 -00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 What do you think were the biggest mistakes the EPA air office made during the Obama administration? I think the most productive thing we can do is look ahead and not look back. A big reason why I'm here is that there continue to be numerous compelling and important issues that we deal with under the Clean Air Act and my job is to look ahead and chart the best course that I can and protect human health and the environment, because that's job No. 1 here at EPA, but be smart about it. In what ways would you like your tenure to further the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment? The administrator has said time and time again, our job is to faithfully implement the laws. And my beat is mostly Clean Air Act, so job No. 1 for me is to continue implementing our authorities and responsibilities under the act. A big reason why I'm here is I think it's very, very important that we also do that in the smartest and most efficient way possible. We have to do the job of protecting health and the environment, that's why we're all here, but I think it's critically important to do that in a way that is as smart and streamlined as possible. Do you think the air office needs to be refocused in any way? Is it spending time and energy in areas that would be better spent in others? That's a hard question for me to answer right now, I'm still coming up to speed on what issues and actions are in the pipeline. But one thing I would say is that most of what we do around here is stuff that we have to do under the Clean Air Act, so from my perspective, it's not so much a matter of stopping work on a bunch of stuff and starting work on a bunch of other things, that's just not what it's about. It's managing the issues and managing the rules that we have to do and have to write under the Clean Air Act, and again, doing that in the smartest, most efficient way we can. Editor's note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity. --Editing by Katherine Rautenberg and Aaron Pelc. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000125 ED_002409 _ 00084 7 57 -00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Wehrum, Bill [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=33D96AE800CF43A3911D94A7130B6C41-WEHRUM, WIL] Sent: 2/21/2Ql~_J,.:)._2_;J_Q_PJYI ,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·! cj Iongo(Personal Email/ Ex.6 weh ru mi.~:~s.'.'~.:I_E_"'.~.1_,_E_:<~-~.l FW: Exclusive: How a top EPA regulator's law firm profited from the fight to roll back air rule i To: Subject: Bill Wehrum Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-7404 From: Abboud, Michael Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:45 PM To: Wehrum, Bill ; Konkus, John ; Block, Molly ; Hewitt, James ; Beach, Christopher ; McFaul, Jessica Subject: Fwd: Exclusive: How a top EPA regulator's law firm profited from the fight to roll back air rule Flagging for everyone. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "POLITICO Pro Energy" Date: February 20, 2019 at 6:42:33 PM EST To: Subject: Exclusive: How a top EPA regulator's law firm profited from the fight to roll back air rules HTML-820854487-1376319Reply-To: "POLITICO subscriptions" Exclusive: How a top EPA regulator's law firm profited from the fight to roll back air rules By Zack Colman and Alex Guillen 02/20/2019 06:40 PM EDT The nation's biggest coal-burning power companies paid a top lobbying firm millions of dollars to fight a wide range of Obama-era environmental rules, documents obtained by POLITICO reveal - shortly before one of the firm's partners became President Donald Trump's top air pollution regulator. Now that ex-partner, Bill Wehrum, is aggressively working to undo many of those same regulations at the EPA, where he is an assistant administrator in charge of issues including climate change, smog and power plants' mercury pollution. AM[ Hll...,Al'\J pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000126 ED_002409_00084971-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Wehrum's past role as a utility lobbyist is well-known, but the documents reveal never-beforedisclosed details of how extensively his old firm, formerly called Hunton & Williams, worked to coordinate the power industry's strategy against the Obama administration's regulations. Twentyfive power companies and six industry trade groups agreed to pay the firm a total of $8.2 million in 2017 alone, according to an internal summary prepared in June of that year - less than three months before Trump tapped W ehrum for his EPA post. POLITICO obtained 26 pages of briefing materials distributed to members of an umbrella group of utilities Wehrum represented while at the firm. Known as the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the secretive organization included some of the largest coal-burning utilities in the country. The materials were marked "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION" and outlined goals for a meeting of the group's policy committee. Topping the list of funders were Duke Energy, Southern Co. and AEP, which together contributed nearly one-third of the money. Wehrum has said he won't work on lawsuits former clients are involved in, but nothing in federal ethics rules prevents him from working on regulations that apply to a broad sweep of actors in the industry he once represented. To that extent, it does not appear Wehrum has violated any laws, but it does expose holes in the ethics system. "The scandal here is what is legal," said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University in St. Louis law professor and ethics expert. She said the documents show "industry group strategizing about how to change federal policy through the installation of friendly personnel as regulators - and then one of their own who was in the meeting, who was in the room where it happened, ended up being the key regulator." Wehrum said Wednesday that he has stayed on the right side of the ethical line. "From the beginning and from well before I joined EPA I thought it was very important to understand the ethical obligations that would apply to me," he said in an interview with POLITICO. He added, "The ethical rules do not prevent me from working on regulations of general applicability." Wehrum spent 10 years as a partner at the firm, now called Hunton Andrews Kurth. His EPA biography notes that he was also head of the firm's "Administrative Law Group." Wehrum convened his power plant industry clients on June 22 and 23, 2017, at his law firm's Washington, D.C., offices to lay out a road map for attacking the very policies he now oversees, the documents show. The roster of clients under the umbrella of the Utility Air Regulatory Group include some of the largest, most influential utility companies in the country. Wehrum told POLITICOhe does not remember the two-day meeting, but a person familiar with the meeting and another who attended confirmed he was there. Wehrum is certainly not the only person in Washington or the Trump administration to swing from lobbying to regulating. But the documents lay out an unusually clear picture of how Washington lobbyists steer a legal campaign for clients, keeping litigation churning while earning massive fees for their firms. "I think the proximity of what he was doing in private sector advocacy then government work is a thing that distinguishes him from a lot of people and makes him vulnerable to criticism and questioning," said a former government ethics official. AM[~ pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000127 ED_002409_00084971-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 By the time Trump had nominated Wehrum, he'd already made millions for and from Hunton his financial disclosure listed a $2.1 