1 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Corrections of Inadvertent Errors in CPP RTC 

Chapter 1A 

Page 9 

Comment 6: Commenters stated that the industry interpretation of Section 111(d) is textually 

and logically flawed, and must be rejected. Commenters explained that the structure and context 

of the 1990 Amendments signal the opposite concern: that EPA was not proceeding diligently 

enough to limit harmful air pollution, and in rejecting an interpretation put forth by some 

industry advocates that would prevent EPA from regulating under section 111(d) all "HAP or 

non-HAP emitted from a source category regulated under section 112," EPA has affirmed that 

[s]uch a reading would be inconsistent with the general thrust of the 1990 amendments, which, 

on balance, reflects Congress' desire to require EPA to regulate more substances, not to eliminate 

EPA's ability to regulate large categories of pollutants like non-HAP. Furthermore, commenters 

added, EPA has historically regulated non-HAP under section 111(d), even where those nonHAP were emitted from a source category actually regulated under section 112. See, e.g., 40

Description of the correction: 

Inserted a space after the comment block heading for Comment 6, correcting a typographical 

error. 

Page 55 

Comment 22: Commenters stated that according to a study by NERA Economic Consulting 

(NERA), nineteen states have passed or are considering laws or resolutions expressing 

opposition to the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Commenters explained that attorneys general from 

twenty states are on record opposing EPA's proposal, and fifteen governors, including the 

Governor of North Carolina, have sent letters to the President stating that the EPA does not have 

the legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants, and it is reported that 

thirteen states have joined in litigation to challenge the EPA's proposal. Commenters, which 

represented and protected the energy interests of scores of manufacturers with plants throughout 

North Carolina, shared NC DENR's and Duke's views, as well as the opposition expressed by the 

aforementioned attorneys general and governors. Commenters remarked that due to the legal 

flaws of the EPA's plan, court challenges are anticipated, and commenters explained that states 

shouldn't be forced to act until all court challenges are over. 

Response 22: For the reasons explained in the preamble, the deadlines established by the 

Agency are reasonable. 

Description of the correction: 
2 

Added a period to the end of Response 22, correcting a typographical error. 

Page 60

Response 28: We disagree. For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble 

and in the Legal Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the 

scope of EPA’s authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and 

legislative history. Moreover, to the extent this comment objects to the portfolio approach, the 

EPA is not finalizing the proposed “portfolio” approach and will not accept state plans that 

attempt to impose emission standards or other CAA compliance obligations on entities other than 

affected EGUs. The state measures approach provides a path for a state to achieve the emission 

performance level as expressed as a state goal in a way that avoids placing enforceable emission 

standards on affected EGUs (unless and until the backstop is triggered). States will have a wide 

range of flexibility in choosing how to demonstrate their affected EGUs are meeting a state goal. 

Lastly, this rule does not establish any emissions standards for 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the phrase “Lastly, this rule does not establish any emissions standards for” which was 

not needed and inadvertently not removed from the final document. The comment is addressed 

by the remaining text. 

Page 61 

Comment 31: Commenters stated EPA should be aware that any plan developed by LDEQ or 

the state of Louisiana must be consistent with and will be constrained by Act 726 of the 2014 

Regular Legislative Session. 

Response 31: We appreciate this information. Under the CAA, Louisiana and all other states and 

other affected jurisdictions are subject to the requirements of this rule notwithstanding any state 

laws that may limit a state’s ability to comply with this rule.

Description of the correction: 

Added a “.” to the end of Response 31, correcting a typographical error. 

Page 62

Response 33: We disagree with commenters. CAA section 111(d)(1) requires the EPA to 

promulgate regulations under which states submit state plans regulating “any existing source” of 

certain pollutants “to which a standard of performance would apply if such existing source were 

a new source” and “provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance.” Affected EGUs, including municipalities and electric cooperatives, are subject to 
3 

air quality requirements, including meeting such standards of performance that a state may 

establish to meet emissions performance levels that the EPA determines are achievable under 

CAA 111(d). We give states and affected EGUs flexibility in determining how they meet these 

requirements. No state or affected EGU must implement the precise measures included in the 

building blocks in order to do so. The agency recognizes that states must have legal authority to 

implement approvable state plans. In the event that states lack the necessary state-law authority 

to implement a plan, the EPA will implement a federal plan for that state under section 

111(d)(2). Further, we note that we are not including building block 4, demand-side energy 

efficiency in the final rule. Finally, for reasons that we fully explain in preamble section V.B. 

and the legal memo, we are within our legal authority and the final rule is consistent with past 

EPA practice and interpretation in setting standards of performance. 

Description of the correction: 

Inserted the word “in” that was inadvertently omitted from the final document text. 

Page 66 

Comment 3: EPA prohibited from setting ESPS for sources regulated under section 112 

Several commenters stated that 111(d) prohibits EPA from promulgating existing source 

performance standards for source categories that have already been regulated under Section 112. 

Commenters stated that despite the clarity provided in a literal reading of 111(d), EPA argues 

that the statute's prohibition is ambiguous due to a clerical mistake in the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. The commenters stated that although both the House and Senate versions were 

included in the 1990 Amendments, the Senate's version contained the error and it was the House

... 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted extra space after “Commenters”, correcting a typographical error. 

Page 70 

Comment 7: Commenters stated that while section 111(d) gives states broad flexibility in 

implementing standards applicable to existing sources, the EPA is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring that state programs will achieve the standards of performance specified in the section 

111(d) emission guideline document. Commenters said Section 111(a) of the CAA defines the 

term "standard of performance" as: "[A] standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects 

... 

Description of the correction: 
4 

Added a space after “Comment 7”, correcting a typographical error. 

Page 78

The touchstone of the cooperative-federalism concept outlined in the Train-Virginia line of cases 

is that, under the authority of section 110, the EPA may not legally or functionally require a state 

to adopt a “specific” control measure in its SIP.9 The cases do not stand for the broader 

proposition that 110 imposes no limits on state discretion, or that EPA is prohibited from 

interpreting basic requirements of the Act or reviewing SIP submissions for compliance with 

those requirements. 

Description of the correction: 

Inserted for clarity the words “line of cases” to the sentence, “The touchstone of the cooperativefederalism concept outlined in the Train-Virginia line of cases is that, under the authority of 

section 110, the EPA may not legally or functionally require a state to adopt a “specific” control 

measure in its SIP”, in Response 11. 

Page 88 

Response 18: We disagree that we are expanding our authority to include wholesale energy 

market regulation or state retail regulation. Our emission guidelines simply reflect an achievable 

emissions limit through the application of the BSER and do not in themselves require states or 

sources to implement the BSER. Moreover, these emission guidelines provide states with the 

flexibility to establish, implement, and enforce standards of performance and do not intrude on 

the regulatory domain of FERC or the states. It cannot be said that because environmental 

requirements may have an effect on the wholesale energy or retail markets that the EPA is 

therefore intruding into energy regulation. Certainly, in the legislative history of the 1970 CAA 

Amendments, Congress expressly identified power plants as a priority source category for 

regulation under CAA section 111. Further, we note that the EPA is not including building block 

4, demand-side energy efficiency, as a component of BSER in the final rule. Additionally, this 

rule does not regulate renewable energy sources. It identifies the BSER for affected sources, 

which entails substitute generation to zero-emitting generators, but it does not impose emissions 

requirements on such sources. Finally, we note that the EPA has considered reliability issues in 

developing this final rule. For a more comprehensive discussion of reliability issues, as well as 

the EPA’s coordination with both FERC and DOE, please see preamble section VIII.G.2. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted extra space in between words “energy” and “or” in Response 18. 

Pages 94-95 
5 

Comment 22: Commenters stated that by going "outside the fence line" in setting standards, 

EPA developed standards for existing units that are more stringent than new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for new generating units, and this approach establishes a policy with no basis 

in the statute or regulatory guidance. 

Response 22: We disagree with this comment. In section V. of the preamble for this rule we 

discuss the relative stringency of the section 111(b) and (d) rules. Further, EPA’s views on the 

argument presented by the commenters, including commenters’ discussion of the AEP opinion 

and of the Senate amendment, are also With respect to commenters discussion of the AEP 

opinion, EPA disagrees with the commenters reading of this opinion, as discussed in EPA’s 

briefs in the consolidated Murray Energy and West Virginia cases, No. 14-1112, No. 14-1146, 

and No. 14-1151 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.).[SJJ] 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the words “Further, EPA’s views on the argument presented by the commenters, 

including commenters’ discussion of the AEP opinion and of the Senate amendment, are also 

With respect to commenters discussion of the AEP opinion, EPA disagrees with the commenters 

reading of this opinion, as discussed in EPA’s briefs in the consolidated Murray Energy and 

West Virginia cases, No. 14-1112, No. 14-1146, and No. 14-1151 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. 

Cir.).[SJJ]” which were inadvertently not removed from the final response. The comment 

excerpt does not address the AEP opinion or the differing amendments, rendering this text 

extraneous. The response to the comment is provided by the remaining sentence. 

Page 139

Response 48: The EPA disagrees with this comment. The commenters assert in a conclusory 

fashion that the proposed rule violates each one of the standards of review in the APA. Not only 

does the APA not apply to this action, but the EPA’s final rule is reasonable, thorough, wellexplained and well within the EPA’s statutory authority. The final rule provides ample guidance 

to states on ways to comply with the emission guidelines, including application of the BSER, 

other systems of emission reduction, trading, and the state measures approach. The commenters’ 

assertion that the EPA did not identify specific types of facilities that endanger public health is 

absurd. The final rule applies to existing steam electric generators and stationary combustion 

turbines, the largest sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. The final rule’s applicability provisions 

further describe which facilities are affected sources subject to the rule’s requirements.

Description of the correction: 

Added “t” to the word “this” in “Not only does the APA not apply to (t)his action,” , correcting a 

typographical error. 
6 

Page 149

Response 53: The EPA is not finalizing the proposed once-in-always-in approach, so these 

comments are moot. Also see Section XXII of the legal Legal memo Memorandum regarding 

UARG.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected typographical errors, adding “c” to the word “once” in “on(c)e-in-always-in 

approach,” capitalized “l” in “legal” and changed the word “memo” to “Memorandum”. 

Page 180 

Response 3: For the reasons explained in the preamble, inclusion of building block 3 is 

consistent with EPA’s statutory authority. EPA has included neither EE nor nuclear in the final 

BSER. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected a typographical error by adding “n” to the word “nor” in “EPA has included neither 

EE (n)or nuclear in the final BSER” . 

Page 181

Response 4: For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble and in the Legal 

Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the scope of EPA’s 

authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and legislative history. 

We also explain in section V.B. of the preamble why the BSER does not includeing demand-side 

energy efficiency measures, accordingly, comments relating to building block 4 are moot. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected verb tense error in response, changing “including” to “include”. 

Page 184

Response 8: For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble and in the Legal 

Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the scope of EPA’s 

authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and legislative history. 

EPA has not included nuclear in the final BSER.

Description of the correction: 
7 

Corrected verb tense error, changing “include” to “included”. 

Page 221

Response 23: We disagree that we are expanding our authority to include wholesale energy 

market regulation or state retail regulation. The EPA is not interfering with the FERC’s exclusive 

authority under Federal Power Act sections 205 and 206 to regulate interstate transmission and

wholesale sales of electric energy. Our emission guidelines simply reflect an achievable 

emissions limit through the application of the BSER and do not in themselves require states or 

sources to implement the BSER. Moreover, these emission guidelines provide states with the 

flexibility to establish, implement, and enforce standards of performance and do not intrude on 

the regulatory domain of FERC or the states. It cannot be said that because environmental 

requirements may have an effect on the wholesale energy or retail energy markets that the EPA 

is therefore intruding into energy regulation. Certainly, in the legislative history of the 1970 ...

Description of the correction: 

Insert the word “sections” which was inadvertently omitted. 

Page 223

... to more efficient implementation with lower compliance costs for affected EGUs and lower 

impacts on electricity ratepayer, the final rule does not require multi-state plans. We view the 

ability of a state to implement an individual plan or a multi-state plan as a significant flexibility 

that allows a state to tailor implementation of its state policy objectives and circumstances. In 

fact, the final rule makes clear that participation on multi-state plans is voluntary. States have 

flexibility to determine how they will design their state plans – whether that be on an individual 

state basis or participating in a regional effort. We do not agree with commenters that the rule, as 

a practical matter, effectively requires multi-state coordination nor do we agree that the final rule 

expands the scope of existing RTO dispatch. The final rule sets emission limits by apply the 

BSER. It is up to state and affected EGUs to determine how to meet the rule’s requirements. 

There isare no requirements that they utilize the building blocks to do so. There is no 

requirement that they change their market structures or expand RTOs to do so. For a 

comprehensive discussion of how affected EGUs can implement the building blocks see the 

preamble section V and the Legal Memorandum. We discuss the multi-state plan issue in greater 

detail in preamble section VIII.C.5.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected grammar changing “is” to “are” to agree with the plural “requirements”. 

Page 233
8 

Response 2: The EPA agrees that the CAA and applicable case law support the Agency’s 

discretion to categorize and subcategorize (or not to) and that this discretion applies when EPA 

exercises its authority under section 111(d). 

Description of the correction: 

Added the word “to” which was inadvertently omitted from the response. 

Page 235

Response 6: As discussed above [assuming that we include the “do we also want to say” text on 

pp. 1-2], the text in section 111(b)(1)(B) provides that EPA will establish standards for “new 

sources within such category” but does not mandate that the standards have to be set for the 

source category. EPA concludes that this phrasing focusing on the sources rather than the source 

categories provides EPA with the flexibility to establish standards for new sources within groups 

that consolidate or reorganize the listed source categories where that is appropriate.]

Description of the correction: 

Removed text “[assuming that we include the “do we also want to say” text on pp. 1-2]” from 

Response 6, which is an editorial note inadvertently left in the document, and “]”, a 

typographical error. 

Page 260

Response 6: We disagree that we are illegally seeking to regulate the electric power transmission 

system as a whole. Our emission guidelines simply reflect an achievable emissions limit through 

the application of the BSER and does not require states or sources to implement the BSER. 

Moreover, these emission guidelines provide states with the flexibility to establish, implement, 

and enforce standards of performance and do not intrude on the regulatory domain of FERC. It 

cannot be said that because environmental requirements may have an effect on the wholesale 

energy market that the EPA is therefore intruding into energy regulation. Certainly, in the 

legislative history of the 1970 CAA Amendments, Congress expressly identified power plants as 

a priority source category for regulation under CAA section 111.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected grammar, changing “does” to “do”. 

Page 296

Response 14: The EPA is not finalizing a building block 4 as part of the BSER. Further, as we 

explain in sections V.A. and V.B. of the preamble, our emission guidelines simply reflect an 
9 

achievable emissions limit through the application of the BSER and do not in themselves require 

states or sources to implement the BSER. That is, EPA is responsible for determining the level of 

emission limitation from the source category, while states have the responsibility of assigning 

emission requirements to their sources that will ensure their achievement of that level of 

emission limitation. States may fulfil their responsibility by establishing emission standards or 

creating plans consistent with the guidelines. In doing so, states will be able to choose from a 

wide range of emission reduction measures, including measures that are not part of the BSER. 

For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble and in the Legal 

Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the scope of EPA’s 

authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and legislative history.

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “a” and inserted “as part of the BSER” to clarity the response. 

Page 297

Response 15: The EPA is not finalizing building block 4 as part of the BSER. Further, as we 

explain in sections V.A. and V.B. of the preamble, our emission guidelines simply reflect an 

achievable emissions limit through the application of the BSER and do not in themselves require 

states or sources to implement the BSER. That is, EPA is responsible for determining the level of 

emission limitation from the source category, while states have the responsibility of assigning 

emission requirements to their sources that will ensure their achievement of that level of 

emission limitation. States may fulfil their responsibility by establishing emission standards or 

creating plans consistent with the guidelines. In doing so, states will be able to choose from a 

wide range of emission reduction measures, including measures that are not part of the BSER. 

For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble and in the Legal 

Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the scope of EPA’s 

authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and legislative history.

Description of the correction: 

Inserted “as part of the BSER” to clarity the response. 

Page 298

Response 18: The EPA is not finalizing a building block 4 as part of the BSER. Further, as we 

explain in sections V.A. and V.B. of the preamble, our emission guidelines simply reflect an 

achievable emissions limit through the application of the BSER and do not in themselves require 

states or sources to implement the BSER. That is, EPA is responsible for determining the level of 

emission limitation from the source category, while states have the responsibility of assigning 

emission requirements to their sources that will ensure their achievement of that level of 

emission
10 

Description of the correction: 

Inserted “as part of the BSER” to clarity the response. 

Page 329 

Response 3: For the Reasons explained in Section V of the Preamble and the legal memo, EPA 

has concluded that its determination of BSER is well within the authority delegated to it under 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Contrary to the assertion in the comments EPA is not 

mandating that any state establish an RPS. Rather EPA has provided states with significant 

flexibility in designing their state plans. Renewable energy is one potential measure that may be 

employed, consistent with the state flexibility principle that is central to this program. This rule 

does not regulate renewable energy sources. It identifies the BSER for affected sources, which 

entails substitute generation to zero-emitting generators, but it does not impose emissions 

requirements on such zero-emitting generatorssources.

Description of the correction: 

Replaced “sources” with “zero-emitting generators” to clarity the response. 

Page 330

Response 4: We disagree with commenters. As an initial matter, we note that the final rule does 

not include demand-side energy efficiency – building block 4 – as a component of BSER. For 

the rReasons explained in Section V of the Preamble and the legal memo, EPA has concluded 

that its determination of BSER is well within the authority delegated to it under section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act. Contrary to the assertion in the comments EPA is not mandating that any 

state establish an RPS. Rather EPA has provided states with significant flexibility in designing 

their state plans. Renewable energy is one potential measure that may be employed, consistent 

with the state flexibility principle that is central to this program. This rule does not regulate 

renewable energy sources. It identifies the BSER for affected sources, which entails substitute 

generation to zero-emitting generators, but it does not impose emissions requirements on such 

zero-emitting generatorssources. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed capital “R” to small “r” in the word “reasons” to correct a typographical error and 

replaced “sources” with “zero-emitting generators” to clarity the response. 

Pages 330-331
11 

Response 5: The EPA does not agree with commenters that the final rule will cause reliability 

issues. The rule does not impede current dispatch protocols about how these units are operated, 

and provides many flexible options for compliance, such as emission rate credits, so that these 

entities can work with their respective states during state plan development. So the commenter is 

incorrect to maintain that reliable operation of their units is restrict in conflict with their 

mandates. Moreover, the rule addresses reliability in both planning and potential unanticipated 

emergencies (See Section VII.G.2).

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the word “restrict” which was inadvertently not deleted from the response and inserted a 

period at the end of the response to correct a typographical error. 

Page 334 

Comment 2: Commenters stated regardless of the EE savings levels proposed by EPA, no EE 

savings will be achieved unless current state- and administrator-run EE programs are both 

continued and expanded. Commenters explained that the regulatory environment in each state 

determines the size of the budget for customer-funded EE programs; the budget determines the 

scope and breadth of the EE programs, and regulatory frameworks that support utility 

investments in EE programs (through cost recovery mechanisms or performance incentives), 

therefore, are the key to achieving actual EE savings. Commenters remarked that EPA's analysis 

does not make any mention of this relationship between supportive regulatory policies and EE 

savings, and refers to KDHE and KCC comments, which explain that KDHE does not have 

authority for the energy efficiency programs in Kansas that authority resides with the KCC. In 

addition, commenters remarked, both the KDHE and KCC state that authority does not reside at 

EPA. 

Commenters stated that under Building Block 4, EPA established demand-side energy efficiency 

requirements for the states; and these are modeled on the current Energy Efficiency Portfolio 

Standards in the 26 states that have them. Commenters believed that EPA does not have the 

authority to require any actions outside those imposed on existing sources; setting aside this legal 

argument, the methodology the EPA uses to set these state efficiency standards is arbitrary and 

highly flawed. 

Commenters stated that while they strongly support voluntary demand-side energy efficiency 

improvements, thethey believe significant portions of the proposed rule are unlawful because the 

EPA lacks the authority to fundamentally restructure the energy sector under CAA Section 

111(d). Commenters agreed the EPA is authorized to regulate existing sources within a specific 

source category (here fossil fuel-fired EGUs), and for this reason, commenters believed that the 

ESPS will not withstand judicial scrutiny. Commenters cited Utility Air Regulatory Group v. ...

Description of the correction: 
12 

Replace the word “the” with “they” to correct a typographical error and clarify the comment 

summary. 

Page 335

Response 2: As explained in Section V.B. of the preamble, we are not including demand-side 

energy efficiency – building block 4 -as a component of the BSER. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “-” and added “the” to clarity the response. 

Page 336

Response 3: As explained in Section V.B. of the preamble, we are not including demand-side 

energy efficiency – building block 4 -as a component of the BSER. In the preamble and the legal 

Legal memo Memorandum we describe why the remaining building blocks 1,2, and 3 constitute 

the BSER. 

Comment 4: Commenters stated EPA's reliance on demand response as part of the source of BB 

No. 4 reductions is especially untimely since the D.C. Court of Appeals has recently found that 

the Federal Power Act does not grant the FERC authority over demand response, and for EPA to 

establish an enforceable goal, based on the expected exercise of authority that Congress has 

reserved exclusively for states, raises significant legal questions. 

Response 4: As explained in Section V.B. of the preamble, we are not including demand-side 

energy efficiency – building block 4 -as a component of the BSER. Building block 4 does 

however remain an important compliance options that states will be able to evaluate in 

developing their state plans. We note that the Supreme Court has granted cert. in the referenced

matter and oral argument is expected this fall. 

Description of corrections: 

Deleted “-”, added “the”, replaced “legal memo” with “Legal Memorandum”, and changed 

“building blocks constitute BSER” to “building blocks 1, 2, and 3 constitute the BSER” to clarity 

the Response 3. 

Deleted “-”, added “the”, deleted extra space and changed the tense of “reference” to 

“referenced” to clarify Response 4. 

Chapter 1B 
13 

Page 7 

Response 7: The commenters question the EPA’s decision to include RE in building block three. 

The EPA is not requiring Guam or Puerto Rico to submit compliance plans because the emission 

guidelines do not apply to these territories. Accordingly, comments relating to building block 3 

are moot with respect to these territories. The EPA (add in response from other comments 

regarding RE). In addition, the commenters state that the application of Building Block 4 yields 

very little emission reductions. As noted, in the section V of the preamble for this final 

rulemaking, the EPA is not including Building Block 4 in the determination of BSER. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “The EPA (add in response from other comments regarding RE)” and added “The EPA 

is not requiring Guam or Puerto Rico to submit compliance plans because the emission 

guidelines do not apply to these territories. Accordingly, comments relating to building block 3 

are moot with respect to these territories.”, for clarity in Response 7.

Page 12 

Response 11: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ interpretation of 40 CFR §49.11. A 

necessary first step to EPA having an obligation to promulgate a federal implementation plan is a 

finding by the Agency that such a plan is “necessary or appropriate” to protect air quality. Only 

after making such a finding is EPA required to promulgate a plan “without unreasonable delay”. 

See. 40 CFR §49.11(a). The United States District Court of the Northern District of California 

specifically endorsed this interpretation in dismissing an unreasonable delay claim regarding the 

establishment of Regional Haze requirements for the Navajo Generating Station. See, In the 

final rule, the EPA is establishing emission performance rates for each of the four EGU located 

in Indian country and mass- and rate-based performance goals for each of the three affected areas 

of Indian country. It is not establishing emission goals for the Navajo Nation or the other two 

tribes with EGU located in their areas of Indian country. For a discussion of the potential for 

entities other than the owner/operator of EGU to generate ERC, see section VIII.K of the

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “See. 40 CFR §49.11(a).” as it was inadvertently left in Response 11. 

