Vol. 79 Tuesday, 

No. 213 November 4, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

48 CFR Part 60 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

EGUs in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; Multi-Jurisdictional 

Partnerships; Proposed Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602, FRL–9918–54– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR33 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines 

for Existing Stationary Sources: EGUs 

in Indian Country and U.S. Territories; 

Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2014, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed emission guidelines for states 

to follow in developing plans to address 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 

existing fossil fuel-fired electric 

generating units (EGUs). In this 

supplemental action, the EPA is 

proposing emission guidelines for U.S. 

territories and areas of Indian country 

with existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing ratebased goals for carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions for U.S. territories and areas 

of Indian country with existing fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs, as well as guidelines 

for plans to achieve those goals. The 

EPA is also soliciting comment on 

authorizing jurisdictions (including any 

states, territories and areas of Indian 

country) without existing fossil fuelfired EGUs subject to the proposed 

emission guidelines to partner with 

jurisdictions (including any states) that 

do have existing fossil-fuel fired EGUs 

subject to the proposed emission 

guidelines in developing multijurisdictional plans. The EPA is also 

soliciting comment on the treatment of 

renewable energy, demand-side energy 

efficiency and other new low- or nonemitting electricity generation across 

international boundaries in a state plan. 

This supplemental proposed rule would 

continue progress already underway to 

reduce CO2 emissions from existing 

fossil fuel-fired power plants in the 

United States. 

DATES:

Comments on the supplemental 

proposed rule. Comments must be 

received on or before December 19, 

2014. 

Comments on the information 

collection request. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), since the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the information collection request 

between 30 and 60 days after November 

4, 2014, a comment to the OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if the 

OMB receives it by December 4, 2014. 

Public Hearing. A public hearing will 

be held to accept oral comment on the 

supplemental proposed rule on 

November 19, 2014, at the Phoenix 

Convention Center and Venues, 100 N. 

3rd St., Phoenix, Arizona. The hearing 

will begin at 9:00 a.m. (Mountain 

Standard Time) and will conclude at 

8:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time). 

There will be a lunch break from 12:00 

p.m. to 1:00 p.m. and a dinner break 

from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0602 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Facsimile: (202) 566–9744. Include 

docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0602 on the cover page. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail code 28221T, Attn: Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. In addition, please mail a 

copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for the 

EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC 

West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attn: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0602. Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the Docket Center’s normal hours 

of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

federal holidays), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and Docket ID 

No. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602). The 

EPA’s policy is to include all comments 

received without change, including any 

personal information provided, in the 

public docket, available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Mr. 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information you 

claim as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

The EPA requests that you also 

submit a separate copy of your 

comments to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). If the comment 

includes information you consider to be 

CBI or otherwise protected, you should 

send a copy of the comment that does 

not contain the information claimed as 

CBI or otherwise protected. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65483 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding federal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. Visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for 

additional information about the EPA’s 

public docket. 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed rule will be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW). Following 

signature, a copy of this proposed rule 

will be posted at the following address: 

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/. 

Public Hearing: To register for the 

hearing please use the online 

registration form available at: http://

www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollutionstandards/clean-power-plan-proposedrule. For questions regarding 

registration, please contact Ms. Pamela 

Garrett at (919) 541–7966. The last day 

to pre-register to speak at the hearing 

will be November 14, 2014. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, we ask that you pre-register 

for the hearing by November 14, 2014, 

as we may not be able to arrange such 

accommodations without advance 

notice. Please note that any updates 

made to any aspect of the hearing will 

be posted online at: http://

www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollutionstandards/clean-power-plan-proposedrule. While the EPA expects the hearing 

to go forward as set forth above, we ask 

that you monitor our Web site or contact 

Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 to 

determine if there are any updates to the 

information on the hearing. The EPA 

does not intend to publish a notice in 

the Federal Register announcing any 

such updates. The hearing will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed action. The 

EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the 

hearing and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. The EPA plans for the 

hearing to run on schedule; however, 

due to onsite schedule fluctuations, 

actual speaking times may shift slightly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–2469; facsimile number: (919) 

541–5450; email address: king.melanie@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms. 