million partnership share in his last year at the firm. That form also lists the Utility Air Regulatory Group as one of 20 sources of his compensation surpassing $5,000, but only one UARG member - Salt River Project- is named individually. The documents prepared for the group's June 2017 policy committee meeting laid out how much money Hunton & Williams was seeking for its work on behalf of the companies. It estimated an $8.8 million budget for 2018. Once "the new leadership team at EPA is in place, if that team shows that it has the ability to address expeditiously many of the initiatives of greatest importance to UARG members - and if UARG wants to participate meaningfully in such initiatives - then UARG will likely need an overall year-2018 budget that is higher than this year's budget," it read. A month after the meeting, word began to circulate that W ehrum was headed to EPA, and by September, Trump made the nomination official. It was unclear how far Wehrum was in his negotiations with the administration at the time of the meeting- he told POLITICO he was first approached in "early 2017" about the possibilitybut he already had access to high-level EPA officials. Mandy Gunasekara, then a top EPA air official, attended the UARG meeting at Wehrum's request. "We are interested in any Clean Air Act regulatory issue that you are willing and able to address," Wehrum wrote in an email to Gunasekara, according to separate documents obtained by the Sierra Club under the Freedom of Information Act. "Topics of interest include the Clean Power Plan, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, regional transport, regional haze, and NAAQS/NAAQS implementation. We are not asking you to address pending litigation on any of these issues. We are interested in discussing only possible future regulatory action." A person who was at the meeting confirmed both Gunasekara and W ehrum were there. Wehrum told POLITICO that while he continued to work for Hunton for most of 2017, he "billed typically just a few hours a year to UARG." He said he's stayed within ethical boundaries because rules don't prohibit him from working on regulations that apply to a broad suite of players and he has not met with U ARG since joining the EPA Wehrum has previously said he would recuse himself from litigation matters that he previously participated in, but not policymaking, such as regulation. He represented UARG in court as late as March 2017, when he filed a lawsuit over an Obama administration rule boosting chemical safety and reporting requirements at industrial facilities. "UARG is an entity. It's a legal entity," he said, explaining that his clients were "not the individual members" ofUARG. Wehrum recused himself for two years from decisions related to a Dominion Energy subsidiary, Duke and Salt River Project, but not any of the other UARG member companies, according to a September 2018 recusal statement to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. Wehrum has in the past tried to firewall his work on litigation and policy, suggesting he would recuse himself from matters in which Hunton has represented clients in lawsuits challenging AM[~ pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000128 ED_002409_00084971-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Obama-era policies. But the newly obtained documents show how deeply Hunton was involved in the cradle-to-grave formation of policy through UARG. For example, the June 2017 briefing materials cited "possible participation in rulemaking activity" among the services for which Hunton expected to bill the group's members. Since he was confirmed by the Senate in November 2017, Wehrum has undertaken many of the policies UARG identified as top priorities. For example, the June 2017 UARG document says the group will "coordinate member efforts and strategy regarding EPA review and potential reconsideration of'' an Obama-era rule that justified major limits on mercury from power plant smokestacks by counting "co-benefits" from incidental reductions in other types of air pollution. Then, last December, after Wehrum joined the agency, EPA proposed changing the rule to disregard the co-benefits, aligning itself with the position UARG has taken since at least 2016. (The agency also opened the door to revoking rule entirely - something that would benefit the dirtiest coal plants in the country - although it says it has no immediate plans to do so.) Another area of focus UARG outlined in June 2017 was "potential administrative actions related to the New Source Review program," a reference to permits that coal plants have to receive before conducting major upgrades. Wehrum included major changes to that program as part ofEPA's new carbon rule for power plants. The proposal would waive the New Source Review requirements for coal plants installing efficiency technology because the permitting costs would make the upgrades "no longer viable," Wehrum told reporters last week. That change could allow coal plants to run more frequently, potentially increasing overall emissions even if the plant is more efficient. And in a separate move last November, Wehrum revived a New Source Review rule issued in the final days of the George W. Bush administration but halted by the Obama administration. The project "aggregation" rule could help utilities avoid more stringent permitting requirements, and it is also listed as an action item on UARG's 2017 list. The Edison Electric Institute, the main trade association for the nation's investor-owned utilities, foots most of the UARG bill, according to the newly obtained briefing materials. But UARG doesn't show up in any official documents - it has no tax identification number, no address, no incorporation filings. In lawsuits, UARG generally describes itself as a "not-for-profit" or "ad hoc" group of electricity generators without further describing its membership. UARG's structure allows it to avoid a paper trail. Utilities are dues-paying "members" of the organization. Many of those members, though, are also part of EEi. Rather than collect directly from companies, the briefing materials show that Hunton bills EEi directly - thus avoiding involvement of any formal entity known as UARG. EEi's 990 filings with the IRS, which nonprofits file annually, show a more than $8 million "consulting" tab for Hunton dating back years, making up more than half of the trade organization's independent contractor services. "EEi provides accounting services to groups such as UARG and participates in a number of coalitions covering a range of issues important to our members," EEi spokesperson Brian Reil said in a statement to POLITICO. "UARG provides a variety of services to its members, including regulatory, technical, and compliance advice and information. EEi does not participate in any votes on UARG policy matter decisions. EEi files our own comments on the issues that are important to our members and their customers." AM[~ pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000129 ED_002409_00084971-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 The names of the UARG members are some of the biggest in the business, along with some of the largest consumers of coal. The documents show that 25 companies that are EEI members - including AEP, Ameren, Dominion, DTE Energy Co., Duke, FirstEnergy Corp., NiSource, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and Southern Co. Services - accounted for $6.8 million in 2017 dues to UARG. Organizations that have backed efforts to soften pollution and climate regulations account for the remaining $1 .4 million in dues: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, American Public Power Association, EEI, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the National Mining