Technical Support Document (TSD) for the CAA Section 111(d) Emission Guidelines for Existing Power
Plants

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 13

- 0602



# CO 2 

# Emission Performance Rate and
Goal Computation Technical Support
Document for CPP Final Rule

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

August 201 52

Category

- Specific Performance Rates and State G oal Setting U nder 111(d)

This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides information that supports the EPA’s determination of category

- specific performance rates for fossil steam and stationary combustion turbine technology categories as well as the state emission rate and mass goals that encompass the likely affected fossil units
in a state. 1 Section VI of the preamble discusses the category

- specific performance rates more broadly along with some of the changes made between proposal and final based on comment. Section VII of the preamble describes the expression of t he category

- specific performance standards through a state goal metric reflecting likely covered fossil sources in a state. The Greenhouse G as ( GHG ) Mitigation
Measures TSD for CPP Final Rule explains the technical basis for the development of the Best System of Emission Reductions (BSER) that inform the category

- specific performance rates and the subsequent state goals

. This TSD provides d etailed explanation of the data and the BSER

- based calculations used to
determine the category

- specific performance rates and state goals

. The TSD is organized as follows:

1. BSER f

actors i nforming the c ategory

- specific p erformance r ates and state g oal s

a. Block 1

- Heat rate improvement in the coal steam fleet
b. Block 2

- Substitute increased generation from lower emitting existing NGCC units for reduced generation from higher emitting fossil steam EGUs

c. Block 3

- Substitute generation from new zero emitting renewable energy (RE) generating capacity for reduced generation f rom higher emitting foss il EGUs
2. Form of the category

- specific performance r ates and state g oals
3. Baseline d ata u sed to d erive p erformance r ates and s tate g oals

a. Emissions & G eneration Int egrated Resource Database (eGRID )
b. Data sources for affected “ under construction ” units

c. Region

- level baseline
4. Methodology for d etermining c ategory

- specific p erformance r ate s 5. Methodology for c onverting c ategory

- specific p erformance r ates into s tate emission rate g oals
6. Methodology for converting state emission rate goals in to mass goals
7. Appendix (attached Excel Workbook)

 Appendix 1

– Underlying 2012 unit

- level baseline inventory and data

 Appendix 2

- Units that commence d operation post 2011 , but commenced construction prior to 1/8 /14

 A ppendix 3

– Underlying state

- level data, adjustments, and region

- level data

 Appendix 4

– Computation of the c ategory

- specific p erformance rates (i nterim and f inal)

 Appendix 5

- Computation of the state goal (i nterim and f inal)

 Appendix 6

– State goal summary table

 Appendix 7

– Calculation for generation adjus tment in hydro

- intensive states

 Appendix 8

- Mass goal summary table

 Appendix 9

– Description of 111(d) baseline data sources and development

1 The only natural gas fired EGUs currently considered affected units under the 111(d) applicability criteria are NGCC units capable of supplying more than 25 MW of electrical output to the grid. The data and rates for these units represents all emissions and MWh output associated with both the combustion turbines as well as all associated heat recovery steam generating units.3

In EPA’s technical evaluation, it assessed the cost and potential o f each GHG emissions reducing technology identified (see GHG Mitigation Measures TSD). EPA relied on a similar building block structure as proposed, but revised the quantification of those building blocks based on comments. These revised building blocks levels were used to d erive the category

- specific performance rates provided in this
final rule. The category

- specific performance rates were then used to derive the state rate and mass goals.

1. BSER Factors Informing the Category

- specific Performance Rates and State Goals

The GHG Mitigation Measures TSD describes three categories of emission reduction measures (building blocks) used in determining the category

- specific performance rates . That document describes EPA’s
historic al data review and analysis underlying each technology and informing EPA’s assessment of its feasibility and cost

- effectiveness as part of a BSER

. It also explains how EPA made adjustments to the building blocks based on comments The technology estimates determined through EPA’s analysis and
docum ented in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD are summarized below

.

Table 1. 2030 Building Block Potential Identified for Each Region

BB1

– Heat Rate Improvement (HRI) for Coal
F leet BB2

- TWh o f Total NGCC

G eneration at 75 % Utilization, (A mount of
NGCC Generation Potential Incremental to Baseline) BB3

- Incremental RE Potential (TWh)

Eastern Interconnection 4.3 % 98 8 , (253) 438
Western Interconnection 2.1 % 306, (108) 1 6 1

Texas Interconnection 2.3 % 204, (6 6 ) 107
Note

- Totals are building block potential only (rounded) . As evidenced in Section 4

- step 8, not all of the building block potential is utilized in establishing BSER category

- specific rates and state goals.

The building block data shown above are used to determine category

- specific performance rate s expressed in a lb/MWh rate

. As these building blocks reflect both fossil and non

- fossil measures, the corresponding category

- specific performance rates also reflect fossil and non

- fossil generation through
the use of an adjusted emission rate described in the preamble and below

.

2. Form of the Category

- specific Performance Rates and State Goals

As described in Section VI of the preamble, EPA is promulgating a separate emission rate that quantifies
BSER for each technology category covered under 111(d) applicability . Therefore, while similar adjustments are made to the generation levels of affected fossil steam and NGCC generation reflecting the building blocks , the adjustments are made and expressed at the source

- category technology level rather
than the combined affected EGU level:4

Exhibit A

- Simplified formula demonstrating category

- specific emission performance rates

Final

– Affected fossil steam and NGCC g eneration treated separately for quantifying BSER

BSER for f

ossil s team = BSER a djusted emissions for affected fossil steam source s

BSER a djusted g eneration for affected fossil steam sources

BSER for NGCC = BSER a djusted emissions for affected NGCC sources
BSER a djusted g eneration for affected NGCC sources

Note

- adjusted generation and emissions includes generation and emissions from building blo ck two and building block three

3. Baseline Data Used to Derive Performance Rates and State Goals

See Section VI of the Preamble for a description of EPA’s i dentification of a baseline data.

Adjustments that the EPA made to the 2012 historical data

EPA received sign ificant comments regarding unit

- level d ata and a pplicability status. It has reviewed these comments and updated its 2012 unit

- level data accordingly to better reflect unit

- level operation in that year and likely unit

- level applicability status

. The updated unit

- level data are available in appendix

o ne and reflect changes based o n comment s

.
In addition to unit

- level data updates, the EPA also made some targeted baseline adjustments at the state

level to address commenter concerns about the representativeness of baseline year

- data , even where correctly reported . These are highli ghted below, but discussed in more detail in the Preamble Section VI.

State

- level adjustments:

 EPA adjusted affected fossil baseline generation upwards in states with large hydro generation portfoli os (adjustment calculations in a ppendix 7 and applied in appendix 3 )

.

 EPA adjusted state

- level generation upwards where a single unit outage

– representing a significant portion of the generation portfolio

– resulted in potentially unrepresentative state

- level data (adjustment calculations in app endix 7 and applied in appendix 3)

.

 EPA adjusted state

- level generation and emissions upwards to reflect the incremental impact of likely affected under construction fossil steam and NGCC capacity (includ ing units commencing operation part way through 2012 )

. (List of units available in appendix 2 and adjustment applied in appendix 3).

Once these adjustments were calculated, EPA summed the baseline data described above at the state and regional

- level for the following categories. These totals reflect the ad justed baseline from which the performance rates and state goals are assessed.

- State and regional

- level coal steam generation

- State and regional

- level coal steam emission s

- State and regional

- level oil/gas steam generation

- State and regional

- level oil/gas steam emission s

- State and regional

- level NGCC generation

- State and regional

- level NGCC emission s

- State and regional

- level NGCC capacity5

All generation values are expressed as net generation. Emission rate values are net emission rates and

expre ssed as lbs/MWh. The NGCC capacity expressed i s net summertime capacity in m egawatts

. At proposal, there were a limited number of high utilization combustion turbines and i ntegrated gasification combined cycle units ( IGCCs ) determined to be likely affected by 111(d) and placed in a separate “other” category when calculating state goals . In this final rule, the applicability language has been revised , and EPA’s current assessment has not identified any simple

- cycle combustio n turbines that are likely affected
units under this rule . The IGCC s that are likely affected by the r ule are included with the coal steam
totals consistent with comment, their fuel use

, and reporting under subpart Da

.

a. Emissions & Generation Integrated R esource Database (eGRID)

eGRID is an inventory of environmental attributes of the U.S. electric power system. It is a comprehensive source of air emissions data for the electric power sector, based on available plant

- specific data for all U.S. electricity generating plants that provide power to the electric grid and report data to the U.S. government. eGRID i ntegrates many different da ta sources on power plants and power companies, including, but not limited to: the EPA, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Emissions data from the EPA are carefully integrated with generation data from EIA to produce useful
values such as pounds per megawatt

- hour (lb/MWh) of emissions, which allows direct comparison of the environmental attributes of electricity generation. EPA applied its eGRID methodo logy for matching the publicly available and reported 2012 emissions and generation data. The EPA relies on this most recent
data to calculate category

- specific performance rates and state goals

. 2

The s tate and region

- level totals for each technology category described in the above bullets are intended
to reflect the baseline totals for electric generating units (EGUs) that likely meet the applicability criteria
as described in Preamble Section IV.D. 3

i. b. Data sources for under construction units

At proposal, EPA relied on its National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS). NEEDS includes b asic geographic, operating, capacity, and other data on existing or under construction generating units. NEEDS was updat ed for EPA's new power sector modeling platform v.5.1 5 reflecting some of the unit

level information EPA received in the comment period . For a description of the sources used in preparing
NEEDS v.5.1 5 , see Documentation, Chapter 4: Generating Resources

. 4 Several commenters identified
units that wer e under construction and likely affected EGUs under the rule’s applicability language, bu t that had not been included in the P roposal baseline

. Per commenter suggestion, EPA performed an
additional review of under construction units using EIA 860 data, NEEDS v.5.1 5

, comments
, the proposed 2012 unit

- level data file, and other publically available sources

. In most cases, commenter and

p ublically available data supported one another. There were several instances where commenter and

2 2012 r eflects the most recent data at the t ime EPA began its analysis for the Proposed R ule.

3 The historical baseline development is described in more detail in Appendix 9

4 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/6

reported data conflicted. In these cases, EPA generally relied on the publically available data to identify
the likely affected under construction units to e nsure consistent treatment across the fleet.