A number of acronyms and chemical 

symbols are used in this preamble. 

While this may not be an exhaustive 

list, to ease the reading of this preamble 

and for reference purposes, the 

following terms and acronyms are 

defined as follows: 

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology 

BSER Best System of Emission Reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HCl Hydrochloric Acid 

Hg Mercury 

ICR Information Collection Request 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

MHA Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt-hour 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PREPA Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority 

RE Renewable Energy 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SCC Social Cost of Carbon 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TAR Tribal Authority Rule 

TAS Treatment in the same manner as a 

State 

TSD Technical Support Document 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Organization and Approach for This 

Supplemental Proposal 

II. Background 

A. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines 

Proposal 

B. Implications for U.S. Territories 

C. Implications for Areas of Indian Country 

D. Additional Outreach and Consultation 

III. Goals for U.S. Territories and Areas of 

Indian Country 

A. Overview 

B. Proposed Goals and Computation 

Procedure 

C. Alternate Goals Offered for Comment 

and Other Approaches Considered 

D. Additional Considerations for U.S. 

Territories and Indian Country 

IV. CAA Section 111(d) Plans 

A. U.S. Territories 

B. Areas of Indian Country With Affected 

EGUs 

C. Applicability of the Proposed Emission 

Guidelines to U.S. Territories and 

Eligible Indian Tribes 

D. Areas Without Affected EGUs 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Action 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the energy impacts? 

C. What are the compliance costs? 

D. What are the economic and employment 

impacts? 

E. What are the benefits of the proposed 

action? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

VII. Statutory Authority 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Under the authority of Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 111(d), the EPA is 

proposing emission guidelines to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In the June 18, 2014, proposal, the EPA noted 

that the primary GHG emitted by fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs is CO2. Therefore, both that proposal and this 

supplemental proposal focus on reductions of CO2

emissions and impose control requirements on only 

CO2 emissions. 

2 In this preamble, the terms ‘‘existing fossil fuelfired EGUs,’’ ‘‘existing sources,’’ ‘‘existing fossil 

fuel-fired power plants,’’ ‘‘affected fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs’’ and the like generally refer to affected EGUs. 

3 79 FR 34830. 

4As noted below, the EPA issued a second 

proposal on June 18, 2014, under CAA section 111, 

which proposed standards of performance for CO2

emissions from modified or reconstructed fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs. 79 FR 34960. Unless otherwise 

indicated, all references in this preamble to the June 

18, 2014, proposal refer to the proposal for existing 

sources. 

5The EPA has received numerous comments on 

the June 18, 2014, proposal. This supplemental 

proposal is consistent with the analytic framework 

used in the June 18, 2014, proposal and does not 

reflect any type of response to the comments that 

the EPA has received to date on that proposal. 

6The discussion of CAA section 111(d) plans in 

the June 18, 2014, proposal referred to ‘‘multi-state’’ 

plans. In this supplemental proposal, the EPA uses 

the terminology ‘‘multi-jurisdictional’’ plans to 

account for situations where plans may include 

tribes in addition to states. 

7Option 1 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.B of this supplemental proposal. As explained in 

more detail in section III.B, Approach A mirrors the 

proposed methodology from the June 18, 2014, 

proposal for building block 3. 

address GHG emissions from existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs located in U.S. 

territories and areas of Indian country. 

