OK Well thank you everybody for being here
really delighted to welcome you my name is

Daniel Rockford I'm on the faculty
at Emory University and

along with my two co-hosts Marilyn Brown
who's here and then met a soft who's there

from Georgia Tech I'm delighted to
officially welcome you here today to our

town hall discussion of Georgia's options
for implementing the clean power plan.

A few comments off the bat and then we're
going to turn it over to our speakers

Needless to say we're in the middle of
an incredibly important time for energy

policy here in Georgia also nationally and
globally obviously we wouldn't be here if

the E.P.A. hadn't issued its regulations
under the Clean Air Act in August for

new and existing sources which of course
now gives Georgia about a year to develop

its initial state implementation
plan under the Clean Power Plan for

existing resources at the same time
a number of other processes are obviously

also underway not least the Georgia Power
integrated resource planning process

starting up for twenty sixteen and while
this is happening here in Georgia and

nationally of course in two months time
delegates from over one hundred ninety

countries will gather in Paris for the
U.N. climate conference to try to craft

a new global agreement that seeks to
create a platform for ambitious emissions

reductions from all major emitters
including the United States through

the Clean Power Plan and other measures
but also the European Union China India

and others so it's a really busy time and
it's also a very

important one which I think
is why we're all here today.

I want to focus on three things that
we hope are going to come out of

today's conversation the first is
the substance as you see here we really

want to talk about and get a deeper
understanding of Georgia's options for

implementing clean power and.

Our STARTING POINT here and our goal is
not to debate the merits of the clean

power plant itself but much more to take
the approach that we've been dealt this

hands and the question is how do we play
this hand now in a way that's best for

Georgia so we want to look at the options
that Georgia faces and the impact

of those various options for for our
economy and for our environment for the.

Well it's for our health.

So that's the first objective is really
a substantive one to get a deeper

understanding the second one and
why we're so

grateful all of you are here is
we want to have a conversation

we want to take advantage of
the phenomenal expertise we have here from

the private sector from academia from
non-governmental organizations and

the public sector and the public sector
I want to particularly thank and

recognize those who are here from the
public sector many of whom are going to

have to be on the front lines of this or
already are in the months and years ahead

so especially Karen Hayes and her team
from the Environmental Protection Division

in Georgia Chuck Eaton into their
holes in their colleagues from

the Georgia Public Service Commission
thank you all for being here.

From the Georgia Department of
Economic Development I don't know if

Stephanie Stuckey Benfield from the
Atlanta office of sustainability is here

and that E.P.A. where is Ken Ken do you
want to say a few words about your team

just.

Knows what.

We.

All

know.

All.

Right.

What.

We all.

Want Hold.

On.

Please.

So you know more Stephen we're.

Pretty sure that we.

Need to start.

Working with your teachers.

Who are only.

Really you who are here for.

The.

Good you know.

The truth you believe God.

Is on.

Top of the great.

Divide the.

Usual one the one.

You probably.

Just good everybody's doing for
the last two.

Or.

Three.

Week right here.

That.

You know people were.

Thinking and.

So given the expertise we have
here again not just the public

sector also the private
enjoy academic academia

we're going to the core of the agenda
you'll see after we have some speeches

from here is we're going to get to you all
in the it's called a cafe conversation

we're delighted to have
Michael Elliott who's somewhere here.

Who amongst his made areas of expertise

actually designing public
participation processes so

he'll be facilitating the Session on our
behalf we're delighted to have Michael

here he'll explain the session more
when we get to that part so one of the.

To the gun is the substance the other is
the conversation in the process the third

is the two together which is we hope to
do our part with this event to strengthen

the network of individuals or
organizations working on these issues

going forward these
issues are not going away

even once we submit our initial plan we'll
probably have some more work to do and

these issues will remain incredibly vital
to Georgia's economy jobs environment and

so we hope that again we can do our little
part to strengthen the ability of all of

us to learn from each other and work
together going forward on these issues for

today a few logistical items Hopefully
you have a yellow card in your tables of

anyone who wants to connect to wife
feel free if you're on the Y. five and

you happen to be tweeting or using any
other social media feel free to use

the hash tag hash tag G A C.P.P. so that
we can follow the event in the Internet

while we're also having it here in
that way that we do things these days.

Coffee You all saw coffee at night snacks
are out front we're going to try to build

in a coffee break time permitting but
obviously if you need to or if you want to

feel free to step out and bathrooms Hofer
you saw her just how and so the right.

So before I wrap up just a very
brief note about why Emory is here

why armories doing this about a year ago
we created an initiative and initiative

called climate at Emory which seeks to
bring together Emory strengths to advance

our abilities to engage in teaching and
research and public engagement in climate

change and one of the things we set out
to do from the very beginning is to

work in partnership with others like
Georgia Tech to create a space for

these kinds of conversations we're very
grateful to have the opportunity to play

our little part in doing that and I should
know that the idea to hold this event came

out of a conversation with a number of
other individuals I want to particularly

think Kevin Kelly from south face who's
had a just invaluable insights and

advice on how to shape this event in a way
that creates a good space for everybody.

So that said I want to thank you all for
being here we're going to we have three

speakers coming up Marilyn Brown will
come up first Marilyn's a professor at

Georgia Tech and the director of
Georgia Tech's climate and energy policy

laboratory she's going to give a clean
power plant to a one assuming that you all

have one already in your heads and then
we're going to hear from Kevin Kelly it's.

Pace and from para Hayes the chief of
the earth action branch in Georgia this is

part of a question division about the the
thinking going into Georgia state planning

process so I will stop there and
turn it over to Marilyn thanks again for

being here.

Thanks very much Daniel great
introduction and wonderful to be here so

glad you've all made it there
just coming down the earth her

nearly full week of dialogue
about climate change and

my favorite quote from Pope Francis was
climate change is a problem that no

longer can be left to the next generation
so here we are down to the nuts and

bolts of how we're going to begin
to take care of it address it today

carbon pollution suicide contribution to
climate change presents a significant

threat to public health and
the environment on which our economy and

our natural security depends.