EPA notes that this baseline inventory does not constitute a final applicability determination , which are
often done on a case

- by

- case basis . The actual inventory of affected units in a future year may vary f rom the baseline inventory of likely affected units.

c. Region

- level data

The EPA aggregated unit

- level data to the state level for purposes of state

- specific emission rate and mass goal calculation discussed in Section VII of the Preamble

. However, before calculating the state goal and mass equivalents , it further aggregated unit

- level data to the regional level to calculate the category

specific performance standards. The reg ions reflect the Eastern, Western, and Texas Interconnections. These regions were used when quantifying the best system of emission reductions in order to capture t he
interstate e ffects of the building blocks

. The rationale for the regional structure is e xpla ined in preamble
section V.A. For each region

, the EPA made BSER

- related adjustments to the baseline data to determine
the e ffect the three building block abatement measures could have on the average fossil steam rate and the

a verage NGCC rate in that region . In making adjustments to region

- level data, the EP A is simply identifying th e BSER reductions that can be achieved on average at the regional level relative to baseline
level

. The EPA is not making an y assertion s about specific units or plant capability

. The EPA recognizes the uniqueness and complexity of individual power plants, and is aware that there are site

- specific factors
that may prevent some EGUs from achieving performance equal to region

- level assumptions for a given technology

. Likewise, the EPA also recognizes that some EGUs are capable of, and regularly do, achieve performance levels that surpass the building block values assumed (e.g., greater than 75 percent utilization)

. In any case

, the EPA is not making those unit

- level evaluations in this exercise. The EPA is instead attempting to quantify what is feasible at the fleet

- level based on application of t he BSER values
to historic al regional

- level data

. Affected EGU s can then meet that emission rate through any particular
use of abatement measures and/or emission reduction credits that it chooses

. Therefore, the ability or inability of a specific EGU to under/overachieve the assumed technology value cannot be taken, on its own, as an indication of the appropriateness of th e category

- specific performance standards and the state goals estimated using this approach.

The aggregate baseline generation and emission rates constitute a representative baseline for the power fleet for units likely subject to 111(d) applicability criteria. As with other EPA regulations, there may be subsequent applicability determinations po st rule finalization that arrive at a different status determination for a particular unit than the one assumed here. Moreover, the future year inventory of affected units will inherently vary due to scheduled fleet turnover. While EPA addressed unit

- lev el data comments, there may also be areas where stakeholders disagree over unit

- level representation in the baseline. However, it
is the regional representation of the power s ector based on historical data that ultimately informs the
category

- specific emi ssions rates. The large p opulation size of units encompassed by the aggregate regional

- level values used to quantify emission performance rates limit the ability of any unit

- level inventory or data discrepancies to introduce a bias that alters this collec tive representation.7

EPA received comment s suggesting that it should remove units schedul ed to retire from the baseline inventory. It also received comments suggesting that they should not be removed. EPA is using 2012 as a representative year for operating units as it is the most recently available data and does not try to forecast future generation and emission levels for these uni ts

. Even where fleet turnover is certain, (e.g., a scheduled retirement), the impact of that retirement is not. Removing units and generation from the baseline inventory without accounting for the shift in generation to other units would understate the

a mount of fossil generation in the baseline and distort its representativeness. Accounting for the shift in generation would begin to shift the baseline from a historical

- data informed baseline to a projection

informed baseline. F actoring in retirements a nd replacing it with projected generation shifts would undermine the merits of relying on a historical data set and the certainty of reported data for units operating in 2012

.8

4. Methodology for Determining Category

- specific Emission Performance Rates

EPA’s methodology for calculating category

- specific performance rates is described i n the steps below. The implementation of each step is
illustrated

– using the Eastern Interconnection for year 2030 as an example

- in the table below its description. 5 6

Step 1 : Compile 2012 unit

- level data, aggregate to state

- level, make baseline adjustments, and sum to regional baseline totals

.

The EPA begins the category

- specific performance rate calculation by starting with 2012 historic al data

. The underlying unit

- level or plant

- level data reflects emissions and generation reported by the facility (See Appendix 9 for more detailed explanation)

. EPA categorized each unit, using the classification syst em described in Appendix 9 , as coal steam, O/G ste am, or NGCC. 7 It also flagged units that fit these technology categories
and were considered to have commenced construction by 1/08/2014 8 . EPA then aggregated the u nit

- level data for the coal steam, O/G steam, and NGCC units (not including those flagged as under construction) to the state level and calculated the state

- specific emission rate for each technology category by dividing the total emissions by the total generation. Thi s reflected the unadjusted 2012 data for units that comm enced operation prior to 2012. F or states that have likely affected EGU s in two different interconnections, EPA segmented th ese states into their relevant
i nterconnect portions at this step (e.g., the Montana Eastern Interconnection and Montana W estern Interconnection). EPA then made the aforementioned adjustments to the state

- level values to address concerns addressed by commenters. This included adding in the expected
incremental generation and emissions from likely affected units considered under construction. The resulting state

- totals following these limited adjustments provided a n adjusted 2012 baseline for all likely affected EGU s. 9 Complete data for thes e steps is available in appendices 1, 2 and 3. See the North Carolina example below illustrating the adjustment made to 2012 data reflecting under construction units.

EPA received stakeholder comment noting that the Lee and Dan NGCC plan ts and the Cliffside coal unit six commenced operation part way through 2012 and therefore should be treated as under construction since they were still under construction for part of the y ear and 2012 data was not representative of a full year ’ s operation . EPA described in preamble secti on VI how it incorporated this type of adjustment into its baseline.

5 As described in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, the building b locks have different assumed levels over the 2022

- 2030 time frame reflecting technology deployment assumptions. Therefore, the rates described b elow vary by year due to the amount of building block potential specified for that year.

6 Note

– values in tab les are rounded for illustrative purposes. Actual calculations with all significant digits can be found in Appendix 1

- 5.

7 EPA only flagged units as one of these technology categories if it determined it to be of that technology class and a likely affecte d EGU (e.g., greater than 25 MW). Units of this technology class, but determined to be not likely affected are categorized as exclude.

8 “Commence” and “construction” defined in 40 CFR 60.2

9 Adjustments accounting for significant unit

- level outages, hydr o outlier years, and under construction sources.9

The example below illustrates where EPA first identified 2012 data from likely affected units that were not under constructio n ( Table 2

- columns B & C), then identified under constructi on capacity ( columns D and E), and then adjusted the baseline generation values up to reflect anticipated
incremental baseline generation values assuming a more representative full

- year utilization for these units (columns F & G)

. The emissions for
these s tate are also adjusted upwards by multiplying each state ’s adjusted generation for a given technology by that technologies emission rate in
that state. 10

Table 2 . Example of Adjustment to 2012 Data

A B C D E F G

2012 Data for Affected U nits (excluding under construction) Adjustment for Affected Under Construction Units Adjusted Baseline Coal Generation (M Wh) NGCC

Generation (M Wh) Under Construction

Coal Capacity (MW) Under Construction

NGCC Capacity (MW) Coal Generation

(M Wh) NGCC

Generation (M Wh)

North Carolina 50,572,372 15,060,254 825 2,165 54,920,452 25,519,802

NGCC = 15,060,254 M Wh + ( 8784 h ou rs × 2,165 MW × 55 % capacity factor ) = 25,519,802 M Wh 11

Coal = 50,572,372M Wh + ( 8784 hours × 60 % capacity factor × 825 MW ) = 54,920,452 M Wh

Step 2 : Aggregate the adjusted historical emissions and generation to a regional level for coal steam, OG steam, and NGCC technology categories

.

10 For states that had under construction technology (e.g., NGCC), but no prior affected units of that generating technology in the state for which the benchmark emission rate could be identified, EPA used the average NGCC emission rate of 908 lb/MWh identif ied for all states that had affected NGCC EGUs in 2012 (Appendix 3).

11 As described in the preamble section VI, EPA established a 55 percent capacity factor as representative of the incremental ba seline impact of new NGCC units (60 percent for new coal) in formed by both comments and a review of 2012 utilization patterns for units that recently commenced operation. The 2,165 MW capacity value reflects summertime capacity and includes the L.V Sutton Plant which was also under construction. 8,784 ho urs are u sed instead of 8,760 to be consistent with the number of hours in the 2012 leap year for which the baseline is premised. The under construction c oal capacity in column D reflects Cliffside 6 which commenced operation part way through 2012, so was classifi ed as under construction consistent with comment recommendation. The only exception to this adjustment is the Kemper IGCC under construction unit which receives the same assumptions it did at proposa l of 70 percent capacity factor and an 800 lb/MWh emissi on rate that are relative to its unique circumstance as the only under construction facility with carbon capture and storage technology. (See file titled “supporting data informing capacity factor estimation for under construction sources

- coal” in the dock et for this rulemaking.10

Once EPA ha s the adjusted state

- leve l generation and emission for each state from step 1, it summed the state totals for all states in the same region to derive regional totals. EPA kept the technology

- source categories separate at this stage to evaluate BSER impacts separately for each
source category. These category

- specific values become the basis for calculating the category

- specific performance emission rates and subsequent state goals.

Table 3

. Regional Baseline

A B C D E F G

Coal NGCC OG Steam

Interconnection Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh)

Eastern 1,356,066 1,230,44 8 3 28,220 734,535 52,979 74,241

Step 3 : Identify category

- specific baseline emission r ates for fossil steam and NGCC

Fos sil steam sources include both coal steam and oil/ gas steam affected sources , whose data are combined to arrive at a fossil steam emission rate and generation total for each interconne ction. This emission rate ( Table 4

- column H) reflects the sum of coa l emissions from column B and O/G
steam emis sions from column F divided by the baseline generation for each technology from columns C & G. Because the BSER involves both
reductions in emissions intensity of sources (e.g., heat rate improvements) and reductions in generation of sources (e.g., shifting from fo ssil to
renewable generation ), the baseline emission rate and generation for each technology source category are utilized to assess the potential impact of the building blocks. All emission rates provided are on a net basis . This step is shown here for illustrative purposes, but combined with step 4 in appendix 4.11 Table 4

. Baseline Category

- specific Emission Rates and Generation.

A B C D E F G H I J K

Coa l NGCC OG Steam Fossil Steam NGCC

Interconnection Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emission

Rate (lb/MWh) Net

Generation (G Wh) Emission

Rate (lb/MWh) Net

Generation (G Wh)

Eastern 1,356,066 1,230,448 3 28,220 734,535 52,979 74,241 2, 160 1,30 4

, 689 894 734,535

Eastern f ossil Steam Rate = ( coal emissio ns + OG emissions ) = Eastern f ossil steam rate = 1,356,066 ,366 tons +52,979 ,259 tons 12 = 2,160 lbs/MWh Coal gen + OG gen ( 1,230,447 ,795 MWh + 74,240,802 M Wh)

Eastern NGCC Rate = NGCC emissions = Eastern NGCC Rate = 328,219 ,519 tons = 894 lb/MWh NGCC gen 734,535 , 157 M Wh

Step 4 : Calcula te r egional fossil steam emission rate resulting from building block 1 heat rate improvement (HRI)

.