The EPA is proposing rate-based goals 

for CO2 1 emissions in U.S. territories 

and areas of Indian country with 

existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs that meet 

applicability requirements (‘‘affected 

EGUs’’),2 as well as guidelines for plans 

to achieve those goals. This rule, as 

proposed, would continue progress 

already underway to reduce CO2

emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired 

power plants in the United States. This 

action is a supplemental proposal to the 

June 18, 2014, proposed carbon 

pollution emission guidelines for states 

to follow in developing plans to address 

GHG emissions from existing fossil fuelfired EGUs.3 This action is based on the 

same analytic framework as the June 18, 

2014, proposal for existing sources, with 

minor adjustments to address data 

limitations and other circumstances 

unique to Indian country and/or 

territories.4 This preamble presumes 

familiarity with that June 18, 2014, 

proposal.5

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

The proposal has two main elements: 

(1) Emission rate-based CO2 goals 

specific to each U.S. territory and area 

of Indian country that has affected 

EGUs; and (2) guidelines for the 

development, submission and 

implementation of plans to achieve the 

goals. The EPA is aware of three areas 

of Indian country with affected EGUs: 

Lands of the Navajo Nation, lands of the 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation and lands of the Fort 

Mojave Tribe. The EPA’s information is 

that there are two U.S. territories that 

have affected EGUs: Puerto Rico and 

Guam. 

To set the proposed area-specific CO2

goals, the EPA generally applied the 

same approach to determining the ‘‘Best 

System of Emission Reduction’’ as 

called for in CAA section 111(d) used in 

the June 18, 2014, proposal for 

establishing CO2 goals for states. This 

approach, which relies on four groups of 

emission reduction measures that the 

EPA refers to as ‘‘building blocks,’’ 

includes improvements in efficiency at 

carbon-intensive power plants; 

programs that enhance the dispatch 

priority of, and spur private investments 

in, low emitting and renewable power 

sources; and programs that help homes 

and businesses use electricity more 

efficiently. As explained in the June 18, 

2014, proposal for existing sources, 

these building blocks are based on 

practical and affordable strategies that 

are already being used to lower carbon 

pollution from the power sector. In 

addition, in calculating each CO2 goal, 

the EPA took into consideration each 

area’s fuel mix, its electricity market 

and other factors that are relevant to 

application of the four building blocks. 

Thus, each goal reflects the unique 

conditions for each U.S. territory or area 

of Indian country. 

For U.S. territories that contain 

affected EGUs, while this proposal lays 

out jurisdiction-specific CO2 goals, it 

does not prescribe how the territory 

should meet its goal. CAA section 

111(d) creates a partnership between the 

EPA and the U.S. territories (as well as 

states) under which the EPA sets these 

goals and the territories take the lead on 

meeting them by creating plans that are 

consistent with the EPA guidelines. 

Each territory will have the flexibility to 

design a program to meet its goal in a 

manner that reflects its particular 

circumstances and energy and 

environmental policy objectives. Each 

territory can do so alone or can 

collaborate with other jurisdictions, 

including states, on multijurisdictional 6 plans that may provide 

additional opportunities for cost savings 

and flexibility. To facilitate the planning 

process, this proposal lays out 

guidelines for the development and 

implementation of plans. 

For areas of Indian country that 

contain affected EGUs, this proposal 

also lays out specific CO2 goals, without 

prescribing how each area should meet 

its goal. A tribe with jurisdiction over 

the affected EGUs in its area has the 

opportunity, but not the obligation, to 

establish a plan for its area of Indian 

country. Each tribe can do so alone or 

can collaborate with other jurisdictions, 

including states and territories, on 

multi-jurisdictional plans that may 

provide additional opportunities for 

cost savings and flexibility. If a tribe 

does not seek and obtain the authority 

to establish a plan, the EPA is 

responsible for establishing a plan if it 

determines that a plan is necessary or 

appropriate. At this time, the EPA is not 

including a proposal for whether it is 

necessary or appropriate to establish a 

plan for any area of Indian country, and 

is not proposing a federal plan for any 

area of Indian country. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

Actions taken to comply with the 

proposed guidelines set out in this 

supplemental proposal will reduce 

emissions of CO2 and other air 

pollutants, including sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), from 

the electric power industry, specifically 

from affected EGUs in Guam and Puerto 

Rico. The costs and benefits of these 

compliance actions are discussed below. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