Cars and coal are the principal emitters
of C O two in the United States

we've done a pretty good job addressing
our issues with cars we have higher

fuel economy requirements for
auto movie deals today and

now we're going to tackle coal and
the electricity sector so

with a clean power plan C O two
emissions in twenty thirty and

from the electricity sector will
be reduced by thirty two percent

by the year twenty thirty and at
the same time are going to be addressing

other pollutants such as Knox and
socks getting rid of small than

cleaning up the air particulate and
making us all that much healthier.

So as I turn to the mechanics of
the final clean power plan you

should all forget what you know
about the proposal many of you.

Like I did study it in detail and

now it's all change
the fundamental is very different.

First carbon pollution standards for
new power plants

were also announced on August third
along with the final plans for

existing power plants and
the new source performance standards for

new plants have a very heavy
federal regulatory role and

are addressed very differently from
the regulation of existing power plants

different approaches use for achieving
emission reductions from our existing

fleet after more than four
million comments a final plan for

that per the existing fleet has
been released and if focuses on

what is the chief of what individual
source is using three building blocks and

considering two types of power plant steam
boilers which are mostly coal powered and

natural gas can block
combined cycle plant.

These standards for the individual units
were translated into state goals and

that is the source of the goals
that will be talking about today so

the three building blocks are shown
here their first ways to increase

the operational efficiency of existing
coal fired steam plants by for

instance chemical cleaning of
the boilers optimizing cooling systems

using sensors and controls and
more intelligent oversight

the second building block is increasing
natural gas by redispatching generation

away from coal plants to natural gas
to natural gas combined cycle units and

then the third building block
is renewables greater use of

new zero emitting renewable energy so
if states build or use.

More wind solar geothermal hydro power or

biomass they can reduce the overall carbon
intensity of their power plant fleet.

This building block is bolder
than it was in the proposed plan

partly because solar and
wind cost have been coming down and

as a result U.P.A. concluded that it
was feasible for renewables to provide

a twenty six percent of electricity
generation by the year twenty thirty and

that's been incorporated in
these new these new goals so

the final rule does not use nuclear or
elect or

energy efficiency in its
building blocks now when that was

became clear in August many people leapt
to the conclusion that nuclear and

energy efficiency have
been swept aside and

are no longer important keep in
mind that that is not true that for

compliance energy efficiency and
nuclear can both play a role.

So in Georgia the affected power
plants are shown in this table and

they account for about sixty three
million tons of C O two and twenty ten

you can see them scattered across the map
here the bluer coal plants and the gold or

the natural gas combined cycle
plants the twenty thirty goals for

the state of Georgia is to reduce those
emissions from sixty two point nine and

twenty twelve to forty six point
three about a twenty three percent

reduction there's a little asterisk
there about the treatment of.

Plant McDonough up the street
which has just added

to natural gas combined cycle plants
in the year two thousand and twelve and

it kind of muddies the water a little
bit on this calculations but

that's a good enough characterization.

So they clear.

Air Act in section one eleven D.
give states the responsibility to

develop their own plans to meet
the carbon reduction goals that E.P.A.

has set and these players will
then be a belly weighted by E.P.A.

and that is why we're here today.

The state of Georgia is in
the thick of bringing together.

These plans the Georgia
rate base goal is very

similar to the rate goals of
other states within the South and

indeed within the United States in fact
if you compare the proposed plan to

the final plan you'll see that there say.

That these targets have become more
complete rest there are fewer outliers and

you'll also note that the goals for
Georgia Tennessee and

South Carolina are less
stringent as a result of

the removal of the under construction
nuclear plants in those three states

from the baseline.

So there we are.

Now what's the timeline for development of
the plan and how are these calculations to

be done to meet the rate base or
myspace goals which are Priest chosen.

So initial state plans
are due in twenty sixteen.

And the final plan to do in twenty
eighteen the final federal plan which

was announced as a proposal in August
will be finalized in twenty sixteen and

it's a backstop so
if the states do not provide planned that

are accepted by E.P.A. There is a federal
plan that they will need to follow and

those and that.

Plan.

Sorry I don't remember if
it's a it hasn't been for.

So I'm not sure if it's
going to be made or mass and

it's under review they're also proposed
model rules that are under review for

both mass and and rate based plans so

that there are some complexities
that are shown in this diagram so

in the blue you see the period
in which the pretty complete

period in which plants are developed the
gold bar shows the years twenty twenty and

twenty one which is the period when
the Clean Energy incentive program

is an operation providing a financial
incentives in a two year period for

early action in particular for the
construction of solar and wind plants and

also for investments in energy efficiency
addressing low income populations.

Renewable energy built after twenty twelve

is is allowable for emission rate credits

in the compliance period but
they don't collect emission

rate credits during the period two
thousand and twelve to twenty twenty or

twenty twenty two depending on
what type of renewables it is.

A solar and wind being given
the early approval than others.

So.

An interim compliance period
then is going to begin in twenty

twenty in the final emissions targets
must be met in twenty thirty this

glide pass which you can see for
the state of Georgia is shown in blue and

it has three different periods
with three different goals.

So the E.P.A.
set both mass and rate goals and

the goals for southern states are shown in
this chart you can see where Georgia is

pretty much very close to
the national goal and the.

Average call for Southern states this
shows you on the Y. axis vertical axis.

Mass based goals reductions as
a percentage and on the horizontal axis.

Rate based goals I added.

Mass based goal with and
without credit for

new emissions so
this brings another complexity since it is

two zero forgive me if we get
into some of the details.

States can choose to use a mass or
rate based goal rate based

goal can be done by each plant or
by the entire state fleet and

it can generate a tradable
bankable E R C S for

energy efficiency the mass base goal
can be only for the entire state it.

Can be for existing or
existing Plus new units so

that's where we come that's where we.