After this baseline data are aggregated for each region

, the EPA begins to adjust some of the data values t o reflect each building block element of
BSER

. The EPA assumes a 2.1 percent heat rate improvement in the Western Interconnection, a 2.3 percent HRI in the Texas Interconnection,
and a 4.3 percent heat rate improvement in the East ern Interconnection applied only to the coal steam fleet. This is reflected by adjustin g the coal emissions down by the region

- specific heat rate improvement percentage and leaving the generation level unchanged. Subsequently, the fossil steam rate for the region is calculated by adding the adjusted coal emissions subsequent to the heat rat e improvement assumption ( Table 5

- column H) with the baseline OG steam emissions (column D) and dividing by the sum of the coal stea m (column C) and OG steam generation (column E) . There is no change in the NGCC rate from this step

.

12 Tons converted to lbs using 2,000 pounds to 1 short ton conversion12 Table 5 . Adjusted Fossil Steam Rate Reflecting Building Block 1

A B C D E F G H I

Baseline Coal Baseline OG Steam Baseline Fossil Steam BB1

Interconnection Emissions

(1000 short tons) Net

Generation (GWh) Emissions

( 1000 short tons) Net

Generation (G Wh) Emission

Rate (lb/MWh) BB1

HRI Level Post BB1 Coal Emissions (1000 short tons) Fossil Steam

Emission Rate Post BB1 (lb/MWh)

Eastern 1,356,066 1,230,44 8 52,979 74,241 2,16 0 4.3 % 1,297,756 2,07 1

W hen the technology emission rate is recalculated with building block 1 reflected in the adjustment to the region ’s coal emission s , the region’s
fossil steam emission rate drops below its baseline value. Note that the fossil steam rate reflects the aggregation of both coal and OG steam data.
This is not the final category

- specific performance rate , rather it is an adjusted emission rate reflecting the application of building block 1 before moving on to th e remaining building blocks . The bold areas in the equation below reflect the values that are adjus ted from the ir baseline level at this step

. In this example, the fossil steam rate drops from a baseline value of 2,16 0 lb/MWh to 2,07 1 lb/MWh after building block 1 application.

Eastern f ossil steam r

ate = ( coal e missions × (1

- HRI % ) + ( OG emission s ) = ( 1,356,066,366 tons) × 0. 95 7 + 52,979 ,259 tons = 2,071 lbs/MWh 13

Coal gen + OG gen ( 1,230,447,795 MWh + 74,240,802 M Wh )

Step 5 : Calculate regional fossil steam and NGCC generation levels resulting from building block 3 (incremental RE generation)

Building Block 3 is based on lower

- emitting generation replacing higher emitting generation. The GHG Mitigation Measures TSD describes how
the incremental RE generation potential for each region was derived. As explained in the TSD, the building block 3 potential is defined as only
incremental RE generation (incremental relative to 2012 levels). Therefore the comp utation of category

- specific performance rates and state goals for the final rule only re flect this incremental RE total. All incremental building block 3 RE is assumed to emit zero tons of CO 2

.

13 To replicate the calculation, need to use a 2000 lbs:1short ton conversion ratio13

For this final rule, EPA assumes that building block 3 incremental generation replace s existing fossil generation from the baseline levels . The replacement impact on each technology category is estimated on a pro

- rata basis where the incremental building block 3 generation is first
identified ( Table 6

- colu mn F) , and then apportioned to replace either fossil steam (column D × column F = column I) or NGCC generation (column E × column F = column J) based on the share of baseline generation each technology category represent s

. For example , if a region had
100 MWh of potential building block 3 generation identified, and baseline fossil steam accounted for 7 0 percent of the region ’ s generation from
affecte d units and NGCC accounted for 30 percent , then the 100 MWh of incremental RE identified would be assumed to replace 7 0 MWh of
fossil steam generation and 3 0 MWh of NGCC generation. The fossil steam generation and NGCC generation are decreased by the amount of RE MWh apportioned to that technology (column B

– column I) and (column C

– column J). The total baseline generation (columns B & C) equal s the total remaining generation and renewable generation (columns G , H, I, and J) reflecting that replacement of fossil sources by incremental RE generation.

Table 6

- Adjusted Fossil Steam and NGCC Generation Refl ecting Building Block 3

A B C D E F G H I J

Baseline Gen. BB3

Interconnection Fossil

Steam Net Generation (GWh) NGCC

Net Generation (GWh) Fossil

Steam Share of Total Fossil Gen. NGCC

Share of Total Fossil Gen. Potential

BB3 (GWh) Remaining

Fossil Steam (GWh) Remaining

NGCC Gen (GWh) BB3

Assigned to Fossil Steam (GWh) BB3

Assigned to NGCC (GWh)

Eastern 1,30 4

, 689 734,535 64 % 36 % 43 8,445 1,024,173 576,606 280,515 157,929

Eastern Fossil Steam G en

. = Baseline Fossil Steam gen.

- (Potential BB3 Gen x fossil steam share of total fossil gen

. )

E astern Fossil S team Gen

. = 1,30 4,689 GWh

– (438,445 GWh × 64 % ) = 1,024, 173 G Wh

Eastern NGCC Gen

. = Baseline NGCC gen

- (Potential BB3 Gen × NGCC share of total fossil gen. )

Eastern NGCC Gen

. = = 734,535 GWh

– (438,445 GWh × 36 % ) = 576,606 G Wh14

Step 6 : Calculate regional fossil steam and NGCC generation resulting from building block 2 (incremental NGCC generation)

The “Remaining NGCC Generation” field in Table 7

- column C below indicates that there is less NGCC generation

– relative to baseline levels

- following building block 3 incorporation due to the assumption that some of the incremental RE would replace base line NGCC generation. Moreover, there is si gnificantly less generation than the potential identified in building block 2 that reflects a 75 percent utilization

. If only implementing building block 3 , the NGCC generation levels would be assumed to decrease under a pro

- rata replacement approach. However, in
the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD, the EPA described the abatement potential of replacing higher emitting fossil steam generation wit h lower emitting gas generation, identified as building block 2 . This step of the rate calculation ca ptures the change in source

- category generation levels associated with building block 2 potential of a 75 percent potential utilization for the NGCC fleet

.

To incorporate building block 2 , t he regional NGCC fleet summertime capacity is multiplied by 8

, 784 hours (the number of hours in the 2012 leap year) and then by 75 percent to get total potential net NGCC generation at a 75 percent capacity factor ( Table 7

- column D)

. However, this 75
percent capacity factor represent s a generation ceiling, and the region ’s NGCC genera tion is only adjusted up to this ceiling to the extent that such NGCC generation increases can replace remaining fossil steam generation

. 14 Note that the combined remaining fossil steam and NGCC generation from columns F and G in this table reflect the remaining fossil steam and NGCC generation total after BB3 (columns B and C). Moreover, columns F and G combined with the RE potential assigned to each technology in columns I and J in the previous table sum to the total
baseline fossil generation assumed for each region.

14 The ceiling in the early interim period years is less than the 75 percent utilization level. The BB2 deployment schedule is discussed in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD.15 Table 7 . Adjusted Fossil Steam and NGCC Generation Reflecting Replacement by Building Block 3 and Building Block 2 Generation

A B C D E F G

Post BB 3 BB2

Region Remaining

Fossil Steam (GWh) Remaining

NGCC Gen (GWh) NGCC Potential

at 75 % CF (GWh) Difference between NGCC

generation levels at full BB2 utilization and Post BB3 NGCC levels (GWh) Remaining Fossil Steam (GWh) Remaining

NGCC Gen (GWh)

Eastern 1,024,173 576,606 987,8 5 7 41 1,250 61 2,922 987,857

I n the above example

, NGCC generation is adjusted upwards by approximately 4 11 ,250 G Wh (column E ) to 98 7

, 857 G Wh (column G) (which equals the NGCC fleet generation at 75 percent utilization) and the fossil steam generation is adjusted down by that same amount ( column B

- column F).

Eastern Fossil Steam Gen = Post BB3 fossil steam gen.

- ( NGCC Potential at 75 % CF

– Post BB3 NGCC Gen) 15

E astern Fossil steam Gen = 1,024,173 GWh

– ( 987,857 GWh

– 576,606 GWh ) = 612,922 GWh

Eastern NGCC Gen = Post BB3 NGCC gen + ( Step 6 change in fossil steam generation above )

Eastern NGCC Gen = 576,606 GWh + ( 1,024,173 GWh

– 612,922 GWh ) = 987,857 GWh

Step 7 : Determine the adjusted category

- specific performance rates for each region reflecting the heat rate improvement and generation shifts

.

15 If (NGCC Potential at 75 percent CF

– Post BB3 NGCC Gen) is greater than post BB3 fossil steam gen, then the fossil steam gen eration amount is adjusted to

z ero and the NGCC generation amount is increased by the p ost BB3 fossil steam generation amount that it replaced.16

Step four estimated the category

- specific emission rate s post building block 1. Steps five and six estimated the categ ory

- specific generation levels
post building block 3 and 2, respectively . Combining the adjusted emission rates with the adjusted generation from those steps allows EPA to
calculate a category

- specific adjusted emission rate that reflects the expression of the three building blocks on the baseline. In this step, EPA was careful to apportion incremental generation in a manner consistent with the building block levels, and that respected the pro

- rata nature of building
block three. See Sec tion VI of the preamble for further explanation.

For the regional fossil steam rate, EPA first calculates the numerator. EPA multiplies the fossil steam emission rate from step four ( Table 8

- column F ) (reflecting the heat rate improvement) by the remain ing fossil steam generation following step six (column O ) . For building block 3 , all

re newable generation was assumed to equal zero so no numerator adjustment was made

. As described in the preamble, EPA also captures a portion of the NGCC generation in the fossil steam rate reflecting the incremental building block 2 potential used ; 16 this incremental NGCC generation is defined as the amount of total NGCC subsequent to bot h blocks 2 and 3 (column P ) minus the amount of NGCC generation in the
baseline (column E )

. 17 This level of reassignment is consistent with the maximum amount of incremental generation identified in building block

two. This amount of NGCC generation is multiplied by the NGCC emission rate from s tep three (column C) to get the amount of incremental
NGCC em issions assigned to the numerator of the fossil steam emission rate as part of building block 2

.

16 As described in the preamble sections VI and VIII and the Federal Plan Proposal , EPA reflected the incremental NGCC generation (and correspo nding emission s ) in the fossil steam rate source category rate and created a parallel compliance structure for quantifying NGCC ERCs which f ossil steam sources may use in compliance.