Page 23 

Response 24: In the final rule the EPA has finalized a number additional options fostering state 

cooperation without requiring a single multi-state plan or joint goal. Sec. VIII of the preamble 

discusses the obligations of states that do not have affected EGUs. Sec. VIII also discusses how 

affected EGUs may use, and under what conditions, use ERCs and allowances from other states.

Description of the correction: 
14 

Added an “n” to the word “conditions” in Response 24 for clarity.

Page 36 

Response 38: As to the comment regarding the achievability of the assumed HRI, *** Tthe 

comment is otherwise outside the scope of the final rule as it addresses the implementation of the 

final Emission Guidelines. The final rule establishes emission performance rates for individual 

EGU and mass- and rate-based performance goals for relevant geographic areas and establishes 

requirements for state, tribal and federal implementation plans, but does not address the specific 

mechanism for implementing the Emission Guidelines in a particular area. The EPA notes, 

however, that many of the concerns expressed by the commenters can be addressed through 

participation in a multi-jurisdictional plan. See section VIII.L of the preamble to the final rule 

for a full discussion of multi-jurisdictional plans. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “***”, an editorial mark was inadvertently left in Response 38 and, immediately 

following, inserted a comma, and changed “T” to “t” to correct the sentence to read: “As to the 

comment regarding the achievability of the assumed HRI, the comment is otherwise outside the 

scope the final rule as it addresses the implementation of the final Emission Guidelines.”, to 

clarify the text. 

Page 36 

Response 39: The final rule constitutes final action on both the June 18, 2012 2014 proposed 

rule and the November 4, 2014 supplemental proposed rule (79 FR 65489; November 4, 2014) 

and the final Emission Guidelines present a consistent approach. 

Description of the correction: 

The date for the Proposed Rule is corrected from “2012” to “2014” in Response 39. 

Page 37 

Response 40: See section VIII.L of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of interstate 

effects and leakage. RE-use response from other comments. As noted above the EPA is not 

including building block 4 (EE) in the definition of BSER in this final rulemaking. See section 

V of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of BSER as defined and applied in the final 

rule. 

Description of the correction: 
15 

Deleted “RE-use response from other comments” Comment 40 is adequately addressed by the 

remaining language in Response 40. The sentence was inadvertently not deleted from the final 

document. 

Page 38 

Comment 43: T&TTribes and Territories--Unique Circumstances

Commenters noted that EPA did not consider the unique circumstances of the Navajo Nation. 

According to commenters, EPA's fundamental error in its application of Building Block 4 to the 

Navajo Nation was its reliance, in crafting Building Block 4, on data from energy efficiency 

programs in states and regions of the country that have vastly different circumstances from those 

of the Navajo Nation. According to commenters, EPA proposed a program for the Navajo Nation 

based upon what it learned from examination of the state programs but noted that circumstances 

for the Navajo Nation more closely resemble the poorer nations in the world, such as Bangladesh 

or Ghana, than the Navajo Nation's neighboring states or any other state, for that matter. 

Commenters noted that a program that works well for a state may not work for the Navajo 

Nation and is unlikely to do so. In fact, according to commenters, if there is a problem with 

electricity demand on the Navajo Nation, it is that it is too low, not that electricity use is 

inefficient. 

Description of the correction: 

Replaced “T&T” with “Tribes and Territories”. Replacing the shorthand notation with the 

correct wording in Comment 43. 

Page 62 

Response 14: For the reasons discussed in Section V.A.7 EPA disagrees that the building blocks 

are not severable and that additional review would be needed. We also disagree that if a building 

block were invalidated state flexibility would decrease as the available reductions would remain 

as a compliance option. As described in the preamble and elsewhere in this RTC the factors 

noted above have been appropriately accounted for. Additionally, commenters’ concerns about 

load-following are addressed in section V.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP and Chapter 2 

of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed “address” to “addressed" in Response 14 to read as “... addressed in section V.C of the 

final rule preamble ...”, to correct a grammatical error and clarify. 

Page 81 
16 

Response 20: : For the reasons discussed in section V.A. and V.B. of the preamble and in the 

Legal Memorandum, our interpretation of the BSER is reasonable and within the scope of EPA’s 

authority in light of the statutory text, statutory context, statutory purpose, and legislative history. 

The commenter has not provided a sufficient basis for us to conclude that ittheir alternative 

would be appropriate under 111 or constitute BSER. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted second “:” and extra space in the response label and rReplaced the word “it” with “their” 

for clarity in the last sentence of Response 20. 

Page 149 

Response 3: We agree with thisese comment, although as discussed in section V.B. of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP, we are not including building block 4 as part of the BSER. 

Description of the correction: 

Replaced the word “these” with “this” for clarity in Response 3. 

Pages 160-161 

Response 8: We appreciate these comments and agree with some, although not all, of the 

comment. The BSER must be something that the affected sources can implement BSER, 

although the state may, through the state measures approach, adopt additional measures that may 

result in emission reductions from the affected EGUs., In the preamble and the Legal 

Memorandum, we discuss and compare the types of BSER that we determine under the section 

111(b) rule and this rule. We agree that the unique characteristics of the electric power sector 

support our determination that building blocks 2 and 3 are part of the BSER, but those types of 

building blocks may not be the BSER for other source categories

Description of the correction: 

Deleted second occurrence of the word “BSER” in second sentence of Response 8 for clarity.

Chapter 1C 

Page 4 

Response 4: The EPA is not requiring or authorizing state plans to impose federally enforceable 

requirements on non-affected EGUs. Also, as explained in section V.B of the final rule preamble 
17 

to the CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach and any comments on that 

proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are therefore moot. 

Description of the correction: 

Added period omitted between “EGUs” and “Also” in Response 4, to correct a typographical 

error and clarify the response. 

Pages 20-21 

Response 16: In the proposed regulatory text describing the enforcing enforcement measures 

that states must include in state plans, the EPA inadvertently excluded a required demonstration 

that states and other third parties can enforce against violations of an emission standard included 

in a state plan via civil action pursuant to CAA section 304. Commenters noted the EPA’s intent 

to require this demonstration based on statements in both the proposal preamble text and “State 

Plan Considerations” TSD1 and based on the requirements of CAA section 304. We are 

finalizing a requirement for a demonstration that states and other third parties can enforce against 

violations of an emission standard included in a state plan via civil action as part of the required 

plan component demonstrating enforceability. We are finalizing this requirement as a logical 

outgrowth of proposal preamble text, the proposal preamble citation to existing enforceability 

guidance documents that discuss this requirement, comments received, and the clear statutory 

foundation. 

As explained in section V.B and VIII of the preamble, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

portfolio approach and any comments on that proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are 

therefore moot. Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standard” 

plan type, which imposes requirements solely on affected EGUs in the form of federally 

enforceable emission standards, and a “state measures” plan type, under which a mass CO2

emission goal may be partially or entirely achieved through state measures that impose 

requirements on entities other than affected EGUs that are not included in the federally 

enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided the state submits standards of performance for CO2

emissions from affected EGUs in the form of a federally enforceable “backstop” that would be 

triggered if the state measures fail to achieve the required CO2 emission performance level. 

Under a state measures plan, the backstop emission standards constitute the standards of 

performance required by section 111(d), and the state plan provides for the implementation and 

enforcement of such standards of performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and 

conditions under which the backstop emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA 

approval of a state measures plan under section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become 

federally enforceable requirements, which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs 

under section 113 and section 304. The final emission guidelines require that all 111(d) state 

plans, including state measures plans, specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable, 

and contain the process, content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan 

implementation and progress toward meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For 
18 

state measures plans in particular, the final emission guidelines also require states to submit 

annual reports to the EPA that address periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in 

program implementation; see section VIII. The EPA intends to review each submitted state plan 

on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability 

requirements. Final EPA action on any submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures 

plan, is subject to judicial review under section 307(b) of the Act. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed “enforcing” to “enforcement” and added a missing period and space between “304” and 

“The” in Response 16, to correct grammar and clarify the response. 

Page 22 

Finally, we note that a requirement in a state plan is not federally enforceable until EPA has 

approved it as part of the federally enforceable plan. In other words, measures in a state plan are 

not “in effect under this chapter” for the purposes of section 304 until EPA has made them part 

of the federally enforceable plan. As a result, under the emission standards plan type, the 

emission standards and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that EPA has 

approved into the federally enforceable plan are “requirements under section 111 which are in 

effect under this chapter,” and are thus enforceable under section 304. Under the state measures 

plan type, the trigger and backstop are approved into the federally enforceable plan and are 

therefore “requirements under section 111 which are in effect under this chapter” and are thus 

enforceable under section 304. 

Description of the correction: 

Added “plan” between “federally enforceable” and “are therefore” to clarify Response 16. 

Page 124, (Footnote 5) 

____________________________ 

5

 Regulatory Assistance Project, Incorporating Environmental Costs in Electric Rates Working 

to Ensure Affordable Compliance with Public Health and Environmental Regulations, at 17 

(2011) (citing Ohio Revised Code, Section 4928.143(B)(2)(a)and (b)), available at

raponline.org.

Description of the correction: 

Inserted missing “e” in web address citation. 

Pages 142-143 
19 

Response 5: Commenters stated that the multi-state approach would require state legislative 

approval and suggested that this type of state planning would infer a singular plan covering the 

participating states, who would be reliant upon one another to enforce a previously agreed upon 

model rule, enacted through each state’s regulatory process. According to the commenters, 

enforcement of a multi-state plan would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, to achieve. 

The EPA is finalizing that states can choose to provide to the EPA one multi-state plan submittal, 

on behalf of all participating states, or one single submittal for each participating state. If one 

multi-state submittal is the option selected, it must be signed by authorized officials for each 

state participating, and it would have the same legal effect as a single-state submittal for each 

state. 

The commenters provided the example of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and stated that 

it took 6 years after the concept was discussed for the first compliance period for this trading 

program to begin. The commenters argued that the EPA’s overall timeframe would severely 

handicap this approach for states to even consider as a potential path forward due to the planning 

and administrative procedures required to be followed for legislative approval. The EPA is 

finalizing that state plan submittals or initial submittals/extension requests are due on September 

6, 2016. Final complete state plans must be submitted no later than September 6, 2018. are due 

on August 31, 2016, which is 13 months after finalization of the emission guidelines. In order to 

address the concern that 13 months is not sufficient time for states to prepare and submit a 

complete plan submittal and to allow consistent timelines for both a single state and multi-state 

approach to state plan submittals, the EPA is also finalizing a plan submittal process which 

provides additional time to submit a complete plan submittal after August 31, 2016. This 

approach involves the option that we refer to as an initial submittal, followed by submittal of a 

complete state plan submittal no later than August 31, 2018, for both single state and multi-state 

plan submittals. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “are due on August 31, 2016, which is 13 months after finalization of the emission 

guidelines. In order to address the concern that 13 months is not sufficient time for states to 

prepare and submit a complete plan submittal and to allow consistent timelines for both a single 

state and multi-state approach to state plan submittals, the EPA is also finalizing a plan submittal 

process which provides additional time to submit a complete plan submittal after August 31, 

2016. This approach involves the option that we refer to as an initial submittal, followed by 

submittal of a complete state plan submittal no later than August 31, 2018, for both single state 

and multi-state plan submittals.”, and replaced with “ or initial submittals/extension requests are 

due on September 6, 2016. Final complete state plans must be submitted no later than September 

6, 2018.”, to remove language inadvertently not removed from Response 5 and provide text 

aligned with the final rule language. 

Page 158 
20 

Response 15: We are not finalizing building block 4 as part of the BSER. In section V.E of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP and in the Legal Memorandum we explain how affected EGUs 

can implement building block 3, which means that Pennsylvania need not change its renewable 

energy requirements. In addition, the Commonwealth has the state measures approach as an 

option, which could allow it to achieve its section 111(d) obligations based at least in part on the 

effects of its state law requirements for renewable energy. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected “it” to “its” to make possessive in the following sentence in Response 15, “which 

means that Pennsylvania need not change its renewable energy requirements.”, for clarity. 

Page 160 

Response 17: We disagree with this comment. We are not finalizing building block 4 as part of 

the BSER. In section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in the Legal Memorandum 

we explain how affected EGUs can implement building block 3, which means that Pennsylvania 

need not change its renewable energy requirements. In addition, the Commonwealth has the state 

measures approach as an option, which could allow it to achieve its section 111(d) obligations 

based at least in part on the effects of its state law requirements for renewable energy. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected “it” to “its” to make possessive in the following sentence Response 17, “which means 

that Pennsylvania need not change its renewable energy requirements.”, for clarity. 

Page 182 

... the computer modeling they performed to support its proposed rule available for public 

comment. Commenters said, critical modeling runs that bear upon the economic, consumer, and 

energy impacts on both Indiana and Ohio remain unavailable. Commenters said, as a result, 

commenters believe that preparing informed comments on this important issue is not possible. 

Commenters 24110 stated, EPA's analysis of the effects the proposed rule consists primarily of 

IPM model runs. Commenters said, these runs form the basis for EPA's RIA, and they are a key 

component of EPA's conclusion that EPA's "best system" and the standards it is imposing as a 

result of that system are achievable. Commenters said, yet despite the centrality of these model 

runs to EPA's analysis, and despite the fact that the Agency conducted 25 different model runs, 

EPA (a) failed to include the complete model run information for any years it modeled, (b) 

included in the record the parsed files for only 4 out of the 25 model runs, and (c) did not include 

any information for model runs simulating 2030, the key compliance date for the rule. 

Commenters said, EPA's failure to include this information in the docket for the Proposed Rule 
21 

does not comply with CAA section 317 nor with EPA's obligation under CAA section 307(d)(5) 

to create an adequate record and provide the public with an opportunity for notice and comment. 

Response 6: The EPA’s response to this comment is addressed in the response to Comment 1 in 

this section 1.13. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the commenter number “24110” which is an editorial reference number not removed 

from the final Due to the unprecedented number of comments, lists of document control numbers 

(DCNs) were not included with each comment summary. For purposes of this document, the text 

within the comment summaries was provided by the commenter(s) and represents their 

opinion(s), regardless of whether the summary specifically indicates that the statement is from a 

commenter(s) (e.g., “The commenter states” or “The commenters assert”). 

Page 186 

Comment 9: Commenters requested on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in 

support of requests made by the key stakeholders and fellow state Attorneys General that 

the EPA make available all data, information, and documents upon which it relied when drafting 

the proposed rule "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Unites." 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830 (June 18, 2014) (hereinafter "111(d) 

Rule"). Commenters said, all data, information, and documents that the EPA analyzed and upon 

which the EPA relied when drafting the 111(d) Rule must be made publicly available in order to 

ensure opportunity for meaningful analysis and comprehensive public 

comment. Commenters requested that the EPA immediately promulgate and publish a Notice of 

Data Availability ("NODA") that contains the technical documents and data requested. 

Commenters said, further, along with the NODA, they request that the EPA extend the comment 

period regarding the 111(d) Rule to allow a reasonable period for potentially affected entities to 

analyze the data and to permit meaningful public comment. 

Response 9: NO RESONSE HAS BEEN ADDEDThe EPA’s response to this comment is 

addressed in the response to Comment 1 in this section 1.13. 

 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the response to be “Response 9” rather than “Comment 9”. Struck the words, “NO 

RES(P)ONSE HAS BEEN ADDED”, which is an editorial note inadvertently left in the 

document and inserts the correct response text that was omitted noting the comment is addressed 

in section 1.13 CAA 307(D), beginning on page 169 of this chapter of the RTC. The EPA 

discusses the release of the NODA or November Supplemental Proposal and the time given to 

respond. Please see response to Comment 1, beginning on page 173. The corrected response is: 

The EPA’s response to this comment is addressed in the response to Comment 1 in this section 

1.13. 
22 

Page 204 

Response 1: As noted above, the EPA believes its standards of performance reflect achievable, 

cost-effective measures that can be undertaken by individual affected sources to reduce their 

emissions. However, the EPA but does not agree that the standards of performance established in 

the emission guidelines must be determined by considering each individual source’s capabilities 

divorced from the electrical system in which the affected sources operate. The “remaining useful 

life” provisions in 111(d) do not affect this conclusion (we discuss our interpretation of the ...

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “but” to “does” for clarity in Response 1. 

Page 259 

Response 14: The EPA is confident that the final rule provides clear criteria for states to follow 

in developing state plans that achieve the emission performance rates or equivalent, and that will 

be enforceable. States following the state measures approach will be required to have a backstop 

in place to ensure they are meeting their goals. Other forms of state plan will be based on 

federally enforceable emission standards. EPA is taking additional steps for rate-based emission 

standard plans to ensure that ERCs are permanent, non-duplicative, and reflect real and verifiable 

quantities of clean generation. EPA is proposing a federal plan this summer that it will 

implement in the event states do not submit approvable state plans. This federal plan will also set 

enforceable emission standards on the affected EGUs. The federal plan will also serve as a model 

rule, satisifyingsatisfying this, and many other commenter’s concerns, that the agency should 

provide additional support for states on the design of approvable plans. EPA’s action goes 

beyond a BAU scenario and will achieve real and additional reductions in carbon pollution. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “satisifying” to “satisfying” for clarity in Response 14, correcting 

typographical error. 

Page 286 

1.15.7 State-specific issues 

Comment 1: Comment 14: Commenters expressed concern that the Notice of Data Availability 

("NODA'') published on October 28, 2014 did not comply with the requirements to comply with 

the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), because the information presented in the NODA 

implied a change in the stringency of the proposed BSER, and did not provide an adequate state 

of basis for the proposed changes. 
23 

The commenters noted that the NODA seeks comment on a variety of proposed changes to the 

states "goal" setting without providing a revised rule or the associated time to fully comment on 

the proposed changes. In the case of Wyoming, the commenters argued that these potential 

"changes" may result in a significant further increase in the stringency of any final Wyoming 

compliance obligation with incremental and unavoidable costs of compliance. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “Comment 14:” which is a duplicated and incorrect comment number and was 

inadvertently not deleted. The correct comment number was included in the bold text at the 

beginning of the comment summary. 

Page 296 

Response 10: EPA thanks these commenters for the information they have provided on the laws 

and regulations of these States. Ultimately, state plans will be subject to the agency’s substantive 

review for approvability, on the basis of meeting the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, 

including the requirements of the emission guidelines. If a state does not submit plans that are 

approvable, the EPA will promulgate a federal plan for the affected EGUs in that state. We note 

the Act provides that States have reserved authority to set standards more stringent than federal 

guidelines under section 116. We also note that 60.24(f) clearly provides that an applicable 

subpart (i.e., emission guidelines for a particular pollutant from a particular source category) may 

supercedesupersede its general provisions. States may in some cases set emission standards 

under 111(d), including in these guidelines, for a particular unit that are less stringent than the 

subcategorized emission performance rates for the two subcategories of sources covered by these 

guidelines. However, in these guidelines, this is subject to conditions such as that the affected 

EGUs in the state continue to meet the overall state goal. (As the agency explains elsewhere, this 

is possible through the availability of trading and other mechanisms that provide flexibility in 

these guidelines.). 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “supercede” to “supersede” for clarity in Response 10, correcting 

typographical error 

Chapter 2 

Page 61 

Response 3: The EPA does not agree. Reduction in emissions from small power plants not 

covered by the rule and not connected to the grid do not result in emission reduction at affected 
24 

EGUs and therefore cannot be used to meet the emission reduction requirements for affected

EGUs. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “affect” to “affected” for clarity in Response 3, correcting grammar. 

Chapter 3B 

Page 65 

Response 18: The EPA disagrees. EPA is fully aware of transmission constraints for imports 

and exports to FRCC. We assume this is what the commenters mean, since FRCC is only the 

peninsular part of Florida, and transmission into coastal Florida is served by other transmission 

lines and not subject to this constraint. EPA uses 3600MW for this limit, not 3800MW; please 

see the IPM model documentation at http://epa.gov/powersectormodeling. 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html. In response to ...

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 194 

Comment 40: Under Construction Unit (Deer Creek Station, SD) 

Response 40: The EPA has decided not to finalize the relevant provision of the rule. and no 

response to this comment is provided.

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “, and no response to this comment is provided.” This text is extraneous and 

inadvertently not deleted from the final response. The response is provided by the preceding 

phrase, “The EPA has decided not to finalize the relevant provision of the rule.” 

Page 234 

Response 6: The EPA disagrees. This comment is not correct about the IPM model. The natural 

gas component of the model includes all natural gas consumption, not just the power sector. See 

http:epa.gov/powersectormodeling http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html 

for documentation. 
25 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 242 

Comment 2: Commenters stated that, if additional pipeline capacity is needed to support 

compliance with the Clean Power Plan, INGAA is confident that the industry will be able to 

respond to this demand, although the ability to respond in a timely manner depends on several 

factors including making improvements in the permitting process. 

Commenters referenced a 2014 NYISO reliability study and stated that, because of this 

constraint, it is not possible to access all the installed NGCC capability that is located in UPNY 

(NYISO's 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment at pp. 24 and 28, available at 

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/services/planning/Planning_Studies/ 

Reliability_Planning_Studies/Reliability_Assessment_Documents/2014%20RNA_final_091620 

14.pdf.)

Response 2: The EPA agrees to the extent that the industry has demonstrated the ability to add 

needed infrastructure. For EPA's response to this comment see section V.D of the final rule 

preamble of the CCP and Chapter 3 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final 

Rule supporting the final CPP. Pipeline permitting is not addressed here as this is outside of the 

scope of the CPP.” 

Description of the correction: 

Insert “Response 2:” at the beginning of the third paragraph of Comment 2. The response label 

was inadvertently deleted from the final document. 

Page 245 

Commenters described a number of benefits related to using natural gas for electric generation,

including low-cost technology, reliable baseload, peaking or intermediate power, ability to ramp

up quickly, increased grid diversity, reduced air pollution, and ability to accommodate 

intermittent electricity sources such as wind and solar generation. Commenters stated the 

capacity of natural gas to meet growing energy demands is particularly significant in light of the

resurgence in U.S. manufacturing and noted natural gas facilities are scalable and require only 

minimal lead time as compared with other traditional power sources. Commenters referenced

EIA data and stated that, in light of the continued positive outlook for natural gas supply and 

availability, the electricity sector's use of natural gas as fuel will not hinder manufacturing and 

commercial growth and, more specifically, will not impede the availability of natural gas as a 

feedstock for other industrial uses. Commenters stated that NGCCs can effectively and 

efficiently supply baseload power to the electric power system. Commenters noted that, in 2013, 

natural gas-fired power plants accounted for over 50 percent of new utility-scale generating 

capacity7 with about half of that capacity in the form of NGCC power plants that provide 
26 

intermediate and baseload power. Commenters stated that, over the first six months of 2014, 

natural gas-fired power plants again made up more than half of the utility-scale capacity 

additions in the United States and almost all of these plants were NGCC, the majority of which 

are designed to serve baseload power in the regions in which they operate. Commenters stated 

there is a recognition in the industry that current price and regulatory dynamics have created an 

opportunity for existing NGCCs to increase utilization and act as a baseload resource. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “7” which is a commenter’s footnote inadvertently not deleted from the comment 

summary. 

Page 319 

Comment 20: Commenters suggested additional analysis is needed, such as consideration of 

sustainability and maintenance. 

Response 20: The EPA disagrees that we inadequately considered system issues in development 

of the 111(d) final rule. Additional analysis may be considered by implementing authorities. In 

response to additional analysis and many comments, we have modified the proposal and RIA; 

the establishment of CO2 emission reduction standards is regionally based. The 111(d) final rule 

requires that states develop plans that establish emission standards for affected EGUs. We are 

providing states with substantial flexibility as to how they structure those plans to achieve the 

111(d) requirements. The flexibility includes, for example, the choice of approaches, trading, 

time to develop plans, additional time before the start of the interim performance period 

(postponed from 2020 until 2022), and the ability to shift emission rate achievement between 

performance periods. Neither the Building Blocks nor the IPM analyses are prescriptive, and 

states may consider local circumstances as they develop their plans, including system reliability, 

fuel diversity, other regulatory requirements and infrastructure. See sections V.A, V.B, V.D, 

VIII.A, VIII.C and VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP and Chapter 3 of the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP.