Introduce the term new source complement
what you see in the bottom right

there the new source complement is
the difference between the mass based

goal with and
without being included in of new

emission sources so
after twenty twelve and

on into the future most states are going
to be growing their electricity demand and

so if you include the emissions
from the new demand then the rate

of mass space goal needs to being
adjusted and that increment is called

the new source complement and that's
getting a lot of attention these days and

stakeholder group meetings because there
is a discussion of perhaps setting those

aside to a state my distribute
carbon allowances for

the existing fleet mass space goal but
set aside allowances for knew it.

Emissions and perhaps uses and

targeted ways to supplement
the efficiency investments and

renewable energy
investments just a thought.

Right here is how the calculations are
done in case some of you haven't We have

to have equations for
a Georgia Tech lecture So you see that for

a mass based goal you
just add the generation.

Strictly based on C O two emissions.

The rate base goal is the C O two and
pals from a quad hour and

then you get again to reduce that rate by
having more megawatt hours that didn't

have any emissions so
as we talk about which way the state

of Georgia might want to proceed it's
interesting to go to the literature and

see what's been said about which is easier
to meet where the allowance is where where

Which of these goals are have the lower
incremental compliance cost the regulatory

impact analysis which you all find on
E.P.A.'s website suggest that the mass

base goals are cheaper Brown at
all from Georgia Tech than it race

based goals are cheaper so
I would say the jury is out.

We will have to see what's assumptions are
made in particular about things such as

a rate of growth if you're going to
experience a high rate of growth in

electric demand then you may not be able
to find room for that in a mass based

cap and might need to go with the rates
a lot of considerations all right and

as you may know I have a relationship with
T.V. A and so have been learning that T.V.

A calculates that forty five
percent of it's clean and

it clean electricity is not
able to be included in its.

Emissions rate.

As I mentioned anything on the ground
early like nuclear fission see it set or

does not get worked in so we did this some
analysis using our own modeling tools and

we came up with a couple of compliance
pathways that show how the South

might be able to address the.

Clean Power Plan this was actually the
proposed plan you can see the left hand

bars show what the forecast is by
the Energy Information Administration for

the growth of electricity over time
twenty twelve to twenty thirty and

on the right side are our alternative
futures where we have a big push

on efficiency and acknowledge
the rapidly dropping costs for solar so

you can see quite a different
complection to the fuel profile

of the self you know
a great deal is at stake.

If the states and the U.S.
push one lever or

another very different
outcome could occur and

we found that this was the case our
modeling of the cells that if you add

a twenty dollar allowance
into the system for

renewables then you get a whole lot of
solar in certain parts of the self so

we see a tipping point a transformational.

Event that.

Could occur.

So in conclusion we're
going to talk today about.

How Georgian might respond.

Carbon Pollution is declining
already because of the cheap and

abundant natural gas and renewables
throw in an economic downturn and

you know demand is not what it used to
be but without the clean power plant.

Forecast is that demand
will once again rise and

associated C O two
emissions will increase so.

Very important to get these state plans
in place and to design them smartly

because a smart clean power plant in
my estimation can spur innovation and

technology based solutions accelerate
economic growth cut energy bills and

improve human health and protect
the environment so that hell with it

is a tell and I'm going to turn the podium
over to Kevin Kelly from the southeast

Energy Institute who is going to tell us
about his thoughts regarding George Bush

response to the people.

Of.

His birthplace say something to do
with us but I just want to let.

You know.

As a city.

That smart.

Thank you Maryland Good
afternoon everyone.

Thank you for taking time at your
schedules to engage in this conversation

about clean power plan and what it
means for Georgia's energy future and

thank you again dark brown for a very good
overview of the final clean power plant

we've been planning this meeting for
a while for many months now.

And we I think the idea for

this workshop first arose back in
December two thousand and fourteen and

as the idea took shape over the spring
in the summer I had an idea what I might

want to talk to this group about but
honestly my thinking changed.

We have now a final clean power plant and
I think everybody's aware that final clean

power plant is different enough than the
proposed plan that it seemed to warrant

stopping and taking stock and so
probably like others in this room.

We're kind of recalibrating and figuring
out where do we stand in the wake of

the release of the final clean power
plant so where does Georgia stand now and

ever since the final rule came out we've
been asking ourselves How far along

are we already without doing anything
different than what we're already doing so

we can focus on the question how far along
are we and so to answer that question I

think first you've got to focus
on what's already underway.

What are the changes that have already
taken place or taking place right now in

the energy sector in Georgia and I think
everybody in this room probably aware that

utilities and others in this state have
already undertaken significant changes and

have adopted programs that
are already decarbonising or

reducing the carbon intensity
of electricity sector in Georgia

it's all one talk a little bit about
that for a minute we built a lot of very

efficient natural gas combined cycle
generation so from two thousand and

two to two thousand and
twelve ga has built seven natural guy gas

combined cycle plants that total more than
eight thousand megawatts of capacity so

in ten years that's a lot of development
of N G C C isn't going to call it

going forward and so not only have we
built this but we've increasingly relied

on this very efficient natural gas to meet
the state's electricity demand and so by

my own calculations we went from a thirty
percent capacity factor for the natural

gas combined cycle unit I think in
latter when I look over the side story.

From a thirty percent capacity factor for
all of the natural gas combined cycle

plant and six years later went to
a fifty one percent capacity factor for

those plants so that's a significant shift
in just six years of relying on those

plants Marilyn had to that one of the
reasons is clearly that natural gas prices

are low and we're using that generation
a lot to meet the state's demand.

We're closing coal units so E.P.A. I think
folks know you two thousand and twelve

data on the power sector by April twenty
sixth teen we will have retired seventeen

of the thirty one coal steam units that
E.P.A. used in its calculation for clean.

Powerplant So
a lot of coal is going offline.

And then consumers have invest in
the construction of two nuclear

units Vogels three and

four those are supposed to come online
twenty nine thousand in two thousand and

twenty and I think as Marilyn said one
a very important thing to remember is that

the generation from those units the states
like that have under construction nuclear

George and others are going to be able to
use that generation toward compliance.