17 EPA also considered quantifying the amount of NGCC generation assign ed to fossil steam generation as post step 6 levels minus post step 5 levels which would have resulted in a lower fossil steam rate. However, this definition would not have reflected a different BSER (generation and emission rates arrived at in step 4 thr ough 6) because a similar adjustment would be made when measuring and quantifying NGCC ERCs available for compliance (ERCs are credit s reflecting the incremental NGCC that fossil steam sources may use for compliance with their rate). In other words, there would be a nominally lower rate, but simultaneously more credits would be awarded for the same level of NGCC generation to comply with that rate . EPA determined that measuring incremental NGCC generation to include in the fossil steam rate was more appro priately done using a baseline level (premised on historical generation) as it best reflected the incremental levels defined in the building block and preserved the pro

- rata intent of building block three. It also assured the total amount of MWhs of incre mental RE and NGCC assigned to the steam and NGCC rates do not exceed the total identified in the building blocks. See section VI of the preamble for more discussion on how EPA considered this choice. T he remaining fossil steam and NGCC generation levels after this step appropriately reflect the full building block two and three potenti al, and the portion of the NGCC emissions and generation levels included in the fossil steam rate appropriately reflect the amount of incremental building block two potenti al identified

.17

These emissions from fossil steam sources along with emissions from incremental NGCC EGUs are then divided by the total amount of r emaining fossil steam generation, the rene w able generation assigned to fossil steam, and the incremental NGCC defined above. This generation is the sum of 1) remaining fossil steam generation post step six (column O ) , 2) amount of renewable generation assigned to fossil steam generation (column

M ) , and 3) the amount of NGCC generation defined above (column P

- column E ) . Dividing this total emissi ons level by the total generation levels
results in a regional fossil steam emission rate reflective of BSER.

For the regional NGCC emission rate, EPA performs a similar operation. The NGCC generation post step six (column P ) is multiplied by the
NGCC bas eline emission rate from step three (column C) to estimate the total am ount of NGCC emissions post building block 3 and building
block 2 . Thes e emissions are then divided by the sum of the NGCC generation post step six (column P ) and the amount of building block 3 renewable generation assigned to NGCC generation in step five (Column N )

. 18 This regional NGCC rate reflects the adjusted NGCC rate reflecting BSER. 19

Eastern Fossil Steam Gen = (Post BB3&2 fossil steam gen × Post BB1 fossil steam emission rate ) + ( Incremental NGCC Generation × baseline NGCC rate) (Post BB3&2 fossil steam gen + BB3 generation replacing fossil steam + incremental BB2 generation)

E astern Fossil steam Gen = ( 612,922 , 289 M Wh × 2,07 1lb/MWh ) + (( 987,857 ,765 M Wh

- 734,535 ,157 Wh ) × 894 lb/MWh ) = 1,305 lb/MWh
612,922 ,289 M Wh + 280,515,465 M Wh + ( 987,857 ,765 M Wh

- 734,535 ,157 M Wh)

18 The full NGCC generation (and corresponding emissions) expected under the BSER calculation from that source category is included in the NGCC rate, even though a portion of it is also reflected in the fossil steam rate. Failing to do so would leave the NGCC sources with a lower ra te than what is expected post building block 2 and building block 3 when accounting for all of their generation and block three responsibility . Keeping the full NGCC genera tion amount in the NGCC rate recognizes the dual role NGCC has in terms of compliance responsibility as an affected EGU and a mitigation measure under building block two that that can offset fossil steam generation.

19 As described later, EPA rounds the 203 0 final rates up to the nearest integer (1,305 lb/MWh and 771 lb/MWh in this case)18

Eastern NGCC Gen = (Post BB3 NGCC gen × NGCC baseline rate) (Post BB3 NGCC gen + BB3 generation replacing NGCC gen)

Eastern NGCC Gen = ( 987,857 ,765 M Wh × 894 lb/MWh ) = 771 lb/MWh ( 987,857 ,765 M Wh + 157, 92 9,234 M Wh)

Step 8 : Identify the l east stringent r egional rate as the e mission performance rate for the technology source c ategory

After completing a regional assessment of building block potential impact on source category

- specific rates, EPA evaluated the resulting fossil steam and NGCC rate for each region to identify the region with the least stringent emission rate. T he least stringent (i.e., the highest) fossil steam rate and the least stringent NGCC emission rate among the three regions are identified and used to establish the source

- category emission performance rates described in the preamble

.

Table 9 . Identify Least Stringent Rate for Each Technology

Category (2030)

Adjusted Rates

Region Fossil Steam Rate (lb/MWh) NGCC Rate

(lb/MWh) Eastern Interconnection 1,305 771

Western Interconnection 360 690

Texas Interconnection 237 697

The completion of the previous steps result s in a 2030 emission performance rate for each source ca tegory. However, as described in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD , th e building block 2 and building block 3 assumed potential change s for each year from 2022 through 2030 . Thus this procedure is repeated for each of those y ears using the corresponding building block 2 and building block 3 assumptions for that year that reflect the deployment rate for those technologies

. 20 This results in a set of decreasing annual adjusted emission rates for the years 2022

- 2029

. However,

20 The region with the least stringent rate can differ by year. For the fossil steam rate, the Eastern Interconnection is the l imiting region in all years. For the NGCC rat e, the Texas Interconnection is the limiting region for 2022 through 2026, and the Eastern Interconnection is the limiting re gion for 2027 through 2030.19

this rulemaking issues category

- specific emission performance rates for an interim and a final rate . Thus, the interim rate is derived by averaging the annual adjusted emission rates for 2022

- 2029. Once th e interim and final rates are determined, EPA rounds any fractional number up to the nearest integer for these two values

. This completed the quantification of BSER and established nationwide uniform category

- specific rates.

For the F inal CPP Rule categ ory

- specific rates (lbs/MWh) : Interim c ategory

- specific rate

– Average of the adjusted yearly emission rates for the period 2022

- 2029
Final c ategory

- specific rate

– The 2030 emission rate (as calculated above) becomes the final category

- specific rate for 2030 and each year
thereafter

T he assumptions used to arrive at the category

- specific performance rates are not prescriptive of necessary actions that sources, states, or regions must take. As described in the preamble, these values are used only for calculating the emission performance rates and state goal s

. A state is not required to base its state plan on using the same set of measures or the same amount of any measure reflec ted in these assumptions. Likewise, the state plan, not these assumptions, determines the range of available measures a source may or must use to comply with the sta ndards of performance established for it in the state plan and the extent to which the sou rce may or must rely on any individual measure.

5. Methodology for Converting Category

- specific Rates into State Emission Rate Goals

See section VII of the preamble for more discussion on this conversion. To calculate a state goal in the final CPP, EPA estimates the affected fleet
rate for a state if all likely affected baseline EGUs meet the respective category

- specific emission performance rates presented above (through any

on

- site or off

- site means it cho o ses) while generating at the same baseline ge neration total

. These blended state rates reflect the fleet emission rate from likely affected units in the state if they operated at baseline generation levels while meeting the category

- specific rates.20

For example, the 2030 nation

- wide 111(d) source category rates determined at the regional level were 1305 lb/MWh and 771 lb/MWh respectively. The state of Arizona had baseline affected fossil generation consisting of 25.37 TWh of fossil steam generation and 26.78 TWh of NGCC generation

. Arizona’s 2030 state goal metric would be calculated as follows:

The fossil steam baseline generation is multiplied by the fossil steam category rate and the NGCC baseline generation is mult iplied by the NGCC category rate. The emissions from the two are added together and then divided by the total baseline generation.

Arizona State goal = ( 25

, 370

, 640 MWh ×1,305 lb/MWh ) + ( 26,783,42 1 MWh × 771 lb/MWh ) = 1,031 lb/ MWh (25,370,640 MWh + 26,783,421 MWh)

Another way to view this calculation is as a weighted average of the source category rates based on each state ’ s baseline generation mix. For each state, EPA calculated a weighted average of the category

- specific fossil steam rate and the category

- specific NGCC using the state’s baseline generation levels for each sour ce category to determine the weights. Arizona state g oal = (Fossil steam source category rate × Fossil steam baseline share of affected generation) + (NGCC source category rate × NGCC baseline share of affected generation)

Arizona State Goal = (48.65 % × 1,305) + (51.35 % × 771) = 1,031 lb/MWh

.

EPA performs this calculation for each year from 2022

- 2030. These values are used to average the step 1 (2022

- 2024 average), step 2 (2025

- 2027 average), and step 3 (2028

- 2029 average) state rates shown in section VII of the preamble and further discussed in section VIII. It also per forms this step for the interim state goal and final state goal . In other words, the interim state goal reflects the weighted average of the interim source

category rates

.

EPA uses the representative baseline and calculations described above to derive ca tegory

- specific rates and state emission rate goals. Once calculated, the system

- wide impacts and feasibility of these state goals are further examined using EPA’s power sector modeling. 21

6. Methodology for Converting State Emission Rate Goals into State Mass Goals

21 See Regulatory Impact Analysis for CPP Final Rule21

The calculati o n of affected EGU mass goals includes two components. First, it includes the emissions associated with each state’s emission rate goal, which is the product of the state emission rate goal and 2012 affected EGU generation . Second , it includes the emissions associated with the ability of affected EGUs to expand output under rate

- based compliance if they deployed the amount of RE quantified under building block 3 that

was not captured in the ultimate quantification of the source cat egory

- specific performance rates

.

The procedure for quantifying this level of excess building block 3 generation applies to the values and calculations in Appendix 4. Below is an excerpt from Appendix 4 that display s building block 3 data and regional fossil steam and NGCC rates for 2030: 22

Columns V and W in Appendix 4 display the regional fossil steam and NGCC rates after the full application of the building blocks. A ny regional

rate s l ower than the highest, unrounded regional rates (1,304.1 lbs/MW h for fossil steam and 770.5 lbs/MWh for NGCC) 23 indicate that the region
contains more building block 3 generation potential than is nec essary to achieve parity with the limiting region’s rate . In order to quantify that

22 The excerpt from Appendix 4 has been modified sli ghtly to increase legibility.

23 The highest regional fossil steam and NGCC rates are rounded up to the nearest whole number to produce the source category

- specific emission performance rates.22

amount of excess building block 3 generation , the EPA designed an optimization algorithm to reduce the region’s building block 3 potential (column N) until the regional rate was equal to the limiting region’s rate for each source category

. The optimization algorithm is designed to:

 Minim ize ‘Potential BB3’ (column N) in each region 24 for each year by changing values for ‘Potential BB3,’ ‘Fossil Steam Share of Total Fossil,’ and ‘NGCC Share of Total Fossil’ (columns L and M). 25

 Subject to the following constraints:

o ‘Fossil Steam Share of Total Fossil’ and ‘NGCC Share of Total Fossil’ must sum to 100 percent and neither value can exceed 100
percent nor be below 0 percent . The ‘Share of Total Fossil’ values control how the total amount of building block 3 generation is assigned to each subcategory in each region. For example, an 80 percent value under ‘Fossil Steam Share of Total Fossil’
indicates that 80 percent of all building block 3 generation in that particular region is being applied to the fossil steam subcategory.

o ‘Fossil Steam Rate’ must be less than or equal to the unrounded fossil steam rate in the limiting region

o ‘NGCC Rate’ must be less than or equal to the unrounded NGCC rate in the limiting region

After minimizing ‘Potential BB3’ for each region according to the procedure described above, the updated Appendix 4 values are:

24 Each row is a different BSER region

– row 7 is the Eastern Int erconnection, row 8 is the Western Interconnection, and row 9 is the Texas Interconnection.

