### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1 CPP RIA  P. 3 - 11 [If accurate, suggest adding] o The anal ys is is a reasonable expectation of the incremental effects of the rule, and is consistent with past EPA anal ys es of power sector regulatory requirements. The EPA has separatel y anal yzed and considered the cost and feasibility of implementing the emission reduction measures in BSER, which do not rely on energy efficiency

measures. For this analy sis, see section V.A.4.d. of the preamble to this final rule. CPP Preamble  P. 642 [ The following po int, which was included in your earlier draft, seems like it would fit well in your revised text on BB4. Something like the following , defer to EPA ]: “Building block 4 is outside our policy paradigm as it targets consumer - oriented behavior and demand for the good, which would reduce the amount of electricity to be produced. In addition to being outside our paradigm because it focuses on reducing the amount of electricit y generation overall , we note that commenters asserted that as a practical matter, demand - side energy

efficiency

programs involve the participation of more entities, including end - users, which creates levels of complexity in implementat ion not found with the other building blocks. Commenters also asserted that the record for the proposal lacked information demonstrating that a number of states could implement demand - side energy efficiency

programs in the amounts and on the time - table that the proposal called for, or that certain segments of the industry

– - independent power producers, who comprise some 35 - 40 percent of the industry , but do not have a direct business relationship with end - users – - could do so. ”  P. 996: “ Furthermore, We therefore do not interpret the term “implementation of ... such standards of performance” broadl y enough to authorize the EPA to approve state plans with obligations enforceable against that impose federall y enforceable obligations upon the a broad array

of non - emitting entities that would have been implicated by the portfolio approach .”  P. 443: “ Itis worth noting that an earlier state plan submission date provides regulated sources with more certainty and time to plan for compliance, but ha s no effect on the time when compliance must be achieved, as the mandatory compliance period begins in 2022 for all states . Some states that already have established programs for limiting CO2 emissions from power plants may be able to adopt and submit to the EPA state plans b y September 6, 2016. In those states, sources will alread y have developed compliance approaches to meet state law requirements. Other states that may decide to submit plans by September 6, 2016, may

be expected to work with their affec ted EGUs to determine a reasonable compliance approach, in light of the fact that compliance is not required to begin until 2022.

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2  Conforming edit to regulatory text: “(E) If a state plan provides for the ability of renewable energy

resources located in states with mass - based plans to be issued ERCs, consideration in the projection that such resources must meet geographic eligibility requirements, based on power purcha se agreements, RECs or related documentation; and”  P. 669: “For example, had some ty pe of add - on control such as CCS been available identified as the BSER for coal - fired EGUs, sources that complied by installing that control would incur higher cost.”

 P . 544: “ Finally , we briefly note additional constraints that focus the BSER identified for new sources under section 111(b) on controls that assure that sources are well - controlled at the the time of construction. ”  P. 634: “ As discussed in the Legal Memorandum and briefl y below, the BSER identified for EGUs under section 111(b) is designed to assure that affected sources are well controlled at the time of construction, and that approach is consistent with the design expressed in the legislative history for the 1970 CAA Amendments that enacted the provision. “  [T here is an inconsistency with the way that public engagement is described on p. 40 - 41 and p. 247 :] o P. 40 - 41: ” These components are: an identification of final plan approach or approaches under consideraton, including a description of progress made to date; an appropriate explanation for wh y the state needs additional time to submit a final plan by

Sept ember 6, 2016; and a demonstration or description of opportunity

for public comment on the initial submittal and meaningful engagement with stakeholders, including vulnerable communities, during the time in preparation of the initial submittal and plans fo r engagement during development of the final plan, as described in section VIII.E of this preamble.” o P. 247: “The third required component for states to address in the initial submittal is a demonstration of how they have been engaging with the public, including vulnerable communities, and a description of how they intend to meaningfully engage with communit y stakeholders during the additional time (if an extension is granted) for development of the final plan.”  Footnote 564 on p. 500 [ Editorial suggest ion for your consideration to make more consistent with 111(b) discussion ]: “ Inman y respects, there are indications that Congress prefers CAA section 111(b) standards of performance to be based on technological control methods. There are numerous reasons to find that particular CAA section 111(b) standards of performance should be based on controls installed at the source at the time of new construction. This is due in part to the recognition that new sources have long

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3 operating lives over which initial c apital costs can be amortized.”  F ootnote 301, p. 304 [It appears the highlighted final clause is not needed for this discussion ]: “ We also discuss our interpretation of the requirements for standards of performance and the BSER under section 111(b), for new sources, in the section 111(b) rulemaking that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule and in the Legal Memorandum for this rule. Our interpretations of these requirements in the two rules are generall y consistent except to the extent that they reflect distinctions between new and existing sources. For example, as discussed in the section 111(b) rule, the legislative history supports the view that the BSER for new industrial facilities, which were expected to have length y useful lives, shoul d include the most advanced pollution controls available, installed at the time of new construction . , but Congress had a broader conception of the BSER for existing facilities . ”  P. 10 74 : “ Inthis final rule, the EPA is finalizing these as appropriate explanations for seeking an extension beyond 2016, but makes clear

— as explained further below

—that other appropriate explanations will be acceptable as well . ”  P. 1080 “States may

meet the first required component by describing these steps such as these alread y undertaken”  P. 1080: “The EPA underscores that states that have taken these steps since proposal may easily address the first component of the initial submittal by describing such steps, and also address the second required component b y identifying next steps (which may be a natural extension of these already implemented activities), and laying out a schedule for development of a final plan.”  P. 10 76 : “ Gi ven the opportunity for states to submit appropriate explanations other than the ones detailed here, the EPA believes addressing this component requiring an appropriate explanation for an extension is easily achievable b y September 6, 2016 , with relative e ase b y states intending to submit a final plan by September 6, 2018 . ”  P. 1455: Note for consistency that same footnote as 1054 in 111(b) preamble has been modified.  Found missing or incorrect language in RL SO version p. 889

– the redlined sentence doesn’t read right. It says, “As a result, notwithstanding the fact that mass goals for existing sources are quantified in a way that is an equivalent expression of the BSER, the form of mass goals is only equivalent if leakage is satisfactoril y addressed in performance state plan’s establishment of emission standards and implementation measures.”

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

4  Pg 365 -- Commenter suggests removing the following sentence that would make the paragraph internall y consistent, because later it points out how new NGCC cou ld be consistent with long - term climate goals : “Unlike emission reductions achieved through the use of an y of the building blocks, emission reductions achieved through the use of new NGCC capacit y require the construction of additional CO2 - emitting generat ing capacity , a consequence that is inconsistent with the long - term need to continue reducing CO2 emissions beyond the reductions that will be achieved through this rule”. 111(b) Preamble

 P. 612: “ Inaddition, it is not possible to count on new sources being able to trade with existing sources, for several reasons. First, we could not assume that states would provide for existing sources to trade with new sources under their state plans. AS noted, there are indications in the legislative history that new sources should be well - controlled at the source, which casts doubt on whether new sources should be allowed to meet their standards through the purchase of emission credits . Second, new sources must meet their standards of performance as soon as they

begin operations. If they do so before the y ear 2022, when existing sources become subject to section 111(d) state plan standards of performance, no existing sources will be available as trading partners .”