And a couple other things
utilities project developers and

consumers have also developed significant
utility scale and distributes older

generation that a Maryland talked
about and that has made Georgia one of

the states of the fastest growing solar
markets in the nation and then finally I

want to mention demand side Mandarin
energy efficiency utilities have invested

more in demand side management and then
also consumers have done some very large

scale energy efficiency projects like
the lead a better billing challenge and

the state of Georgia has
undertaken a very significant.

Energy performance contracting program so

significant energy efficiency
on the consumer side so

how close to these changes get us
to the final clean power plant.

And goals so
as Marilyn just described our carbon

reduction goals got less stringent
from the proposed plan to the new and

our new goal is a thirty four percent
reduction from two thousand and

twelve down to twenty
thirty to meet that goal so

when we line up all this activity
with the new goals what does it mean.

And so for folks that don't operate power
sector models like south face does not

this kind of takes a bit of triangulation.

E.P.A. released an estimate back in August
as part of the documents that are released

in the clean power plant so in the state
at a glance fact sheet for Georgia E.P.A.

projected that Georgia would
achieve a carbon emission rate

of one thousand one hundred thirty five
pounds rego out hour by two thousand and

twenty without the clean power plant.

That's pretty significant if
that's correct that Georgia means

we will be in compliance through.

Twenty twenty eight and
get eighty four percent of the way

toward our twenty thirty goal without
taking any new corrective measures or

compliance measures now we've looked at
these numbers we've kind of done our best

to run these numbers to ground what we
know is that their output of the I.C.

if i P A model that E.P.A. uses we don't
really know what assumptions went into

that we've tried but we're going
to figure that out so we thought

OK we need some other points of reference
so we've operated or tried to run some

of the publicly available and we're
going to hurry up models like the M.J.

Bradley compliance model and we've
actually come to a similar conclusion that

the state of Georgia can get down to about
one thousand one hundred forty pounds for

megawatt hour without any incremental
effort so this is the final answer and

I recently heard a speaker at a meeting
that problem you were at actually last

week said about models said All models
are wrong with some are more useful than

others so I think that's useful to keep
in mind so I don't think we can say for

certain where is GA without
any incremental effort but

I do think that the pictures become clear
we're a long way toward a twenty thirty

thirty compliance goal but we still have
a gap to close and I think I want to

focus on that idea of the gap because it's
a significant and it's real if we assume

that we all the generation of the nuclear
units redispatch the natural gas

renewable energy that's in the development
pipeline and then also energy efficiency

projects under way we still have
a gap to close so I think no one I

hope in the room is going to
be surprised that South faces

thoughts about how to close the gap.

We believe the greater investment in
energy efficiency renewable energy is

the most cost effective way to address and
close this gap but

also I think it's important to remember
that those resources yield additional

benefits beyond just reducing the carbon
intensity of the power sector bill savings

for electricity customers and hopefully
particularly for low income customers

reduce freshwater consumption by the power
sector in the state which is important.

Given our fresh water situation reduced
the mission of criteria pollutants

that will help with the next tightening of
the next that he will have to address but

also improve public health in the state
and then there is an opportunity for

innovation and economic growth in the
states clean energy sector south face does

the clean energy industry census in
the twenty fourteenth century this so

that Georgia's clean energy industry
employs almost twenty thousand people and

generates close to three billion in
annual revenues and we see this is a real

opportunity to grow that sector more but I
know I'm running short of time but I want

to touch on two important opportunities
in the clean power plant foreclose

one is a clean energy incentive program
and one is the directive to do outreach to

vulnerable communities and engage them in
the planning process as Marilyn mentioned

the clean energy incentive program is
an incentive program for early action for

solar and wind resources and for
low income energy efficiency and

so we hope that George is going to seize
that opportunity it's going to do number

of things it's going to stimulate
the renewable energy market but

it's also going to offer real opportunity
for low income Jordans to manage their

energy bills but then it's also going
to give the state additional compliance

flexibility and I think that's going
to be important that we can bank those

credits from a clean energy incentive
program and use them for compliance so

I don't I think this is an opportunity
we should not let pass us by.

And so I want to say something
about the commitment for

states to do outreach to vulnerable
communities I think this is a very

important opportunity to expand
the energy dialogue to bring folks in who

are not typically part of this dialogue in
terms of what is George energy future and

kind of put the energy policy in
a broader social policy framework and

also to build long lived
relationships going forward

in power point to Porton Don't get me
wrong but it's also a moment in time but

I think this is an opportunity to really
change going forward the discussion about

energy in our state so I was going
to reflect on some of the themes.

Very quickly because Marilyn touched on
some of them and I'm running out of time

but I'm looking forward to these
conversations about how do we

design a plan how do we maximize economic
development how do we ensure equity these

are really important themes that I'm
looking forward to conversations today so

that's again for being here and I'm going
to turn the mike over to Karen Hayes she

is the chief of the air
protection branch with Georgia.

Hello everybody I'm Karen Hayes I'm with
the Georgia Environmental Protection

Division and
before I get started want to Bert and

caught up with you stand
up pleased her peers and.

To the people working on
the clean power plan for

the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division Bert is lead on that project and

they're the ones with all
the technical expertise and

all they've read many thousands of pages
maybe not all the many other thousands

of pages that they imparted
to us on August third.

As already been mentioned the clean
power plant changed dramatically between

proposal and final rule and I think all of
us are still digesting it and will be for

some time.

They change response to the millions
of comments they received

some of those from Georgia as well and
some of the big changes were how they

handled under construction
nuclear in the proposal.

They increased the ability to do
interstate trading made that much more

flexible and then also the interim goal in
the proposal required to simply too much

too soon and recognize that and relaxed
that what they call the glide path.

So some of the major changes that
we saw things that were helpful for

Ga Ga's goal in the proposal was.

A performance goal of eight hundred thirty
four pounds C O two per megawatt hour

our goal in the final rule is one thousand
and forty nine pounds to zero two per

megawatt hour so it's not quite as
difficult as a part of NATO though it.

Still would be quite a challenge.

Also in the pan a real.