25 Note that even when the minimization procedure increases the share of potential BB3 generation assigned to a subcategory of a ffected EGUs, the total amount of bui lding block 3 generation assigned to that subcategory (i.e., potential BB3 generation multiplied by the share) is always redu ced from the original value. The fossil steam and NGCC shares of total generation are allowed to vary in this computation because t he RE quantified under building block 3 that was not captured in the source category

- specific performance rate could be deployed and claimed for compliance by either fossil steam or NGCC units, as long as the amount of building block 3 generation assigned to that source category is not greater than the original value.23

The amount of ‘Potential BB3’ across all regions that is not needed to meet the limiting region’s NGCC and fossil steam rates for 2030 is 166,255,493 MWh , obt ained by subtracting the minimized building block 3 generation potential in column N ( 539,774,619 MWh) from the total potential identified in the quantification of building block 3 (706,030,112 MWh)

. 26 It is this difference in “Potential BB3” that was not captured in the ultimate quantifica tion of the source category

- specific performance rates, and that affected EGUs could deploy to expand output and associated
emissions under rate

- based compliance

.

Note that the Eastern Interconnection (row 7), as the limiting region whose fossil steam an d NGCC rates determined the source category

- specific performance rates in 2030 , requires all of the building block 3 generation potential quantified for that region

. 27 However, because th e final rule
would allow affected EGUs in the Eastern Interconnection to claim RE from any region for use in compliance, the relevant value for this

comp utational procedure to quantify emissions for mass goals (across all states) is the national

- level difference in “Potential BB3” across all

r egions.

Note that in the Texas Interconnection (row 9), the fossi l steam rate after minimizing “Potential BB3” has increased from 237 .2 lbs/MWh to 1,095.9 lbs/MWh, which is still below the unrounded limiting region fossil rate of 1,304.1 lbs/MWh. Howeve r, the remaining difference between the regiona l fossil steam rate and the limiting region’s fossil steam rate cannot be addressed by yet higher reduction in the region’s “Potential

26 All values rounded to the nearest MWh; for exact values refer to Appendix 5.

27 The fossil steam and NGCC rates from the limiting region are rounded up to the nearest whole number to produce the source category

- specific emission performance rate.24

BB3”, because the region would still need all of the remaining “Potential BB3” generation to achieve parity with the limiting region’s rate for
NGCC (as reflected by the “100 percent ” value in column M)

. The 1,095.9 lbs/MWh steam rate result from this computation for the Texas Interconnection serves only as an indicator that the computation did not violate the criteria laid out above for calculating the building block 3 potential that was not captured in the source c ategory

- specific performance rates; this value is not used in any computation, including the computation below to quantify emissions associated with the ability of affected EGUs to expand output if they deployed this building block 3 potential.

The total a mount of building block 3 generation not captured in the source category

- specific performance rates for each year is displayed below:

The next step is to apportion th e excess building block 3 generation to states on the basis of each state’s 2012 adjuste d share of affected EGU generation. 28 The state

- level generation total can then be converted into a mass adjustment that reflects the ability of affected EGU s to increase
their own output if deploying this building block 3 generation under rate

- based compliance:

Mass Adjustment = State Emission Rate Goal × BB3 Generation Not Captured in Source Category

- Specific Performance Rates × 2

The mass adjustment reflects the ability of affected EGUs to procure incremental RE to increase their o wn generation and emissions if subject to an applicable rate

- based standard

. I n that rate

- based compliance scenario , every zero

- emitting MWh added to the denominator of an EGU’s
effective emission rate would enable that EGU to add another MWh of generation with twice the emissions intensity of the applicabl e rate

- based
standard , because the average intensity of that emitting MWh combined with the zero

- emitting MWh would then equal the applicable rate

- based
standard and thus maintain that EGU’s compliance

. 29

28 The adjusted generation baseline for affected EGUs is described in Appendix 3.

29 The assumption that one MWh of incremental RE enables one MWh of additional affected EGU generation is consistent wi th the historical performance of affected EGUs over time as well as expected future demand levels. Refer to the memorandum and accompanying spreadsheet ‘Hist orical Fossil EGU Performance’ for additional details, available in the docket.25

As an example, a group of affected EGU s subject to (and already compliant with) an emission rate standard of 1,031 lbs/MWh (equal to the
Arizona state goal in 2030 )

, and assuming an illustrative generation level of 1, 000 MWh for sake of simpli city

, would be able to increase emissions by 2,062 lbs for each incremental MWh of RE procured :

1

, 031

, 000 lbs + 0 lbs + ( 1

, 031 × 2 ) lbs
1

, 000 MW h + 1 MW h + 1 MW h + = 1

, 033

, 062 lbs
1

, 002 MW h = 1

, 031 lbs

MW h

In this illustrative example, the group of affected EGU s was able to remain compliant at the 1,031 lbs/MWh rate while add ing a MWh with
emissions of 2,062 lbs and acquiring an incremental MWh of zero

- emitting RE

. 30 This example shows why the mass adjustment procedure
assumes that the build ing block 3 potential not captured in the source category

- specific compliance rates could allow additional emissions of twice the emission intensity represented by the applicable state goal.

The final step in calculating an affected EGU mass goal is to simply add the mass associated with the state emission rate to the mass adjustment described above, using this equation:

.

Affected EGU Mass Goal = (State Emission Rate Goal × State’s Adjusted 2012 Affected EGU Generation) + (State Emission Rate Goal × BB3
Generation Not Captured in Source Category

- s pecific Performance Rates 31 × 2)

For example , Arizona’s 2030 affected EGU mass goal would be calculated as follows:

Arizona Aff

ected EGU Mass Goal for 2030 = (1,031 lbs/MWh × 52 ,154,0 61 MWh) + (1,031 lbs/MWh × 3,193,154 MWh × 2) = 30,170,750 tons

Affected EGU mass goal calculations and results are available for each state in Appendix 5.

30 The emissions qu antified through this particular mass adjustment approach could also represent a variety of source

- specific and fleet

- wide actions that could result if affected EGUs procure incremental RE beyond what is required to demonstrate the source category

- specific performance rate.

31 State

- specific values for building block 3 generation levels not captured in the source category

- specific emission performance rates are available in Appendix
5.26

7. APPENDIX

Appendix 1

– Underlying 2012 unit

- level inventory and data (no adjustments)

See “Appendix 1

- All Units (2012) ” worksheet in the Excel a ttachment titled “ Appendix 1

- 5: CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule” Appendix 2

– Likely affected EGUs that commenced operation post 201 1 , but began construction prior to 1/8 /14

S ee “Appendix 2

– Under construction ” worksheet in the Excel a ttachment titled “ Appendix 1

- 5: CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule ” . Note, this is largely a subset of the Appendix 1 worksheet. Appendix 3

– Underlying st ate

- level data, adjustments

See “Appendix 3

– state

- level data ” worksheet in the Excel a ttachment titled “ Appendix 1

- 5: CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule ” Appendix 4

– Regional adjusted baseline and c omputation of the c ategory

- specific performance r ates (interim and f inal) See “Appendix 4

– category

- specific calc. ” worksheet in the Excel a ttachment titled “ Appendix 1

- 5: CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule ” Appendix 5

- Computation of the s tate g oal (interim and f inal) See “Appendix 5

– State Goals” worksheet in the Excel a ttachment titled “ Appendix 1

- 5: CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule ”27

Appendix 6

– State G oals (lbs/MWh)28

Appendix 7

– Adjustments to state

- level 2012 baseline data

Hydro adjustment

– Commenters suggested that 2012 was an outlier year for hydro logical generation , and because of the predominance of hydro generation in their state, this also made it an outlier year for other generation technologies in the state. EPA assessed this concern for all states using the following filters:

1) Usi ng EIA 2012 data, identify the percent share of total generation coming from hydro generation in each state 2) Using EIA 1990

- 2012 data, identify average hydro generation for a state from 1990

- 2012 and look at the percent difference between 2012 hydro generation levels and the average hydro generation levels 3) Estimate the increase in affect ed fossil generation that would occur if the difference between the average hydro year and the 2012 hydro year was replaced with generation from affected fossil generation.

EPA determined that hydro intensive states (greater than 10 percent generation fro m hydro), that experienced an outli er year in 2012 (greater than
5 percent increase in hydro generatio n relative to observed average between 1990

- 2012) , and that would potentially have their state’s affected fossil generation significantly affected when as suming average hydro generation levels (an adjustment > 5 percent ) had baseline values that were sensitive to fluctuations in hydro generation and thus increased the fossil generation in the state from observed 2012 levels to reflect potential generation le vels in an average hydro year. 32

Unit

- outage adjustment As explained in the Preamble Section VI, EPA did not generally view single unit

- outages as problematic to its baseline for determining source

category rates or state goals. As regional load levels di d not change subject to the unit outage, the decrease at a particular unit is generally offset by the increase in generation from other fossil unit(s) in the same state o r region. Therefore, EPA views the regional and state

- level aggregate generation totals as robust against unit

- level outages. However, it did test for outlier cases where the unit

- level outage (e.g., planned, unplanned, maintenance, emergency) was significant enough to potentially have a significant impact on the state goals that EPA provided in section VII. In these instances, EPA made an adjustment. EPA assess this concern for all units by identifying:

32 See Excel file titled “Hydro Adjustment for Rate Setting” in the docket for this rule. In Washington State for example, fossil generation fluctuates sharply depending on the amount of hydro generation available in a year. The same affected 34 fossil EGUs generated nearly twice as much in 2010 (when hydro generation was belo w average, than they did in 2012 (a high outlier hydro year). This adjustment increased the generation and emissions in the state baseline values to be more consistent with a representative hydro year.29

1) Units where the heat input in 2012 was less than 2 5 percent of its 2010 and 2014 totals (signaling a significant outage). EPA used 2010
and 2014 as it need ed a prior and subsequent year to identify an outage. These years were chosen as they were less likely than 2011 and 2013 to have any spillover effects from the outage. 33 2) For units meeting the step 1 criteria, EPA identified those w here the heat input o bserved in the non

- outage years of 2010 and 2014 years was greater than 10 percent of the state ’ s total heat input (suggesting the replacement generation may be more difficult to find in state). 34

The only unit that met this cri teria w as the 900 MW Sherburne C ounty coal

- fired unit 3 in Minnesota. EPA adjusted the state’s coal generation level value up to reflect this unit operating in a typical year.