Description of the correction: 

Add bold highlighting to “Response 20:” 

Page 361 

Response 37: The EPA disagrees that we have inadequately analyzed this issue. Our analysis 

and modeling uses current data on NGCC availability, which reflects historical differences in 

failure rates. See model documentation as http://epa.gov/powersectormodeling. 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Bold
27 

Page 403 

3.2.6 Natural Gas Price Impacts 

This section addresses comments on the natural gas price impacts that would be caused by the 

CPP. The issues include potential price increases and volatility. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 

Comment 1: Commenters described why price volatility in natural gas due to the increase in 

demand by the power sector is not a concern. 

Response 1: The EPA agrees to the extent that natural gas supplies are sufficient and increasing. 

The EPA believes that the 111(d) final rule provides states with the flexibility to develop plans 

that consider reliability and local circumstances. The Building Blocks are not prescriptive, but 

rather were used to calculate CO2 emission performance rates. The flexibility that states have 

includes, for example, the choice of approaches, trading, time to develop plans, additional time 

before the start of the interim performance period, and the ability to shift emission rate 

achievement between performance periods. See sections V.D, VIII.A, VIII.C and VIII.G of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP and Chapter 3 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP 

Final Rule supporting the final CPP. 

Description of the correction: 

Add bold highlighting to “Response 1:” 

Page 438

3.2.8 New NGCC 

This section discusses issues related to shifting generation from existing units to newly 

constructed NGCC plants as part of Building Block 2. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 

Comment 15: Commenters opposed the two new proposed approaches for calculating building 

block 2 of imposing a minimum level of natural gas dispatch and calculating Building Block 2 

on a regional basis. 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Bold
28 

Response 15: The EPA has not adopted the minimum floor approach for the final rule and 

believes the approach to developing state goals is not arbitrary (See Preamble Section V). 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected comment number for first comment, replacing “5” with “1” in both the comment and 

response blocks. 

Pages 466-477 

Description all of the multiple corrections on these pages and presented below: 

Corrected minor typographical errors and incorrectly-numbered comment summaries and 

responses. 

Page 466 

Comment 42: Commenters stated that they do not believe that the EPA should establish a 

minimum value as a floor for the amount of generation shift that can be achieved via Building 

Block 2. 

Response 42: In the final rule, the EPA does not use the floor approach to Building Block 2. See 

Preamble Section V.D for Building Block 2 and Sections VI and VII for determination of 

performance rates and state goals. 

Pages 471-472 

Comment 23: Commenters agreed with NODA approach for minimum floor of 12% on a 

regional basis. 

Response 23: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the block 2 & 3 goals are inequitable and require more of states that have 

already heavily invested in NGCC and RE, such as Texas, while requiring relatively less from 

those states that have not, such as Kentucky. The commenters believed that due to the 

interconnected nature of electricity markets, EPA should reapportion the emissions reduction 

obligation, increasing the stringency of the goal for states like Kentucky while reducing the 

stringency of the goal for states like Texas, which has significant under-utilized NGCC capacity. 

The commenters agreed with the approach in the NODA, establishing a minimum floor value for 

each state to achieve through Block 2 - regardless of a state's existing NGCC capacity - and 
29 

reducing the burden by an equivalent amount for those states with higher amounts of NGCC 

capacity. The commenters believed that the minimum value of 12% suggested by EPA in the 

NODA appears reasonable and should be established on a regional basis. The commenters stated 

that by basing the minimum floor on a regional basis, states that have invested heavily in NGCC 

capacity can export power to states that have no or little NGCC capacity, an approach reflecting 

the interconnected nature of the electric grid. 

Comment 34: Commenters expressed opposition to setting a floor for the Navajo Nation. 

Response 34: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

In comments on the Tribes and Territories supplemental proposal, commenters stated that the 

Navajo Nation opposes requiring a target or minimum level of transition to natural gas from coal 

even for jurisdictions with little or no NGCC capacity because trying to apply a minimum 

transition to natural gas in an effort to achieve more of a "one size fits all" approach to BB2 

ignores the costs and availability of fuels in a given state and the necessary infrastructure to 

deliver it. For example, the commenters asserted Navajo Nation coal is local to the mine and, at 

roughly $5/ton, costs only about $0.28/MMBtu. The commenters believed the suggested "one 

size fits all" approach ignores the recent investments that have been made in coal generation and 

would push more coal generation (and the associated investments) toward an uneconomic state 

with stranded assets. The commenters added that the "one size fits all" approach ignores recent 

investments made in coal generation and would push more coal generation and associated 

investments, toward an uneconomic state with stranded assets. 

Comment 45: Commenters stated that the EPA should not adopt the "minimum level of 

generation shift" concept. 

Response 45: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that because the Tribes and Territories Supplemental Proposal incorporates 

concepts introduced in the CPP, including its NODA, it is important to address the concept of 

"generation shift" within these comments in the context of the EPA's acknowledgment that there 

are no NGCCs on the Navajo Nation. The commenters opposed the use of a minimum level of 

NGCC generation, whether that is in the form of existing or new NGCC units as part of BB2. 

The commenters also opposed inclusion of co-firing natural gas as part of BB2 because of the 

technical obstacles and cost considerations that co-firing would present for the FCPP. The 

commenters stated these units can combust a small amount of natural gas for startup operations 
30 

and early flame stabilization, but the amount of heat input from natural gas combustion is limited 

to a small fraction of the total heat input to the units. The commenters asserted that achieving a 

material reduction in carbon emissions from co-firing would require an enormous capital 

investment to modify the boilers and increase the natural gas supply infrastructure. The 

commenters believed this effort not cost justified, especially considering the extremely small 

load demand in the Navajo Nation. The commenters stated that the EPA should not expand the 

types of natural gas facilities in its determination of BSER to include co-firing natural gas. 

Comment 56: Commenters expressed opposition to setting a floor based on national averages, 

suggest establishing a floor on a state-by-state basis. 

Response 56: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

Pages 473-477 

Comment 67: Commenters stated infrastructure concerns and questioned the definition of 

"region". 

Response 67: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters believed adopting a floor will increase pressure to add new generation in states that 

currently have no NGCCs and that if the EPA does adopt a floor that it not be initiated until 

necessary infrastructure to interconnect and deliver new generation resources is in place. If the 

EPA decides to consider regional availability in the establishment of BB2 targets, the 

commenters believed the definition of "region" should be based on the boundaries of organized 

markets since this best matches how generation is dispatched and how enabling transmission 

infrastructure is planned. 

Comment 78: Commenters stated the starting point for the EPA's revised analysis of the CO2 

effects of redispatch in 2020 should be no lower than the historical maximum capacity factor for 

NGCC. 

Response 78: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
31 

Commenters stated that if the EPA finalizes target rates based on the phase in of BB2 redispatch 

over a number of years, as discussed in the NODA, the Agency will need to determine the 

amount of NGCC capacity achievable by 2020. Commenters recommended that the EPA select a 

maximum utilization/capacity factor that is no lower than the level that each state or region has 

achieved historically. Commenters specifically recommended that the EPA use the average of 

the highest monthly utilization/capacity factors achieved during the winter and summer seasons 

during the years 2011 through 2013 in calculating the portion of the CO2 emissions reductions 

targets achievable through BB2 redispatch. Commenters stated this would reflect the times of 

greatest NGCC production during the multi-year period for which the EPA has real information, 

and would also take into account the differing availability of pipeline capacity during the winter 

and summer seasons. 

Comment 89: Commenters stated questions regarding goal recalculation. 

Response 89: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters asked if the EPA will recalculate the mass goal for each state and communicate the 

result before the state plan deadline, if an NGCC floor is established in the final rule. 

Commenters also asked if the number goal will be less than that included in the original proposal 

if the RE/EE fossil offset is established in the final rule. 

Comment 910: Set natural gas ramp rate at 5% per year. 

Response 910: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters urged the EPA to consider natural gas generation increases (i.e., ramp rate) of 5% 

per year, the historical average over the last 10 years, when considering gas and electricity prices 

in the evaluation of the total costs of the BSER targets. Additionally, commenters stated that the 

ramp rate should reflect the needs for additional infrastructure to support increased gas use 

through the three respective pathways, which may be different for the different pathways. 

Commenters added that it had assessed a more conservative 2% per year ramp rate, and the 

modeling results indicated that a coal-to-gas shift at this level was highly cost effective, but the 

commenters did not have time to complete additional modeling at higher ramp rates. 

Nonetheless, commenters urged the EPA to consider higher shift rates, up to and including a 

continuation of 5%, the 10-year historic rate. 
32 

Comment 1011: Commenters suggested adoption of a minimum 2% annual conversion rate for 

Tribal Nations and U.S. Territories. 

Response 1011: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Regarding the Tribal and Territories Supplementary Rule, commenters urged that the EPA, in 

setting the targets for power plants in Indian Country and U.S. territories, apply the 2% annual 

conversion. This approach or some other approach that incorporates the opportunity for 

switching to lower-emitting fuels and achieves equivalent or greater reductions is particularly 

important, according to the commenters, given that BB2 would not otherwise apply to these 

facilities given the lack of existing NGCC plants in these jurisdictions. The commenters asserted 

lack of existing facilities within the jurisdiction does not reflect a reduced opportunity to switch 

to lower-emitting fuel sources. 

Comment 1112: Commenters expressed support and opposition to redispatch approaches in the 

NODA. 

Response 1112: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that there is significant opportunity to reduce emissions from affected 

sources by shifting to natural gas generation in all three ways noted by the EPA - shifting 

generation to existing NGCC units with additional capacity, shifting generation to new NGCC 

units or by co-firing, and by repowering existing coal-fired EGUs with natural gas. The 

commenters stated that incorporating the potential to improve emission performance from all 

three of these methods into the BSER is in keeping with the EPA's overall approach and would 

better reflect the actual system that states have used to achieve emission reductions. 

Commenters opposed the redispatch approaches in the NODA. Commenters opposed the 

redispatch approaches as well as the proposed alternative approach and co-firing as a 

consideration in lieu of, or addition to shifting from coal to natural gas. The commenters 

believed the approaches could make the goals less achievable. The commenters asserted new 

resources are developed based on demand, cost and current conditions, thus it is not possible for 

EPA to develop realistic assumptions regarding development of natural gas resources through 

2030. Even if it were possible, the commenters stated it would be infeasible to apply on a 

uniform basis across states. The commenters appreciated EPA attempting to create greater equity 

between states in terms of goals but believed introducing inherently arbitrary assumptions will 

create different inequities between states. 
33 

Commenters stated the BB2 alternative approaches in the NODA should not be applied in the 

final guidelines because these need to be better justified, details clarified, and outcomes analyzed 

and issued for public comment. In particular, the commenters believed requiring a minimum 

level of natural gas dispatch may not be technically supportable as the BSER. 

Comment 1213: Commenters noted negative impacts of co-firing. 

Response 1213: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that co-firing natural gas with coal, as discussed in the NODA, would require 

significant investment, leading to higher cost of electricity. The commenters stated that contrary 

to the assumption used in the EPA's analysis that coal-fired units run at full load and could 

benefit from co-firing, most units do not run at full load. The commenters also stated that moving 

coal-fired or co-fired units away from baseload operations into more of an intermediate or load 

following mode will decrease any gains in power plant efficiency envisioned in Building Block 

1. The commenters stated that ramping co-fired units up and down, in effect running them as 

peaking units, would most likely increase criteria pollutant emissions as well as CO2 emissions. 

Comment 1314: Projected emission rates for gas-fired EGUs should be based on combined 

cycle turbines. 

Response 1314: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the Agency's decision not to include simple cycle units in calculating 

goals, as these are typically much smaller, operate for short periods to meet peak demand, and 

are unlikely to have much impact on industry-wide emission rates from gas-fired EGUs. The 

commenters stated their own analysis found that only 18 of 583 gas-fired EGUs had heat rates 

that exceeded 250 MMBtu/hr and a 5-year average gross generation greater than 240,000 MWhr, which are the criteria EPA used to identify gas-fired units included in its proposal. 

Comment 1415: Any generation shifts in states with little or no NGCC capacity should be used 

to reduce the amount of re-dispatch required from states with higher amounts of NGCC capacity 

Response 1415: See section V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 
34 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that if the EPA expands BB2 to include some minimum level of generation 

shift from higher-emitting to lower emitting sources for all states containing some fossil steam 

generation, then it should take the path in which the minimum generation shifts in states with 

little or no NGCC capacity should be used to reduce the amount of re-dispatch required from 

states with higher amounts of NGCC capacity. The commenters stated that the EPA's existing 

proposal already raises substantial concerns about infrastructure adequacy, reliability and 

stranded investments; therefore the commenters would not be in favor of an expansion of the 

total amount of re-dispatch required. 

Comment 316: Commenters were concerned about the interplay between BB2 and the CPP's 

objective of encouraging re-dispatch from higher-emitting generating units to lower emitting 

generating units. 

Response 316: The EPA has revised the approach to implementing BB2 for the final rule and 

believes these changes respond to this comment. See Section V.D of the preamble, Chapter 3 of 

the GHG Mitigations Measures TSD, and the Goal Setting TSD for further details. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Under the CPP 111(d) proposal, commenters said, the amount of re-dispatch expected of states is 

limited by the makeup of the existing generating fleet. Commenters said that although it would 

be feasible to construct new NGCC plants for commissioning on or near the start of the 

compliance period, building block two only considers re-dispatch to NGCC plants already in 

operation. Commenters noted that early acting states that have already made substantial progress 

in phasing out oil and coal generation are faced with the potential economic burden of redispatching existing NGCC fleet investments, while states that have yet to make these 

investments may utilize the unconstrained dispatch to newly constructed NGCC units that are 

economic to build without any regulation. To address this inequity, where the re-dispatch is 

limited only by the lack of in-state NGCC capacity, commenters said that a minimum floor of redispatch should be attributed to the states to recognize likely cross state transfers of NGCC 

generated electricity to even out the compliance burden and more accurately and equitably set 

the goals as among regions and states. 

Page 528

Comment 5: Commenters noted that West Virginia's energy producing infrastructure depends 

on both natural gas and coal, which will affect compliance with the state’s CCP goal. 

Response 5: The EPA thanks the commenters. Coal, as well as natural gas, will continue to be 

an important part of the fuel mix under the rule (See the RIA for the impact of generation mix.) 

The 111(d) final rule requires that states develop plans that establish emission standards for 

affected EGUs. We are providing states with substantial flexibility as to how they structure those 
35 

plans to achieve the 111(d) requirements. States may consider local circumstances as they 

develop their plans, including other regulatory requirements, fuel diversity and the infrastructure. 

See sections V.D, VIII.A, VIII.C and VIII.G. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and Chapter 3 

of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP.:

Description of the correction: 

Replace “:” at end of response 5 with a period. 

Chapter 3C 

Pages 15-127 and Pages 235-238. 

Description all of the multiple corrections on these pages and presented below: 

Corrected minor typographical errors and incorrectly-numbered comment summaries and 

responses. Comment 11 of Section 3.3.1 was moved during drafting from Chapter 3 to Chapter 

1 and is responded to on page 201 of Chapter 1A, Response 17 (See similar comment summary 

text at end of Comment 17). 

Page 15 

Comment 112: Commenters took issue with the assumption that RPSs are a reasonable proxy 

for 

quantifying renewable generation potential. 

Response 112: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 16 

Comment 123: Commenters suggested that RPS policies need to be increased and broadened. 

Response 123: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective 

RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target generation 

levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 17 
36 

Comment 134: Commenters asserted that the EPA should adopt the UCS Demonstrated Growth 

Approach. 

Response 134: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology. The final methodology to establish building block 3 generation 

levels is consistent with several of the recommendations provided in the UCS Demonstrated 

Growth Approach – the final methodology relies on the capacity deployment of select RE 

technologies over the most recent five-year period, takes into account current law and RPS 

policies, and assumes continued growth in RE at levels equal to the EPA IPM Base Case through 

2021. The final methodology for building block 3 is described in section V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 20 

Comment 145: Commenters stated the NREL technical potential report was inaccurate in its 

estimates. 

Response 145: The final methodology for building block 3 does not rely on a benchmark 

development rate quantified through NREL technical potential estimates, as proposed under the 

Alternative RE approach. The EPA believes the RE resource estimates and cost steps that 

underlie IPM projections appropriately represent relevant land use restrictions. Further, building 

... 

Pages 21-22 

Comment 156: Commenters recommended using NREL estimates of technical potential for 

specific RE generation technologies. 

Response 156: NREL technical potential data is used in the EPA’s power sector modeling 

analysis to support the building block 3 generation levels. For additional information, refer to 

the Chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters recommended that EPA should utilize a determination of technically potential 

renewables in a similar manner to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates 

of the technical potential of specific renewable electricity generation technologies. 

Comment 167: Commenters stated EPA overestimated the amount of additional renewable 

energy potential. 

Response 167: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 
37 

rule preamble of the CPP and chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that, while the EPA's compliance building block number three assumes that 

about 10 percent of Florida's generation could come from renewable energy by 2030, additional 

renewable energy is not a viable option for us since GRU already has roughly 34 percent of its 

energy coming from renewable energy. 

Commenters stated that a recent MISO study suggests that the EPA's assumptions regarding 

increase in renewable energy are unrealistic, and threaten both grid reliability and an affordable 

energy supply for this country. Commenters stated the MISO study of the impact of the GHG 

Rule found through modeling that renewable energy could not be expected to replace the fossilfuel retirements already planned due to MATS, nor those expected to retire due to the GHG 

Rule. 

Comment 178: Commenters noted factors limiting the inclusion of new RE in Alaska. 

Response 178: No building block 3 requirement has been expressed for Alaska in the final 

methodology. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated there are significant limits to including new renewable energy resources in 

the generation mix in Alaska. Commenters stated geographic and economic constraints limit the 

availability of utility grade renewable energy resources. Commenters stated utility grade wind 

and geothermal generation resources are generally located in southwest and western Alaska, 

hundreds of miles away from transmission facilities connected to affected EGUs. Commenters 

stated that, given the current state of technology and the low angle of sunlight during much of the 

Pages 23-24 

Comment 189: Commenters stated that additional increases in renewable capacity in Montana 

are limited. 

Response 189: The final methodology for building block 3 has been modified to quantify and 

apply target generation levels at the interconnect-level, with a two-year phase-in period that 

provides additional time to accommodate additional investments or planning that may be 

necessary in deploying and/or procuring incremental RE. For more detail on the building block 

3 target generation methodology, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Pages 24-25 
38 

Comment 1920: In comments on the tribal and territories SNPR, commenters stated that the 

Proposed Rule's approach to Block 3 yields no new RE in these jurisdictions. 

Response 1920: In the final rule, the EPA applies building block 3 generation at the 

interconnect-level. This methodology does not distinguish between affected EGUs within an 

interconnection. However, there are no requirements related to building block 3 for Alaska, 

Hawaii, and the U.S. territories. For more detail on the building block 3 target generation 

methodology and where it is applied, refer to section V of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 27 

Comment 210: Commenters suggested there will be increased interest in tribal opportunities in 

meeting targets. 

Response 210: In the final rule, the EPA applies building block 3 generation at the interconnectlevel. This methodology does not distinguish between affected EGUs or opportunities for RE 

development within an interconnection. For more detail on the building block 3 target generation 

methodology, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and chapter 4 of the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Refer to section V.E.6 of the preamble and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that by instituting a larger role for renewable energy in the CPP tribes may 

benefit from the additional wrap up and renewable energy and investor owned utilities 

cooperative utilities, public power agencies and independent power producers would now look at 

native lands serious for additional opportunities to meet these updated targets. Commenters 

stated that since the federal government is a part owner of Navajo Generating Station, it would 

be a good place to start and the federal government can send a message that is serious about 

emissions by transitioning their ownership share of NGS before 2025 to a mix of either building 

block 2 and 3. 

Commenters stated that the Navajo Reservation will look deeper into renewable energy and start 

investing in it, as now the Navajo Nation is investing more into fossil fuel energy while everyone 

else is looking to solar and wind and other avenues. 

Comment 221: Commenters suggested the EPA could achieve more reductions from renewable 

energy. 

Response 221: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 35 
39 

Comment 223: Commenters stated that the EPA's CPP also underestimates the emissions 

reductions that can be achieved in Kentucky through distributed renewable energy. 

Response 223: As non-BSER measures, the technologies described in this comment are an 

important flexibility for affected sources to achieve the standards of performance; however, the 

EPA has maintained utility-scale RE as the basis for building block 3. For a full discussion of 

non-BSER RE technologies, refer to section VIII of the preamble supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters pointed to a 2012 study by Downstream Strategies, a West Virginia based research 

organization, which found that Kentucky could generate 34% of their electrical demand from 

distributed renewable energy by 2025. Commenters said that for the purpose of that report, 

distributed energy was defined as "the generation of electricity and heat, or the capture and reuse 

of waste heat, at or near the point of consumption." Commenters stated the EPA should not limit 

its view of what is possible in terms of Kentucky's renewable energy resources to merely what is 

possible in terms of utility-scale developments. 

Comment 234: Commenters generally supported the Proposal, but said more reductions are 

possible in North Carolina. 

Response 234: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 37 

Comment 245: Commenters supported renewable generation. 

Response 245: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 40 

Comment 256: Commenters expressed general support for renewable energy. 

Response 256: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 44 

Formatted: Font: Bold
40 

Comment 267: Commenters identified some renewable projects that help make the state target 

achievable. 

Response 267: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP.. 

Page 46 

Comment 278: Commenters stated that renewable energy and energy efficiency provide states 

with reasonable options for reaching its target. 

Response 278: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 47 

Comment 289: Commenters expressed support for including Building Block 3, including that 

renewable energy is feasible, cost-effective, and has been demonstrated to achieve significant 

carbon pollution reductions. 

Response 289: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 49 

Comment 2930: Commenters expressed support for RPS programs. 

Response 2930: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology. State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount 

of cost-effective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces 

target generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. 

Page 51 

Comment 301: Commenters stated there must be a method in place to re-evaluate the goals 

when a state's RPS policy is reduced or eliminated. 

Response 301: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 
41 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 52 

Comment 312: Commenters did not support an RPS approach. 

Response 312: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Pages 54-55 

Comment 323: Commenters indicated the EPA ignored the variability in states' RPS programs 

and therefore overestimated the national potential for RE growth in Building Block 3. 

Response 323: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Biomass is not considered part of the best system of emission reduction in this rule and therefore 

it is not included in goal-setting or compliance evaluations. However, similar to other 

technologies outside of BSER, biomass may be considered as a part of a state’s plan to meet the 

emission guidelines. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes, and 

associated biogenic CO2 assessment, can be found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. 

For more information regarding Building Block 3, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Page 59 

Comment 334: Commenters addressed concerns regarding the process to estimate renewable 

energy baseline and goals and if and how renewable energy sources not recognized by the 

proposed rule are accounted for. 

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold
42 

Response 334: The final methodology for quantifying target generation levels under building 

block 3 does not rely on the establishment of baseline generation. Instead, the final methodology 

establishes a level of RE incremental from 2012 that is both feasible and cost-effective. There are 

no RE resources used in setting the target generation that are not fully creditable under 

compliance. 

Biomass is not considered part of the best system of emission reduction in this rule and therefore 

it is not included in goal-setting or compliance evaluations. However, similar to other 

technologies outside of BSER, biomass may be considered as a part of a state’s plan to meet the 

emission guidelines. 

For more information regarding Building Block 3, refer to section V.E of the of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of cost-effective RE that is 

part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target generation levels under 

building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in 

chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 54 

Comment 345: Commenters stated actual RPS in NV does not match the rate the EPA used. 

Response 345: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Page 65 

Comment 356: A number of commenters asserted that state-specific analyses are needed. 

Response 356: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. 

The methodology that produces target generation levels under building block 3 is described in 

detail in section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 68 

Formatted: Font: Bold
43 

Comment 367: Commenters stated the EPA must account for state-specific factors in Georgia. 