Alternative a missile limit.

On what we call mass base.

Limit sometimes called a cap of
about forty six million pounds

tonnes not pounds of C O two and

by comparison the proposed rule required C
O two emission reductions in the order of

thirty five down to thirty five
million tons by twenty thirty.

So that's a little bit about the Brule and
where it looks so what are we going to do

now you know how Will Georgia
Environmental Protection Division

develop a state plan to implement
the clean pound clean power plant we will

work with a lot of stakeholders to do this
we cannot do this alone we don't have

a regular regulatory authority
to set state energy policy and

we don't have expertise in promoting
energy efficiency and renewable energy

either we will need to work with lots of
folks to do this we began working with

the Georgia environmental finest authority
in the Georgia Public Service Commission

as the same as the proposal came out and
we will continue to do that

because they have the expertise that
we need while also continuing to work

with the utilities because obviously they
have a lot of expertise that we need and

the utilities are not just one big
entity they consist of Georgia Power

thirty electric membership cooperative.

Forty nine municipal utilities that
are part of me Dalton utilities and

also several other independent
utilities with a lot of people on

the tele sector side too
that we're talking with.

Also continue meet with various
non-governmental organizations and

other stakeholders because N.G.O.s and
others have a lot of

expertise particularly in voluntary
programs and community outreach

something that's a new part of this
clean power plant in the rule.

E.P.A. to discuss Georgia's
concerns of we're talking about

community outreach right before this
meeting began today with Ken Mitchell and

also talking with the person who actually
review our state plan when it goes over to

Terry Johnson who's back there.

And also we're sharing information
with other southeastern states and

also other states but with a real focus
on the southeastern states our neighbors

are kind of in this together
we're very similar.

Energy Systems and it needs and
it's been very helpful to talk to

our neighbors about what they're
thinking they're going to do.

So we're still evaluating this rule and
I think we'll be learning something about

the clean power plant up to the day
we submit our state plan to E.P.A.

It is very complex it is thousands of
pages of technical support documents or

guidance documents in addition to
the sixteen hundred pages of rules so

there's a lot to learn a lot to digest and
a lot to interpret.

Some of the things in particular look
we're still looking at include this

proposed federal plan and the model
rules we feel like these draft documents

give us some insight on what you will and
will not accept when and

with regard to our state plan with so
we think it's very part and

to review these evaluate and we will
likely be submitting comments on them.

We're also looking at the various
assumptions that E.P.A.

made when calculating that what they call
the best system of emission reduction

how they got to the one thousand and

forty nine pounds per megawatt hour we
want to understand that really carefully I

think that will help inform kind of
where we are and where we need to go.

We're looking at the clean energy
incentive program as something

new in the final rule and
how it might be helpful to Georgia.

And also what is meaningful in Gage what
was stakeholders including vulnerable

communities one sentence in
the clean power plant and

we need to understand
exactly how we would.

You know do meaningful engage with
stakeholders including vulnerable

communities something that we're
definitely look at have as well.

And one big fundamental question you know
kind of looms at the top of the list for

us is do we do I rate base plan
pounds per megawatt hour or

a mass based plan tonne C O two if we
do or a place plan we'll have to track

mission production credits we do a mass
based plan we'll have the E.P.A.

wants the states should dress a missions
from new sources in a mass based plan well

how do we do that I mean can we even do
that is that legal I mean just things we

have to answer and then how do we allocate
the times between all the utilities so

just really big things that
we'll have to work through.

But we'll work through them with
a lot of people in the room because

their next are first I called a meeting
after the final rules out is the October

eighth coming up very soon and I imagine
some of you in this room of ours find of

a look at and some of you hopefully will
go to the Georgia environmental protection

visions Web site and you know click on
a link to register if you want although

it is limited to eighty people so
if you want to register soon.

And we're also developing a plan for
our whole stakeholder process affect.

Is tasked with doing that well has some
of these large stakeholder meetings and

we're also talking about having some
smaller stakeholder meetings which just

focus on one specific topic that will
have to address in our state plan for

example maybe I mean really
focus on you know what is

this meaningful engagement with
stakeholders including vulnerable

communities you know what
will that process look like.

So I think we have a lot of meetings in
the future probably with a lot of folks

in this room.

So as far as important dates the initial
state planning is due on September

twenty sixth along with a compliance
extension request of up to two years.

Georgie P.D. does intend to file
an extension request we think will need

every bit of those three years
to come up with a good plan and

we intend to take our time and
try to do this right.

The state plan that we do develop will
like they were caught require revisions of

the Georgia Rules for air quality control
and any rule revisions have to be adopted

by the Department of Natural Resources
Board pride to submit all that stay and

plant state plan to E.P.A. So that's just
part of our process as well the final

plan is today E.P.A. September twenty
eighth and with the interim goals kick in

starting twenty twenty two
final goal twenty thirty.

So distant shore our charge is to
develop a system like civil state plan

that provides a mechanism for
interstate trading and achieve Georgia C O

two emissions performance goal in
the most cost effective manner and

look forward to working with all of you
as we work to develop that state plan.

So what we're doing is where
during the transition.

Or conversation based.

Approach and we as you know you're
all divided into different groups

there's five different topics that we're
going to have discussions about and

we're going to start the conversation by
having a speaker who will provide a brief

comments of five minutes maximum and
I should and also introduce Ross that were

here who was the second most important
person here is trying to keep us on time

and and so the first group is dealing with
innovation and economic development issues

the second with environmental benefits and
Co benefits assures the third with equity

environmental justice issues the fourth
with design of market systems issues and

of the fifth with cross state
coordination and so you're in

teams right next to each other
we're going to start this by.

By having presentations on each of
these that are five minutes long and

then I will come out and talk to you
briefly about how you're going to have

your discussions how your discussions
of cells will be organized so

the first person who will
be coming up will be.

From the Georgia Department of Economics.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

For inviting me to this event for
those of you who don't know us.

George the pardon for

economic development is the sales and
marketing arm of the state.