V of this supplemental proposal, the 

EPA does not expect any additional 

costs or benefits associated with 

compliance for areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs; one area is expected 

to meet its proposed goal through 

compliance with other regulations, and 

the costs and benefits for the other areas 

were already accounted for in the June 

18, 2014, proposal. The U.S. territories 

of Guam and Puerto Rico will make the 

ultimate determination as to how their 

proposed emission guidelines are 

implemented in their jurisdictions. 

Thus, all costs and benefits reported for 

this action are illustrative estimates. The 

illustrative costs and benefits are based 

upon compliance approaches that 

reflect a range of measures consisting of 

improved operations at EGUs, increased 

dispatching of lower-emitting EGUs and 

zero-emitting energy sources and 

increasing levels of end-use energy 

efficiency. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach A 7 will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $73 

million (3 percent model average, 

2011$), as shown in Table 1. The 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs are a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65485 

8Option 2 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.C of this supplemental proposal, reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks and a 

shorter implementation period. 

9Option 1 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.B of this supplemental proposal. As explained in 

more detail in section III.B, Approach B includes 

an adjustment to the proposed methodology from 

the June 18, 2014, proposal for building block 3. 

10Option 2 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.C of this supplemental proposal, reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks and a 

shorter implementation period. 

savings of approximately $140 million 

(2011$) in 2020. The quantified 2020 

net benefits (the difference between 

monetized benefits and costs) are $210 

million (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate. In 2030, as shown in 

Table 1, the illustrative compliance 

approach for Option 1—Approach A in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $170 million (3 percent 

model average, 2011$). The illustrative 

annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs in 2030 

are a savings of $350 million, including 

reduced fuel expenditures from energy 

efficiency programs and re-dispatch. 

The quantified 2030 net benefits are 

$520 million (2011$, 3 percent discount 

rate). 

For Option 2—Approach A,8 the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for EGUs in Guam 

and Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $68 

million (3 percent model average, 

2011$), as shown in Table 2. The 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs are a 

savings of approximately $130 million 

(2011$) in 2020. The quantified 2020 

net benefits (the difference between 

monetized benefits and costs) are $200 

million (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate. In 2025, as shown in 

Table 2, the illustrative compliance 

approach for Option 2—Approach A in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $99 million (3 percent 

model average, 2011$). The illustrative 

annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs in 2025 

are a savings of $190 million, including 

reduced fuel expenditures from energy 

efficiency programs and re-dispatch. 

The quantified 2025 net benefits are 

$290 million (2011$, 3 percent discount 

rate). 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach B9 will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $77 

million (3 percent model average, 

2011$), as shown in Table 3. The 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs are a 

savings of approximately $140 million 

(2011$) in 2020. The quantified 2020 

net benefits (the difference between 

monetized benefits and costs) are $220 

million (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate. In 2030, as shown in 

Table 3, the illustrative compliance 

approach for Option 1—Approach B in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $180 million (3 percent 

model average, 2011$). The illustrative 

annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs in 2030 

are a savings of $360 million, including 

reduced fuel expenditures from energy 

efficiency programs and re-dispatch. 

The quantified 2030 net benefits are 

$540 million (2011$, 3 percent discount 

rate). 

For Option 2—Approach B,10 the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Guam and 

Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $73 

million (3 percent model average, 

2011$), as shown in Table 4. The 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs are a 

savings of approximately $130 million 

(2011$) in 2020. The quantified 2020 

net benefits (the difference between 

monetized benefits and costs) are $210 

million (2011$) using a 3 percent 

discount rate. In 2025, as shown in 

Table 4, the illustrative compliance 

approach for Option 2—Approach B in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $110 million (3 percent 

model average, 2011$). The illustrative 

annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs in 2025 

are a savings of $200 million, including 

reduced fuel expenditures from energy 

efficiency programs and re-dispatch. 