Association. The Tennessee Valley Authority also paid $462,967 in dues that year, according to the documents. Wehrum thus can have a significant effect on keeping business flowing to his old firm through regulatory maneuvers that affect the power industry. Some companies have already questioned whether some ofWehrum's moves are necessary. Redoing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, a pollution rule that most utilities already have spent millions complying with, tops that list. UARG member Duke, for example, has publicly criticized EPA's decision to revisit that rule. In an interview, Wehrum cited EPA's work on the mercury rule as one area where his policies have diverged from the wishes of some UARG members. "I'm not going to put words or thoughts into anybody's mouth," Wehrum said ofUARG, but he added, "I know at least a lot of individual member companies wanted to go the other way." Given that Hunton participates both in regulatory comment periods and litigation, Wehrum's old firm would be slated to be involved in every step of the policy process. The June 2017 UARG document lists specific budget allocations for various programs, such as climate change, pollution control technologies, hazardous air pollutants and regional air quality. Wehrum told POLITICOhe believes he's doing things by the book. "I don't believe anybody has gotten special access because they're a friend of mine," he said. To view online: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/02/exclusive-how-a-top-epa-regulatorslaw-finn-profited-from-the-fight-to-roll-back-air-rules-l 191258 You received this POLITICO Pro content because your customized settings include: Energy: EPA; Energy: Climate Change; Energy: Coal; Energy: Clean Air Act. To change your alert settings, please go to https://subscriber.politicopro.com/settings p PN ··.io·.·.·.·. D· ... This email alert has been sent for the exclusive use of POLITICOPro subscriber, abboud.michael@epa.gov. Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of POLITICOPro is a violation of copyright law and the POLITICOPro subscription agreement. Copyright© AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT 2018 by POLITICOLLC.All rights reserved. To subscribe to Pro, please go to politicopro.com. EPA-19-0240-A-000130 ED_002409_00084971-00005 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 This email was sent to abboud.michael@epa.gov 22209, USA AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, EPA-19-0240-A-000131 ED_002409_00084971-00006 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Wehrum, Bill [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=33D96AE800CF43A3911D94A7130B6C41-WEHRUM, WIL] 11/20/2017 9:48:27 PM RStoll@foley.com RE:10 Questions For The EPA'sBillWehrum Thanks Dick. -----original Message----From: RStoll@fo l ey.com [mailto:RStoll@foley.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:47 AM To: Wehrum, Bill ; Wehrum, Bill subject: Fwd: 10 Questions For The EPA's Bill Wehrum Bill - great interv i ew. Dick Richard G. Stoll Retired Partner Foley & Lardner LLP Washington, DC & Milwaukee, WI 5461 N Danbury Rd Whitefish Bay, WI E-mail: rstoll@foley.com message: From: Environmental Law360 > Date: November 20, 2017 at 2:41:59 AM CST To: > subject: 10 Questions For The EPA's Bill Wehrum The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new air chief Bill Wehrum won't just be helping the Trump administration roll back Obama-era rules like the cl ean Power Plan, he'll also be taking a close look at the agency's 2009 carbon di oxide endangerment finding and its New source Review permitting program, he told Law360 in an exclusive interview. [Law360 Environmental] ENVIRONMEN TAL Monday, November 20, 2017 [Follow Environmenta l Law360] TOP NEWS 10 Questions For The EPA's Bill Wehrum The U.S. Envi r onmental Protection Agency's new air chie f Bil l Wehrum won't just be helping the Trump administration roll back Obama-era rules like the clean Power Plan, he'll also be taking a close look at the agency's 2009 carbon dioxide endangerment finding and its New source Review permitting program, he told Law360 in an exclusive interview. Read more » ) pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000132 ED_002409_00085474-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Forest Service can clear Trees In Wildfire Zone, Judge Says California federal judge on Friday refused to stop the U.S. Forest Service's plans to clear dead trees near a national park after a recent wildfire, telling envi r onmental groups that the publ ic interest in road safety outweighs their concerns over the project 's effect on several endemic species. Read more » A $200B San Diego Transpo Plan Still Inadequate on Appeal split California appeals court ruled Thursday that a San Diego regional planning agency failed to properly analyze greenhouse gas reduction and assess public health risks in a 2011 review of a $200 billion long-term transportation plan. Read more » A Cert. Too Soon For Groundwater Pollution suit, Judge Says An Indiana federal judge denied class certification Thursday to homeowners who claim automotive manufacturer United Technologies Corp. and a gas station contaminated the gro undwat er unde r neath their property for more than 20 years, saying the bid was premature. Read more » POLICY& REGULATION Wash. Reps Float Bill To Speed Up DOI Water Project Reviews Two Republican l awmakers introduced a bill Thursday meant to speed up the environmental planning and review of water projects by two U.S. Departme nt of the Interior agencies and to advance a specific water management project for the Yakima River in Washington state. Read more » LITIGATION Duke Awarded $68M In Spent Nuclear Fuel suit Against DOE A federal judge Friday granted two Duke Energy units nearly $68.5 million in damages resulting from the federal government's partial breach of a contract to collect spent nuclear fuel and waste from four plants in the Carolinas and Florida, but found an additional $3.1 million not recoverable. Read more » 9th Circ. Nixes Preliminary Block To Ore. Logging Project A Ninth Circuit panel on Thursday reversed a lower court's order temporarily stopping Scott Timber co. from clear-cutting a parcel of forest in the Oregon Coast Range, saying the district judge was wrong to require a "lesser showing" of irreparable harm than is needed. Read more » Texas county sues Arkema over Plant Fire In wake of Harvey Harris county, Texas, asked a state judge on Thursday to order Arkema Inc., whose liquid organic peroxide manufacturing plant caught fire in the wake of historic flooding from Hurricane Harvey, to take steps to improve its disaster safety plans and reimburse the county for responding to the incident. Read more » Alaska Tribal Health Org sues For Land cleanup, Transfer A tribe-run health care nonprofit in Alaska filed a complaint in federal court Thursday seeking the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Air Force to clean up and transfer oil-contaminated nonprofit says should have been in its hands more than two decades ago. Read more » to force land the PEOPLE Duane Morris Adds Ex-Drinker Biddle Enviro Partner In NJ AIVll HIC..,AN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000134 ED_002409_00085474-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Duane Morris LLP has welcomed a former Drinker Bidd l e & Reath LLP attor ney as an environmental partner in the firm 's cherry Hill, New Jersey, office, where she 'll tackle complex litigation and advise clients with respect to the environmental considerations in real estate and corporate transactions. Read more » EXPERTANALYSIS How FERC Is Streamlining Hydropower Licensing The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rece ntly adopted a 4O-year default