Response 367: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. Further, building block 3 is both quantified 

and applied at the level of the interconnection, rather than at the state-level. The methodology 

that produces target generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD 

supporting the final CPP. 

Biomass is not considered part of the best system of emission reduction in this rule and therefore 

it is not included in goal-setting or compliance evaluations. However, similar to other 

technologies outside of BSER, biomass may be considered as a part of a state’s plan to meet the 

emission guidelines. 

For more information regarding Building Block 3, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

A discussion regarding the current status of the development of the revised Framework and how 

information from the revised Framework and the related peer review processes could be used to 

inform how states and EPA assess biogenic CO2 can be found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. For more information regarding the Framework, see: 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html. 

Page 70 

Comment 378: Commenters stated the EPA's reliance on IPM leads to an overestimate of the 

amount of RE that can be achieved. 

Response 378: The final methodology is based on observed historical patterns of deployment 

and expected levels of future performance. IPM projections are used to validate the technical 

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the final methodology. The EPA updated IPM from proposal 

to reflect the latest data on the cost and performance of RE technologies, as well as limits to 

reflect the increasing grid integration costs that may accompany high levels of RE penetration. 

The methodology that produces target generation levels under building block 3 is described in 

detail in section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Pages 72-73 

Comment 389: Commenters expressed concern regarding the interstate nature of much 

renewable energy. 
44 

Response 389: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in adopting a regional approach to RE and 

quantifying target generation in terms of incremental, rather than total, RE generation. The final 

methodology is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in 

chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 75 

Comment 3940: Commenters expressed concerns regarding offset crediting. 

Response 3940: The BSER is premised, in part, on affected sources procuring incremental RE to 

replace their own generation. A successful demonstration of rate-based compliance, whether on 

an affected source basis or through the application of a state goal as described in section VII of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP, precludes the double-counting of a single megawatt-hour of 

output. Refer to section VIII.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP for further detail on actions 

taken to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU. 

Page 76 

Comment 401: Commenters stated that the proposal would not allow sufficient time for the 

design, approval, and implementation of state and/or regional compliance strategies needed to 

achieve the proposed renewable energy goals. 

Response 401: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly the adoption of a phase-in period from 2022 through 

2023 that would enable appropriate time for investments and planning to accommodate an 

increase in RE. 

Page 77 

Comment 412: Commenters stated the EPA failed to account for the transmission that must be 

built to accommodate the amount of renewable resources it projects. 

Response 412: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly the adoption of a phase-in period from 2022 through 

2023 that would enable appropriate time for investments and planning to accommodate an 

increase in RE. 

Page 79 
45 

Comment 423: Commenters stated the EPA should analyze potential constraints from a 

generation and transmission line perspective prior to determining RE capacity and the 

appropriate RE re-dispatch capability. 

Response 423: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly the adoption of a phase-in period from 2022 through 

2023 that would enable appropriate time for investments and planning to accommodate an 

increase in RE. 

Page 80 

Comment 434: Commenters expressed concerned regarding grid reliability due to RE increases. 

Response 434: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly the adoption of a phase-in period from 2022 through 

2023 that would enable appropriate time for investments and planning to accommodate an 

increase in RE. 

Page 82 

Comment 445: Some commenters did not support a regional approach for renewable energy 

based on state RPS requirements. 

Response 445: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 87 

Comment 456: Tribal and Territorial – Commenters opposed mandatory regional application of 

RE goals. 

Response 456: In the final rule, the EPA applies building block 3 generation at the interconnectlevel. This methodology does not distinguish between affected sources or RE development 

opportunities within an interconnection, including those on tribal lands. For more detail on the 

building block 3 target generation methodology, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 
46 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

In comments on the tribal and territories SNPR, commenters stated that the Proposed Rule raises 

uncertainty about the ability to develop renewable projects on tribal lands that could be part of a 

state's renewable goal under Building Block 3 (79 FR 64551-2). Commenters stated that, 

although the use of regional renewable energy goals might address this (depending upon how 

they are applied), the Navajo Nation is opposed to mandatory regional application of RE goals. 

Commenters stated there is a simpler solution to the problem: RE developed in one jurisdiction 

should be permitted to count toward another jurisdiction's goals provided that they are not 

double-counted. Commenters stated that, in practice, jurisdictions could enter into agreements in 

what would effectively be optional regional RE programs. Commenters stated it would not be 

necessary for EPA to establish regional RE goals. 

Comment 467: Commenters suggested use of a weighted average in the regional calculation 

based on state RPS requirements. 

Response 467: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 88 

Comment 478: Commenters objected to the EPA's method for determining the average RPS 

requirements. 

Response 478: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 89 

Comment 489: Commenters suggested the EPA apply regional renewable targets to retail 

electric sales. 

Response 489: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Formatted: Font: Bold
47 

Page 90 

Comment 4950: Commenters stated the EPA’s approach is flawed because it does not include 

states with no RPS in its calculations. 

Response 4950: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the EPA's calculation of regional renewable energy goals is flawed because 

the average includes only values from states with RPS programs; states with no RPS (zero 

values) are excluded from the calculation. Commenters stated this approach is defective and 

leads to illogical and discriminatory results imposing greatly different and unjust requirements 

on the individual states 

Comment 501: Commenters objected to the use of a single state's RPS for all states in a region. 

Response 501: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. 

The methodology that produces target generation levels under building block 3 is described in 

detail in section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 95 

Comment 512: Commenters stated that the most troubling aspect of applying the Kansas RPS to 

Texas is that Texas has an RPS that has already been fully implemented. 

Response 512: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 96 

Comment 523: Commenters did not support the alternative approaches. 

Response 523: IPM projections are not the basis for building block 3 target generation levels 

expressed in the final methodology. Specific to several comments, the IPM projections 

supporting the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of building block 3 are no longer 

Formatted: Font: Bold
48 

constrained by the application of the benchmark development limiter described under the 

Alternative RE approach at proposal. The final methodology is described in detail in section . . . 

Page 97 

Comment 534: Commenters objected to the EPA's use of capacity-based RPS. 

Response 534: State RPS requirements are not a factor in quantifying the amount of costeffective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. The methodology that produces target 

generation levels under building block 3 is described in detail in section V.E. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

Page 99 

Comment 545: Commenters generally supported the alternative approach. 

Response 545: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the removal of the technical potential limiter. The 

final methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in 

chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 99-100 

Comment 556: Commenters supported a cap on in-state RE generation. 

Response 556: The EPA has adopted a regional approach to building block 3 that obviates the 

need for a state-level cap on RE. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters supported the EPA's proposal (79 FR 34868) to cap the amount of new renewable 

electricity generation assumed in in each state's building block #3 target so that the new 

renewable electricity generation target in building block #3 does not exceed the electricity 

generation from the existing affected EGUs in the state. Commenters stated that placing a cap on 

new renewable energy generation in a state will help ensure that EPA does not set renewable 

energy targets for states that cannot be supported by the state's electricity grid. 

Comment 567: Commenters stated it is imperative for building block #3 that the EPA rely upon 

renewable electricity generation for reporting compliance with the interim and final emission 

targets rather than renewable electricity consumption. 

Response 567: Building block 3 is quantified and expressed in terms of renewable generation, 

not consumption. 

Page 101 

Formatted: Font: Bold
49 

Comment 578: Commenters expressed concern regarding what RE generation qualifies for 

compliance purposes. 

Response 578: Incremental generation from each of the RE technologies under building block 3 

• utility-scale solar PV, concentrating solar power, onshore wind, geothermal, and 

hydropower ...

Page 104 

Comment 589: Commenters agreed that existing measures should be allowed to count during 

the compliance period. 

Response 589: In the final methodology, building block 3 is quantified as RE incremental to the 

BSER data year of 2012. The standards of performance reflect this adjustment to incremental RE 

from total RE, which is more consistent with the concept of replacing affected source generation. 

Page 105 

Comment 5960: Commenters asked for guidance regarding non-ratepayer compliance options. 

Response 5960: The use of non-BSER measures, such as energy efficiency and distributed 

generation, to achieve standards of performance is described in detail in section V.A of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. 

Page 105-106 

Comment 601: Commenters expressed concern that a state's renewable potential is calculated 

using widely-recognized renewable generation sources such as biomass and hydropower, but 

EPA does not allow these and other sources to be used for compliance. 

Response 601: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, in which the only RE technologies used to set the standards of 

performance are eligible for compliance. The final methodology is described in section V.E of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD 

supporting the final CPP and the use of non-BSER measures to achieve standards of 

performance, such as biomass, is described in section V.A of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Page 107 

Comment 612: Commenters indicated that CPP should be revised to take into account that 

municipal utilities have limited RE options. 

Response 612: The EPA believes all affected sources have the opportunity to participate in 

building block 3, as described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 
50 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

 Commenters said that while many municipal utilities are committed to investing in renewable 

electricity generation resources, they have experienced challenges because of their small size and 

tax exempt status. Commenters stated municipal utilities do not receive the production tax credit 

for wind energy or the investment tax credit for solar energy. Commenters added that another 

barrier to investing in renewable energy for municipal utilities is their relatively small size. 

Commenters stated most developers are building wind farms on a scale much larger than what is 

needed by a single municipal utility. 

Commenters said there are many barriers to renewable investments for municipal utilities and the 

rule should be revised to reflect these challenges. Commenters stated that, as a small, municipal 

utility, it does not have the same universe of renewable options as other utilities in the state. 

Commenters indicated that it does not have a large customer base with which to spread the 

higher cost of renewable investments. Commenters stated that municipal utilities cannot take 

advantage of Federal incentives for wind development, like the production tax credit, which 

makes wind projects more costly for utilities like theirs. 

Comment 623: Commenters supported the potential for additional wind energy. 

Response 623: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of wind cost and performance 

assumptions. The final methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 109 

Comment 634: Commenters indicated that, while wind resources are better in the SPP Plains 

states and along the Gulf coast than in Arkansas, a significant portion of Arkansas' renewable 

requirement will probably be met with imports of wind from the west and south. 

Response 634: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of wind cost and performance 

assumptions. The final methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 111 

Comment 645: Commenters expressed concerns regarding technical performance of wind 

turbines. 

Response 645: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of wind cost and performance 

assumptions. The final methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 
51 

Page 112 

Comment 656: Commenters expressed concern that the Proposal overestimates the potential for 

RE in WV. 

Response 656: The final building block 3 methodology does not rely on RPS requirements or 

state-specific deployment estimates, but rather cost-effective RE at an interconnection level. The 

EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and associated grid integration 

costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 114 

Comment 667: Commenters stated the EPA has not demonstrated the feasibility of adding, in 

the amounts EPA proposes, to the substantial amount of wind generation already occurring in 

Texas. 

Response 667: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the 

final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated Texas generates more electricity from wind than any other state and is 

already utilizing the most productive wind sites for generation. Commenters stated that, by 2030, 

EPA's building block 3 renewable goal for the state of Texas is approximately 86 million 

megawatt-hours, a 153% increase above 2012 levels, which would require over 31,000 MW of 

total renewable capacity (an additional 19,000 MW over existing renewable capacity). 

Commenters stated the EPA fails to recognize that sites for future wind generation would be 

lower producing sites as compared to existing wind generation. Commenters stated the EPA's 

building block 3 proposal does not accurately account for the future cost of utilizing these new 

sites, including transmission build-out that would be needed to support the amount of additional 

wind and renewable generation required under building block 3. 

Comment 678: Commenters expressed support for solar energy. 

Response 678: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of solar cost and performance 

assumptions. The EPA has maintained distributed generation technologies as non-BSER 

measures that affected sources may rely upon to achieve standards of performance for a number 

of reasons, including data limitations, the heterogeneity of distributed generation opportunities, 

and the desire to maintain balance between program flexibility and stringency. The final 

building block 3 methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Formatted: Font: Bold
52 

Page 116 

Comment 689: Commenters expressed concerns regarding solar capacity and growth potential. 

Response 689: The final building block 3 methodology does not rely on RPS requirements or 

state-specific deployment estimates, but rather cost-effective RE at an interconnection level. The 

EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and associated grid integration 

costs of significant RE penetration in both section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 117 

Comment 6970: Commenters recommended the EPA include distributed generation in building 

block 3. 

Response 6970: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of solar cost and performance 

assumptions. The EPA has maintained distributed generation technologies as non-BSER 

measures that affected sources may rely upon to achieve standards of performance for a number 

of reasons, including data limitations and EM&V concerns. The final building block 3 

methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 118 

Comment 701: Commenters stated distributed generation (DG) installations are inherently 

situational and need to be modeled at the local distribution system level. 

Response 701: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of solar cost and performance 

assumptions. The EPA has maintained distributed generation technologies as non-BSER 

measures that affected sources may rely upon to achieve standards of performance for a number 

of reasons, including data limitations and EM&V concerns. The final building block 3 

methodology is described in section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

Page 119 

Comment 712: Commenters stated renewable baseload or dispatchable generation, such as 

biopower, is needed to reinforce the variable generation resources, wind power and solar 

photovoltaics. 

Response 712: Maintaining sufficient baseload and ramping capacity to reinforce variable 

generation resources is a critical aspect to the IPM modeling used to demonstrate the technical 

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the building block 3 target generation levels. Refer to chapter 

4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final CPP for further detail. 
53 

Specifically in regards to biopower resources, biomass is not considered part of the best system 

of emission reduction in this rule and therefore it is not included in goal-setting or compliance 

evaluations. However, similar to other technologies outside of BSER, biomass may be 

considered as a part of a state’s plan to meet the emission guidelines. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Page 120 

Comment 723: Biomass and BSER. Many commenters commented on the perceived role of 

biomass in the baseline, goal setting and compliance, as well as how to account for biomass in 

those efforts. Some thought that biomass should not be included in establishing the baseline, 

targets, and compliance, other thought that it should be included, and others still just commented 

that it should be treated consistently (included or excluded in all three components). Some 

commenters asserted that biomass should be counted as carbon neutral within building block 

assessments, whereas others asserted that it should be counted as full emissions. Some 

commenters thought that states should be able to choose whether or not to include biomass as 

part of state compliance measures. Commenters wanted inclusion of dedicated biomass plants in 

compliance assessments. 

Response 723: Biomass is not considered part of the best system of emission reduction in this 

rule and therefore it is not included in goal-setting or compliance evaluations. However, similar 

to other technologies outside of BSER, biomass may be considered as a part of a state’s plan to 

meet the emission guidelines. 

For more information regarding Building Block 3, refer to section V.E of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP. 

For more information regarding biomass in the IPM baseline projection, refer to EPA v5.13 Base 

Case Documentation Supplement to Support EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for 

Existing Electric Generating Units in the docket. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

 In November 2014, the agency released a second draft of the technical report, Framework for 

Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources. The revised Framework, and the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review of the 2011 Draft Framework, finds that it is 

not scientifically valid to assume that all biogenic feedstocks are “carbon neutral” and that the 

net biogenic CO2 atmospheric contribution of different biogenic feedstocks generally depends 

on various factors related to feedstock characteristics, production, processing and combustion 

practices, and, in some cases, what would happen to that feedstock and the related biogenic 

emissions if not used for energy production. 
54 

A discussion of the use of biomass feedstocks and associated biogenic CO2 assessment can be 

found in in sections VIII.I and VIII.K of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

Pages 126-127 

Comment 734: Commenters stated it is critical that the EPA utilize up-to-date data in the 

development of the Clean Power Plan in order to enable more accurate compliance planning. 

Response 734: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, particularly in the reevaluation of solar and wind cost and 

performance assumptions. The final building block 3 methodology is described in detail in 

section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that, as the rule is currently written, out-of-date data is sometimes used when 

more current information is available. Commenters stated, for example, in terms of solar, the 

data used does not reflect current solar capacity or market projections; today's solar capacity is 

already exceeding the estimates the EPA has used. Commenters stated this is also the case for 

other resources such as hydropower. 

Commenters recommended that the EPA use the most up-to-date technology data to determine 

renewable energy potential per state. Commenters stated that, based on the new wind turbine 

technology, it is clear that Louisiana's coastal area has some of the country's best wind resources. 

Commenters stated that, while the National Renewable Energy Lab maps used data from the year 

2000 to determine wind energy potential, other NREL studies show that Louisiana has a wide 

range of renewable generation opportunities to apply to the state's energy mix. Commenters 

stated that solar, hydro, and biomass are all local resources that have been largely untapped. 

Commenters stated that hydropower is a reasonable baseload energy opportunity. 

Commenters stated the agency should use the most recent cost and performance data for 

renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar. Commenters stated that, by the time the 

rule is finalized, the EPA should have access to final 2014 data and the agency should use that 

information in establishing state targets and building from the most recent data on renewable 

generation is critical, given the rapid growth in deployment of these resources in recent years. 

Commenters stated the EPA's assumptions should be updated to reflect new NREL resource 

assessments, more recent data from actual projects, and credible studies projecting continued 

cost reductions and technology improvements through 2030. 

Comment 745: Commenters stated there are errors that need to be corrected under the proposed 

approach. 

Response 745: The errors cited by the commenter relate to RPS requirements, which are not a 

factor in quantifying the amount of cost-effective RE that is part of the BSER in the final rule. 

The final building block 3 methodology is described in detail in section V.E of the final rule 
55 

preamble of the CPP and in chapter 4 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD supporting the final 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that, in reviewing the spreadsheet and the inherent calculations EPA relied on 

to establish the state goals for North Carolina, NCDENR discovered a number of errors or 

incorrect assumptions in the calculations. Commenters provided an Appendix C which details 

these concerns. Commenters trusted that the EPA will make the recommended corrections as 

outlined in Appendix C so that the final goals for North Carolina will be based on correct 

assumptions. Commenters stated one area of concern include the misrepresentation of the state's 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. 

Comment 756: Commenters asserted that EPA has no Section 111 authority over RE 

technologies. 

Response 756: The incremental RE that affected EGUs may procure to demonstrate compliance 

with their relevant rate- or mass-based goals under the final CPP is not regulated under Section 

111. Qualifying compliance resources are not affected EGUs. Refer to the applicability 

definition provided in the preamble for additional information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that regarding Block 3, except possibly for renewable generation 

technologies such as biomass, EPA has no Section 111 authority over these generation 

technologies (nuclear, renewable) at all. Commenters said that first, they do not release any air 

pollution, preventing the EPA from making an endangerment finding involving these units under 

Section 111. Commenters said that further, the definition of stationary source requires that the 

source "emits or may emit any air pollutant." Commenters said since nuclear and non-biomass 

renewable generation emit no air pollutants of any type, it forecloses the ability of EPA to 

propose any rules regarding these generation technologies. 

Comment 767: Commenters stated the utilization of imported low- and non-emitting generation 

from Canada as a CO2 emission reduction measure should be provided in the final rule as a 

compliance option for affected EGUs to adjust their CO2 emission rates. 

Response 767: The EPA will work with states using the rate-based approach that are interested 

in allowing the use of RE from Canada to adjust CO2 emission rates. In these cases, all 

conditions for creditable domestic RE must be met, including that RE resources must be 

incremental and installed after 2012, and all EM&V standards must be met. For additional 

information, refer to section VIII of the preamble. 

Page 235 

Comment 8623: Commenters expressed concern that meeting renewable energy goals by an 

individual state, only perhaps or to a large extent through outside activities, for example through 

Formatted: Font: Bold
56 

interstate trading of renewable energy certificates (herein "RECs"), could hurt DW inadvertently, 

and impede EPA's broad mandate to protect the environment. 

Response 8623: Distributed technologies, as a demand-side resource, present unique data and 

technical challenges (such as the role of evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) 

procedures in verifying their production, the diverse economic incentives of different parties 

involved in their deployment, and the variety of grid integration policies and conditions across 

potential deployment sites) that complicate identifying a technically feasible and cost-effective 

level of generation. Consequently, the EPA is, at this time, choosing not to include distributed 

technologies as part of the BSER (although, as explained in section VIII.K of the preamble, 

distributed RE technologies that meets eligibility criteria may be used for compliance). Further, 

the EPA believes the final rule would not be strengthened by restricting the significant 

compliance flexibility afforded to affected EGUs to achieve the BSER. 

Page 236 

Comment 87X: Commenters cited a case in point is the CPP's renewable energy goal 

computation for Virginia where the CPP assumes Virginia can obtain 16% of its generation from 

renewable sources by 2030. 

Response 87-X: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.A. and V.C. of the final rule preamble for more information. 

Page 237 

Comment 8811: Commenters argued that the EPA's process for determining renewable energy 

(RE) "best practice" targets is arbitrary because it did not conform with section 111 requirements 

to consider feasibility and cost factors in setting the target. 

Response 8811: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.A. and V.C. of the final rule preamble for more information. 

Page 238 

Comment 8920: The following commenters suggest an alternative approach for the Building 

Block 3 proposal. 

Response 8920: The EPA appreciates the UCS approach and is using a final methodology that 

relies on the most recent five years of RE capacity deployment data (2010-2014) to set building 

block 3 generation levels. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the UCS developed an alternative method to determine the best system of 

emissions reduction for building block 3. Commenters said its approach sets a national 

benchmark for the renewable energy growth rate based on demonstrated state growth between 

Formatted: Font: Bold
57 

2009 and 2013, assuming states will meet the requirements of any state-level renewable energy 

standards in place. Commenters said under the UCS approach, the amount of U.S. electricity 

generated from renewable energy sources in 2020 would reach 14 percent of electricity sales in 

2020, twice the level achieved by the Clean Power Plan. Commenters said by 2030, renewable 

energy would comprise a 23 percent share of electricity sales under the UCS approach, compared 

with only 12 percent under the Clean Power Plan. Commenters said the UCS analysis found that 

this more ambitious commitment to renewable energy could reduce carbon pollution by 40 

percent below 2005 levels, compared with the 30 percent reduction envisioned by the Clean 

Power Plan. Commenters said this assumes that the new renewable energy generation displaces 

mostly natural gas-fired generation. 

Comment 9017: Commenters stated that in Building Block 3, EPA includes expanded "zeroemission" renewable energy generation, and to do so, EPA applies a regional approach which 

averages existing State RPS targets in a given region and then applies that average target to each 

State in that region, based on the assumption that renewable energy opportunities are uniform 

within a region. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Response 9017: The final methodology for quantifying building block 3 generation levels does 

not rely on state RPS requirements. The final methodology is described in section V.E. of the 

preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters said EPA also applies a growth factor that is based on the State's current renewable 

energy generation to ramp up renewable energy generation until the target generation level is 

achieved, and central to EPA's analysis is the assumption that State RPS targets are an accurate 

reflection of the renewable energy potential for the State and, by extension, for each State in the 

region. Commenters posited that EPA does not adequately consider the seven following factors 

Page 257 

Comment 10: Commenters argued against the EPA's use of prior renewable development trends 

to set the RE goals for Building Block 3 as an indication of future growth. 

Response 10: The EPA is not finalizing an approach that relies on state RPS requirements to set 

a regional target for RE. The final building block 3 methodology is described in detail in V.E of 

the preamble and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

Response 10: The EPA is not finalizing an approach that relies on state RPS requirements to set 

a regional target for RE. The BSER is forward-looking in identifying cost-effective opportunities 

for emission reductions from 2012; however, the cost and availability of these emission 

reduction opportunities is the result of many factors, including previous actions. The EPA 

addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and associated grid integration costs 
58 

of significant RE penetration in both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD.” 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted “Response 10: The EPA is not finalizing an approach that relies on state RPS 

requirements to set a regional target for RE. The final building block 3 methodology is described 

in detail in V.E of the preamble and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD”, which is a 

duplicative response block not removed from the final document. The correct response appears 

immediately after the deleted text. 

Page 325 

Comment 446: RE status in Virginia, including utility plans regarding RE resources and the 

possibility of Virginia's estimated renewable generation rate. 

Response 446: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology. The final building block 3 methodology does not rely on RPS 

requirements or state-specific deployment estimates, but rather cost-effective RE at an 

interconnection level. The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and 

availability of regional RE resources in both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected incorrectly-numbered comment summaries and responses, replacing “46” with “44”. 