33 EPA used heat input for this analysis in place of generation data given the availability of 2014 unit

- level data was more complete for the heat input metric

. Changes in heat input and generation output track each other closely, and heat input serves as a reasonable variable for identifying an outage. Heat input rate is defined in Part 72.2. Hourly heat input values are required to be reported by 40 CFR 75 Subpart G (75.64(a)(6) that refers to 75.57 see 75.57(b)(5) )

34 See Excel file titled “2010, 2012, 2014 heat input used for unit outage test” in the Docket for this rule.30

Appendix 8

– State Mass Goals ( Short Tons)31



## Appendix 9

- Description of 111(d) baseline data s ources and d evelopment

Introduction

This section describes the methodology used by the EPA to develop 2012 unit

- level data used to inform the adjusted state and region

- level CO 2 emission rate baselines.

The 111(d) baseline analysis methodology is based largely on the methodology used to develop the Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 35 , with certain key differences, which are explained below . The 111(d) baseline consists of emission rates in pounds of CO 2 p er megawatt

- hour (MWh) of electricity generation. The baseline is constructed by matching electricity generation data reported to the Ene rgy Information Administration (EIA) by power plants on forms EIA

- 860 36 and EIA

- 923 37 with data on CO 2 emissions submitte d by power plants to the EPA under 40 CFR Part 75. 38

The process of matching emissions data to generation data and categorizing the EGUs is described in more detail below. The di fferences between the 2012 unit

- level data released for the Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule 39 and the Final Rule are also discussed below

.



### Data Sources

The key data sources used in the construction of the 111(d) baseline are listed in Table 1

.

Table 1 . Key data sources used to construct the 111(d) baseline.

Data Source Key Data

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRI D), available at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy

- re sources/egrid/

36 Energy Information Administration, Form EIA

- 860, available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/

37 Energy Information Administration, Form EIA

- 923, available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

38 40 CFR Part 75, availab le at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

- idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr75_main_02.tpl

39 The Federal Register is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014

- 13726/carbon

- pollution

- emission

- guidelines

- for

- existing

stationary

- source s

- electric

- utility

- generating32 EIA

- 860 Contains key identifying information, including nameplate capacity, summer

capacity, unit operational status, prime mover type, and fuel type, as well as plant name and location.
EIA

- 923 Contains information on net electricity generation and fuel use at the generator

level, boiler level, and/or prime mover level.
EPA Part 75 Data Contains information on CO 2 emissions and heat input.

EPA Part 75 emissions data are presented at the unit level, where the unit is defined as the fossil fuel

- fired device , which could be a turbine or boiler (including any heat recovery steam generators (HRSG), if present). EIA data on generation and fuel use are presented at the generator, boiler, prime mover, and plant levels.

The 111(d) baseline analysis methodology in volves matching EPA emissions data at the unit level (i.e. emissions from boilers or turbines), with EIA generation data at the generator level. However, the data do not always match cleanly between the two data sources. While both data sources identify p lants using the Office of Regulatory Information Systems P L ant code (ORIS PL code), the EIA data identifies generators with a generator ID, and the EPA data identifies units with a unit ID. The ORIS PL code generally matches between data sources, but the gen erator ID from EIA must be matched to the unit ID from EPA based on ORIS PL code, nameplate capacity, fuel type, prime mover type, and year of operation.

Furthermore, because there are different regulations governing which plants and units must report data to the EIA and the EPA, there may be different numbers of units at each plant between the two data sets. Additionally, existing and proposed plants are required to submit Forms 860 and 923 to the EIA if the plant’s total generator nameplate capacity is 1 MW or greater and it is capable of supplying power to or drawing power from the electricity grid. Plants are required to submit emissions data to EPA under 40 CFR Part 75, generally if a unit serv es a generator with a nameplate capacity of greater than 25 MW which produces electricity for sale.



### Unit

- level Data Construction Process

As discussed above, the construction of the 111(d) 2012 unit

- level data involves matching net electricity generation data from EIA with data on CO 2 emissions from EPA. All of the existing, proposed, and retired units listed in EIA

- 860 serve as the foundation for the baseline, establishing the universe of units. Electricity generation and CO 2 emissions are added to this foundation using the EIA

- 923 and EPA Part 75 data.

Electricity Generation For any given power plant, data on net electricity generation from the EIA

- 923 may be available at the unit level for some units or at the prime
mover level for other units. If unit

- level data are available, th e data are used in the baseline. If data are only available at the prime mover level, then these data are distributed proportionally based on nameplate capacity to the units at that plant with that prime mover.33

CO 2 Emissions
Part 75 emissions data from EPA are matched to the generator

- level data from EIA. When units can be matched exactly between the two data sources, the unit

- level emissions are used in the baseline. Wh en one unit from the EPA data is associated with more than one generator from the
EIA data (e.g. emissions from a boiler that supplies steam to more than one generator), or if units at a given plant cannot be ma tched exactly between the two data sources, the total emissions may be distributed to generators based on the proportion of namepl ate capacity. Combined cycle units are considered a single system and emissions from all components are summed and distributed to all generators based on proportion of nameplate capacity.

Because there are different regulations governing which plants and u nits report data to EIA and EPA, there are more units listed in the EIA data than in the EPA data (for example, a unit under 25 MW may not be required to report emissions data under Part 75). To estimat e emissions for
units that are listed in the EIA data but not in the EPA data, a fuel

- specific emission s factor is multiplied by unit

- level fuel consumption (million British thermal units (mmBtu)). 40 This method is based on the methodology used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 41 and
in EP A’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 42 CO 2 emission s factors for year 2012 are obtained from two sources: EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012, and the emission s factors used in the Greenhouse Gas Report ing Program,
which are listed in 40 CFR Part 98. 43 The emissions factors used in the 111(d) baseline analysis are listed in the Emissions Factors section below

. The fuel use is based on heat input data from EPA Part 75 data, boiler

- level data from the EIA

- 9 23, and prime mover level data from the EIA

- 923. Data are selected preferentially in that order (e.g. if heat input data are unavailable from EPA, then boiler

- level data from EIA are used).

Data Corrections
When CO 2 emissions from EPA are matched with net electricity generation data from EIA, an emissions rate (lbs. CO 2 per MWh) is calculated. If the calculated emissions rate is unreasonably high (>10,000 lbs. CO 2 per MWh) or unreasonably low (<500 lbs. CO 2 per MWh) for a unit, the net electricity generati on data are calculated based on gross generation data from EPA. Because the EPA data contain gross generation rather than net electricity generation, net generation must be calculated by multiplying gross generation by a unit

- specific net

- gross conversion factor. 44 In cases

40 It should be noted that most of these units not reporting to EPA are categorized as “excluded” and not factored into the base line used for BSER quantification

. However, the data are still made available in the 2012 unit

- lev el file.

41 IPCC, 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventori es”, volume 2 (Energy), Ap ril 2007. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf

42 EPA, 2014: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012, Washington, D.C., April 2014. http://epa.gov/ climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

43 See 40 CFR Part 98, Table C

- 1. http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2009/GHG

- MRR

- FinalRule.pdf

44 These conversion factors were developed by Ventyx (now called ABB Enterprise Software), a consulting firm that provides information and data related to the electricity generation sector. The factors are developed using North American Reliability Corporation (NERC) Generating Avail ability Data System (GADS),34

where a net

- gross conversion factor is not available for a specific unit, the calculation uses the average of the net

- gross conversion factor from plant s in the same state and with the same prime mover. If the EPA data do not include gross generation for a specific unit, the cal culation uses data on gross generation from EIA. 45 If this correction still results in an emissions rate greater than 10,000 lbs. C O 2 /MWh or less than 500 lbs.
CO 2 /MWh, then the net electricity generation data are left unchanged and the original calculated rate is retained

. While these out

- of

- bounds unit

level emission rates may not be reasonable for the specific units, generally the y do not affect facility

- wide, state

- wide, or region

- wide aggregated levels, and therefo re do not disturb the subcategory rates or state goals.

In addition, for units that report negative net electricity generation (for example, the facility uses more ele ctricity than it produces) and CO 2 emissions, the electricity generation is adjusted using gross electricity generation data as described above. This correction is intended to avoid estimating a negative emissions rate.

Limited adjustments are also made for several likely affected facilities that had reported summertime capacity significantly greater than nameplate capacity. For these units, EPA replaced the summer capacity value reported in EIA

- 860 with the lower nameplate value reported in EIA 860 or

t he wintertime capacity reported in EIA

- 860

.

Inclusion Criteria
In order to calculate the state

- level emission rate for coal steam units, natural gas combined cycle units, and oil and gas steam units, the individual units are categorized according to the na meplate capacity, prime mover type, fuel, and operating status, as shown in table 2.

Table 2

. C riteria for inclusion of units in the 111(d) baseline as likely affected EGU s
.

Category Code Category Inclusion criteria
COALST Coal steam

units Steam turbine units (prime mover = ST) with coal as primary fuel

source. Nameplate capacity must be greater than 25 MW.
NGCC Natural gas

combined cycle units Combined cycle units with natural gas as primary fuel source. If all of

the turbine c omponents of the combined cycle unit (prime mover = CT) have a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW, then all of the steam components (prime mover = CA) are included, regardless of whether they have a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW. Otherwise, only components with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW are included.

which contains data on gross and net generation for units with a nameplate capacity greater than 20 MW. The data provided for this analysis are unit

- level ratios of net generation to gross generation.

45 EIA supplied the gross generation data for a subset of generators to EPA, as these data are not publ icly available in the EIA

- 923 data.35 Category Code Category Inclusion criteria
OGST Oil and gas

steam units Steam turbine units with oil or gas as primary fuel source. Nameplate

capacity must be greater than 25 MW. UC Coal

– Commenced in
2012 Coal steam

units t hat commenced operations in
2012 Units that would otherwise be classified as COALST, but which

commenced operations in 2012. Determination of when the unit commenced operati ons is based on EIA

- 860, public data sources, and

comments on the 111(d) baseline developed for the Proposed Rule.

UC NGCC

– Commenced in
2012 NGCC units

that commenced operations in
2012 Units that would otherwise be classified as NGCC, but which

commenced operations in 2012. Determination of when the unit commenced operations is bas ed on EIA

- 860 , public data sources, and public comments on the 111(d) baseline developed for the Proposed Rule.
UC

- Coal Coal steam

units that are under
construction in
2012 or 2013 Units that are under construction in the data year ( EIA unit status = U,

V, or TS), but which would likely be considered COALST units if operational. For the 111(d) baseline, units can be listed as UC

- Coal if they are und er construction in 2012, 2013, or before 1/08/14.