New companies to the state and we work
with existing companies in the state and

everything we do is very strategically
focused what we don't do

is we don't regulate.

Mandate or legislate or hand out money.

Sometimes you may that the state gave them
some incentives we don't we cannot do that

they just debate them
future pay tax payments so.

Our economic development studies focused
on five of the digital industries which

covers pretty much everything.

The energy technology industry
was added the few years ago and

the question was there many changes
are going on in the industry.

Is there in the industry for
the state of Georgia Well look at this and

they said look we're not to
an energy producing state or

not Texas and that in spite
comment inspired me because I

was speaking with a family member who
is from Texas and so I look at this and

I said what do we do what is our current
situation in the state of Georgia so I

look at this and I said OK we're spending
about the billion dollars to buy call.

We spared I'm sorry the natural
gas we spend about two and

they have been lost by coal and thirty
billion dollars to buy petroleum products.

So most of it comes from Texas then I
compare that with our state budget and

I said want it takes twenty billion
dollars to run the entire state and

would send thirty some billion
dollars out of the state every year

which will never see again.

So yes we are now energy state we
have a problem selling the said

whether the from the economic development
perspective whether the leading indicators

then we start reading about the world they
live again the gate leading indicators and

we read about fracking horizontal drilling
and I said Boy we're losing the game or

new to their old industries getting
revolutionized with new technologies but

then we also read about we also
experienced very tired of manufacturing

and the new companies that they come from
the manufacturing go miss that come back

to the United States and particularly
in the state of Georgia they're fully

automated robotics that requires
about the Philip Treacy and

then you read about the technology
cloud computing such as this and

that everything else all these magic words
and you say why don't we do need a lot of

a lot of electricity socially give
a reasonable cure in the here for

the an industry and how do we look
at that how do we look at this

energy in the street and then we went
back from the beginning to divide it

being that in four categories energy
generation two as mission distribution and

storage and we tried to guess what or
might not guess search and

find out what are the specific interest
as we can attract here in Georgia from

the economic development perspective and
the inner said circle is what the state

can do but we're going to do work first
to make development we're good at

Applied Research here the universities
would have the mechanisms to fund those.

We have a legislator that pretty
much support supports the.

Industry so so we went out to start
recruiting the companies and we focused

on our strategic in this case by almost
the first was the first one because we

have a lot of three solar where the second
one well I was the project manager for

Sony that was the card this project never
have to work because in two thousand and

eight there was a debate whether
it would have sun in the States.

Or seven years later we have.

Billion dollar economic.

Impact from the solar industry
about three thousand jobs and.

By the time they finish installing or
the solar.

Building or the solar farms then we're
going to be in among the top five and so

is the lesson and what happened
here is the industry and the.

Legislation to change things convince the
companies to do that we're doing the same

thing now and they're wasting
energy we're doing working with.

The interstate to support the electric
vehicles so the most recent four.

Were working on a project as a matter of
fact that I had this afternoon at their

meeting with the bankers on waste energy
energy the food we can eliminate thousands

of trucks from the streets coming from the
roads come from California from Mexico.

Bringing the produce here in Georgia and

hopefully we can talk about it
in a couple of weeks thank you.

Thank you all of the thank you so

the next speaker is Matt Strickland
from Emory University We'll talk about

environmental benefits and coal benefits.

It's.

Great so

what I decided to do was summarize some
findings from an article published.

In Nature Climate change this summer that
looked at different sort of combinations

of policy options and
the consequent reductions in emissions and

also changes in expected health
benefits associated with those so

these are estimates from a national
study not Georgia specific and

everything is in reference to two thousand
and twenty scenario where all existing

plans other than the clean power
plan are are in in effect and enact.

C O two emissions in two thousand and
twenty under that plan are expected to

be about fifteen percent lower than
they were in two thousand and five.

Saw Now when we look here the first
two narrow they looked at this inside

the fence line compliance this is
reduction Xin unit specific admissions

rates the four percent increase in
fleet wide average heat rate occurs for

power plants no other new coal
power plants little changes and

other sources of power generation
no investments in energy efficiency

those kinds of things ends
up with a very modest to no

benefits here small reductions in C O two
small increases in S O two and very little

improvement in terms of premature
death from him two point five knows.

Scenario two has investments in demand
side energy efficiency crossed state and

within state averaging in trading the
missions are permitted in this scenario

power generation from coal drops
by about twenty five percent and

it's entirely cheap by
energy efficiency gains

in this situation as a market reduction
in power from existing coal plants and

modest about five fold increases
in power generation for

new plants with carbon capture and storage
in this setting at a national level for

a year two thousand and
twenty relative to the reference.

Scenario for twenty twenty we
see about twenty five percent or

so reduction in C O two Nox or
curiosity to.

And an estimated thirty five
hundred premature deaths annually

avoided from PM two point five in ozone.

Scenario three sort of mimics a national
tax on C O two that requires all new and

existing power plants to have pollution
reduction measures that are less than or

equal to the social cost of carbon has
lots of different compliance options

here demand for energy is anticipated to
decrease because it will be more expensive

and there is no investments in energy
efficiency in the demand side in

the scenario this sort of
includes heat rate improvements

thirty percent increase in power
generation from natural gas and

a very very market expansion of
carbon capture and storage sixty

fold increase in that which may be quite
implausible by two thousand and twenty but

at least give some sense of you know what
the scenario would look like if it did

happen here we see a large forty
percent reductions in C O two

somewhat smaller reductions in knots
relative to Scenario two but but

big improvements and more or less similar
estimated numbers of annual premature

deaths avoided not considered
in the study explicitly but

certainly well known are improvements
in things like visibility.

Less acidification of our
water system except truck.

They also and this study was given in
the resources for this this meeting so

if you want to check it out it's
available they also show maps for

each individual state and
in here we have GA This is for

Scenario two where the reductions in.

And power consumption are from
energy efficiencies we see map of

two point five reductions for two thousand
and twenty relative to the reference

scenario is own reduction and
this this is over a ten year period

cumulative estimates of the number of
lives saved hospitalizations prevented.