Pages 368-369

“Comment 24: Commenters provided considerations for analyzing RE cost-effectiveness in the 

RGGI states. 

Response 24:” 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted Comment and Response block for Comment 24, which was not deleted from the final 

document as the issue is addressed in Chapter 8. 

 

Pages 369-372

 

Description of multiple corrections that follow below: 
59 

Corrected incorrectly-numbered comment summaries and responses. 

Page 369 

Comment 245: Commenters provided cost-effectiveness considerations specific to the Southeast 

states. 

Response 245: The EPA does not rely on the data sources listed below for the final rule. The 

EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and associated grid integration 

costs of significant RE penetration in both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD. 

Page 370 

Comment 256: Commenters provided cost effectiveness considerations specific to GA. 

Response 256: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E.6 of the preamble and in the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that "in both its preferred and alternative approaches, EPA's assumptions 

regarding the amount of renewable generation that can be feasibly and at reasonable cost added 

to Georgia's grid are overly conservative. As UCS notes in its report, EPA significantly 

underestimates the potential role of renewable energy in setting state targets. Several of the 

issues UCS identifies are evident in EPA's treatment of Georgia's renewables potential: EPA fails 

to account for both (1) the continued growth and falling costs of renewables projected by market 

experts and (2) the renewable energy deployment rates that states are already achieving. SELC 

agrees with UCS that EPA should revise and update several of its underlying assumptions. Doing 

so will show not only that EPA's current assumptions are reasonable, but that Georgia can in fact 

reach a much higher renewable energy target almost double the levels assumed by EPA at a 

reasonable cost." 

Comment 267: Commenters described clean energy financing alternatives, which may have an 

impact in the cost-effectiveness of RE energy. 

Response 267: The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and costeffectiveness of significant RE penetration in both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD. 

Page 371 
60 

Comment 278: Commenters called for a more comprehensive analysis, going beyond cost 

effectiveness, and described considerations for states to evaluate cost benefit from the proposed 

rule. 

Response 278: The EPA has phased in the building block 3 generation levels to provide an 

appropriate planning horizon for RE investments. Cost-effective RE under building block 3 is 

not costless RE. The EPA has determined that a $37/ton cost is reasonable for building block 

3. The EPA addresses considerations related to the technical feasibility and associated grid 

integration costs of significant RE penetration in both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD. 

Page 372 

Comment 289: Commenters said in order to fully assess the feasibility and potential costs of 

implementing the types of renewable goals envisioned in the proposed rule, more information is 

needed regarding the final level of renewable energy to be considered in establishing the state 

goal; the mechanisms available to resolve interstate issues regarding the "credit" for renewables 

procured in one state for the benefit of customers in other states; the mechanisms that will be 

acceptable to the states and EPA for purposes of demonstrating compliance; and, the location, 

size, and design of new renewable capacity must be known to adequately evaluate the cost of 

transmission improvements necessary to support those facilities and to assess whether additional 

generation resources are needed during periods when the renewable resources are not available. 

Response 289: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology, which is described in section V.E.6 of the preamble and in the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. Additional guidance on interstate issues and the crediting of 

incremental RE is presented in section VIII of the preamble. 

Chapter 3D 

3.4 DEMAND-SIDE ENERGY EFFICIENCY (EE) 

Pages 2-3 

This section discusses comments related to demand-side energy efficiency (EE), including 

opportunities for demand-side EE, annual incremental savings target rate, demand-side EE 

programs as they relate to CHP/cogeneration, and analytical concerns. We have organized the 

comments in this section under six subsections, 3.4.1 to 3.4.6. Responses to the comment topics 

of these subsections are discussed below along with summaries of the specific public comments. 

At proposal, we included demand-side EE in the BSER as building block 4. Consequently, many 

commenters referred to demand-side EE as building block 4 in their comments on the proposed 
61 

rule. Although we have decided to eliminate building block 4 from the BSER in the final rule, 

we have retained the commenters original phrasing in the summaries included in this section. 

3.4.1 Energy efficiency opportunity 

This section includes comments that are both supportive and unsupportive for of the inclusion

offor demand-side EE as a part of BSER. While we are not including demand-side EE as a 

component of the BSER, we are allowing demand-side EE to be used for compliance. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to the subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. A summary of comments in 

this section are listed below.

• We support EE as a part of BSER 

- You should include additional EE programs in the targets, including - building 

codes, appliance standards, other innovative programs, etc. 

- Need clarity of the role between BSER and compliance in state plans 

• We do not support EE as a part of BSER 

- It’s not adequately demonstrated because a) it’s outside the fence line, b) affected 

EGUs don’t have control of customer’s voluntary actions, c) key state and local 

factors weren’t considered in goals 

- However, we do support EE as a compliance option 

• It’s too difficult to achieve the savings the EPA set in the targets for a variety of 

reasons 

- There are many barriers to implementing EE 

- Building codes and appliance standards reduce the ability to achieve future 

savings 

- Best Practices methodology doesn’t take into account unique state circumstances 

Comment 1: Support for DSM/EE and support for expanded EE 

Response 1: Many commenters discuss the wide variety of EE programs available that they have 

implemented for many years, achieved significant energy savings and the opportunity exists to 

achieve large amounts of energy savings in the future. However the EPA is excluding BB4 from 

BSER. See sections V.A and V.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. Even though DS-EE is not used in calculating emission performance rates, the 
62 

final rule gives states the flexibility to use DS-EE to achieve their emissions performance rates 

during compliance. See multiple subsections of section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

and the Demand-side Energy Efficiency TSD for CPP Final Rule for details. 

Description of the corrections: 

Added “of” to last sentence of first paragraph in section 3.4 for clarity. Replaced “for” with “of” 

in two locations in first sentence of section 3.4.1 for clarity. Inserted missing period from last 

sentence in the second paragraph of section 3.4.1. Inserted “of” into the first bulleted phrase in 

section 3.4.1 for clarity. Added the word “the” to the Response 1 for clarity. 

Page 38-39 

Commenters noted that building block four wrongly assumes that selective and unsustained 

demand site energy efficiency results from only three states can be achieved continuously in 

every state in the nation. According to commenters, demand sidte energy efficiency 

programs have historically been very difficult to implement, enforce, monitor and verify. 

According to commenters, efforts to reach the assumed levels are sure to raise costs for our 

customers, almost half of which have household incomes of less than 40,000 a year. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed “site” to “side”, correcting a typo graphical error. 

Page 232 

Comment 31: T&TTribes and Territories--Support EE

Response 31: The EPA is excluding BB4 from BSER. See sections V.A and V.B of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. Even though DS-EE is not 

used in calculating emission performance rates, the final rule gives states, tribes and territories 

the flexibility to use DS-EE to achieve their emissions performance rates during compliance. See 

multiple subsections of section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for details. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters support the implementation of Building Block 4. 

Comment 32: T&TTribes and Territories--Unique Circumstances 

Response 32: The EPA decided not to include DS-EE in BSER for the final rule. A response is 

not provided here as this comment is now outside the scope of the CPP. See sections V.A and 

V.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for details. DS-EE remains generally available for 
63 

compliance, with flexibility provided for tribal governments. See multiple subsections of section 

VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for details. 

Description of the correction: 

Replaced “T&T” with “Tribes and Territories”, for clarity. The replaced text is not a commonly 

recognized acronym and was inadvertently not written out in the document. 

Page 235 

Response 34: The EPA has not included demand-side EE (building block four) in the BSER of 

this final rule. However, tThe Demand-side Energy Efficiency TSD for CPP Final Rule discusses 

utility regulatory models for supporting utility EE investments including shareholder incentive 

mechanisms and other strategies for leveling the impact on utilities and their shareholders 

relative to non-EE capital investments. The EPA recognizes the ongoing progress made by states 

across the country in adopting regulatory models that support utility EE investment and believes 

that effective state models exist and have demonstrated their effectiveness in practice as 

discussed in the TSD. Adoption of these models will better support the use of DS-EE in state 

strategies in response to the final rule. 

Description of the correction: 

Added the sentence “The EPA has not included demand-side EE (building block four) in the 

BSER of this final rule.” to Response 34 for clarity. 

Page 236 

Response 1: One of the major approaches available for achieving CO2 emission reductions from 

the utility power sector is demand-side energy efficiency. The EPA continues to believe that 

significant emission reductions can be achieved through use of such measures at reasonable costs 

and that demand-side energy efficiency will represent an important component of state plans. 

The EPA has not included demand-side EE (building block four) in the BSER of this final rule. 

However, the EPA is excluding DS-EE from BSER. See sections V.A and V.B of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. DS-EE remains generally 

available for compliance. Demand-side EE that are tied to a state plan and achieve quantified and 

verified MWh savings may be used to achieve the emission guidelines specified in the CPP Final 

rule, provided they meet the eligibility requirements for resources described in Section VIII. of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. Even though Demand Side EE is not in the final rule under 

BSER, the EPA is using a DS-EE target level of 1.0% for the illustrative demand-side energy 

efficiency plan scenario. See the Demand-side Energy Efficiency TSD for CPP Final Rule for 

support and details. 

Description of the correction: 
64 

Added sentence “The EPA has not included demand-side EE (building block four) in the BSER 

of this final rule to Response 1 for clarity. 

Page 330 

Response 21: The EPA has determined not to include demand-side energy efficiency (building 

block four) in the BSER of this final rule and this determination is discussed in sections V.A and 

V.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Although the EPA has determined to not include 

demand side-energy efficiency in the BSER in this final rule we are using 1.0% in our illustrative 

demand-side energy efficiency plan scenario. See the RIA Chapter 3 and the Demand-side 

Energy Efficiency TSD for CPP Final Rule for details on the illustrative demand-side energy 

efficiency plan scenario. This illustrative plan scenario reflects a reasonable and feasiblye level 

of DS-EE, supported by the information and analysis provided in the TSD. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “feasibly” to “feasible” to correct grammar in Response 21. 

Page 353 

Response 30: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ remarks that energy efficiency doesn’t 

reduce emissions from EGUs. Lowering energy demand on the grid avoids the need to generate 

electricity and therefore reduced hence the emissions that would have been produced by

associated with the operation of the avoided generatorion reduces the amount of emissions that 

would have been put into the air. The EPA has determined not to include demand-side energy 

efficiency (building block four) in the BSER of this final rule and therefore we do not need to 

address this comment. This determination is discussed in sections V.A and V.B of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. 

Description of the correction: 

Edited second sentence for clarity in Response 30 to read, “Lowering energy demand on the grid 

avoids the need to generate electricity and therefore reduces the emissions that would have been 

produced by the operation of the avoided generator.” 

Page 374 

Response 1: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the Demand-side Energy Efficiency 

TSD for CPP Final Rule and the RIA, Chapter 3, supporting the final CPP. The topics raised by 

these commenters are addressed in those supporting materials including step-by-step description 

of the estimation of DS-EE costs, the integration of DS-EE savings into the power sector 

modeling, the conservativeness of DS-EE savings level and costs as represented by the 

illustrative demand-side energy efficiency plan scenario, the start date for DS-EE efforts, the 

assumed load shape of DS-EE savings, the cost escalation approach, and the estimation of 
65 

participant costs. The EPA agrees with the commenters that the DS-EE driven energy savings 

lead to emission reductions at affected sources; for the RIA, such impacts are captured through 

power sector modeling as discussed in Chapter 3. This illustrative plan scenario reflects a 

reasonable and feasibley level of DS-EE, supported by the information and analysis provide in 

the TSD. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “feasibly” to “feasible” to correct grammar in Response 1. 

Pages 407-408 

Response 9: The EPA has determined not to include demand-side energy efficiency (building 

block four) in the BSER of this final rule and therefore we do not need to address further 

comments supporting the removal or levels of DS-EE from BSER. This determination is 

discussed in sections V.A and V.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Even though demandside energy efficiency is not being included in the BSER in this final rule and, thus, not included 

in the determination of emission performance rates, the final rule provides states the flexibility to 

use demand-side energy efficiency measures in their state plans for compliance to meet the 

emission guidelines set forth in the final CPP, provided they meet the applicable requirements 

established in section VIII of the preamble for the CPP. Accordingly, the EPA is including a 

level of DS-EE as a component of our illustrative EE plan scenario that is the basis for the 

analysis discussed in Chapter 3 of the RIA that supports the final CPP. The EPA is reducing the 

level of DS-EE in the illustrative EE scenario relative to the level represented in the proposed 

CPP, from 1.5% annual incremental savings down to 1.0% annual incremental savings. The EPA 

finds that these levels are achievable and a reasonable basis for the illustrative EE plan scenario 

in all states even considering the unique characteristics that affect achievable EE potential in 

each state. This is addressed in the Demand-side Energy Efficiency TSD for CPP Final Rule and 

is the basis for DS-EE illustrative plan scenario represented in the RIA for the final CPP. This 

illustrative plan scenario reflects a reasonable and feasibley level of DS-EE, supported by the 

information and analysis provide in the TSD. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “feasibly” to “feasible” to correct grammar in Response 9. 

Page 426 

Response 2: The final rule provides states the flexibility to use demand-side energy efficiency 

measures and CHP in their state plans for compliance to meet the emission guidelines set forth in 

the final CPP, provided they meet the applicable requirements established in section VIII, 

including section VIII.K.1.a., and in section V.A.6.b.(1). of the preamble for the CPP. The EPA 

recognizes that one of the major approaches available for achieving CO2 emission reductions 

from the electric power sector is demand-side energy efficiency and CHP. The EPA continues to 
66 

believe that significant emission reductions can be achieved by affected EGUs by the use of such 

measures cost effectively and that such measures are likely to represent an important component 

of state plans. The final rule also has provisions that will maintain reliability in the system, such

as reliability safety valve provisions and requiring states to demonstrate that they considered 

reliability issues in developing state plans such as through consultation coordination with the 

Regional Transmission Organization, Independent Service Organization System Operator or 

other planning authoritiesGrid operator. 

Description of the correction: 

Inserted “, including section VIII.K.1.a., and in section V.A.6.b.(1)” and deleted an extra period 

to clarify the cross reference to requirements in the CPP preamble in Response 2. The last 

sentence of Response 2 was changed from “The final rule also has provisions that will maintain 

reliability in the system, such as reliability safety valve provisions and coordination with the 

Regional Transmission Organization, Independent Service Organization or Grid operator” to 

“The final rule also has provisions that will maintain reliability in the system, such as reliability 

safety valve provisions and requiring states to demonstrate that they considered reliability issues 

in developing state plans such as through consultation with the Regional Transmission 

Organization, Independent System Operator or other planning authorities”, for clarity. 

Chapter 3E 

Page 16 

Response 15: The final building block 3 methodology does not rely on state-specific deployment 

estimates, but rather cost-effective RE at an interconnection level. The basis for building block 3 

target generation levels is the observed pattern of historical development for each of the BSER 

RE technologies. Modeling projections remain an important aspect of the overall methodology in 

validating the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the target generation level. The data, 

assumptions, methodology, and outputs associated with relevant IPM projections are available 

on the EPA’s power sector modeling website, www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html. The EPA addresses considerations related 

to the technical feasibility and associated grid integration costs of significant RE penetration in 

both the preamble (section V.E) and GHG Mitigation Measures TSD 

Description of the correction 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 38 

Response 39: The resources and data provided in this comment were valuable in finalizing the 

building block 3 methodology. The EPA updated its short-term capital cost adder framework to 

reflect updated capital cost assumptions and historical deployment levels. Refer to the IPM 

documentation available at www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling 

Formatted: Not Highlight
67 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html for additional detail. For the EPA’s 

response to this comment, see section V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP and chapter 4 of 

the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for CPP Final Rule.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 95 

Comment 14: Commenters renewable resource in reasonable proximity to the PJM footprint 

should be counted towards the economic resource available to PJM states. 

Response 14: The building block 3 regions are the interconnections; consequently, all Eastern 

Interconnection resources are grouped with all Eastern Interconnection affected EGUs. See 

sections V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted Comment/Response 14 because it was a word for word repeat of Comment/Response 13. 

Pages 95-100 

Description of multiple corrections that follow below: 

Renumbered comment summaries and responses numbers due to duplicate Comment and 

Response 14. 

Comment 145: Commenters stated Kentucky's load/generation and renewable resources should 

be grouped with EPA's North Central region. 

Response 145: The building block 3 regions are the interconnections; consequently, all Eastern 

Interconnection resources are grouped with all Eastern Interconnection affected EGUs. See 

sections V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for additional information. 

Commenters stated Kentucky's load/generation and renewable resources should be grouped with 

MISO (EPA's North Central region). Commenters stated, in the alternative, Kentucky's 

load/generation could be pro-rata apportioned, with the load/generation for the portion of 

Kentucky in the MISO footprint allocated to the North Central region and the load/generation in 

the PJM footprint allocated to the East Central region. Commenters stated it should be relatively 

easy to adjust, on a load- or generation-weighted basis, the share of a state's load or generation 

that falls in each region for purposes of setting the renewable energy component of the building 

block 3 targets. 

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight
68 

Comment 156: Commenters stated wind energy generation from MISO and SPP should be 

accounted for in the regional or state calculations of economically available RE. 

Response 156: The building block 3 methodology relies on the ability of affected EGUs to 

procure incremental RE within the interconnection. Refer to sections V.A and V.E of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for additional information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the adequately demonstrated ability of Southeastern utilities to import wind 

energy generation from MISO and SPP should be accounted for in the regional or state 

calculations of economically available renewable energy resources. Commenters stated this 

could be accomplished by grouping at least some Southeastern states in with MISO (North 

Central) or SPP (South Central), or making some share of the economically viable renewable 

energy resources in MISO and SPP available for meeting the Section 111(d) compliance needs of 

the Southeast. Commenters stated this would accurately reflect the fact that Southern Company 

and TVA are purchasing large amounts of wind energy, with physical delivery, from SPP and 

MISO. Commenters suggested EPA should look at existing and new transmission into the 

Southeast and give at least some of those states a target that incorporates transmission-delivered 

renewable energy. 

Commenters stated it is also important for EPA's modeling to include the opportunity for new 

high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines, which have different cost and 

performance characteristics than AC transmission. Commenters stated this includes the 

capabilities of DC transmission voltage source converters to provide a variety of ancillary 

services, including rapid adjustments to real power output, allowing variability to be exported to 

the receiving region. 

Commenters also stated the ability to use HVDC to provide capacity and reserve sharing should 

also be accounted for. Commenters stated a number of studies have identified how HVDC 

transmission lines can play an important role in achieving cost-effective reductions of carbon 

emissions by allowing delivery of low-cost renewable energy. Commenters provided information 

on a DOE funded Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC), noting the results 

show that some economic potential for inter-regional transfer using new HVDC lines should be 

accounted for in setting state targets under building block 3. Commenters also stated that several 

new inter-regional HVDC transmission lines, similar in capacity and rationale to those found in 

EIPC results, are well under development and expected to be in service by 2018. Commenters 

stated EPA should include these new HVDC projects in its IPM modeling by adding the 

expected incremental transmission capacity between the US Model Regions in EPA Base Case 

v.5.13. Commenters stated because IPM uses wheeling charges to represent a real-time cost in 

order to determine the optimal path for energy transfer, the wheeling charge would be zero for 

these lines as the wind generation would be directly connected to these lines and would not have 

another path for delivery. 
69 

Comment 167: Commenters stated the ERCOT IPM region does not include wind resources in 

the Texas Panhandle. 

Response 167: The RE resource potential in IPM is described in terms of geographic location, 

rather than ultimate availability. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the ERCOT IPM region incorrectly does not appear to include wind 

resources in the Texas Panhandle. Commenters suggested EPA should ensure that a large share if 

not all of the Texas Panhandle wind resources are available to the ERCOT IPM zone, in addition 

to being available to SPP West, to properly reflect that both RTOs have transmission facilities 

that allow significant deliverability of wind generation from the Texas Panhandle. Commenters 

stated if EPA is absolutely unable to model both regions having access to those wind resources, 

EPA should either split the Texas Panhandle wind resources between the two regions or allocate 

them all to ERCOT, reflecting that with the completion of the CREZ lines ERCOT now has 

larger deliverability of those wind resources than SPP. 

Comment 178: Commenters stated there are inaccuracies in the IPM assumptions table. 

Response 178: The EPA is constantly reevaluating interregional transmission assumptions for 

inclusion in IPM; however, no change was made at this time to the modeling that supports the 

final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that EPA should check the regional transfer limits listed in Table 3.4 on 

pages 6-12 of Chapter 3 of the IPM documentation to verify that the MW transfer limits are an 

accurate reflection of current reality, as well as the increased transfer limits that will be enabled 

by new transmission, as many appear to be lower than indicated in documentation provided by 

regional reliability entities. Commenters noted that for many of the ties in the Western 

Interconnection, documentation of current transfer limits can be obtained from the WECC Path 

Rating Catalog which indicates that most ties in the Western Interconnection have a significantly 

higher transfer capability than is assumed in the IPM modeling. Commenters noted that they 

were unable to find access to a similar comprehensive listing of current transfer limits for the 

Eastern Interconnection and ERCOT, though based on the number and magnitude of concerns 

identified in WECC. Commenters suspected that there are similar inaccuracies in those lists as 

well. Commenters provided a list of 19 discrepancies they found between the WECC Path Rating 

Catalog and the IPM assumptions table. 

Comment 189: Commenters suggested the EPA base RE targets on technical potential. 
70 

Response 189: The final building block 3 methodology is premised on historical deployment of 

RE capacity rather than modeling projections. Refer to sections V.A and V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for additional information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the regional approach to renewables may still group states together that have 

widely varying renewable resources potentials, and suggested that EPA base renewable targets 

on technical potential throttled by an avoided cost threshold, consistent with utility planning. 

Comment 1920: Commenters expressed concern that the alternative approach would result in 

unrealistic rate targets. 

Response 1920: The final building block 3 methodology is premised on historical deployment of 

RE capacity rather than modeling projections. Refer to sections V.A and V.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for additional information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that the NODA describes comments EPA has received that propose 

calculating building blocks three and four by assuming incremental renewable energy and energy 

efficiency would displace existing levels of fossil generation rather than growth in demand for 

fossil generation. Commenters stated they do not support this approach, stating that this 

alternative method would result in rate targets with unrealistic compliance expectations. 

Commenters provided the example that a state could have a zero or even a negative rate-based 

target, and yet serve load with a substantial amount of fossil-fuel generation. Thus, commenters 

stated, the approach to calculating building blocks three and four in EPA's June 2, 2014 proposal 

of the Clean Power Plan appropriately accounts for incremental RE and energy efficiency. 

Comment 201: Commenters stated that they support the use of a regional approach if EPA 

cannot fix and implement an approach based on the technical and economic potential for each 

state. 

Response 201: The EPA adopted a regional approach to building block 3 as it was most 

consistent with the BSER. See sections VA and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for 

EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated if EPA is unable to address the issues with the current technical and 

economic potential approach, use the regional approach proposed in the NODA in which the 

existing targets from the Alternative RE Approach TSD are aggregated by region and reassigned 

based on retail sales. Commenters stated concerns about the methodology used to assign 

renewable energy targets to states that are dominated by hydropower in the technical and 
71 

economic potential approach, and provided suggestions for strategies to either fix or compensate 

for those issues. Commenters stated, however, in recognition of the fact that EPA may simply 

not have the time or resources to address those issues and provide solutions in a timely fashion, 

the commenters would recommend using the "regional potential" approach outlined in the 

NODA. Specifically, commenters recommended using the same regional grouping as with the 

RPS-based regional approach (i.e., the WECC footprint) and assigning the total renewable 

energy potential based on the proportion of baseline retail sales for each state. Commenters noted 

that the IPM modeling done for the technical and economic potential approach is regional in 

nature already and based on WECC classifications for the west. Therefore, commenters stated, 

this approach is more consistent in terms of using the data that provides the foundation for the 

assigned targets. Also, commenters noted that the renewable energy target would be bounded by 

the requirement above that no state is assumed in the target setting process to be required to 

generate more than 100 percent of its baseline generation from zero emission sources. 