UC

- NGCC NGCC units

that are under
construction in
2012 or 2013 Units that are under construction in the data year ( EIA unit status = U,

V, or TS), but which would likely be considered NGCC units if operational. For the 111(d) baseline, units can be listed as UC

- NGCC if they are und er construction in 2012, 2013, or before 1/08/14.
EXCLUDE Units excluded

from the 111(d) baseline Units may be excluded from the baseline for several reasons,

including :

 Internal combustion engine units and simple

- cycle gas turbines ;

 Non

- combustion prime movers, such as photovoltaics, wind turbines, and hydropower units;

 Units that used less than 10 percent fossil fuel on a heat input basis in 2012;

 Non

- operational units, such as units that have retired prior to
2012 ; or

 Industrial or commercial units, including CHP units and non

CHP units.36

* Note also that the inclusion or exclusion of a particular unit in the 111(d) baseline analysis does not necessarily indicate that the unit will meet the applicability criteria in the Final Rule.

State

- level data
The state

- level data (pre adjustments) shown in the beginning columns of Appendix three is created by summing the CO 2 emissions and net generation from the generator

- level baseline for units in the COALST, NGCC, and OGST categories that are not categorized as under
construction . Un its are also grouped by state and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) region.

NERC region data for each plant are taken from EIA

- 860, which lists the Independent System Operator/Regional Transmission Organization (ISO/RTO) region at the plant level. 46

The emissions rate is calculated by converting the CO 2 emissions from tons to pounds by multiplying by 2,000 and then dividing by the net generation. Mainly due to unit

- level apportionment, some unit

- level emission rates may not be reasonable by themselves, however, when

a ggregated to the facility level, generally out

- of

- bound emission rates are resolved as the apportionment is no longer relevant.



### D ifferences between 111(d) and eGRID Methodologies

The methodology used to develop the 2012 unit

- level data for the 111(d) analysis is based largely on the methodology used to develop the annual editions of the Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated D atabase (eGRID), with certain key differences. In general, however, the methodologies are broadly similar: they both involve matching Part 75 CO 2 emissions data from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) with data on electricity generation from EIA. Ne vertheless, there are specific criteria set forth in the Clean Power Plan that necessitate slight deviations from the eGRID methodology in the 111(d) baseline analysis.

In particular, the Clean Power Plan defines specific criteria that dictate which gener ating units are to be included in the baseline analysis. The eGRID methodology is altered slightly to accommodate these inclusion criteria. This s ection explains those methodological differences.

46 There are at least two facilities in Texas (Tenaska Frontier Generating Station and Tenaska Gateway Generating Station) that can supply electricity either to the Eastern or ERCOT NERC regions. The region that these pla nts reported in EIA

- 860 is used as the NERC region in the 111(d) baseline analysis.37

Emissions assigned to boilers eGRID reports emissions at th e boiler level and rolled up to the plant level, but the eGRID methodology does not attempt to assign emissions from boilers to individual generators. Because the 111(d) baseline is based on generators (e.g. units with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW), the
boiler

- level emissions must be assigned to the generators in the 111(d) baseline analysis.

Where possible in the 111(d) baseline analysis, the emissions data from EPA are assigned to the generator directly associated with that boiler, according to data from EIA

- 860. When the emissions are only available at the plant level, or if one boiler is associated with more than one generator, or if it is unclear which generator is associated with which boiler, the emissions are proportionally distributed to generators based on nameplate capacity.

Similarly, in the 111(d) baseline analysis, combined cycle units are treated as a single system, and the total emissions from the combined cycle units are distributed to the components (the steam parts and turbine p arts) based on proportion of nameplate capacity.

Inclusion criteria
In order to decide which units are included as likely affected EGUs , it is necessary to evaluate if they meet the inclusion criteria based on unit size and type, operating status, fuel us e, electricity sales, and capacity factor. For example, coal units with a nameplate capacity less than or equal to 25 MW or with a heat input capacity less than 250 mmBtu/hr. are excluded from the analysis, and therefore the emissions from the se units are not used to calculate the state

- level rates. In addition, the 111(d) baseline analysis does not include units that use less than 10 percent fossil fuel on a heat input basis in 2012 or certain commercial and industrial units that are not grid connected. Ho wever, the data files from the 111(d) baseline analysis still list all of these units, but the “Category” field for these units is listed as “EXCLUDE.”

Adjustments to emissions from biomass In eGRID, it is assumed that biomass is carbon neutral and theref ore the emissions associated with biomass are adjusted to zero. While the eGRID plant file reports both the adjusted and unadjusted emissions, the summary tables are based on adjusted emissions.

This adjustment is not made in the 111(d) baseline analysis, although units that use less than 10 percent fossil fuel on a heat input basis in 201 2 are excluded from the baseline of likely affected EGUs

.

Tribal lands The 111(d) anal ysis includes a total of 4 plants from Navajo, Ute, and Fort Mojave tribal lands and are categorized as such in the “state” field of
the baseline

. Therefore, their respective generation and emissions are not included in the state in which they are located, but rather are included
under their own tribal lands category.38



### Key Differences between Proposed and Final 111(d) Baselines

This section outlines the differences between the 111(d) baseline file, created for the Proposed Rule (June 2014, hereafter “ proposed file”) and the version of the file created for the Final Rule (hereafter “final file”). EPA received public comment on the proposed file and made changes accordingly. C hange to the methodology, based on comment, are used to create the final file are as follows:

1. Outlier emission rates

.

In addition to th i s methodological change, EPA also made non

- methodological changes to the proposed file when creating the final file, including:

2. Changes to unit characteristics; 3. Changes to the unit categorization; and
4. Changes to emissions data and generation data

. Each of these changes are described in more detail below.

Methodological Change s Based on Comment

1. Outlier emission rates In certain cases, when EPA emissions data collected under 40 CFR Part 75 are matched with generation data from EIA, a unit ca n have positive emissions, but zero or negative generation. This may occur if a unit uses more power than it generates. As a result, the emission rate calculated for this unit would be negative. To correct this issue, EPA estimated the net electricity generation from these units based on th eir gross generation and

net

- gross conversion factors

. Using this methodology, EPA updated the generation for 95 units with negative generation. Of these, 63 units satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the 111(d) baseline analysis. Additionally, EPA also implemented a correction for units with emission rates that are considered unreasonable, either too low or too high. For this analysis EPA used 500 lbs. CO 2 /MWh as the cutoff for rates that are too low, and 10,000 lbs. CO 2 /MWh as the cutoff for r ates that are too high.

For these units EPA applies a correction converting the gross generation to net generation using net

- gross conversion factors , as describe in the
Data Corrections section above . If these corrections result in emissions rates that a re still less than 500 lbs. CO 2 /MWH or greater than 10,000 lbs.
CO 2 /MWh, EPA leaves the generation data unchanged and retains the original emissions rate.

Using this methodology, EPA updated the generation for 1 04 units that have “out

- of

- range” emission ra tes . Of these, 10 units satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the 111(d) baseline analysis.39

Non

- Methodological Changes Based on Comment

2. Changes to unit characteristics In addition to the methodological changes described above, EPA also responded to publi c comments received on the 111(d) baseline developed for the Proposed Rule. These comments include updating generation data that had been misreported to EIA, changing prime movers an d fuel types, and changing CHP flags. EPA also added a column to the basel ine files to indicate whether a unit had commenced operations in that data year. This column is populated using a combination of public comments and data from EIA on when the unit commenced operations.

3. Changes to unit categorization
For the 2012 baseline f

inal file, EPA made changes to the categorization for coal steam and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units that were
under constructio n or commenced operations prior to 1/08/14 . In the proposed file, there are 9 units listed as COALST and 46 units listed as NGCC that commenced operations in 2012. In the final file, EPA changed the category of these units to “UC Coal

– commenced in 2012” or “UC
NGCC

– commenced in 2012”, respectively. There are also 4 coal steam units and 6 6 NGCC units that were under cons truction in either 2012 or 2013 according to EIA data that are in the EXCLUDE category in the proposed file, but are now listed as “UC Coal” or “UC NGCC ”, respectively, in the final file appendices 1 and/or 2. Many of these “ under construction ” categorize d units had been included in the baseline at proposal, but had received their estimated generation and emissions values when calculating state goals and were identified through the NEEDs
5.13 database rather than EIA/eGRID database . This separate categorization of “under construction

– commenced in 2012” in the final file reflects that they are still included (or newly incorporated into the baseline) , but that EPA estimated annual generation and emission levels for them as done in appendix 2 and 3 and suggested by commenter, instead of relying on annual 2012 data that reflected partial year operation. Those units identified as “under construction” in the file receive equal treatment as the “UC

– comme nced in 2012” categorized units. They are both likely
affected EGUs incorporated into the baseline.

At proposal, EPA relied on NEEDS to identify under construction capacity in a state (which reflected some of these units). C ommenters pointed
out that EPA had omitted some under construction units and should rely on EIA data to inform its inclusion of units. Therefore, in this F inal R ule, EPA used the unit’s status as reported in EIA

- along with comments, NEEDs v.5.15 and other publically available data

- to flag under
construction units.

In additio n, the proposed file contained additional categories, including some simple

- cycle turbines (SST), which are not included in calculations for the Final Rule. EPA changed the category for these units to EXCLUDE.40

4. Changes to the EPA emissions data
EPA used a n updated version of emissions data collected under 40 CFR Part 75 in the analysis. The EPA pulled the emissions data used to create the proposed file in February 2014, and the data used to create the final file in February 2015. This resulted in changes i n emissions for 23 units between the proposed and final files. This update was prompted by comment pointing out some inaccuracies in the non

- updated data.41



### Emission s F actors

The emission s factors listed in the table below are used in the 111(d) baseline analysis to estimate CO 2 emissions, if emissions for a given unit are
not included in the EPA data. CO 2 emission s factors for year 2012 are obtained from two sources: EPA’s Inventory of U.S . Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012, and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (40 CFR Part 98). These emissions factors are most frequently applied for units that are categorized as “ EXCLUDE ”, and therefore not in the EPA baseline for the quan tifying BSER

.