And heart attacks prevented.

And that's from the same study so thank

you.

And we're joined by Table rights of the
for the first two speakers we're speaking

about what sorts of tables will be
talking about the next speakers Macare

rumbly from the U.S. E.P.A. and she'll be
talking about equity environmental justice

which is what the scoop of
individuals will be talking about.

Hello again my name is MacArthur Bromley
I'm the senior advisor to the vision for

administrator Heather McTear Tony on
state local and community engagement and

I was about to give the organizers
a little bit more credit and thank you for

putting me third as the expert speaker
because equity in environmental

justice is always usually put
last as a as an afterthought

as a zero zero Yeah
about those people but.

E.P.A. has put a number of
considerations in place so

Open sure that the clean power plant is
thinking about disproportionately impacted

in vulnerable communities we are looking
at proximity analysis to help states and

overburden communities engage with each
other during the clean power plant

we're requiring that states engage with
stakeholders including communities so

that private utilities nonprofit and

actual community members average
everyday citizens experiencing

the impacts in the benefits that were
attempting to achieve with the clean power

plant we're also conducting
an analysis during the implementation

phase to determine the impact of the clean
power play in our communities and

we're encouraging states
to do that as well.

And we are encouraging it.

To employ a multi pollutant approach when
they're devising their state plan and

we're providing resources to federal
state and local programs to assist

with energy efficiency and
renewable energy resources and finally

we have provided an optional clean
energy incentive program which I

get a little bit more into detail
later on with my slides so

we want communities to be able to share
in the benefits of the clean energy

economy energy efficiency and
renewable energy.

So we want to make sure that there
is meaningful engagement as share of

information during the State
implementation process through

out the entire state implementation
planning process we want to make sure

that an avenue or vehicle is
available to allow that communication

that knowledge sharing to take place so
communities can talk about their thoughts

about how they might be disproportionally
expose what their worries and

concerns are and the state can in
turn evaluate those concerns and

share that information and analyze what
possible impacts might be present and

think about how to mitigate those and
we will provide additional information to

facilitate that engagement
in the near future.

So.

I usually do not read slides However
this last slide is pretty important and

I want to make sure that I am speaking
verbatim about the clean energy and

sin of program is it incentivizes early
investments that generate wind and

solar power or reduce in use energy
demand during twenty twenty and

twenty twenty one it is an affable program
it's a matching fund program which

states can choose to use it instead of
as early investment some wind and solar.

And I have measures that
also use the me and

side energy efficiency measures
implemented and low income communities so

targeted for low income communities the
E.P.A. will provide matching allowances or

emission rate credit to states that
participate in this action across ramp

up to an amount equal to the equivalent
of three hundred million short times

of C O two emissions
the match is double for

low income energy efficient energy
efficiency projects and you can see that

all of it targeted at removing historic
barriers to deployment of these measures

states with more challenging emissions
reduction targets have access to her

proportionately larger share of that
match and there is a link at the bottom

which I'm sure you don't have time to
copy but we can make sure is provided for

you that gets into even more
details than I have just read.

And this last lot has your contact
with the E.P.A. specifically for

Community Engagement part of
the state implementation planning and

those persons have already introduced
themselves can Michel Christian brainy and

who'll be leading the great at one of
the breakout sessions and myself and

then there's also a link at the bottom we
can get that information to you that is

the community pull community communities
can use to get more detail information

about the clean power plant how they
can engage what resources exist so

during this claim process
the vocabulary and

the approaches are understood by all so
that decisions can be made

Thank you.

For speakers dear madam
he's from Georgia Tech and

he's going to be talking about
the design of market based systems.

Thank you for coming down to Georgia.

Heck this morning afternoon.

I have a newborn and one not.

So I'm going to talk about where we.

Talk about options for
designing a market based system so

we've taken that as a given and we
should take as a given that market based

systems are much much more efficient
at addressing environmental

problems I think command and control or
other based systems if there's one

thing that we've learned in environmental
up economics over the last fifty years

it's that market based systems
are much much more efficient.

Ways of addressing pollution.

So given that we that we're
going to be smart and

choose a market based system how
do we go about doing that so

there's a whole bunch of choices we still
have to make the first one which is

front and center that leads to
everything else is mass based or

intensity based and some some research
has shown that intensity based

trading distorts the market
you are incentivizing both

the generation of new electricity
while taxing pollution essential and

so this is one of the main
reasons that the E.P.A. And

I C F consult things modeling shows that
intensity based trading is forty percent

more expensive than mass fish trading.

But there's a few other issues that
present themselves between mass and

intensity so the E.P.A.
models provides two model rules.

One for mass based training and
one for intensity based training

both are designed to be compatible across
states but if you but if you read into

the documentation it suggests that there
are a lot more barriers to Interstate.

Trading under an intensity base trading
rule there's many more options and

opportunities.

For how you count your C's that
might not be standardized across

states that make it more difficult
to trade across state lines.

Masbate intensity base
trading also requires you to.

Measure and verify efficiency investments

whereas in mass space trading that stuff
just sort of built into the system and

you don't have to undertake
that costly verification.

The same forty percent
cheaper reduction for

cheaper compliance from aspace trading
doesn't even consider trading or

the costliness of emissions verification.

So are additional costliness for intensity
pushing So there's a lot of reasons to

believe I think that mass fish trading
is a much simpler cheaper way to go.

Sort of needing to move on.

So the second major area
you need to do you need to

think about is how are you
going to allocate permits so

the E.P.A. in the model rules specifies
a pretty complex mechanism where

the allowances are all given out
freely but their bonus categories for

action in renewables and
efficiency in early action.

The reason they specify all three
allocation is that they indicate that for

the federal plan they would be
required to deposit any revenues

from the auction based system
into the general treasury and

they wouldn't be able to
return them to the state so.

We have an opportunity to be
better than the model rule here

we know from experiences in Europe.

It says In previous trading markets
that markets work better when

the allowances are optioned and
not given away freely.