The quantified 2025 net benefits are 

$300 million (2011$, 3 percent discount 

rate). 

For all options and approaches, the 

proposed guidelines would reduce 

emissions of precursor pollutants (e.g., 

SO2, NOX and directly emitted particles) 

in the territories, which in turn would 

lower ambient concentrations of fine 

particulate (PM2.5) and ozone (O3). Apart 

from the climate benefits described 

above, there will also likely be 

significant health co-benefits association 

with the projected reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions in Guam and Puerto 

Rico. However, the EPA is unable to 

quantify these health co-benefits 

because the benefit-per-ton values the 

EPA typically uses for this purpose are 

only appropriate for areas within the 

continental United States. As is 

described in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such 

as heart attacks, hospital admissions 

and respiratory morbidities such as 

asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 

hospital and emergency department 

visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days and respiratory symptoms. 

Reducing exposure to O3 is also 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

mortality and respiratory morbidity 

such as fewer asthma attacks, hospital 

and emergency room visits and school 

loss days. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 1—APPROACH A a

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2030 

Proposed Guidelines Illustrative Compliance Approach 

Climate Benefits b .................................................................................... $73 ................................................ $170. 

Annualized Capital, Energy Efficiency and Monitoring, Reporting, & 

Recordkeeping Costs.

$24 ................................................ $190. 

Change in Fuel Expenditure .................................................................... ¥$160 ........................................... ¥$540. 

Total Compliance Costs c ........................................................................ ¥$140 ........................................... ¥$350. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 1—APPROACH A a—Continued 

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2030 

Net Monetized Benefits d ......................................................................... $210 .............................................. $520. 

Non-monetized Benefits .......................................................................... Health benefits of reductions in SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and O3. 

Reductions in hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as mercury (Hg) and 

hydrochloric acid (HCl). 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum. 

bThe climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in 

non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to the social cost of carbon (SCC) than to the other estimates because CO2

emissions are long-lived and subsequent damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SCC 

estimated for a 3 percent discount rate. However, the EPA emphasizes the importance and value of considering the full range of SCC values. As 

shown in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA), climate benefits are also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at 2.5 

percent discount rate, 3 percent and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). The SCC estimates are year-specific and increase over time. cTotal costs include capital costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, demand side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs, and changes in fuel expenditures. Capital costs are annualized at a capital charge rate of 14.29 percent. Energy efficiency costs are calculated at a 3 percent discount rate. dThe estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SCC at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The 

RIA includes combined climate and health estimates based on these additional discount rates. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 2—APPROACH A a

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2025 

Proposed Guidelines Illustrative Compliance Approach 

Climate Benefits b .................................................................................... $68 ................................................ $99. 

Annualized Capital, Energy Efficiency and Monitoring, Reporting, & 

Recordkeeping Costs.

$19 ................................................ $78. 

Change in Fuel Expenditure .................................................................... ¥$150 ........................................... ¥270. 

Total Compliance Costs c ........................................................................ ¥$130 ........................................... ¥$190. 

Net Monetized Benefits d ......................................................................... $200 .............................................. $290. 

Non-monetized Benefits .......................................................................... Health benefits of reductions in SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and O3. 

Reductions in HAP such as Hg and HCl. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum. 

bThe climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in 

non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to SCC than to the other estimates because CO2 emissions are long-lived 

and subsequent damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SCC estimated for a 3 percent 

discount rate. However the EPA emphasizes the importance and value of considering the full range of SCC values. As shown in the RIA, climate 

benefits are also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). The SCC estimates are year-specific and increase over time. cTotal costs include capital costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, demand side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs, and changes in fuel expenditures. Capital costs are annualized at a capital charge rate of 14.29 percent. Energy efficiency costs are calculated at a 3 percent discount rate. dThe estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SCC at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The 

RIA includes combined climate and health estimates based on these additional discount rates. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 1—APPROACH B a

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2030 

Proposed Guidelines Illustrative Compliance Approach 

Climate Benefits b .................................................................................... $77 ................................................ $180. 