Commenters stated that to the extent that EPA establishes a federally-enforced RE target for 

Connecticut, compliance with which requires Connecticut to develop resources in other states, 

commenters are concerned about the feasibility of complying with such a mandate. Commenters 

noted that Connecticut has an ambitious RPS target, established under state authority, with 

expectations of significant development of out-of-state RE. Commenters also noted that 

Connecticut has very limited RE generation potential in-state and does not have control over the 

permitting, siting, and regulation of facilities located outside its borders. Commenters therefore 

stated, notwithstanding the inherent ability to overcompensate in some building blocks to make 

up for deficiencies in others, given state sovereignty issues, a mandated requirement to build outof-state renewables is not appropriate. Commenters stated that they prefer a method that sets instate RE goals based on in-state technical and economic potential; however, should EPA 

determine that such a method cannot be implemented, then the commenters strongly prefer an 

approach based on regionalized technical and economic potential over the proposed RPS 

approach. 

Comment 212: Commenters stated the EPA should credit excess RE based on the regional 

steam fossil emissions rate. 

Response 212: The final building block 3 produces incremental RE generation levels at the 

interconnection-level rather than the state-level. All qualifying RE is credited, under rate-based 

compliance, against the standard applied to the affected EGU that procured the incremental RE. 

For additional information regarding how affected EGUs demonstrate compliance, refer to 

section VIII of the preamble that supports the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated that in the case where a states' incremental RE and EE exceeds historical 

fossil steam generation levels, EPA should credit this excess renewable energy based on the 

regional steam fossil emissions rate. Commenters stated that the regional average fossil steam 

generator emissions rate will accurately reflect the amount of emissions savings that would be 

produced by adding renewable energy, given how renewable resources displace fossil generation 
72 

resources throughout the region due to the interconnected nature of the power system. 

Commenters stated that if all regional steam fossil generation is exhausted, renewable generation 

should be credited at the region's natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) emissions rate. 

Comment 223: Commenters stated the EPA should adopt a regional version of the Alternative 

RE Approach and recommended the same approach for power plants in Indian Country. 

Response 223: The EPA agrees with this comment. Affected EGUs in Indian Country are 

subject to the same interconnection-level requirements as other affected EGUs. See sections V.A 

and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters recommended that EPA adopt a regional version of the Alternative RE Approach as 

described in the NODA, and also recommended that EPA follow the same approach for power 

plants in Indian Country by increasing the size of the target to reflect the appropriate emissionsweighted share of the renewable energy available in the transmission or market region. 

Commenters stated that there is no justification for adopting a unique Alternative RE Approach 

which assigns a lower renewable generation target to these facilities. Commenters stated that for 

the power plants in U.S. territories, the targets should reflect the potential renewable energy 

resources that can be developed at reasonable cost (based on updated cost data) in those 

territories. 

Page 107 

Response 2: EPA agrees with the commenters that point out the current deployment of RE is 

already at high levels and state that there are synergies among the building blocks that can 

increase their effectiveness. EPA disagrees with commenters suggesting that the building blocks 

do not work effectively together. See response at the beginning of the section for EPA’s response 

to these comments..

Description of the corrections: 

Added “E” to “R” to read “RE” in the first sentence in Response 2 and made other minor 

typographical error corrections, for clarity. 

Page 130 

Response 12: EPA disagrees. EPA has adequately treated considered the interactions, and 

additional modeling with IPM is not needed. See response at the beginning of the section for 

EPA’s response to these comments. 

Description of the correction: 
73 

Changed the word “treated” to “considered” to improve clarity of sentence in Response 12, for 

clarity. 

Page 142 

Response 27: EPA thanks the commenter for the comment. EPA agrees that solar power is an 

important RE source, however, EPA also believes there are multiple cost effective pathways to 

compliance with the rule. 

Description of the correction: 

Added an “o” to the end of “als” in Response 27, correcting a typographical error. 

Chapter 4A 

Page 291 

Response 49: The EPA’s power sector modeling represents transmission infrastructure 

constraints. See the EPA power sector modeling base case documentation at

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

Chapter 4B 

Page 3 

Response 3: See Section VI of the Preamble for the EPA’s discussion why it relied on 2012 data 

as the starting point for forming its baseline. The EPA believes starting with 2012 data and only 

making limited adjustments uses the best available historical data and most accurately reflects an 

appropriate baseline from which to evaluate BSER potential. 

See the Chapter 2 of the GHG Aabatement TSD for the EPA’s discussion about use of regional 

interconnections to assess potential heat rate improvements and the potential impact of new air 

pollution control devices to comply with other Federal pollution control requirements, including 

the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

Description of the correction: 
74 

Changed “abatement TSD” to “Abatement Measures TSD” in Response 3, correcting the 

reference to the responsive document. 

Page 4 

Bayfront was not included as a likely affected unit because of data on its capacity and its fuel 

use. However, this does not constitute a final applicability determination. See section VII.E of 

the preamble regarding and state goal adjustments. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the word “and” and added the word “state” for clarity in Response 4.

Page 6 

Response 5: As explained in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD 

for final Final CPP, the EPA did not adjust the baseline based on scheduled or planned 

retirements.

Description of the correction: 

Added the word “Final” for clarity in Response 5. 

Page 7 

... EPA notes that there are both NGCC and coal units that retired in 2012, but that are still in 

EPA 2012 baseline reflecting their reported generation and emission from that year. EPA 

discussed in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final 

Rule why it was not removing scheduled retirements from its baseline. It appreciates the 

comment on 55 MW Hansel as one of the unique NGCC untisunits that retired in 2012. EPA 

notes there were many more fossil steam units that retired in 2012. More units of each 

technology will retire before the first year of compliance in 2022. Consistent with its approach 

to remain with a historical baseline and not begin projecting the impact of retirements in its 

baseline, EPA leaves these units in its baseline. Commenters suggest that 55 MW of capacity 

from Hansel therefore overstates BB2. However, EPA believes its decision on retirement 

treatment has the opposite impact. It is conservative to leave the units in the baseline. If it 

removed Hansel, to be consistent it would also need to remove the fossil steam generation 

already scheduled for retirement (and therefore no longer around to absorb incremental NGCC 

generation). As stated above, EPA steers clear of attempting to adjust for retirmentsretirements,. 

If the EPA but if it chose to go the route expressed by commenters - the effect would likely be 

one of a more stringent impact, not less stringent, as the amount of incremental generation 

potential removed from the baseline would be drastically smaller (one 55 MW plant in the east) 

relative to the amount of fossil steam. 

Description of the corrections: 
75 

Added an “S” to the acronym “TSD” in the third sentence and deleted “unitis” and added the 

word “units” to the fourth sentence, correcting typographical errors. Also, changed “As stated 

above, EPA steers clear of attempting to adjust for retirements, but if it chose to go the route 

expressed by commenters – the effect would be” to “As stated above, EPA steers clear of 

attempting to adjust retirements. If the EPA chose to go the route expressed by commenters, the 

effect would be” in last sentences of Response 6, all for clarity. 

Page 14 

Cheyenne Prairie Generating Station capacity assumed in building block two has been adjusted 

down to the reported net summer capacity value which his most more closely aligned with the 

commenters’ value. 

The Moselle units 1 and 2 constitute the 150 MW of identified under construction NGCC 

capacity in Mississippi. 

The EPA has categorized Cane Rune facility as a likely affected unit that is under construction 

based on the under construction status reported in the 2013 EIA-860 form and based on 

Louisville Gas and Electric public statements (and comment) regarding the construction start of 

the facility such as those available at https://lge-ku.com/our-company/power-plants-andcompressor-stations/cane-run-generating-station/cane-run-updates

In regards to the applicability status of the Orlando Cogeneration unit,. EPA has left them the 

unit in the baseline inventory as a likely affected units upon review of its status in other EPA air 

programs, the size of the unit, and the amount of net electricity generation of the unit. However, 

EPA notes that this does not constitute a final applicability determination. See section VII of the 

preamble for further discussion. 

Description of corrections: 

Deleted the word “most” for clarity in the fourth sentence, corrected the spelling of “Cane Run” 

in the next to last paragraph, and revised the last paragraph of Response 11, changing “In regards 

to the applicability status of the Orlando Cogeneration unit. EPA has left them in the baseline 

inventory as a likely affected units upon review of its status in other EPA air programs, the size 

of the unit, and the amount of net electricity generation of the unit. However, EPA notes that 

this does not constitute a final applicability determination. See section VII of the preamble for 

further discussion.”, to “In regards to the applicability status of the Orlando Cogeneration unit, 

EPA left the unit in the baseline inventory as a likely affected unit upon review of its status in 

other EPA air programs, the size of the unit, and the amount of net electricity generation of the 

unit. However, EPA notes that this does not constitute a final applicability determination. See 

section VII of the preamble for further discussion.” 

Page 18 
76 

Response 16: The EPA has made adjustments to the baseline based on this comment and your

attachment. This revised unit-level data is available in Appendix 1 of the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule. As discussed in Sections IV 

and VI of the preamble, the EPA does view some of oil gas steam boilers as being likely affected 

sources based on the unit characteristics. As noted in Section VI of the final rule preamble, no 

simple cycle units are viewed as being likely affected sources and none are included in the 

baseline in this final rule.

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the word “your” from Response 16 for clarity. 

Page 35 

Response 33: The EPA does not agree with the commenters that the baseline will generate false 

credit for emission reductions. Moreover, it has changeds the way it applies building block three 

(as described in preamble section VI that address the commenters concern. Please see the CO2

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final 

CPP for more information about the goals and section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

for more information about state plans and compliance. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “changes” to “changed” in the second sentence of Response 33. 

Page 49 

Response 3: The EPA has given careful consideration to all of the comments above in designing 

the methodology to calculate the mass-based goal for the final rule. The EPA provides the 

calculation of a mass-based goal directly in the rule in response to comments that includes the 

following considerations. See section VII of the preamble for further discussion.

Description of the correction: 

Deleted the word “above” from the first sentence in Response 3 for clarity. 

Page 107 

Comment 25: Commenters asked if the mass-based goal coldcould be taken as the CO2 

emissions remaining after implementation of BSER Blocks 1 and 2. 

Description of the correction: 

Changed the word “cold” to “could” in Comment 25 for clarity. 
77 

Page 133 

Response 47: The EPA has provided a mass-based goal in the final rule and allows states to 

consider new sources in demonstrating compliance in the following manner described by 

commenters. 

Description of the correction: 

Added the words “described by commenters” to the end of Response 47 for clarity. 

Page 161 

Response 28: The EPA is finalizing mass goals as explained in section VII of the preamble.

Description of the correction: 

Added “i” to the word “finalizing” for clarity in Response 28. 

Chapter 5B 

Page 131 

Response 11: The EPA disagrees. IPM is an interregional dispatch and planning model (See 

model documentation at http://epa.gov/powersectormodeling 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html). IPM imposes interregional 

transmission limits on the dispatch solution, and has increased the number of regions in recent 

versions to better capture transmission flows. For this rule, IPM is not used for state level 

projections or for setting state goals, but rather is used for broad, national assessments of 

program costs and impacts. Contrary to the comments, EPA believes the model is sufficiently 

granular for this purpose. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 132 

Response 13: The IPM assumptions are available at http://epa.gov/powersectormodeling 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html. IPM imposes interregional 

transmission limits on the dispatch solution, and has increased the number of regions in recent 

versions to better capture transmission flows; in particular, the number of regions covering 

Louisiana has been increased. For this rule, IPM is not used for state level projections or for 
78 

setting state goals, but rather is used for broad, national assessments of program costs and 

impacts. EPA believes the model is sufficiently granular for this purpose. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity

Page 241 

Comment 10: Comments suggesting source-specific remaining useful life determinations from 

governing boards should be considered. 

Response 10: NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME These comments are 

addressed in final rule preamble section VIII.G.1 and the legal memorandum. 

The EPA adds that, contrary to commenters’ assertions, the EPA did not propose to bar states 

from considering remaining useful life on grounds that BSER already allows for its 

consideration. The EPA has revised the goals since proposal and believes that they are 

achievable. 

Description of the correction: 

EPA strikes the words, “NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME”, which is 

an editorial note inadvertently left in the document and inserts the correct response text that was 

omitted. Comment 10 should be the same response provided for Comment 4 of this section, page 

238. The corrected response is: 

These comments are addressed in final rule preamble section VIII.G.1 and the legal 

memorandum. 

The EPA adds that, contrary to commenters’ assertions, the EPA did not propose to bar states 

from considering remaining useful life on grounds that BSER already allows for its 

consideration. The EPA has revised the goals since proposal and believes that they are 

achievable. 

Chapter 6B 

Page 110 

Response 28: EPA disagrees with commenters that it has overstepped the Agency’s legal 

authority. Section III of the final rule preamble summarizes the rule requirements and the legal 

basis. EPA has considered comments on timing of state plan submittals and has adjusted 

requirements and compliance in the final rule. Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble addresses 

state plan submittals and timing. Section VIII.D of the final rule preamble addresses state plan 
79 

components and approvability criteria, while section VIII.F addresses state plan performance 

demonstrations and compliance. Note that EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected font for Response 28. 

Pages 149-150 

Response 62: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response to 

this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. South 

Dakota’s state goals may be found in section VII of the CPP final rule preamble. The source 

category-specific CO2 emission performance rates are described in section VI of the CPP final 

rule preamble. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal, EPA’s 

approval process, and timing. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected font for one sentence for Response 62, “See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble on state plan submittal, EPA’s approval process, and timing.”

Page 244 

Comment 8: States must have the ability and a formal process to appeal decisions by the EPA 

that initial plans do not meet the EPA’s minimum requirements and that extension requests have 

been denied. 

Response 8: See section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this 

comment. THIS RESPONE IS NOT ADEQUATE As described in section VIII of the final rule 

preamble, if an extension request based on an initial submittal cannot be granted, the EPA will 

notify the state that such extension is denied and that the state has failed to submit a final state 

plan required by September 6, 2016. The EPA will publish such notification in the Federal 

Register. This finding of failure to submit is final agency action that is judicially reviewable.

Description of the correction: 

The EPA strikes the words, “See section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s 

response to this comment.” This is an inadvertently incorrect response as the final rule preamble 

does not contain EPA’s response to this comment. The EPA also strikes the words, “THIS 

RESPON(S)E IS NOT ADEQUATE”, which is an editorial note inadvertently left in the 

document. The corrected response is: “As described in section VIII of the final rule preamble, if 
80 

an extension request based on an initial submittal cannot be granted, the EPA will notify the state 

that such extension is denied and that the state has failed to submit a final state plan required by 

September 6, 2016. The EPA will publish such notification in the Federal Register. This finding 

of failure to submit is final agency action that is judicially reviewable.”

Page 296 

[NEED RESPONSE FOR LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS] 

Description of the correction: 

The EPA strikes the words, “[NEED RESPONSE FOR LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS]”, which is 

an editorial note inadvertently left in the document. The response provided that appears before 

these words on the preceding page is the intended response to the cComment 8. 

Chapter 7 

Page 2

CHAPTER 7 INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER 

EPA PROGRAMS AND RULES 

This chapter addresses comments received on interactions of the EGU GHG Emission 

Guidelines with other EPA programs and rules. Comments received on the following topics are 

covered by this chapter: EGU NSPS - new (Section 7.1), EGU NSPS - Modified and 

Reconstructed (Section 7.2), New Source Review (NSR) (Section 7.3), Title V Program (Section 

7.4), 40 CFR Part 75 (Section 7.5), Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (Section 7.6), Other 

EPA Rules (Section 7.7), and comments received on other topics relevant to this chapter (Section 

7.8). Comment topics are identified first and are followed by our response. Specific comments 

relating to the comment topics are summarized after our response.

Description of the correction: 

For clarity, added two sentences to the end of the first paragraph of the chapter, “Comment 

topics are identified first and are followed by our response. Specific comments relating to the 

comment topics are summarized after our response.” 

Page 3 Formatted: Font: Bold
81 

Response 2: Commenters asserted that the New Source Standard under section 111(b) of the 

Clean Air Act creates a negative disincentive or penalizes cycling to accommodate variable 

renewable generation even though the CO2 reductions would be sizable. This is really a 

comment on a different regulation rather than a comment on the proposed 111(d) emissions 

guidelines. None-the-less EPA would like to point the commenters to the recent study from the 

National Renewable Energy Lab that found that the there is only a negligible increase in CO2 

emissions from ramping and load-following to accommodate renewables. See:

http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western-wind-2.html

Description of the correction: 

Removed hyphens from the word “nonetheless” from Response 2. 

Page 8 

Response 3: If an EGU undergoes a change to decrease its hourly reductions that EGU would 

not become a modified EGU and would therefore get credit for the decrease in its emissions in 

complying with an emission standard or state measure. Additionally, that decrease in emissions 

would be reflected in the State’s overall average or cumulative sum of emissions. 

Description of the correction: 

Added an “e” to the word “therefore” and added an apostrophe to the word “State’s” to correct 

misspellings in Response 3. 

Pages 10 

... required, actions such as installing pollution controls, only to have these exemptions rejected 

by reviewing courts. The United States Court of Appeals in State of New York, et al., v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (NY I) was clear that we lack the authority to create such 

exemptions from the NSR rules. In addition, commenters’ suggestion that EPA define an 

“increase” in emissions under the NSR program to only include ... 

Description of the correction: 

Added space in Response 1 to the phrase “suggestion that EPA define an “increase” in emissions 

under the NSR program", correcting a typographical error. 

Page 72 

Response 3 The final rule does not require any adjustment factors to be applied to the 

volumetric flow rate reference method data obtained during a RATA, when the reference method 

is different from the method used in the previous RATA(s). Based on the possible changes to Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
82 

volumetric flow data from year to year and recognizing that these changes are not necessarily on 

a calendar year basis but rather multiple methods could impact a single calendar year, EPA in the 

GHG Mitigation Measures TSD (Chapter 2, Section 2.6.6) addresses the issue of flow 

monitoring changes and their impact on the heat rate analysis used to determine the CO2 

reductions attributable to potential heat rate improvements at coal-fired EGUs. Also, the final 

rule places no restrictions on the reference method that may be used for the flow RATAs. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected font in Response 3 for the text “Based on the possible changes to volumetric flow 

data from year to year and recognizing that these changes are not necessarily on a calendar year 

basis but rather multiple methods could impact a single calendar year, EPA in the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD (Chapter 2, Section 2.6.6)”.

Chapter 8A 

Page 11 (Footnote 2) 

Detailed information and documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.15), including all 

the underlying assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s 

website at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling

Page 20 

Response 11: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. IPM model run and parsed files for the 

proposal and final rulemaking are available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Detailed 

information and documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.15), including all the 

underlying assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s 

website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling.

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

Page 137 

Field Code Changed
83 

For more information, see the IPM Documentation, available in the docket and also at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity in the last sentence of Response 48. 

Pages 143-180 

Description of multiple corrections that follow below: 

Inserted and corrected sub heading labels on sub headings and responses omitted or erroneously 

entered for Comment 1 comment summaries and responses. Additionally, corrected hyperlink 

from http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling to 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html

Page 143 

“Comment 1: Comments asserted that the energy markets, including gas, coal, and electricity, 

are incorrectly modeled, and commenters expressed concerns regarding the EPA's IPM 

modeling. 

a. 1.a. Commenters asserted that EPA modeling does not adequately reflect sourcespecific or regional considerations. 

Commenters stated that they were concerned that Nebraska's public power districts may be 

unduly affected by EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. Commenters said that Nebraska is the 

only state who, by statute, meets all of its power needs through a public power system. 

Commenters said all power in Nebraska is delivered by entities governed by independently 

elected boards. Commenters said this system continues to be extremely effective in meeting the 

needs of Nebraska citizens by delivering reliable, low-cost electricity. Commenters said that as it 

stands, the Nebraska public power districts may need to reduce capacity and reliance on existing 

units in order to comply with this proposal. 

Page 153 

Response 1.a.: Commenters asserted that EPA modeling does not adequately reflect sourcespecific or state-specific concerns. A number of commenters stated that the CPP will impact 

particular states and sources disproportionately compared to others. Commenters contended that 

states more heavily dependent on coal generation will have greater impacts that are not 

adequately considered in the design of the CPP. The EPA disagrees with these commenters. 

EPA has directly considered differences that exist in state, locality, and source circumstances in 

its development of the CPP and has built into the rule flexibilities that will allow states to make 

optimal planning choices. The IPM modeling conducted for the CPP does consider source, 

locality, and state circumstances to estimate emission reductions, costs, and economic impacts of 
84 

the CPP, and this modeling is discussed in the IPM documentation available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling, in the RIA, and in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for the CPP Final Rule. 

Page 155 

a. 1.b. Commenters discussed that energy markets including coal, natural gas, and 

electricity are incorrectly modeled. 

Commenters stated that nuclear reactors are the most expensive electric generators available. The 

commenters stated that the cost of retaining nuclear generation has not been analyzed. The 

commenters stated that new nuclear generation is also exceedingly expensive requiring both 

federal and state subsidies for construction, putting a burden on consumers many times the costs 

of renewables. The commenters stated that since there was no analysis associated with non-air 

quality health and environmental issues, there should be no inclusion of nuclear as part of the 

renewable block and no credits for nuclear generation should be permitted in the carbon rule. 

Page 170 

Response 1.b.: Commenters disagreed with the modeling of energy markets used by the EPA to 

develop the CPP. A number of commenters asserted that increased electricity generation from 

natural gas will cause natural gas prices to rise, resulting in economic impacts. Commenters 

stated that EPA has not fully considered the potential volatility and increases in natural gas 

prices that will occur in the future potentially resulting in higher costs to consumers of electricity

and natural gas. Some commenters asserted that EPA had not fully considered pipeline 

infrastructure and transmission requirements of the CPP. Others stated that EPA had not 

considered market structure within the electricity market nor capital market requirements 

associated with retirements and new power plants. Commenters also discussed that electricity 

prices will rise as a result of the CPP. Commenters also took issue with the proposed treatment of 

nuclear power generation. In the final rule, the EPA made refinements to the building blocks, and 

these are reflected in the final BSER, including the exclusion of the proposed nuclear generation 

components. Comments relating to the impact of CPP on system reliability are discussed in 

section 8.9 of this response to response to comments document.

Page 171

c. 1.c. Commenters cited studies that report large cost and economic impacts will result 

from implementation of the Clean Power Plan 

Commenters stated that the proposed rule will increase energy costs and reduce the diversity of 

growth. The commenters stated that EPA estimates annual compliance costs between $5.4 and 

$7.4 billion in 2020, hitting $8.8 billion in 2030; but these numbers include only future power 

sector compliance costs, failing to capture the residual impacts of higher electricity rates on 

overall economic activity. Citing a recent Wall Street Journal editorial and an HIS study, the 

commenters stated that raising the price of carbon energy will also raise costs across the 

economy, which will ultimately flow to consumers and businesses resulting in slower economic 

growth, job losses, and less disposable income. The commenters stated that the IHS estimates 
85 

that the rule will result in an additional $289 billion in cumulative electricity payments by 

consumers from 2014 through 2030; a loss of 224,000 jobs on average through 2030; more than 

$50 billion in average annual GDP loss through 2030, with a peak GDP loss of nearly $104 

billion in 2025; and from 2014 through 2030, a cumulative reduction of $586 billion in 

disposable income. The commenters stated that families will have less disposable income as they 

spend more to light and heat their homes, with middle-income and lower-income Americans 

being hit the hardest. According to the commenters, in 2001, lower-income households spent 16 

percent of their after-tax income on energy and in 2014, these households will spend 26 percent 

of their budgets on energy (before taking into account any energy assistance programs). The 

commenters stated that lower-income families are especially vulnerable because energy costs 

represent a larger portion of their budgets and reduce the amount of income they can spend on 

food, housing, health care, and other necessities. 