license term for hydropower projects at nonfederal dams. While there is more that FERC could do to ease hydro licensing and relicensing, this move is a welcome effo r t to streamline and reduce unce r tainty in the licensing process, say Mary Anne Sul livan and Zachary Launer of Hogan Lovells LLP. Read more » The Battle over 3rd - Party Releases Continues Bankruptcy courts have taken divergent approaches to analyzing whether they have jurisdiction to approve nonconsensual third-party nondebtor releases. While the New York bankruptcy court's recent decision in sunEdison provides another data point fo r the debate, it leaves some questions unanswered, say attorneys with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Read more » Gauging NJ Insurance Brokers' Standard of care Since Sandy When a catastrophe strikes and insurance companies either deny coverage or lim i t the coverage provided, the insurance broker is in the crosshairs of what can turn out to be a litigious claim. Gary Strong of Seiger Gfeller & Laurie LLP explores the duty of insurance brokers in New Jersey and how these duties come into play, particularly after Superstorm Sandy. Read more » From Snaps To Tweets: The craft of Social Media Discovery - courts have consistently held that social media accounts are subject to established discovery principles but are reluctant to allow parties to rummage through private social media accounts. Recent case law confirms that narrowly tailored information requests get the best results, say Matthew Hamilton, Donna Fisher and Jessica Bae of Peppe r Hamilton LLP. Read more » LEGALINDUSTRY Analysis Ex-Weinstein Attys Muddy BigLaw's Rep For Keeping Secrets<_Su-hGOmaYviXvuZ7FMneryIM84kb2m2A&e=> Defying the tight-lipped tradition of lawyers who have represented reviled clients, two of Harvey Weinstein's former attorneys have issued public explanations of their work and spoken extensively to the press about their "mistakes," a phenomenon some experts say undermines public confidence that lawyers, regardless of their own reputations, will keep client matters close. Read more » Trump Adds 5 Names To Supreme court Potential List President Donald J. Trump announced on Friday the addition of five new names to the list of judges he will draw upon to fill a potential vacancy in the U.S. Supreme court. Read more » that 'Long Siege' For Ex-Dewey Controller Ends With No Jail The former controller at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP saw the end to what his attorney called a "long and arduous siege" on Friday when he was sentenced to 100 hours of community service after cooperating in the prosecution of his ex-colleagues for more than three years. Read more » Fla. Judicial Panel offers Sens. 4 Names For District Seat The commission tasked with screening candidates for federal judgeships in Florida sent four names - two trial court judges and two appellate judges - to the state's U.S. senators for a vacancy in the Northern District of Florida. Read more » AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000136 ED_002409_00085474-00005 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 GC cheat sheet: The Hottest Corporate News of The Week The U.S. Supreme court turned away four notable employment cases, a study found more legal departments are looking to grow their outside counsel spending next year, and Kraft Heinz co. 's GC told Law36O about the changing food industry. These are some of the top stories in corporate legal news you may have missed last week. Read more » Podcast Law36O's Pro Say: GOP Goes To War With ABA over Judges on the latest episode of Law36O's Pro Say podcast, the team discusses the escalating war of words between Republicans and the American Bar Association over how judicial nominees are vetted. We also tackle a BigLaw attorney in hot water after her comments about sexual harassment on Fox News, the Menendez corruption trial ending in a hung jury, and some unusual facts about one of President Donald Trump's judicial picks. Read more » In case You Missed It: Hottest Firms And Stories on Law360 For those who missed out, here's a look back at the law firms, stories and expert analyses that the most buzz on Law36O last week. Read more » generated Series My Strangest Day In court: Arguing From The Gallery Appellate lawyers are usually silent observers at trial who collaborate on legal strategy, conduct research during court breaks, and craft jury instructions, verdict forms and major motions. But as I discovered in one trial, this is not always the case, says M.C. sungaila of Haynes and Boone LLP. Read more » JOBS Search full listings or advertise your job opening [Law360 Pro Say Podcast] Listen to our new podcast here LAWFIRMS Archer & Greiner Arnold & Porter Kaye scholer Barnes & Thornburg Barrett McNagny Boies schiller Bradley Arant Broad and cassel Buckley Sandler Davis Wright Tremaine Dewey & LeBoeuf Drinker Biddle Duane Morris Gibson Dunn Gordon & Rees GrayRobinson Greenberg Traurig Haynes and Boone Hogan Lovells Hopping Green Hughes Hubbard Hunton & Williams Husch Blackwell Ifrah Law Jones Day Katten Muchin Kirkland & Ellis Morgan Lewis Norton Rose Fulbright f IVIL 1 11 .,, I pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000139 ED_002409_00085474-00008 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Pepper Hamilton Quinn Emanuel Reed Smith Rosenn Jenkins Seiger Gfeller Shute Mihaly Sidley Austin skadden sohagi Law Group Sonosky chambers Taft Stettinius Weinheimer Haber White and Williams COMPANIES Altman Weil Inc. American Bar Association f IVIL 1 11 .,, I pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000140 ED_002409_00085474-00009 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Angie's List Inc. Arkema SA BuzzFeed Inc. Cato Institute Center for Biological Diversity Inc. Cigna Corporation Cook Group Inc. DePuy Synthes Cos. Deloitte Touche Deutsche Bank AG Duke Energy Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Ernst & Young Facebook Google Inc. H. J. Heinz Company Instagram Inc. Inte r national Brotherhood of Teamsters Johns Manville Corp. Johnson & Johnson Kraft Foods Inc. Lear Corporation Los Angeles Times Midway Gold Corp. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation New York Times co. PricewaterhouseCoopers Progress Energy, Inc. Resolution Economics LLC Retrophin Inc. salesforce.com Inc. Service Employees International Union Sierra club Snap Inc. State Farm Stout Risius Ross LLC sunEdison LLC Temple University Twitter Inc. United Technologies Cor poration Xerox Corporation Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corp. Zale Corporation f IV IL I II ✓r 1 pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000143 ED_002409_00085474-00012 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - 5Fpk- Energy Information Administration Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Judicia l Conference of the United States NAFTA National Labor Relations Board National Security Agency New York Atto r ney Gener a l 's office oak Ridge National Laboratory Securities and Exchange Commission Transportation Security Administration U.S. Army U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Forest Service U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Postal Service U.S. Supreme court United States Bankruptcy court for the southern District of New York LAWFIRMS Gibson Dunn Hogan Lovells Kirkland & Ellis Morgan Lewis Archer & Greiner Arnold & Porter Kaye scholer Barnes & Thornburg Barrett McNagny Boies schiller Bradley Arant Broad and cassel Buckley Sandler Davis Wright Tremaine f IVIL 1 11 .,, I pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000146 ED_002409_00085474-00015 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Dewey & LeBoeuf Drinker Biddle Duane Morris Gordon & Rees GrayRobinson Greenberg Traurig Haynes and Boone Hopping Green Hughes Hubbard Hunton & Williams Husch Blackwell Ifrah Law Jones Day Katten Muchin Norton Rose Fulbright AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT - EPA-19-0240-A-000147 ED_002409_00085474-00016 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Pepper Hamilton Quinn Emanuel Reed Smit h Rosenn Jenkins Seiger Gfeller Shute Mihaly Sidley Austin skadden sohagi Law Group Sonosky chambers Taft Stettinius Weinheimer Haber White and Williams COMPANIES Center for Biological Diversity Inc. Altman Weil Inc. American Bar Association Angie's List Inc. Arkema SA BuzzFeed Inc. Cato Institute Cigna Corporation Cook Group Inc. DePuy Synthes Cos. r- Deloitte Touche Deutsche Bank AG Duke Energy Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Ernst & Young Facebook AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000149 ED_002409_00085474-00018 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Google Inc. H. J. Heinz Company Instagram Inc. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Johns Manville Corp. - Johnson & Johnson Kraft Foods Inc. Lear Corporation Los Angeles Times Midway Gold Corp. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation New York Times co. Pricewaterhousecoopers Progress Energy, Inc. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000150 ED_002409_00085474-00019 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Resolution Economics LLC Retrophin Inc. salesforce.com Inc. Service Employees International Union Sierra club Snap Inc. State Farm Stout Risius Ross LLC sunEdison LLC Temple University Twitter Inc. United Technologies Corporation Xerox Corporation Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corp. Zale Corporation GOVERNMENT AGENCIES U.S. Supreme court Bureau of Indian Affairs Securities and Exchange Commission< https://urldefense.proofpoi nt.com/v2/ url?u=https3A_www.law360.com_agencies_securities-2Dand-2Dexchange-2Dcommission-3Fnl-5Fpk-3D66b640af-2D391e-2D49632Dbedd-2D7c4Oeflcc2bd-26utm-5Fsource-3Dnewsletter-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign3Denvironmental&d=DwMCaQ&c=Rlm5WhGmPEr8srpDE4r86Q&r=Ho493NDikNhzrs - CIPX_)(Q&m=hDjS97sqhHdY7t94bLIIll6gWboN l 616a3TyjNj4SO&s=TSfHUtDgTVq8aSAcpeMY4yaeWlm841AcFpU02eRvxr4&e=> U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of the Interior Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Reclamation Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - Energy Information Administration Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Judicial Conference of the United States f IVIL 1 11 .,, I pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000152 ED_002409_00085474-00021 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 NAFTA National Labor Relations Board National Security Agency New York Attorney General's office oak Ridge National Laboratory Transportation Security Administration U.S. Army U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Forest Service U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Postal Service AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000153 ED_002409_00085474-00022 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 United States Bankruptcy court for the southern District of New York JOBS Search full listings or advertise your job opening Not sure if your firm subscribes? Ask your librarian. We hope you found this message to be useful. However, if you'd rather not rece i ve future emails of this sort, you may unsubscribe here. Please DO NOT reply to this email. For customer support inquiries, please call 1-646-783-7100 or visit our Contact Us page. Law360 I Portfolio Media, Inc, 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10011 The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unaut horized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, a nd may not be re l ied upon by any other party. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000154 ED_002409_00085474-00023 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Wheeler, Andrew [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: 8/22/2018 To: Jahan Wilcox l.__ __Personal_Ema_il_l_Ex._6 ___ ___: Re: Nice interview! (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECI Pl ENTS/CN=l 7 A1669EF5B54FBA8CB457845308787E-WH Subject: EELER,AN] 12:09:39 PM thank you and good luck in your new endeavors. Happy to sign the certificate for you. If you pick it up in person please stop by and say hello. From: Jahan Wilcox! Personal Email/ Ex. 6 i L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-• Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:15 PM To: Wheeler, Andrew Subject: Nice interview! Administrator Wheeler - hope you are doing well. This is a great interview! s:::::::::::::::::::::: iAl soti tt n ·said-( have ·a ·certificated· signed-by· yo~ - thank you very much as I will put that into a frame. []::::::::::::::::::::: Ex.: Have a great day. Jahan Wilcox [_____________ Personal___ Phone _!__ Ex._6 ___________ i ---------- Forwarded message --------From: RNC War Room Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:03 PM Subject: Countdown to the Closing Bell (FBN) -Acting To: EPAAdministrator Andrew Wheeler Interview Countdown to theClosingBell(FBN)-Acting EPAAdministrator AndrewWheelerInterview http://mms. tveyes.com/transcript. asp?Station ID=2025&Date Time=8/21/2018%203: 04:30%20PM&playcl ip=true&p bc=search %3a%2b(the) LIZCLAMAN: we bringin themanbehindthe administration's affordable cleanenergyrule,actingepachiefandrew wheeler.thankyoufor beinghere. ACTINGEPAADMINISTRATOR ANDREWWHEELER: thankyoufor havingme. CLAMAN: presidenttrumpwidelytelegraphed this butgiveusa snapshotof what'sdrivingthe affordable cleanenergyrule. ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: asyouknow,presidenttrumplastyearaskedusto takea lookat the obama administration's proposaloverhaulit andtakea lookat it. whatwe didwastheobamaadministration's proposalwas challenged by 27states.whatwe aredoingis takinga lookat the authorities givento us bycongressandthe cleanair act, AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000155 ED_ 002409_00086036-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 andwe'removingforwardwitha newproposalthatwill providelowercostelectricityfor all americanconsumers andwill alsoreduceco2at thesametime. CLAMAN: as i understand it, as i lookat thetalkingpointsfromthe administration, it soundslikeit will beleftupto the states to decide,butsomealreadyare.withinthe lastcoupleof hours,aswejust mentioned, newyorkstatesaysit willfile a lawsuiton behalfof a consortium of statesandcounties,whichkindof is reminiscent of the 1970swhennewyorkstatefiled a suitagainstutilityplantsin ohioandindianafor emissions thatdriftedeastwardandcausedacidrain.howareyou planningto dealwithwhatlookslikea courtfightalready? ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: well,i wouldcertainlyhopethatnewyorkwouldtakea lookat theproposalfirst beforefilingsuit.butyouknow,27stateschallenged theobamaproposalandit wasstayedbythesupremecourt.so the obamaproposalactuallynevereventookeffect.whatwe'redoingis movingforwardin a measured approach to reduceco2 in the longtermandprovidecheaperelectricityfor all americans. the obamaadministration, obamaepawasreallyengaged in socialengineering whichis notthe roleof the u.s.epa. CLAMAN: as a businessnetwork,wewatchedintrusiveregulations diminishbusinesses andthatobamaeraruleit wasvery aggressive, andsomesayit so fast-tracked thetimetableto eliminatecoal-firedplantstherecouldbea riskof widespread blackoutsbutin the coalworld,it is a freemarketthat'sdiminished the useof coal.naturalgasis plentifulandcleaner,less expensiveandthatis simplya fact.whygo backwards here? ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: well,we'renotgoingbackwards. we arelettingthefreemarketpick.whatwe'renot doingis we'renotpickingthewinnersandlosers.theobamaepapickedwinnersandlosersamongthe differentenergy sources.theywereprojectedto have30%of thecoalplantscloseundertheirproposal.whatwe'redoingis leavingit to the statesandworkingmorecooperatively withthestates.theyknowwhattheenergymixis thateachof themneed.newyork shouldnotdictatewhatohioor pennsylvania or westvirginianeedfor theirenergyproduction, andcertainlythe u.s.epa shouldnotdictateto thestateswhattheyneedfor theirenergyproduction. we needto workmorecooperatively withthe stateswhichis whatpresidenttrump'sproposaldoestoday. CLAMAN: that'sthe economicpart,becauseas i say,naturalgas,$2.97perthermalunionbutcoalis $40perton.to the environmental partof it, thetalkingpointswe gotfromthewhitehousethismorningsaidthe rule,quote,the a.c.e.rulewill ensurethe u.s.remainstheworld'sgoldstandardfor energyproduction andenvironmental protection. butalsowithinthis, the administration's ownproposalincludedanalysisthatmightbeworrisome to, i don'tknow,anybodywhobreathes. 48,000 newcasesof exacerbated asthma.we canputthisuponthescreen.also,in the administration's analysis,theys saithe potentialof at least21,000newmisseddaysof schoolannuallyby2030becausethosepollutants wouldincreasethe atmosphere ratherthandecrease. also,thiswasunbelievable. between470and1400premature deathsannuallyby 2030 becauseof increasedratesof microscopic airborneparticulate. someareasking,whereis the protection partof the environmental protection agencyhere? ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: sure.firstof all,thisregulation andtheobamaregulations werejust designedto addressco2.we alreadyhaveonthe booksa numberof differentregulations to addressparticulate matter,so2.all those arestillonthe books.twoweeksagowe announced thatthe airtodayis 73%cleanerthanit wasin the 1970s.allthe regulations thatgot usto the 73%cleanerarestillin effectandwillstillbe in effecttomorrowandnextyear.this announcement todayisjustfor energyefficiencyfor the utilitysector.this doesnotgoto the underlying environmental protection regulations thatarealreadyonthe booksandwill remainon the books. CLAMAN: gladyoubroughtupthe utilities.we havea lot of utilityceoswhocomeon hereandeventhe utilitiesin those27 statesthatyoureferenced thatsuedto blockpresidentobama'scleanpowerplantssaythereis a pointof noreturn.they havetoldustheymostlyalreadymetthe obamaeraregulations. reutersdida studyof 32 utilitiesin those27statesandthe bulkof themsaidtheyhavenoplansto altertheirmultibilliondollarshiftawayfromcoal.sowhynottakethe approach that wesawpresidenttrumpandhisdaughterivankatakerecentlywhentheyheldthisjobseventof tomorrowevent.it was reallykindof exciting.theysaidtheyweregoingto gofor the modernjobs.trainingcoalminersto workin nuclearpower wchchaysbetterandis the mostcarbon-free wayto producepower.solarandwindisn'tas reliablebutat leastit'smodern. f- !VIL I , ,, , pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000156 ED_ 002409 _ 00086036-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: we encourage the privatesectorto gofurtherthanthe regulations allthetime.but youhaveto remember thattheobamaproposalwasstayedbythe supremecourtso it nevertookeffect.whatwe neededto dowasputa regulation in effectthatwillfollowthe law.epadoesn'tgetto writethe laws.ourcongresswritesthe laws.we arefollowingthe cleanairact,followingthefourcornersof thecleanair act,to putforwarda legalproposalthatwill withstandcourtchallenges andthatwill providecertaintyfor allthe statesandcertaintyfor allthe consumers acrossthe country . CLAMAN: youunderstand, i don'tknowaboutyou,i havetwo kids,i havewatchedcaliforniainstituteverytoughregulations andi usedto growuplookingat smogandcouldn'tseethe santamonicamountains. nowi seeallthe mountains. wewant cleanair andcleanwater. canyoupromisefor as longas you'rein chargethatthatis whatyouwillfightfor? ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: absolutely. whenpresidenttrumpcalledmeandaskedmeto bethe acting administrator, heaskedmeto keepcleaningupthe air,keepcleaningupthewaterandcontinueto deregulate to provide morejobsfor the americanpublic. heknowswe candoall three.i knowwe cando allthree.andwe cando allthreeat the sametime. CLAMAN: yourpredecessor, scottpruitt,out undera cloudof realissues.whatkindof changeswillyouimplement? howwill youchangethewayyou,at leastas actingadministrator of theepa,runthisandhowareyouimprovingmoralewhichwas reallylowwhenhewasthere? ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: i havehada numberof all handsmeetings. i havetraveledto fiveof ourregional office.i wasjust in ourchicagoofficeyesterday . i wasin our michiganlabonfriday. i'mtravelingto ourdenverofficein the nextcoupleof weeks.i'mgettingoutandtalkingto all theepastaffandall of ouroffices.i'm reassuring themthatwe are movingforward,we areprotecting thenvnvirment andpublichealth,whichis the missionof the agency.i startedmycareer as a careeremployeeat theepa,andi thinkthecareeremployees at the agencyreallyrespectthat. CLAMAN: i knowyouarealsoa formerlobbyistof thecoalindustryso yougota tightwirehere.we arewatchingit. we have yourpromise.i hopeyouwill keepit. thankyoufor comingon. ACTINGADMINISTRATOR WHEELER: thankyou. CLAMAN: andrewwheeler,currentadministrator of theepa. Disclaimer: TheRepublican NationalCommittee providedthe abovearticleas a serviceto its employees andotherselected individuals.Anyopinionsexpressed thereinarethoseof the ariicle'sauthoranddo notnecessarily reflecttheviewsand opinionsof the RNC. AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000157 ED_ 002409 _ 00086036-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, CUN] 11/27/2018 5:49:46 PM Grant Kidwell [gkidwell@a lec.org] RE: Speaking at upcom ing ALEC meeting ClintWoods8x10.jpg Grant, Bio below: Clint Woods serves as the Deputy Assistant Administrator in U.S. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Prior to joining EPA in December 2017, Clint was the Executive Director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), a non-profit organization of state and local air quality agencies located in Lexington, Kentucky. vv11ilewith AAPCA, he was also a member of U.S. EPA 's National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology. Clint previously served in positions with the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association. He holds an MA in international commerce and policy from George Mason University and a BA from the University oflvfary Washington. Clint Woods Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 202.564.6562 From: Grant Kidwell [mailto:gkidwell@alec.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 1:47 PM To: Woods, Clint Cc: Deluca, Isabel ; Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE:Speaking at upcoming ALEC meeting Clint, Is there a biography and head shot that you would like included in the printed agenda? -Grant From: Grant Kidwell Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 12:48 PM To: Woods, Clint Cc: Deluca, Isabel ;Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE:Speaking at upcoming ALEC meeting Clint, Thanks again for your willingness to speak to the task force and making the time. In terms of logistics, the ALEC conference is taking place at Friday November 30 th at the Grand Hyatt Washington on 1000 H St NW Washington, DC 20001. Your speaking time is at 2:35 to 3:00 and I would recommend about 15-minutes of prepared remarks and 5-10 minutes for questions . The room the EEAtask force is meeting in is Constitution C/D/E which is on the level 3B of the hotel. You enter the hotel on the main level and go down to the conference level. 