Fuel Code Fuel Type Prime
Mover Emission s Factor s (Tons
CO 2 /mmBtu)
AB Agricultural byproducts ST 0.13027
BFG Blast furnace gas ST 0.05844
BG Bagasse ST 0.13027
BIT Bituminous coal ST 0.10282 BLQ Black liquor ST 0.10448
BU Butane ST 0.07182
COG Coke oven gas ST 0.05844
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 ST 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 GT 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 OT 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 CS 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 CT 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 CC 0.08152
DFO Distillate fuel oil #2 IC 0.08152
DG Digester gas ST 0.05739
DG Digester gas GT 0.05739
DG Digester gas OT 0.05739
DG Digester gas CS 0.05739
DG Digester gas CT 0.05739
DG Digester gas CC 0.05739
DG Digester gas IC 0.05739
DG Digester gas FC 0.05739
GEO Geothermal BT 042 Fuel Code Fuel Type Prime
Mover Emission s Factor s (Tons
CO 2 /mmBtu)
GEO Geothermal ST 0
HY Hydrogen ST 0
HY Hydrogen GT 0
HY Hydrogen CT 0
HY Hydrogen OT 0
HY Hydrogen CS 0
HY Hydrogen CC 0

IGCC Integrated gasification combined cycle burning
BIT IG 0.10282

JF Jet fuel GT 0.07962
JF Jet fuel IC 0.07962
JF Jet fuel CC 0.07962
KER Kerosene GT 0.08067
KER Kerosene IC 0.08067
LB Liquid byproduct ST 0.08209
LFG Landfill gas ST 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas GT 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas OT 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas CS 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas CT 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas CC 0.05739
LFG Landfill gas FC 0.05739
LIG Lignite coal ST 0.10771
MH Methanol ST 0.06984
MSB MSW biomass component ST 0.10339
NG Natural gas ST 0.05844
NG Natural gas GT 0.05844
NG Natural gas OT 0.05844
NG Natural gas CS 0.05844
NG Natural gas CT 0.0584443 Fuel Code Fuel Type Prime
Mover Emission s Factor s (Tons
CO 2 /mmBtu)
NG Natural gas CC 0.05844
NG Natural gas IC 0.05844
NG Natural gas FC 0.05844
OBG Other biomass gas CC 0.05739
OBG Other biomass gas GT 0.05739
OBG Other biomass gas ST 2.01492
OBG Other biomass gas FC 0.05739
OBL Other biomass liquid ST 0.08989
OBL Other biomass liquid GT 0.08989
OBL Other biomass liquid CT 0.08989
OBL Other biomass liquid OT 0.08989
OBL Other biomass liquid CS 0.08989
OBL Other biomass liquid CC 0.08989
OBS Other biomass solid ST 0.11632
OG Other gas ST 0.05844
OG Other gas GT 0.05844
OG Other gas CC 0.05844
OO Other oil ST 0.08152
OTL Other liquid ST 0.08209
OTL Other liquid GT 0.08209
OTL Other liquid OT 0.08209
OTL Other liquid CS 0.08209
OTL Other liquid CT 0.08209
OTL Other liquid CC 0.08209
OTS Other solid ST 0.11289
PC Petroleum coke ST 0.11256
PC Petroleum coke GT 0.11256
PC Petroleum coke CT 0.11256
PC Petroleum coke OT 0.11256
PC Petroleum coke CS 0.1125644 Fuel Code Fuel Type Prime
Mover Emission s Factor s (Tons
CO 2 /mmBtu)
PC Petroleum coke CC 0.11256
PG Propane gas ST 0.06774
PP Paper pellets ST 0.10339
PRG Process gas ST 0.05844
RFO Residual fuel oil #6 ST 0.08278
RFO Residual fuel oil GT 0.08278
RFO Residual fuel oil CC 0.08278
RG Refinery gas ST 0.07356
SC Synthetic coal ST 0.10529
SLW Sludge waste ST 0.11632
SUB Subbituminous coal ST 0.10711
SUN Sun PV 0
TDF Tire

- derived fuel ST 0.06376
WAT Water HY 0
WC Waste coal ST 0.10529
WDL Wood liquid ST 0.08989
WDS Wood solid ST 0.10339
WND Wind WS 0
WND Wind WT 0
WO Waste oil ST 0.08209
WO Waste oil CC 0.08209
WO Waste oil GT 0.0820945



### Data Codes

The following data codes are used by in the EIA

- 860 and EIA

- 923 forms to indicate a unit’s prime mover, fuel type, and status.

Prime Mover Code Prime Mover Description

BA Energy Storage, Battery

BT Turbines Used in a Binary Cycle (including those used for geothermal

applications) CA Combined Cycle Steam Part

CC Combined Cycle Total Unit (use only for plants/generators that are in planning

stage, for which specific generator details cannot be provided) CE Energy Storage, Compressed Air CP Energy Storage, Concentrated Solar Power

CS Combined Cycle Single Shaft (combustion turbine and steam turbine share a

single generator) CT Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Part ES Energy Storage, Other FC Fuel Cell FW Energy Storage, Flywheel

GT Combustion (Gas) Turbine (does not include the combustion turbine part of a

combined cycle; see code CT, below) HA Hydrokinetic, Axial Flow Turbine HB Hydrokinetic, Wave Buoy HK Hydrokinetic, Other

HY Hydroelectric Turbine (includes turbines associated with delivery of water by

pipeline) IC Internal Combustion Engine (diesel, piston, reciprocating) OT Other PS Energy Storage, Reversible Hydraulic Turbine (Pumped Storage) PV Photovoltaic

ST Steam Turbine, including nuclear, geothermal and solar steam (does not include

combined cycle) WS Wind Turbine, Offshore46 WT Wind Turbine, Onshore

Fuel Type Code Energy Source Description

AB Agricultural By

- Products ANT Anthracite Coal BFG Blast Furnace Gas BIT Bituminous Coal BLQ Black Liquor DFO Distillate Fuel Oil (including diesel, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils) GEO Geothermal JF Jet Fuel KER Kerosene LFG Landfill Gas LIG Lignite Coal MSW Municipal Solid Waste MWH Electricity used for energy storage NG Natural Gas NUC Nuclear (including Uranium, Plutonium, and Thorium) OBG Other Biomass Gas (including digester gas, methane, and other biomass gases) OBL Other Biomass Liquids OBS Other Biomass Solids OG Other Gas OTH Other PC Petroleum Coke PG Gaseous Propane PUR Purchased Steam RC Refined Coal RFO Residual Fuel Oil (incl. Nos. 5 & 6 fuel oils, and bunker C fuel oil) SGC Coal

- Derived Synthesis Gas SGP Synthesis Gas from Petroleum Coke SLW Sludge Waste SUB Subbituminous Coal SUN Solar47 Fuel Type Code Energy Source Description

TDF Tire

- derived Fuels

WAT Water at a Conventional Hydroelectric Turbine, and water used in Wave Buoy

Hydrokinetic Technology, Current Hydrokinetic Technology, and Tidal Hydrokinetic Technology

WC Waste/Other Coal (incl. anthracite culm, bituminous gob, fine coal, lignite waste,

waste coal)

WDL Wood Waste Liquids excluding Black Liquor (including red liquor, sludge wood,

spent sulfite liquor, and other wood

- based liquids)

WDS Wood/Wood Waste Solids (incl. paper pellets, railroad ties, utility poles, wood

chips, bark, and wood waste solids)

WH Waste heat not directly attributed to a fuel source (WH should only be reported

when the fuel source is undetermined, and for combined cycle steam turbines that do not have supplemental firing.) WND Wind

WO Waste/Other Oil (including crude oil, liquid butane, liquid propane, naphtha, oil

waste, re

- refined motor oil, sludge oil, tar oil, or other petroleum

- based liquid wastes)

Unit Status Code Status Code Description

IP Planned new generator canceled, indefinitely postponed, or no longer in

resource plan

L Regulatory approvals pending. Not under construction but site preparation could

be underway

OA Out of service

– was not used for some or all of the reporting period but is

expected to be returned to service in the next calendar year.

OP Operating

- in service (commercial operation) and producing some electricity.

Includes peaking units that are run on an as needed (intermittent or seasonal) basis.

OS Out of service

– was not used for some or all of the reporting period and is NOT

expected to be returned to service in the next calendar year.
OT Other48 P Planned for installation but regulatory approvals not initiated; Not under

construction
RE Retired

- no longer in service and not expected to be returned to service.

SB Standby/Backup

- available for service but not normally used (has little or no

generation during the year) for this reporting period.

T Regulatory approvals received. Not under construction but site preparation

could be underway

TS Construction complete, but not yet in commercial operation (including low

power testing of nuclear units)

U Under construction, less than or equal to 50 percent complete (based on

construction time to date of operation)

V Under construction, more than 50 percent complete (based on construction time

to date of operation)



### Description of Baseline Data Fields

The following table provides a description of the data fields in the 111(d) baseline file with an indication of the data sources used to populate each
field.

Field Description Source

Category Category based on the inclusion criteria of each generator --

State State in which the plant is located EIA

- 860

State

- Region Combined State and NERC Region in which the plant is located EIA

- 860

Plant Name Plant name EIA

- 860

ORIS C ode EIA Office of Regulatory Information Systems
P l ant or facility code EIA

- 860

Generator ID Generator identification code EIA

- 860 Fuel type Primary fuel type of the generator EIA

- 860

Prime mover type The engine, turbine, water wheel, or similar machine that drives an electric generator; or, for EIA

- 86049 Field Description Source reporting purposes, a device that converts energy to electricity directly (e.g., photovoltaic solar and fuel cells). Nameplate Capacity (MW) The full capacity value of power output from the generator EIA

- 860

Summer Capacity (MW) The full capacity value of power output from the generator during the summer EIA

- 860

Heat Input Capacity (mmBtu/hr) The hourly heat input capacity for the unit in
mmBtu EPA Part 75

Electric Generation (MWh) Net electricity generation of the unit EIA

- 923, EPA Part 75 data Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tons) The annual carbon dioxide emissions from each generator in tons EPA Part 75 data,
EIA

- 923

UNITKEEP (CA<25 part of CC with CT>25) If all of the turbine parts (prime mover =CT) of an NGCC system have a nameplate capacity > 25MW, then all of the steam parts (prime mover = CA) are included in the baseline, regardless of whether they have a nameplate capacity >25MW. In this c ase, the UNITKEEP field will be equal to 1. It will be blank otherwise. --

Source Category The type of industry in which the generator is located. Options include electric utility, independent power producer (IPP), industrial, or commercial. EIA

- 860

Cogn Flag Y/N Indicates the cogeneration status of each generator

– yes (Y) or no (N). EIA

- 860

Unit Status The operating status of the generator EIA

- 860

Unit Retirement Year The actual or planned retirement year of the generator EIA

- 860

Exclusion Description Description of why the generator was excluded in the “Category” field --50 Field Description Source

Commenced Operations in Data Year If the generator commenced operations within the data year, the field is marked “Yes.” This field is left blank for all other generators

. EIA

- 860

NERC Interconnection NERC region in which the plant is located EIA

- 860