Page 175 

Response 1.c.: A number of commenters stated that EPA’s cost estimates and the economic 

impacts of the CPP are understated. These commenters referenced studies conducted by HIS, 

NERA, EVA, the Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations. The EPA believes the studies 

referenced incorporate modeling assumptions that differ greatly from those used by EPA leading 

to erroneous conclusions. See responses to section 8.6, comment 5 of this Response to Comment 

document for responses to these referenced studies. The EPA believes that the modeling and 

analyses conducted by the EPA fully analyze the cost and economic impacts of the CPP and is a 

reasonable representation of the actions states make take in the design of their implementation 

plans. See section V of the preamble, the RIA and the GHG Mitigation Measures Technical 

Support Document for more information about the methods and modeling assumptions used by 

EPA to develop the cost and economic impacts of the CPP. 

e. 1.d. Commenters disagreed with EPA IPM modeling and modeling assumptions. 

American Action Forum: Commenters cited an American Action Forum estimate that if the new 

EPA regulations go into effect, Americans could see their electric bills increase annually by 

more than 10 percent - $150 for the average consumer- by the end of the decade. 

Commenters stated that the proposal overestimates what is technically feasible, and/or entails 

costs significantly higher than those projected by EPA. The commenters stated that if finalized in 

its current form, the proposal would substantially increase the rates Wyoming consumers, 

including WIEC's members, pay for their electricity, and could significantly impact the 

reliability of the electrical service they receive.

Page 180

Response 1.d.: Commenters asserted the energy markets including gas, coal and electricity are 

incorrectly modeled by EPA. Commenters discussed concerns about the Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) modeling completed to support the CPP. Some commenters disagreed with the 

assumptions used in the modeling, while others express concern about the ability of the model to 

adequately reflect factors such as reliability, infrastructure needs, and various aspects of 

electricity generation. Some commenters also contend that documentation of IPM is inadequate. 
86 

EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 

5.15 to estimate the illustrative costs, emission reductions, and economic impacts of the CPP. 

IPM is a multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the continental 

U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least-cost capacity expansion, electricity 

dispatch, and emission control strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, 

transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. EPA has used IPM for over two decades to 

better understand power sector behavior under future business-as-usual (i.e. baseline) conditions 

and evaluate the economic and emission impacts of prospective environmental policies. The 

model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. EPA uses the best 

available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial 

institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM. 

The model documentation provides additional information on the assumptions discussed here as 

well as all other model assumptions and inputs. EPA used IPM to project likely future electricity 

market conditions with and without the rule. The level of energy efficiency-driven reductions in 

electricity demand, and their associated costs, are reported in chapter 3 of the RIA. Within the 

IPM analysis reported in the RIA, cost impacts on the electric markets of needed additional gas 

pipeline infrastructure, transmission system upgrades, and other infrastructure investments as 

well as capital costs of new capacity, and other costs associated with retirement of generating 

units are considered. Additional demand-side energy efficiency measures that may be adopted in 

response to the regulation, and the resulting changes to future demand projections, are also 

accounted for in the illustrative compliance scenarios. The costs of energy efficiency programs 

are also incorporated into the illustrative cost estimates of the emission guidelines discussed in 

the RIA. See the Resource Adequacy and Reliability technical support document for additional 

analysis and discussion of the reliability analysis conducted by EPA for the CPP. Additionally, 

see IPM documentation available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling. See section V of the preamble for a discussion of costs of the final guidelines. 

Page 179 (Footnote 3) 

___________________________ 

3Detailed information and documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.15), including all 

the underlying assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s 

website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

Pages 235-281 

Description of multiple corrections that appear below: 
87 

Inserted and corrected sub heading labels on sub headings and responses omitted or erroneously 

entered for Comment 5 comment summaries and responses.

Page 235 

Comment 5: Jobs will be lost (or gained) as a result of the Clean Power Plan. 

a. 5.a. Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan will result in loss of jobs related to coal 

Commenters suggested that EPA now claims economic growth does not require commensurate 

electric energy growth despite economic principles and the EPA regulatory impact analysis 

observations that growth and the availability of electric power in this country has closely 

paralleled the growth in our economy for decades. The commenters stated that states such as 

Missouri that still build cars, process or produce aluminum, process meat and lumber, or have 

other energy intensive industries will be impacted by changes in the electric energy base load. 

Commenters questioned how a reduction in coal could result in a job growth of 28,000 jobs in 

the fuel extraction sector in 2020, as estimated by EPA. The commenters suggested that "when 

the health and welfare of people are adversely affected by the actions of man, some positive 

action is sometimes justified when very limited negative economic activity might occur". 

However, the commenters stated that the rule will result in severe economic hardships the 

proposed rule will result in job losses in coal mining states based upon unproven theories of 

climate change and should therefore not be accepted.

Page 240

Response 5.a.: The EPA recognizes that as older fossil-fuel fired power plants – chiefly coalfired power plants – retire, demand for coal will decrease, along with the jobs operating the 

closed plants and extracting coal. The EPA also recognizes that coal miners and coal plant 

operators have been facing ongoing job losses because of shifts in the market from coal to 

natural gas, and that there is likely to be additional job loss in sectors related to coal attributable 

to implementation of the CPP. Impacts on employment are estimated in the RIA for the CPP, see 

...

Page 241

b. 5.b. Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan will cause job loss in specific 

locations

Commenters cited EPA's projections that five of the seven coal units in Arkansas and all of the 

coal units in Arizona would shut down as a result of the proposed rule. As such, the commenters 

stated that these high wage job losses would devastate local economies, even in areas where new 

... 

Page 251
88 

Response 5.b.: While the EPA expects that there is likely to be additional job loss in sectors 

related to coal attributable to implementation of the CPP, many jobs in this field are expected to 

remain. For example, the Department of the Interior continues to work on an environmental 

impact statement to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of extending the operation of 

the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) and production of coal at the nearby Kayenta Mine for an 

extra 25 years, through 2044. 

Page 252

c. 5.c. Commenters state generally that the Clean Power Plan will result in job loss. 

Commenters proposed that implementation of the rule would cause serious economic harm, 

reduce energy diversity, increase electricity prices, jeopardize grid reliability, result in major job

losses, hinder coal technology advances and fail to achieve the administration and EPA's goal of 

global leadership on CO2. 

Commenters expressed concern that the rule would substantially increase electricity and natural 

gas costs, create liability problems, put the manufacture sector at risk, and reduce good paying 

jobs with relatively small global climate impact. The commenters cited EPA’s estimates that the 

proposed rule would reduce 730 million metric tons of carbon by 2030 but then stated that China 

increased its emissions nearly that same amount in one year. 

Page 257 

Response 5.c.: The EPA disagrees with commenters who assert that electricity prices are going 

to rise so dramatically as to cause widespread job loss, or to cause U.S. industries to be driven 

overseas. Below in section 8.6 comment 5 (titled: Commenters cite results from specific reports 

issued by stakeholder groups), the EPA discusses problems with the analyses in specific reports 

that make such assertions. The EPA acknowledges that there will be additional job loss in certain 

sectors of the economy associated with fossil fuel, and that is discussed earlier in section 8.6, 

comment 5 (titled: Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan will result in loss of jobs related 

to coal as well as Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan will cause job loss in specific 

locations) and in the RIA.

d. 5.d. Commenters state that energy efficiency creates more jobs than gas or coal. 

Commenters stated that a popular measure is to estimate jobs per dollar invested. The 

commenters stated that in the electricity space, a comparative analysis of efficiency compared to 

generation found that efficiency created twice as many jobs per dollar spent on nuclear power 

and 50% more jobs than coal and gas generation, and these large increases in economic activity 

lead to increases in employment. The commenters stated that the effect is magnified by the fact 

that the non-energy sectors of the economy are substantially more labor intensive than energy 

production, and the energy sector is less than half as labor intensive as the rest of the economy. 

The commenters puts forward that this effect is compounded where energy is imported (as in the 

... 

Pages 258-259
89 

Response 5.d.: The EPA recognizes that studies assessing implementation of energy efficiency 

measures across the country have shown increases in employment, and that many measures taken 

to increase efficiency are labor-intensive. For example, weatherizing buildings directly employs 

energy auditors and construction workers. While it is difficult to precisely estimate, much of the 

economic activity that is created it does increase employment directly. For example, there may 

be more machinists to manufacture new energy efficient appliances and equipment, construction 

workers to weatherize homes and buildings, service providers to conduct energy audits, and 

engineers and programmers to improve building energy management systems. 

e.5.e. Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan should have analyzed state and local 

effects. 

Commenters stated that EPA failed to analyze the Proposed Rule's state-level employment and 

other economic impacts of Building Block 1 and Building Block 2. The commenters contended 

that the retirements that Building Block 2 in particular precipitates could have dramatic local 

economic impacts; for example, if any of our coal-fired plants were forced to shut down it would 

mean the loss hundreds of high-wage jobs in rural areas where there are few or no alternative 

employment options, devastating the local economies. Further, the commenters believes that 

these areas would remain hard hit even if new NGCC facilities were constructed close by as the 

siting, permitting, financing and construction of NGCCs would take several years and require 

less than a third of the staff required to operate coal-fired power plants. Coal mine and craft labor 

job losses should also be expected. Commenters also stated that despite the extensive local 

economic impacts caused by Building Block 2, EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) only 

analyzes national employment impacts. The commenters also stated that while the employment 

impacts from some aspects of the Proposed Rule may be felt across all states (e.g., demand-side 

energy efficiency), the employment impact from coal plant retirements assuredly would not. The 

commenters recommends that to appropriately analyze the Proposed Rule's economic impact, 

EPA should determine state-specific employment effects. 

Response 5.e.: Because states have broad flexibility in tailoring programs to meet their goals, we 

cannot predict exactly where specific impacts will occur, although we know they are not spread 

evenly across the country. 

The national jobs estimates we have provided are illustrative – they represent one possible 

implementation scenario. The analysis relies on projections and costing analysis from the IPM 

model, which uses industry-specific data and assumptions to estimate costs and energy impacts 

of the CPP. The EPA uses IPM to predict coal generating capacity that is likely to undertake 

improvements in heat rate efficiency, and also to predict impacts of the CPP on fuel use, 

retirement of existing units, and construction of new ones. The IPM expenditure predictions are 

distributed across different labor categories. The EPA does, however, recommend that states in 

designing their state plans, consider the effects of their plans on employment and overall 

economic development to assure that the opportunities for economic growth and jobs that the 

plans offer are manifest. See Section VIII.G.3 of the preamble. The IPM model makes specific 

choices that may or may not match what states decide to do. For example, IPM assumes that 

units slated to retire will tend to all retire by 2020. In the real world, states and utilities will have 

the flexibility to change the timing and magnitude of retirement decisions, as long as they can 
90 

meet their goals. In addition, the EPA anticipates positive employment impacts – job gains – in 

many areas as a result of increased investment in demand-side energy efficiency and renewable 

energy. 

f. 5.f Commenters state that the Clean Power Plan will have a variety of negative ripple 

effects through the economy. 

Commenters stated the Plan callously disregards the impact of increased energy costs that have a 

domino impact on every step in the supply chain resulting increased costs of our goods and 

services, reduced competiveness and job losses. 

Page 262

Response 5.f.: The EPA agrees that plant closures affect other businesses that provide them with 

materials and fuels, and that closures also affect businesses in local communities where their 

employees spend their pay. However, the Clean Power Plan employment analysis illustrates not 

only declines in employment in some sectors (such as coal generated power) but also an increase 

in employment in other sectors (such as demand-side energy efficiency). The sectors 

experiencing growth will positively affect their suppliers and positively affect businesses where 

their employees spend their pay. 

The power sector of the 21st century is going to look somewhat different from the power sector 

of the 20th century, and the EPA recognizes that the transition is not going to affect everyone 

equally. That is why, as stated above, the CPP provides a ten-year timeframe from plan 

development to plan implementation. The ten-year timeframe allows states, utilities, and other 

stakeholders to work together to tailor their plans in the ways that best support their 

communities, so that they can not only reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but also ease the 

transition of their workforces to the low carbon economy. 

 g. 5.g. Commenters state that EPA should have done economy-wide modeling for the Clean 

Power Plan. 

Commenters stated that EPA's analysis of the employment impacts of the Proposed Rule was 

arbitrary and capricious because EPA only evaluated employment impacts in a few select 

industries. The commenters stated that EPA's partial economy model failed to address impacts 

in the communities that support coal-fired electricity generation and on consumers of electricity. 

The commenters stated that a whole economy model must include employment across a wide 

range of sectors, sufficient detail at the regional level to identify changes in the regional 

distribution of output and employment, international trade flows to evaluate how regulations will 

affect tradable sectors and dynamic analyses to examine adjustments in labor and capital markets 

in response to regulations over time. 

Page 264

Response 5.g.: To support the Transport Rule proposed in the summer of 2010, among other 

rulemakings, the EPA used the Economic Model for Policy Analysis (EMPAX) to estimate the 

effect of impacts projected by the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) on markets outside the 

electricity sector. EMPAX is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that 
91 

forecasts a new equilibrium for the entire economy after a policy intervention. While the external 

Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council) peer review of this study stated that 

inclusion of benefits in an economy-wide model, specifically adapted for use in that study, 

“represent[ed] a significant step forward in benefit-cost analysis,” EPA recognizes that serious 

technical challenges remain when attempting to evaluate the benefits and costs of potential 

regulatory actions using economy-wide models. Consistent with the Council’s advice regarding 

the importance of including benefit-side effects demonstrated by the 1990 to 2020 Clean Air Act 

study, and the lack of available multi-year air quality projections needed to include these benefitside effects, EPA has not conducted CGE modeling for this final rule. 

Pages 265-266

h. 5.h. Commenters take issue with the job-estimation approach in the Clean Power Plan. 

Commenters stated that EPA has omitted the lost employment costs from retired coal and 

drastically underestimated the green energy investment needed to create 78,800 jobs by 2020. 

The commenters stated that if EPA's employment projections of 78,800 are true, the cost of 

installing zero carbon energy will cost the economy $30.7 billion in 2020, a figure never 

mentioned in the RIA. (1) 

Commenters cited that the EPA estimates that employment could increase between 57,000 and 

78,800 jobs, rely on a jobs multiplier with no basis in reality. The commenters stated that EPA 

concedes, "Employment impacts of demand-side energy efficiency programs have not been 

extensively studied in the peer-reviewed, published economic literature." The commenters cited 

the EPA's use of a multiplier of 2.56 energy efficiency jobs per million dollars of spending, or 

$390,625 per job. The commenters stated that the earnings for the median worker are $30,454. 

The commenters stated that EPA's multiplier of $1 million in investment to create 2.56 jobs 

strains credibility, and compares it to the work of Richard Morgenstern, who found that $1 

million in environmental spending translates into roughly 1.5 new jobs. The commenters stated 

that EPA also relies on models of green investment spending in states, which multiplied by 

EPA's 2.56 jobs per $1 million in investment, yields roughly 78,800 jobs, meaning that the 

nation will spend more than $30.7 billion on energy efficiency investments by 2020. The 

commenters stated that this figure is not contained in EPA's RIA, but instead EPA claims from 

$8 billion to $12.3 billion "demand-side" energy efficiency costs by 2020. The commenters 

stated that EPA underestimates demand-side costs by threefold, and that a similar extrapolation 

for 2030 costs would approach $150 billion. The commenters stated that EPA's multiplier is 

significantly higher than past estimates and $30 billion in energy efficiency spending by 2020 is 

three times what EPA reports. 

Response 5.h.: The EPA has analyzed employment impacts in the coal industry (see chapter 6 of 

the RIA). The EPA fully recognizes that any displaced worker suffers costs, and, similarly, job 

search costs stop when newly hired workers start work. However, there is no agreement in the 

economics literature to date on whether we should, or how best to monetize employment 

impacts, both negative and positive. EPA has revised the demand-side energy efficiency jobs 

multiplier from the proposal and now uses a range, rather than a single estimate. In addition, 

EPA has included other estimates of demand-side energy efficiency jobs multipliers, from 
92 

government sources. A bar chart and discussion within the RIA show EPA’s estimates in the 

context of these other multipliers. 

i. 5.i. Commenters cite results from specific reports issued by stakeholder groups. 

Commenters cited the following reports in expressing concern about the potential for high costs, 

high electricity prices, and large numbers of jobs lost. Commenters stated these reports make a 

variety of assumptions that do not match the proposed or final Clean Power Plan, and do not 

consider the benefits of the Clean Power Plan, including job creation. Below is discussion of 

some major highlights of each report. 

 5.i.1. US Chamber of Commerce / Institute for 21st Century Energy report: 

Commenters cited the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's findings that the EPA's rules would result in 

225,000 jobs lost and an annual loss of $50 billion to the gross domestic product. The 

commenters stated that electric industry analysts suggest increases of 10-15 mills/kWh at current 

gas prices and the impact could escalate significantly if gas prices increase more than projected. 

Commenters cited a US Chamber of Commerce calculation of economy-wide job losses of 

224,000 per year through 2030. 

Pages 267-273 

Response 5.i.1.: The Chamber of Commerce report was issued before the Clean Power Plan was 

proposed. The Chamber reports costs that far exceed the Clean Power Plan’s projected costs; job 

losses that dwarf those estimated in the Clean Power Plan; and zero benefits or job gains. 

The report’s starting point is a set of policies resulting in a 42 percent drop in carbon dioxide 

emissions, which is significantly more stringent than the 30 percent reduction expected from the 

proposed Clean Power Plan. The resulting higher costs are further inflated by assuming that new 

natural gas-fired power plants would be required to apply carbon capture and storage (CCS), 

which is not the basis of BSER. On the other hand, no job gains are assigned to construction or 

operation of those plants. 

In general, spending on compliance is incorrectly assumed to be an unproductive use of capital, 

precipitating a loss in GDP, an effect for which real world evidence has never been produced. 

This “GDP loss” is then tied to prediction of significant job losses. 

The report also understates the likely implementation of energy efficiency measures. Its results 

include electricity demand growth (1.2%/year) that significantly exceeds the projections in the 

EIA 2014 Reference Case used by EPA (0.9%/year). The Chamber also assigns $50 billion of 

cost to energy efficiency implementation, while at the same time assuming no jobs will be 

created to implement those efficiency measures. It also assumes that states will only meet 50 

percent of their own state-level Energy Efficiency Resource standards, thereby assigning 

additional implementation cost (but no jobs) to the CPP. 
93 

 5.i.2. NERA/NMA/ACCCE report: 

Commenters stated that Federal regulations have already forced two plants in his district to close 

over the last two years. The commenters cited a National Mining Association projection that 

more than 300 plants would retire nation-wide due to EPA rules over the next six years. The 

commenters cited a Heritage Foundation study predicting that the EPA's anti-coal policies could 

terminate 600,000 American jobs by 2023 while causing economic growth to drop by more than 

$2 trillion. 

Commenters stated that the GHG ESPS will reduce demand for Indiana coal and result in losses 

of good paying jobs in rural communities. The commenters stated that manufacturing and 

agriculture are significant users of electricity in Indiana and will suffer significant losses if the 

proposed GHG ESPS is promulgated. The commenters stated that manufacturing and agriculture 

in Indiana are dependent on the low cost of electricity. The commenters stated that state's utility 

rate forecasting experts have predicted electrical rates in Indiana will rise by more than 30% over 

the next decade- prior to considering the impacts of the GHG ESPS. The commenters cited 

NERA projections that rates will be 12% more costly each year compared to EPA's projections. 

The commenters cited an Energy Ventures Analysis prediction that electric rates for industrial 

customers will increase by 50% by 2020, and natural gas costs in Indiana will increase by 108%. 

Commenters stated that the proposed rule would force Mississippi utilities to generate more 

electricity from natural gas, even ahead of lower-cost options. The commenters stated that 

increasing customers' exposure to volatile natural gas prices is bad for business and business 

owners, as well as individual ratepayers. The commenters cited the American Coalition for Clean 

Coal Electricity that the adoption of these regulations will lead to an increase of electricity rates 

of 14-19 percent in Mississippi and would place 3,400 direct and indirect coal jobs in jeopardy of 

being eliminated. 

Commenters stated that the cost estimates fail to reflect or capture the subsequent adverse 

spillover impacts of higher electricity rates on our nation's overall economic activity. The 

commenters cited an analysis by NERA Economic Consulting indicating that average U.S. 

electricity prices would increase by 12% per year and the total costs of the rule could be between 

$366 billion and $479 billion over a 15-year timeframe. The commenters stated that many of 

these costs will have to be absorbed by residential, commercial and industrial energy consumers. 

The commenters stated that higher energy prices disproportionately harm low-income and 

middle-income families. The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule would result in a direct 

loss of 52,000 jobs in the electric utility, mining and rail sectors due to plant closures. The 

commenters stated that an additional 100,000 indirect jobs are at risk for loss in communities 

affected by the closures, and that job losses would be concentrated in, "relatively poor, rural 

areas that are least able to afford the loss of high-wage skilled jobs." 

Response 5.i.2.: National Economic Research Associates (NERA) Economic Consulting issued 

its report after proposal of the CPP. NERA reports costs that far exceed the Clean Power Plan’s 

projected costs, sharp electricity prices increases inconsistent with EPA’s projections, and zero 

benefits. NERA does not report estimates for jobs gained or lost; its model assumes full 

employment across the economy. However, appendix A to the report suggests a method that 

could be used to derive “job-equivalents” from the model’s output. 
94 

The NERA report show results from several different implementation cases. The highest costs 

come from a case wherein NERA assumes that building block 3 and 4 (renewable energy and 

energy efficiency) are not available due to legal challenges. These costs are frequently cited by 

commenters. 

NERA derives its relatively high cost estimates by changing some key assumptions. For building 

block 1, instead of the 6 percent heat rate improvement for coal-fired plants that represent BSER 

in the proposed Clean Power Plan, NERA assumes a maximum improvement of 1.5 percent is 

possible, with other groups of units achieving either 1 percent improvement or no improvement. 

For proposed building block 3 (renewable energy), NERA does not report the cost assumptions 

in its model. 

For proposed building block 4 (demand-side energy efficiency), NERA uses a range of 

efficiency improvement costs significantly higher than the Clean Power Plan. Where the CPP 

uses a range of $550-770 dollars/MW-hour, NERA uses a range of 896-1,253 dollars/MW-hour. 

The combination of all of these choices made by NERA is overestimated negative impacts. 

 5.i.3. Energy Ventures Analysis report: 

Commenters stated that the GHG ESPS will reduce demand for Indiana coal and result in losses 

of good paying jobs in rural communities. The commenters stated that manufacturing and 

agriculture are significant users of electricity in Indiana and will suffer significant losses if the 

proposed GHG ESPS is promulgated. The commenters stated that manufacturing and agriculture 

in Indiana are dependent on the low cost of electricity. The commenters stated that state's utility 

rate forecasting experts have predicted electrical rates in Indiana will rise by more than 30% over 

the next decade- prior to considering the impacts of the GHG ESPS. The commenters cited 

NERA projections that rates will be 12% more costly each year compared to EPA's projections. 

The commenters cited an Energy Ventures Analysis prediction that electric rates for industrial 

customers will increase by 50% by 2020, and natural gas costs in Indiana will increase by 108%. 

Commenters stated that compliance with the proposed rule will significantly increase the cost of 

producing manufactured goods in the US, make US manufacturers less competitive with foreign 

manufacturers, and result in loss of American jobs. The commenters cited Energy Ventures 

Analysis findings of many flaws in EPA's underlying assumptions about power plant process 

efficiency improvements, non-hydro renewable energy expansion and rapid growth in consumer 

energy efficiency that were used to calculate state emission rate limitations. The commenters 

stated that EVA also found that EPA's assumptions are contrary to power industry practices and 

outside projections by the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) and other independent forecasts. 