3B is three levels below the main AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000158 ED _002409_00087957-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 level. When you enter the hotel, look for the signs pointing to registration table and they will have a speaker's badge for you and then they will be able to direct you to the EEAtask force room. .--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·· If you have any questions, prior to the meeting or the day of my cell phone is! Personal Phone/ Ex. 6 ! i..·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-i What: Speaking at ALEC EEATask Force Date and Time: Friday November 30 th Location: Washington Grand Hyatt 1000 H St NW Washington, DC 20001 Room: Constitution C/D/E From: Woods, Clint Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 3:10 PM To: Grant Kidwell Cc: Deluca, Isabel ; Rakosnik, Delaney Subject: RE: Speaking at upcoming ALEC meeting Grant, Thanks again for reaching out ....Think I can make the afternoon of the 30th work (although I'll only be able to participate for that poition of the task force meeting). Isabel and Delaney may be in touch on any related logistics. Clint Woods Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation. U.S. EPA 202.564.6562 From: Woods, Clint Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:10 PM To: Grant Kidwell Subject: Re: Speaking at upcoming ALEC meeting Grant, Thanks so much for the invite! Let me run a couple traps and hopefully get back to you tomorrow. Clint On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Grant Kidwell wrote: Dear Clint, We meet briefly a couple months ago when you spoke in Salt Lake City. I am reaching out to see if you would be interested in speaking at the upcoming ALEC meeting in DC. The EEAtask force meets on Friday November 30 th at the Grand Hyatt Washington on 1000 H St NW Washington, DC 20001. We are looking for a speaker who could give an update to the task force on the state of the ACE rule as well as other actions coming from the Office of Air and Radiation. The presentation could be similar to the one you did in Salt Lake City. If you are interested, the task force would be excited to have a former director come speak. The time slot would be at 2:30 to 3:00 pm on Friday Nave and I usually tell speakers to have about 15-20 minutes of presentation and then allow for 5 minutes of questions. Let me know if you are interested and feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000159 ED _002409 _00087957-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Grant Kidwell Task Force Director Energy, Environment, and Agriculture 202 669 9910 Upcoming Meetings: 2018 States & Nation Policy Summit - November 28-30, 2018 - Washington, D.C. Website AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT l Facebook l Twitte r Blog EPA-19-0240-A-000160 ED_002409 _00087957-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message From: Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: BCC: 1:53:50 PM Woods, Clint [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDI BOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=bc65010f5c2e48f 4bc2aa050d b50d 198-Woods, Clin] mkeogh@4cleana ir.org; kpoole@ecos.org; jsloan@csg .org Subject: FW: ***STAKEHOLDER CALL ALERT*** (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, To: CUN ] 8/21/2018 All, In addition to the more detailed call planned for states at 3:30 Eastern today (logistics at the bottom of this email), I also wanted to flag a less detailed stakeholder call scheduled for 1:00 PM. Your members are welcome to join either, and the proposal details are available here. Thanks! Clint Woods Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 202.564.6562 Date: August 21, 2018 at 7:05:26 AM Subject: Fwd: ***STAKEHOLDER CALLALERT*** ***S TAK EHO LDE R CAL L ALE RT** * EPA Pro pos es New Affo rdab le Clea AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000161 ED_002409_00088146-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 n Ener gy R ule WAS HING TON ( Augus t 21, 2018) -To day, Augus t 21, 2018, at 1 :00 P.M . EDT, U.S. Enviro nment al Protec tion Agenc y (EPA) Assist ant Admin istrato r for the Office of Air and Radiat ion, Bill Wehru mwill host a stakeh older briefin g via phone AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000162 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 to annou nee the propo sed Afford able Clean Energ y "ACE" rule, which sets green house gas guideli nes for states to set stand ards . Who: The Office of Public Engag ement and the U.S . EPA Assist ant Admin istrato r for the Office of Air and Radiat ion Bill Wehru m What: AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000163 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00003 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Stake holder briefin g via phone When : Tues day, Augus t 21, 2018 1:00 -1:30 P.M. EDT Wher e: Partici pant Toll Free Dial-In Numb er: 1(877) 317- 0679. Pleas e provid e the Conte rence ID: 75378 99 when speaki ng with the operat or. From: Cory .Pr eston(oJ AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000164 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00004 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 ~pa.gov Date: August 20, 2018 at 6:36:31 PM EDT To: "Kather ine Preston Cory (Cory.p reston @epa.g ov)" Cc: Troy Lyons , Douglas Hoelsch er Subject EMBAR GOED: Afforda ble Clean Energy Rule Briefing Tomorr owat 3:30 EST All, Tomor row AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000165 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00005 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 momm g,EPA will be announ cing the Afford able Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, also known as the Clean Power Plan Replac ement Rule. EPA will host a call for govern ors' staff and state cabinet s to give an overv1e wof the rule and offer states a chance to ask questio ns. At 3:30p m EST, the Assista nt AM[ HICAN PVERSIG HT EPA-19-0240-A-000166 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00006 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Admin istrator for the Office of Air and Radiati on, Bill Wehru m, will kick off the briefin g and will be availab le for a quick Q&A. The call will run for halfanhour and will end prompt ly at 4:00p m EST. If you have any questio ns, please feel free to contact me directl y. Thank you for not forwar ding AM[ HICAN PVERSIG HT EPA-19-0240-A-000167 ED_ 002409 _ 00088146-00007 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 this messag e. Partici pant Toll Free DialIn Numb er: (877) 3170679 Conte rence ID: 88798 29 Regard s, Preston Cory K Presto nCory Directo r of Intergo vemme ntal Relatio ns Office of the Admin istrator U.S. Enviro nmenta 1 Protect ion Agenc y 2025794281 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGH T EPA-19-0240-A-000168 ED_002409 _ 00088146-00008 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 EPA-19-0240-A-000169 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, CUN] 9/19/2018 11:00:14 PM Brydon Ross [BRoss@hbwresources.com] Shane Waller [SWaller@hbwresources.com]; Michael Zehr [MZehr@hbwresources .com] Re: Invitation to Speak at CEA Quarterly Meeting Wed Sept. 26th From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Thanks again for the invite - I think I should be able to participate at 2:00 on the 26th. On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:10 PM, Brydon Ross wrote: Clint, Thanks very much for giving this a look, and I hope you may can make it next week. We have a lot of folks back in KY that would be interested in dialing in. Keep things locked down in DC! Best, Brydon From: Michael Zehr Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 3:35 PM To: Woods, Clint Cc: Shane Waller ; Brydon Ross Subject: Invitation to Speak at CEA Quarterly