We also do there is a variety
of reasons for this it helps

establish a value in the market it helps
firms trade but you're also fundamentally

transferring something of value from
the public to the private and so

when we're thinking about allocating
allowances we might think about.

How how that value gets transferred and
what it gets used for so

allowing auctioning rather than
freely allocated allowances can

compensate industry for lost business and
due to the price of acquiring permits but

essentially free allocation
works is a subsidy.

And lastly if we're thinking
really outside the box

we can think about including
a broader array of regulatory

targets rather than just
the electricity industry the E.P.A.

allows flexibility mechanisms to
incorporate heavy industry and

you could allocate those emissions for
free to have an industry and that could

potentially create more flexible
cheaper ways to reduce emissions and

create opportunities for
Georgia to sell permits to other states.

To promote economic growth in Georgia and

lastly allowances are valuable and
there are valuable market commodity and

if we don't have a well functioning market
you can have other market failure such as

monopoly and monopsony and so thus that's
something to think about especially from

the regulatory perspective
when dealing with.

A permit market Thanks thank you.

Thank you K. so the last speaker
is going to be talking about

cross state coordination and
that is Katie Southworth from N.R.D.C..

That afternoon my name is Katie Southworth
with an I You see I'm going

go really quickly so
we can get to the it's the exercise.

I do I think Abby Fox and
the folks at C.N.N..

And as well as Ben saver and Claudet for
agreeing to help us out support this

discussion cross state discussions and
coordination.

You considering what how whether and
how states will coordinate.

Is always an interesting discussion and
in the end I think a lot of

the realities play out when you sit down
and have a dialogue and not an open and

honest dialogue so I'm looking
forward to our table discussion.

I'm going to start off with this this
image that's from a recent report that was

released by a sign ups a sin apps energy
economics I don't mean to confuse

you by showing you a bunch of different
colors and circles and bubbles However I

think it does illustrate a good point
that's been mentioned already today

that it appears that mass based
trading across states is much

more simple than rate based trading across
states because what we know is that if you

have a state plan that involves a great
base treating an estate plan that involves

mass based a mass base pool and trading
they cannot interact with one another so

that's essentially what this
diagram is is trying to show you

at the left side is
the different options for.

Multi-state coordination under rate
based design whereas the right side

is mass based so you'll see that each of
these color bubbles represents a state for

example represents Kentucky B.B.

represents and is c c c or presents
Georgia if you look in that sort of orange

bubble if they all have a coordinated
approach together they are doing rate

base trading they would be able to trade
together however let's say that sell.

Karolina not calling anybody
out this purely an example.

Because of course health plan would never
do this if they were to do what you see

here is D.D.
races are two solo you see this one bubble

with a dotted line around it that would
be a state trading just within its own

borders of the affected covering affected
units but not trading with others and so

there are a lot of considerations you
have to take into account not only

you know what is the risk in the initial
years of setting up a system like this but

does that prevent you this is to take you
up in a situation of regulatory lock and

it might prevent the state from being able
to trade with others in future years and

as Dad Dan Madison off correctly
mentioned there's a lot of value in these

allowances and you think that
the potential revenue source so.

Just throwing out some in that initial
thoughts of course when we get together in

the groups will will come together with it
maybe a movie a better list than what I've

started to put together here some pros for
potential Krasik ordination is it provides

more regulatory certainty particularly
in the southeast where we have.

A number of large utilities that cover.

Many state borders there they're looking
to be able to do the same thing across

all states of course there can be recent
potentially some reliability benefits

I think for cuz I'm not sure for
has come out with that your point yet but

it is than studying potential for
different types of state model model plans

to affect reliability I think is generally
accepted both in E.P.A. modeling and

Nicholas Institute in Georgia Tech
modeling that lease cost options.

There are more lease cost options to
be taken advantage of with more dicey

coordination.

However there are some potential cons
to cross that border maybe not cause

the challenges those around having
you have uniform Yemeni and

credit ing and
getting States on the same page there

particularly Southeast where a lot of
states don't have consistently and

in the across programs across
utilities some Some are some.

Some of them are subject to matter P.C.
others aren't also just you know timing

administrative capacity of the office
of offices working together

even even though there is a longer time
frame that it might not be some states may

not feel that it's comfortable and there's
always the issue of loss of sovereignty

if states have to work together
usually you're making compromises and

somebody's giving up something
a little bit in others or

taking a little bit nearer to it and
so that's what that's why these

sessions get really interesting and I'm
looking forward to our table discussion

sitting at with that winning
political hadn't divide up right.

That we go Great thank.

YOU THANK YOU.

OK.

So we're going to be
taking a brief break but

before we do that I want to go
through what's on your table.

As you have a sheet or

actually it was handed out to
everybody should have the sheet.

And the sheet provides guidance
about how to have this discussion

and so at every table there are two people
who are already have been identified roll

their discussion leaders and
a recorder so can all the discussion

leaders raise their hand make sure that
every group has a discussion leader

OK great so that's your discussion
later their job is to keep you on track

recorder everybody raise recorders raise
your hand so everybody have a recorder

this group does not have a recorder.

Or Carter thank you.

So everybody has a recorder their job
is to make a record of the discussion

that you had so at the end those records
will make summaries of the discussions

that you're actually had there will not be
attributions of Hussein editor just be.

What the ideas were and what the issues
were and then everybody else who did not

raise their hand is is a participant which
means that you're supposed to be actively

engaged in this discussion the discussion
will be led by if you turn the page over

there's a set of discussion questions and
we've divided the groups up so

that they have slightly different
questions even though you have the same

general topic of slightly different
questions so if you're an A or B.

You will know the questions that you have
these are meant to stimulate the dialogue

obviously as you get into this your
discussion leader will help you figure out

what the best use of your time is
we have approximately an hour.

To do this I might note that the
discussions will be fifty minutes long and

then two tables and every two payer
tables is right behind each other

the two tables will start
to get together and

just vary the discussion leaders will
very quickly go through the two or

three big ideas and that's what we want
reported out of the two or three big idea.