Annualized Capital, Energy Efficiency and Monitoring, Reporting, & 

Recordkeeping Costs.

$38 ................................................ $220. 

Change in Fuel Expenditure .................................................................... ¥$180 ........................................... ¥$580. 

Total Compliance Costs c ........................................................................ ¥$140 ........................................... ¥$360. 

Net Monetized Benefits d ......................................................................... $220 .............................................. $540. 

Non-monetized Benefits .......................................................................... Health benefits of reductions in SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and O3. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65487 

11Although CO2 is the predominant greenhouse 

gas released by the power sector, EGUs also emit 

small amounts of nitrous oxide and methane. See 

Chapter 2 of the June 2014 RIA for more detail 

about power sector emissions and the U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program’s power sector 

summary, http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/

ghgdata/reported/powerplants.html. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 1—APPROACH B a—Continued 

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2030 

Reductions in hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as mercury (Hg) and 

hydrochloric acid (HCl). 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum. 

bThe climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in 

non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to the SCC than to the other estimates because CO2 emissions are long-lived 

and subsequent damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SCC estimated for a 3 percent 

discount rate. However, the EPA emphasizes the importance and value of considering the full range of SCC values. As shown in the RIA, climate benefits are also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent and 5 percent; 

95th percentile at 3 percent). The SCC estimates are year-specific and increase over time. cTotal costs include capital costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, demand side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs, and changes in fuel expenditures. Capital costs are annualized at a capital charge rate of 14.29 percent. Energy efficiency costs are calculated at a 3 percent discount rate. dThe estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SCC at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The 

RIA includes combined climate and health estimates based on these additional discount rates. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED

GUIDELINES FOR GUAM AND PUERTO RICO—OPTION 2—APPROACH B a

[Millions of 2011$] 

2020 2025 

Proposed Guidelines Illustrative Compliance Approach 

Climate Benefits b .................................................................................... $73 ................................................ $110. 

Annualized Capital, Energy Efficiency and Monitoring, Reporting, & 

Recordkeeping Costs.

$33 ................................................ $98. 

Change in Fuel Expenditure .................................................................... ¥$170 ........................................... ¥$300. 

Total Compliance Costs c ........................................................................ ¥$130 ........................................... ¥$200. 

Net Monetized Benefits d ......................................................................... $210 .............................................. $300. 

Non-monetized Benefits .......................................................................... Health benefits of reductions in SO2, NO2, PM2.5 and O3. 

Reductions in HAP such as Hg and HCl. 

Ecosystem effects. 

Visibility impairment. 

aAll estimates are rounded to two significant figures, so figures may not sum. 

bThe climate benefit estimate in this summary table reflects global impacts from CO2 emission changes and does not account for changes in 

non-CO2 GHG emissions. Also, different discount rates are applied to SCC than to the other estimates because CO2 emissions are long-lived 

and subsequent damages occur over many years. The benefit estimates in this table are based on the average SCC estimated for a 3 percent 

discount rate. However the EPA emphasizes the importance and value of considering the full range of SCC values. As shown in the RIA, climate 

benefits are also estimated using the other three SCC estimates (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). The SCC estimates are year-specific and increase over time. cTotal costs include capital costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, demand side energy efficiency program and participant 

costs, and changes in fuel expenditures. Capital costs are annualized at a capital charge rate of 14.29 percent. Energy efficiency costs are calculated at a 3 percent discount rate. dThe estimates of net benefits in this summary table are calculated using the global SCC at a 3 percent discount rate (model average). The 

RIA includes combined climate and health estimates based on these additional discount rates. 