Response 5.i.3.: The Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) study reports costs that exceed the Clean 

Power Plan’s projected costs, sharp electricity prices increases inconsistent with EPA’s 

projections, and zero benefits. EVA makes several analytic decisions that differ sharply from 

EPA’s. First, EVA assumes that there will be no heat rate improvements possible at coal-fired 

EGUs (building block 1). 
95 

EVA also relies on its own internally-derived forecast of state renewable power development, 

and appears to assume that some states will not meet their own state-level renewable portfolio 

standards (building block 3). In reality, most states with renewable portfolio standards are on 

track to meet them or have already met them.5

For energy efficiency (proposed building block 4), EVA’s energy efficiency results represent 

minimal improvement over EPA’s 2013 baseline (AEO 2013); therefore they report far less 

energy efficiency savings than EPA has estimated is achievable. 

 5.i.4. Heritage Foundation report: 

Commenters stated that Federal regulations have already forced two plants in his district to close 

over the last two years. The commenters cited a National Mining Association projection that 

more than 300 plants would retire nation-wide due to EPA rules over the next six years. The 

commenters cited a Heritage Foundation study predicting that the EPA's anti-coal policies could 

terminate 600,000 American jobs by 2023 while causing economic growth to drop by more than 

$2 trillion. 

Commenters cited a study by the Heritage Foundation that EPA's energy regulations would cost 

hundreds of thousands of jobs and cause a significant decline in personal income while having a 

minimal impact on global warming. The commenters stated that these regulations would reduce 

aggregate gross domestic product by more than $2.5 trillion between now and 2030, and 

employment would track nearly 300,000 jobs below the no-carbon-regulation baseline in an 

average year, with some years seeing an employment deficit of more than 1 million jobs. The 

commenters cited a NERA study estimating that the costs to comply with EPA's proposed plan 

could total $366 billion, or more and finds that 43 states will have double-digit electricity price 

increases. 

Commenters stated that Americans will be hit repeatedly with higher prices as businesses pass 

higher costs onto consumers. The commenters stated that if a company had to absorb the costs, 

high energy costs would shrink profit margins and prevent businesses from investing and 

expanding. The commenters stated that cutbacks result in less output, fewer new jobs, and less 

income. The commenters stated that the impact of a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at $37 

per ton in 2015 through 2030 would be substantial, including an average employment shortfall of 

nearly 300,000 jobs; a peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs; 500,000 jobs lost 

in manufacturing; an aggregate GDP loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted); and a 

total income loss of more than $7,000 per person (inflation-adjusted). The commenters stated 

that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has analyzed the economic impact of a 

 

Page 269, (Footnote 5)

5

 “http://www.resource-solutions.org/images/events/rem/presentations/2014/Barbose_Galen.pdf, 

Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Update”, Galen Barbose, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Presentation given at Renewable Energy Markets 2014, 

December, 2014. 
96 

$25/ton carbon tax using essentially the same model and found more than $2 trillion in lost GDP 

from 2014 to 2030 and a peak employment differential of 1 million lost jobs. 

Response 5.i.4.: The Heritage Foundation report was issued after the Clean Power Plan was 

proposed, but it does not analyze the proposed CPP. Instead it posits a national carbon tax. 

Heritage also reports job losses that dwarf those estimated in the Clean Power Plan; and zero 

benefits or job gains. 

The Heritage Foundation uses its own proprietary “input-out” model, the Heritage Energy Model 

(HEM) which is explained to be a derivative of EIA’s National energy Model System (NEMS). 

As noted in NEMS documentation, the model link between the energy sector and the rest of the 

economy requires a large number of modeling assumptions and choices. These modeling choices 

are important for understanding their results, but were not reported in the Heritage study. 

This modeling approach generally considers how higher production costs impact employment, 

but does not include the ability for firms to do things they would do in the real world, such as 

substitute materials used in the manufacturing process or innovate and create new, cleaner 

production processes. Therefore, it is likely to overstate job loss in the regulated sector. 

In addition, the Heritage report only focused on the manufacturing sector and did not account for 

sectors that may have positive employment impacts associated with implementation of the CPP. 

EPA’s employment analysis for the proposed Clean Power Plan included, in addition to the 

power sector and upstream industries such as coal and natural gas extraction, job gains resulting 

from new economic activity due to heat rate improvements, renewable energy and demand-side 

energy efficiency activities. 

 5.i.5. UMWA/IBEW report: 

Commenters cited the United Mine Workers of America prediction that there will be 75,000 

direct coal generation jobs lost by 2020 and 152,000 by 2030. The commenters cited the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that the agency's plans also would result in the 

loss of some 52,000 permanent direct jobs in utilities, mining and rail and at least another 

100,000 jobs in related industries, and that high-skill, middle-class jobs would be lost, falling 

heavily in rural communities that have few comparable employment opportunities. The 

commenters cited the US Chamber of Commerce projections that there will be 224,000 jobs lost 

on average each year through 2030, and the rule will result in a loss of $50 billion in GDP on 

average. The commenters cited Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, who examined the impact of 

renewable energy policies in Spain, found that 2.2 jobs were lost for every one job created. 

Commenters stated that EPA's carbon regulations could cause serious harm to the U.S. economy, 

raising energy prices, and costing jobs. The commenters cited United Mine Workers of America 

estimates that the rule will result in 187,000 direct and indirect job losses in the utility, rail, and 

coal industries in 2020, and cumulative wage and benefit losses from these sectors of $208 

billion between 2015 and 2035. The commenters stated that higher energy prices 

disproportionately harm low-income and middle-income families. The commenters cited a 

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analysis that the proposal could result in 

nationwide costs of up to $32 billion per year; and average electricity rate increases of up to 9.9 
97 

percent per year. The commenters cited the Wall Street Journal that the rule is a huge indirect tax 

and wealth redistribution scheme and that costs will ultimately flow to consumers and 

businesses. 23244 (9). Commenters cited an analysis by Eugene Trisko, counsel to the United 

Mine Workers of America that the CPP would destroy 187,000 direct and indirect jobs. 

Commenters stated that the CPP rule will lead to the closure of coal-burning power plants 

throughout the United States, resulting in the loss of more than 52,000 jobs in the coal, utility 

and railroad industries by 2020, and further direct job losses in those industries will reach 65,000 

by 2030 as a result of this rule. 

Commenters stated that the drastic reduction in coal generation will cost 52,000 direct and 

100,000 indirect jobs. The commenters stated that MATS and the CPP will close 40% of the coal 

generation that exists today, and eliminate 400,000 or more irreplaceable American jobs. The 

commenters stated that under the CPP Colorado will not receive credit for plant closures already 

made and will be forced to close at least three additional coal-fired plants. The commenters 

stated that in at least 22 other states the impact of the CPP will not be limited to the coal sector. 

Commenters stated that these job losses will have a ripple effect in the communities throughout 

the coalfields and beyond, where more than 208,000 jobs will be lost by 2030. 

Commenters stated that EPA estimates do not capture the subsequent spillover impacts of higher 

electricity rates on overall economic activity. The commenters stated that these increases will 

place an immense burden on U.S. businesses, and could eliminate the critical competitive 

advantage that affordable and reliable electricity provides to the American economy. The 

commenters stated that the United Mine Workers Association has estimated that the rule will 

result in 187,000 direct and indirect job losses in the utility, rail, and coal industries in 2020, and 

cumulative wage and benefit losses from these sectors of $208 billion between 2015 and 2035. 

Commenters stated that manufacturers and others who use natural gas for purposes other than 

electric generation will also see projected cost increases up to $50 billion. The commenters 

stated that 187,000 direct and indirect job will be lost in the utility, rail, and coal industries alone 

by 2020 and these sectors will lose cumulative wages and benefits of $208 billion by 2035. The 

commenters stated that by forcing the retirement of a significant portion of the state's electric 

generation capacity, the rule puts at risk the reliability of Texas' electric grid, the failure of which 

can have extremely dramatic financial impacts, as well as public health and safety impacts. 

Response 5.i.5.: Summary materials on the UMWA analysis were available to the EPA, but the 

full report was not, and does not seem to be available publicly. From the summary materials, the 

UMWA analysis appears to attribute all changes in the use of coal for electricity generation from 

2009 until 2030 entirely to the MATS and CPP rules, ignoring the significant drop in natural gas 

prices from 2009 to 2013, and fact that demand for electricity has been almost flat since 2009 

(EIA, AEO 2013 and AEO 2014). 

In addition, the UMWA materials cite job losses due to the changes in electricity generation, and 

appear to calculate future job losses by multiplying job-years6 by the number of jobs in each 

year, a practice that inflates the job loss numbers. UMWA also does not discount the dollars 

underlying the job-years calculations over time, which also artificially inflates job losses. 
98 

Additionally, it does not address benefits. Finally, it does not appear to address job gains such as 

employment related to natural gas, renewable energy, or energy efficiency (such as employment 

weatherizing buildings, conducting building energy audits, constructing and installing renewable 

energy, programming building energy management systems, etc.). 

j. 5.j. Commenters state that the clean power industry protects and creates jobs. 

Commenters stated that the proposed rule will create jobs. Commenters supported the Clean 

Power Plan and stated that it will save jobs, help protect farming, fishing, forestry and other rural 

resources undeniably impacted by carbon pollution, and reduce the job-killing impacts of carbon 

pollution. The commenters further stated that the solar energy employs roughly twice as many 

people as the coal mining industry, and added that other renewable resources also add jobs. 

Commenters also supported the Clean Power Plan because it provides an opportunity for more 

research, manufacturing and construction jobs, more efficient and less costly energy, cleaner air, 

improved health outcomes and more. 

Commenters stated that energy efficiency will help the economy through job creation and 

reduced energy expenditures, and cited a study by Southface which found that over 4,100 

Georgians were employed full-time in the energy-efficiency and building sciences sector in 

2013. 

Similarly, commenters stated that even in coal's brightest day in Georgia when it was producing 

about 70 percent of electricity, it only accounted for 2,700 jobs in Georgia whereas in 2012, 

there are already 10,000 jobs in the solar, wind, and energy efficiency industries. 

Page 277

Response 5.j.: The EPA acknowledges the job growth opportunities discussed by the 

commenters. Chapter 6 of the RIA provides information on job growth that may occur in the 

energy efficiency sectors as a result of the CPP. The Clean Power Plan encourages individual 

states to tailor their energy choices to suit their individual needs and circumstances, as long as 

goals are met. The EPA agrees that renewable energy will be an increasingly important building 

block in constructing our low carbon future. 

k. 5.k. Commenters stated that reduction in GHG emissions led to increased employment. 

Commenters stated that from 2006 to 2011, greenhouse gas emissions citywide fell 12% while 

population and workforce each grew by 6%. The commenters stated that it is important a 

significant share of those GHG reductions can be attributed to the shift to less carbon intensive 

electricity generation throughout the region. 

Page 279 

Response 5.k.: The EPA agrees that investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy has 

created and will continue to create a significant number of jobs. Our analysis in the Regulatory 
99 

Impact Assessment (RIA) for this rule estimates the potential employment benefits of the CPP. 

We also agree that most of the jobs installing and operating renewable energy, and making 

energy efficiency improvements to buildings, are by definition American jobs. Employment in 

energy efficiency and renewable energy includes employment in construction and installation, 

some of which is short-term, and employment in operating existing power systems, most of 

which is long-term. (See chapter 6 of the RIA for this rule.) 

l. 5.l. Commenters stated that limiting climate change will protect jobs related to outdoor 

recreation. 

Commenters stated concern over impacts of climate change on avian species. The commenters 

stated that America's 46 million birdwatchers spend roughly 32 billion dollars every year, 

generating 85 billion dollars in overall economic output, and 13 billion dollars in tax revenues. 

The commenters stated that bird-watching, hunting and other outdoor activities enjoyed by more 

than 80 million Americans support over 2.6 million jobs, and these jobs are at risk if EPA does 

not effectively control carbon emissions. 

Commenters states that their family members work in the winter ski industry in Lake Tahoe and 

their jobs may disappear due to diminished snowfall patterns. 

Response 5.l.: The EPA agrees that jobs related to outdoor recreation are an important part of 

the economy, and that climate change poses risks to wildlife habitat. In addition, many of these 

jobs are not located in major population centers, but in rural areas with fewer employment 

options -- near national parks, forests, and other class I areas, as well as near state parks and 

outdoor recreation areas 

m. 5.m. Commenters stated that there will be a need for worker assistance and retraining 

and that new jobs created need to be good jobs 

Commenters stated that union laborers are participating in the conversions of coal plants to 

natural gas, they are building the pipeline infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing natural 

gas demand, they are building three of the five nuclear reactor units under construction, and they 

are building wind farms and solar fields at unprecedented scale. The commenters stated that the 

... 

Page 281

Response 5.m.: The EPA agrees that there will be a need for workforce retraining as part of the 

transition to a lower carbon economy. As noted above, we have been seeing many states 

implementing replicable programs to transition their workforces – by working in public-private 

partnerships with their community colleges and businesses - to secure an economic advantage as 

they transition local economies. In addition the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, 

Small Business Administration, and the Appalachian Regional Commission have together 

created an initiative to issue grants to partnerships of regionally-driven economic development 

and workforce development organizations in impacted coal communities.7

 

The timeframe of the CPP from plan development to plan implementation affords states, utilities 

and other stakeholders the ability to work together to tailor their plans in the ways that best 
100 

support their communities. The EPA strongly encourages states to put effort into workforce 

development and creation of safe, good paying jobs, in order to help communities transition to a 

lower carbon economy.

n. 5.n. Commenters stated that biomass co-firing would create many additional jobs and 

should be included in the Clean Power Plan 

Commenters stated that the inclusion of forest-derived biomass feedstocks in the Clean Power 

Plan creates economic development opportunities across many sectors and throughout the supply 

chain. The commenters stated that an increase in biomass feedstocks coming from sustainably 

managed forests would provide economic stimulus and job growth beginning with the individual 

forest owner and carrying through the logging, transportation and electricity generation 

industries. 

Commenters stated that biomass co-firing in the U.S. Southeast is estimated to create 6 times the 

jobs lost from reduced coal demand, due to the increased labor needed for biomass supply 

chains. The commenters stated that a 500MW coal plant supports 2,540 direct jobs, while a 

500MW biomass plant supports 3,480 jobs. 

Response 5.n.: The EPA acknowledges the commenters remarks on the job creation potential of 

biomass co-firing. A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance 

purposes can be found in section VIII.I.2.c and Section VIII.K.1 of the final rule preamble. A 

discussion regarding employment and economic development can be found in section VIII.G.3 

and in Section XI.E. 

Page 348 (Footnote 10)

___________________________ 

10 http://www.epda.gov/power/. 

Description of the correction: 

Web address corrected: http://www.eda.gov/power/ 

Pages 387-391 

Description of multiple corrections shown below: 

Inserted and corrected sub heading labels on sub headings and responses omitted or erroneously 

entered for Comment 24 comment summaries and responses.
101 

Page 387

Comment 24: Clean Power Plan will impact Tribes.

a. 24.a. Commenters state that certain tribes are coal-based economies that the CPP may 

impact negatively affecting these tribal economies and tribal jobs. 

Commenters stated that the Navajo Nation is a coal-based economy and believes that any climate 

change rule promulgated by EPA should consider the unique situation of the Navajo Nation, 

including its underdeveloped economy, lack of access to electricity, and staggering 

unemployment rate. 

Page 390

Response 24.a.: As described in sections III.A and XI.F of the preamble to the proposed carbon 

pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 34845-34847; June 18, 2014) and 

sections II.D and VI.F of the preamble to the proposed carbon pollution emission guidelines for 

existing EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories (79 FR 65489; November 4, 2014), the 

final CPP was developed after extensive and vigorous outreach to tribal governments. After 

issuing the supplemental proposal, the EPA held additional consultation with tribes as described 

in the preamble for the final rule Section VII.F.

The EPA conducted an analysis of the cost, benefit and economic impacts of the CPP for tribes 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines Supplemental 

Proposal and for the final emission guidelines in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean 

Power Plan Final Rule (RIA) for illustrative implementation scenarios. This rule does not 

directly impose specific requirements on EGUs located in states, U.S. territories or areas of 

Indian country. The rule also does not impose specific requirements on tribal governments that 

have affected EGUs located in their area of Indian country. For areas of Indian country, the rule 

establishes CO2 emission performance goals that could be addressed through either tribal or 

federal plans. See the RIA and final rule preamble section XII. F. for more information. 

b. 24.b. Commenters state that renewable energy will be beneficial to tribes by providing 

steady revenue, creating jobs, allowing tribes to manage their own electricity projects and 

improving the standard of living for tribes. 

Page 391 

Response 24.b.: The EPA agrees with commenters that renewable energy (RE) may be 

beneficial for tribes. Tribes may find opportunities to use renewable generation to obtain steady 

revenues for the tribal government (for example, through export of electricity), to create jobs on 

the reservation, to manage their own electricity projects as opposed to depending on private 

entities for service delivery, and to ensure a better standard of living for tribal members who 

currently lack access to electricity services. See section IX.B of the final rule preamble for 
102 

further discussion of how EPA is promoting community involvement in the state plan 

development process. Additionally, in sections IX.C and D the agency provides information on 

resources that it will be making available to help low-income communities access EE/RE and 

financial assistance programs. Additionally, in section IX.C the EPA encourages states to 

consider similar approaches to approaches that other states are already using to help provide lowincome communities with access to financial and technical assistance programs for EE and RE.

c. 24.c Commenters state that emissions from the Navajo Generating Station and five other 

coal-fired power plants are harming tribal health. 

Commenters stated that EPA should be able to protect public health and safety and that 

emissions from Navajo Generating Station and five other coal-fired power plants in the region is 

harming tribal health. Commenters stated that a host of respiratory illness plagued those living 

on Black Mesa with bronchitis and black lung disease and asthma. 

Page 392 

Response 24.c.: Tribal health and safety associated with air quality in and around the Navajo 

Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plants are important to the EPA and are a part of its 

mission as mandated by the Clean Air Act. Programs such as the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are established to 

protect health and welfare from criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants, respectively. 

Recent actions taken or planned for regional haze at the Four Corners Generating Station and for 

the Navajo Generating Station will be beneficial for air quality in the region as well as resulting 

in regional haze improvements. In Navajo territory, units are expected to shut down in order to 

comply with requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) prior to the target 

date for the goals proposed in this action.14 These units represented approximately 30 percent of 

total EGU CO2 emissions in Navajo territory in 2012. 

Page 412-413 

EPA used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to estimate the emission reductions, costs, 

changes in generation and economic impacts associated with the guidelines by EPA. This model 

has been peer reviewed and used extensively by EPA and other organizations to analyze costs 

and impacts of regulatory actions for the power sector. Detailed documentation forIPM v.5.15 is

available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission 

control strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and 

reliability constraints. EPA has used IPM for over two decades to better understand power sector 

behavior under future business-as-usual (i.e. baseline) conditions and evaluate the economic and 

emission impacts of prospective environmental policies. The model is designed to reflect 

electricity markets as accurately as possible. EPA uses the best available information from 

utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and government 
103 

statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM. The EPA believes that the 

assumptions used in modeling the final rule and reported in the RIA best reflect actions that may 

be taken by states in implementation planning of the final CPP. However as previously noted, 

states will make the ultimate decisions as to implementation planning. See the RIA completed 

for the final CPP, the GHG Mitigation Measures technical support document, and section 8.4 of 

this response to comment document for more discussion of the underlying assumptions used in 

the IPM modeling for the final rule. 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

Response 14: EPA disagrees with these comments. IPM is the best available modeling tool for 

assessing power sector/environmental impacts of policy initiatives. IPM is a multi-regional, 

dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides 

forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies 

while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability 

constraints. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. The 

EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market 

experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector 

modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional information on the assumptions 

discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and inputs. Detailed information and 

documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.15), including all the underlying assumptions, 

data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/BaseCasev513.html 

Chapter 8B 

Page 185 

Response 14: EPA disagrees with these comments. IPM is the best available modeling tool for 

assessing power sector/environmental impacts of policy initiatives. IPM is a multi-regional, 

dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides 

forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies 

while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability 

constraints. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. The 

EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market 

experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector 

modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional information on the assumptions 

discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and inputs. Detailed information and 

documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.15), including all the underlying assumptions, 

data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling/BaseCasev513.html
104 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity. 

Page 194 

With regards to the comment that it is unclear as to whether future population growth and 

industry demand growth are considered in the development of the CPP, the EPA does consider 

future electricity demand in the IPM modeling conducted. EIA forecasts are incorporated into 

IPM. See Chapter 3 of the RIA and documentation for the IPM model available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/powersectormode

ling 

Description of the correction: 

Corrected web address, for clarity in Response 15. 

Chapters 9-12 

Page 2 

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas in the regulatory process are crucial and necessary to develop rules that 

‘”protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness and job creation...’” Following the direction in the Presidential 

Memorandum to the Administrator (June 25, 2013),1 the EPA engaged in extensive and vigorous 

outreach to stakeholders and the general public at every stage of development of the rule. The 

EPA’s outreach included direct engagement with the energy and environment officials in states, 

tribes, and a full range of stakeholders including leaders in the utility power sector, labor leaders,

non-governmental organizations, other federal agencies, other experts, community groups and 

members of the public. The EPA participated in more than 300 meetings before the rule was 

proposed and more than 300 after the proposal. The proposed guidelines were also subject to a 

formal comment and response process. For more information on the process afforded the public 

for participation in this rulemaking see section II.K (Stakeholder Outreach and Consultations) of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. The EPA also conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

to assess the benefits, costs and economic impacts to society for both the proposed and the final 

emission guidelines. In this analysis, the EPA found that the benefits of the guidelines to society 

far outweigh the costs. See the RIAs for the proposed and final rule in the docket (EPA-HQOAR-2013-0602) for further information. 

Description of the correction: 
105 

Changed quotation marks from single to double and the font to superscript for footnote 1 in the 

body of the response for Response 1 to provide clarity. 

Page 3 

Response 2: The EPA conducted an RIA assessing the costs and benefits of the Clean Power 

Plan proposal and final guidelines consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and 

E.O.13563. The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) was used to estimate the emission reductions 

and costs associated with the guidelines. All promulgated EPA regulations affecting the power 

sector are incorporated into the baseline of IPM for development of the emission reductions, 

costs, and benefits for the guidelines. (See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 for the RIA 

conducted for the proposed and final emission guidelines and more details on the analysis 

conducted.) The final CPP establishes emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to 

...

Description of the correction: 

Changed text from “a” to “an” in Response 2 for clarity. 

Page 18 

Tribes are not required to submit implementation plans under the CAA. With respect to 

comments regarding states that decline to submit 111(d) plans or tribes without authority to 

develop and implement section 111(d) plans, the EPA has initiated a rulemaking for a federal 

plan as a mechanism for implementation of the emission guidelines for those states or tribes that 

do not develop a plan and for which the EPA makes a finding that it is necessary or appropriate..

The affected EGUs in the states or areas of Indian country that do not develop a state plan as part 

of the emission guidelines are the entities that will be subject to the federal plan rulemaking. The 

federal plan rulemaking will appropriately assess the direct impacts on those EGUs, including 

those owned by small entities. 

Description of the correction: 

Deleted extra period in last paragraph of Response 3. 

Page 22 

The EPA points out that, in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and the EPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,” an RIA was prepared in support 

of the proposed action as well as the final action. The RIA presents the expected benefits, costs, 

and economic impacts of illustrative strategies states may implement to comply with the 

emission guidelines in 2020, 2025, and 2030. Additionally, the RIA includes information on 

potential impacts on electricity markets, employment, and markets outside the electricity sector. 
106 

Description of the correction: 

Changed text from “a” to “an” in fifth paragraph of Response 1 for clarity. 

Page 103 

Comment 4: Net energy output 

Response 4: The EPA has revised the definition of net energy output to include 100 percent of 

useful thermal output to address the issues raised by the commenters. See Comment 7 of this 

section noting that the EPA is using a definition of useful thermal output for the final rule 

consistent with other subparts in 40 CFR part 60. Additionally the EPA has added a definition 

for 

Description of the correction: 

Delete the words, “Additionally the EPA has added a definition for”. Add sentence “See 

Comment 7 on page 107 of this file noting that the EPA is using a definition of useful thermal 

output for the final rule consistent with other subparts in 40 CFR part 60.”