Meeting Wed Sept. 26th Clint, We represent Consumer Energy Alliance (www.consurnerenergyalliance.org), a nationwide nonprofit organization that supports energy policies benefiting families, small businesses and energy consumers. We will be holding the organization's quarterly meeting at our office at 1666 K Street, NW, Suite 500 from 2:00 PM to 3:15 PM on Wednesday, September 26th . CEA's affiliates include a diverse group of energy consumers and energy producers who are all very interested in the work EPA is doing on the Affordable Clean Energy rule, and we were hoping you would consider joining us to give us an update on the rule and plans moving forward. We hope you would speak for 10-15 minutes and allow for 5 to 10 minutes of Q&A. Our quarterly meetings are limited to our affiliates and partner organizations, and we usually have between 20-30 people in attendance. We would love to have you join us if possible. Please let me know if you need anything additional on our end. Thanks, Michael Zehr Tel: 202-210-6647 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000170 ED_ 002409_00088229-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message To: Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, 10/30/2018 2:54:39 PM Paul Bailey [pbailey@americaspower.org] Subject: RE: ACCCE Board mtg Nov 14 From: Sent: CUN] i.' Personal Phone / Ex. 6. ;i ..Thanks! From: Paul Bailey [mailto:pbailey@americaspower.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 7:12 AM To: Woods, Clint Subject: RE:ACCCEBoard mtg Nov 14 Excellent l'U call you this am. Wl1at' s your phone #? Paul Bailey 4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 1050 • Arlington, VA 22203 ,. 1: .:..(L.Ao).41'.->18 I M: :__Personal_Phone -i ..,. - ") :""'( ·-~- ' ! ! / Ex. 6 _! pp_~iUey@americaspower.org From: Woods, Clint Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:16 AM To: Paul Bailey Subject: Re: ACCCEBoard mtg Nov 14 Paul, If you still need me, I will be available at 9:15 on the 14th and very interested in participating. Happy to talk more about logistics or content. Thanks! Clint On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Paul Bailey wrote: Fingers crossed. Thx. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Woods, Clint wrote: Paul, Thanks so much for the invite! There may be a conflict with a public hearing that I may need to attend that day, but let me know double check and get back to you early next week. Clint AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000171 ED_002409_00088254-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Paul Bailey wrote: ClintHope all is well . We'd like to invite you participate on a panel at our Board meeting about the proposed ACE rule. I'm also reaching out to Bill Brownell and Peter Glaser. We have the panel slotted for 9:15 - 10:00 at Venable. I can follow up with more details if you're available . Thanks and we hope you can make it. Paul Paul Bailey 4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 1050 • Arlington, VA 22203 T: 202.459 .4818 I M: [_Personal_ Phone_/ Ex. 6 j pbailey@americaspower.org AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000172 ED_002409_00088254-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message To: Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, CUN] 8/24/2018 4:27:56 PM Kevin Sunday [ksunday@pachamber.org] Subject: Re: PA Chamber: New EPA Rule a Welcome Change Compared to Clean Power Plan From: Sent: Thanks!! On Aug 24, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Kevin Sunday wrote: Good morning Clint and Happy Friday. FYI < !--[if !vml]-->< !--[ end if]--> PRESS RELEASE PAChambe(~ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 24, 2018 PA Chamber: New EPA Rule a Welcome Change Compared to Clean Power Plan Harrisburg - Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry President and CEO Gene Barr issued the following statement following the release of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule. The proposal was authored by the Trump administration to replace the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan. "In drafting this new rule, we commend the EPA for taking into consideration the numerous concerns that were raised about the Clean Power Plan. When it was first unveiled, the PA Chamber warned that the increased costs associated with the Clean Power Plan would jeopardize the Commonwealth's position as an energy leader and were the lead named party in an amicus brief, cosigned by 166 other chambers and manufacturing groups, to the Supreme Court urging for the rule to be overturned. The rule was clearly defective, as the Supreme Court issued a nationwide suspension of the rule. "Having long exhibited global leadership in the coal, gas, nuclear and renewables sectors, Pennsylvania has shown that a free and competitive energy market can deliver emissions reductions when individuals and businesses are free to choose which energy source best fits their needs - and the federal government is not picking winners and losers. The Clean Power Plan was overly aggressive and far-reaching and would not have resulted in any meaningful reduction of global carbon emissions. "The Affordable Clean Energy rule gives states greater flexibility in determining how to comply with the performance standards outlined in the rule and how best to reduce emissions. It also AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000173 ED_ 002409_00088351-00001 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 affords more flexibility to companies complying with the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements, which have stifled innovation at manufacturing facilities. We welcome the EPA's shift to an approach that recognizes the unique energy landscapes within each state. Pennsylvania's diverse energy portfolio- has led to lower energy costs for the Commonwealth's consumers and plays a significant role in the country's overall energy independence. We look forward to reviewing the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule in greater detail and determining how it will impact the state overall." ### The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry is the state's largest broad-based business association, with its statewide membership comprising businesses of all sizes and across all industry sectors. The PA Chamber is The Statewide Voice of Business™. KEVINSUNDAY Director, Government Affairs Ph: 717 720-5443 I Mobile: 717 645-2071 The Statewide Voice of BusinessTM 417 Walnut Street I Harrisburg, PA 17101 AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000174 ED_ 002409 _ 00088351-00002 EPA-HQ-2019-003517 Message To: Woods, Clint [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BC65010F5C2E48F4BC2AA050DB50D198-WOODS, 1/30/2019 7:53:24 PM Paul Bailey [pbailey@amer icaspower.org] Subject: Re: NARUC Feb 12 From: Sent: CUN] Paul, Thanks so much! Unfortunately, I'll be in Houston on the 12th, but I'm checking on availability for rest of the team (I believe Bill may be doing a sideline bfast thing for NARUC that morning, so he might be able to stick around for the panel). Clint On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Paul Bailey wrote: ClintNARUC is holding a panel discussion on the ACE rule. I've agreed to be on the panel, and I've been asked to invite someone from EPA to also serve as a panelist. I'm not sure if they intend to invite other panelists. Would you be available and interested? The panel is scheduled for 10:45 -11:45. I can provide more color if that would be helpful. Thanks, Paul Paul Bailey 4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 1050 • Arlington, VA 22203 T: 202.459.4818 I M: 703.586.2422 pbailey@americaspower.org AM[ HICAN pVERSIGHT EPA-19-0240-A-000175 ED_002409_00088374-00001