There are additional important 

benefits that the EPA could not 

monetize. These unquantified benefits 

include climate benefits from reducing 

emissions of non-CO2 GHGs (e.g., 

nitrous oxide and methane) 11 and cobenefits from reducing direct exposure 

to HAP (e.g., Hg and HCl), as well as 

from reducing ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. 

B. Organization and Approach for This 

Supplemental Proposal 

This action presents the EPA’s 

proposed emission guidelines for 

developing plans to reduce GHG 

emissions from the electric power sector 

in U.S. territories and areas of Indian 

country with affected EGUs. This action 

is based on the analytical approach of 

the June 18, 2014, proposal, and this 

preamble adopts and relies on all of the 

information in that proposal, including 

the background information, 

explanations, analyses, alternatives, 

solicitations of comment, etc. 

Section II of this supplemental 

proposal provides background, 

implications for U.S. territories and 

areas of Indian country and a summary 

of the EPA’s stakeholder outreach 

efforts. Section III of this supplemental 

proposal describes how this proposal is 

based on the analytical approach of the 

June 18, 2014, proposal, including the 

use of the four building blocks, as 

applied to each U.S. territory or each 

area of Indian country with affected 

EGUs, for setting goals, and also 

identifies the proposed goals for those 

areas. Section IV of this supplemental 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12 79 FR 1430. 

13 79 FR 34960. 

14 79 FR 34830. 15 79 FR 34854. 

proposal provides an explanation of the 

proposed requirements for the required 

jurisdictional plans, which, again, are 

based on the proposed requirements in 

the June 18, 2014, proposal. Impacts of 

the proposed action are then described 

in section V of this supplemental 

proposal, followed by a discussion of 

statutory and executive order reviews in 

section VI and the statutory authority 

for this action in section VII of this 

supplemental proposal. 

In addition to relying on, and building 

upon, the June 18, 2014, proposal for 

existing sources, this supplemental 

proposal is related to two other recently 

proposed rulemakings for CO2

emissions: The proposed rulemaking 

that the EPA published on January 8, 

2014, for newly constructed affected 

sources,12 and the proposed rulemaking 

that the EPA published on June 18, 

2014, for modified and reconstructed 

sources.13 Those two rulemakings each 

have their own rulemaking docket, and 

the comment period for those two 

rulemakings has closed. This action is a 

supplemental proposal for the June 18, 

2014, proposal for existing sources, and, 

as a result, comments on this 

supplemental proposal will be included 

in the docket for that June 18, 2014, 

proposal. Accordingly, commenters who 

wish to comment on any aspect of this 

supplemental proposal, including a 

topic that overlaps an aspect of one or 

both of the other related rulemakings, 

should make those comments on this 

supplemental proposal. Because this 

supplemental proposed rulemaking (i) 

adopts and relies on the information in 

the June 18, 2014, proposal, as noted 

above, as well as generally applies the 

same analytic framework described in 

the June 18, 2014, proposal, and (ii) is 

in the same docket as that June 18, 2014, 

proposal, commenters should limit their 

comments on this supplemental 

proposed rulemaking to the issues of the 

analytic framework that are relevant for 

U.S. territories and areas of Indian 

country with affected EGUs, as well as 

the question of how areas without 

affected sources could participate in 

multi-jurisdictional plans, as discussed 

in the next paragraph and in section 

IV.D. 

The EPA is also soliciting comment 

on whether jurisdictions—including any 

states, territories and areas of Indian 

country—without existing fossil fuelfired EGUs subject to this rule can 

partner with jurisdictions that are 

subject to this rule in developing multijurisdictional plans. An important 

benefit of these types of partnerships 

may include crediting investments that 

jurisdictions without affected sources 

may be able to make in renewable 

energy (RE) or demand-side energy 

efficiency resources for reducing CO2

emissions from affected sources in other 

jurisdictions. 

II. Background 

A. Carbon Pollution Emission 

Guidelines Proposal 

On June 18, 2014, the EPA proposed 

emission guidelines for states to follow 

in developing plans to address 

greenhouse gas emissions from existing 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs under the 

authority of CAA section 111(d).14 More 

specifically, the EPA proposed statespecific rate-based goals for CO2

emissions from affected EGUs, as well 

as guidelines for states to follow in 

developing plans to achieve the statespecific goals. The EPA indicated in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal that it intended 

to publish a supplemental proposal to 

establish emission performance goals for 

areas of Indian country and U.S. 

territories with affected EGUs.15

The June 18, 2014, proposal discussed 

the climate change impacts from GHG 

emissions, GHG emissions from fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs, the utility power sector, 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

pre-proposal stakeholder outreach, the 

applicability requirements, the legal 

basis, the authority to regulate CO2 and 

EGUs, combining the two existing 

categories for affected EGUs into a 

single category, the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) and building 

blocks for setting goals, guidelines for 

plans, implications for other EPA 

programs and rules, the impacts of the 

June 18, 2014, proposal and other 

considerations. This supplemental 

proposal presumes familiarity with the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. Moreover, in 

this supplemental proposal, the EPA 

relies on the information and analytic 

framework provided in the June 18, 

2014, proposal, is not repeating that 

information and analytic framework and 

adopts that information and analytic 

framework as they pertain to the 

requirements for U.S. territories and 

areas of Indian country. The EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

issues in the analytic framework in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. 

B. Implications for U.S. Territories 

As discussed previously, the June 18, 

2014, proposal for existing sources did 

not propose CO2 goals for U.S. 

territories with affected EGUs. The EPA 

indicated in the June 18, 2014, proposal 

that, after conducting additional 

outreach, it intended to issue this 

supplemental proposal to establish 

territory-specific rate-based goals for 

CO2 emissions and guidelines for U.S. 

territories to follow for the 

development, submission and 

implementation of plans to achieve their 

goal. The EPA intends to take final 

action on this supplemental proposal in 

conjunction with the final action for the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. 

The EPA is aware of two U.S. 

territories with affected EGUs: Puerto 

Rico and Guam. The EPA is not aware 

of any affected EGUs in American 

Samoa or the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. Information 

provided to the EPA indicates that there 

are two potentially affected EGUs in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands; however, they have 

not been in operation since before 2012. 

Therefore, in this action, Puerto Rico 

and Guam are the only U.S. territories 

for which the EPA is proposing to set 

goals. The EPA requests comment on 

whether there are any other affected 

EGUs located in U.S. territories that 

were not identified for this 

supplemental proposal. 

The U.S. territories are generally 

subject to CAA section 111(d) 

requirements in the same manner as 

states. CAA section 111(d) imposes 

obligations on ‘‘each State,’’ and CAA 

section 302(d) defines the term ‘‘State’’ 

to include the U.S. territories. As 

discussed in more detail in section IV of 

this supplemental proposal, the CAA 

section 111(d) state plan requirements 

for U.S. territories are the same as those 

proposed for states in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal for existing sources. 

C. Implications for Areas of Indian 

Country 

Although affected EGUs located in 

Indian country operate as part of the 

interconnected system of electricity 

production and distribution, those 

affected EGUs would not generally be 

encompassed within any state’s CAA 

section 111(d) plan because state plans 

are generally not approved in Indian 

country. The EPA is aware of four 

facilities with affected EGUs located in 

Indian country: The South Point Energy 

Center, in Fort Mojave Indian country 

geographically located within Arizona; 

the Navajo Generating Station, in Navajo 

Indian country geographically located 

within Arizona; the Four Corners Power 

Plant, in Navajo Indian country 

geographically located within New 

Mexico; and the Bonanza Power Plant, 

in Ute Indian country geographically 

located within Utah. The South Point 

facility is a natural gas combined cycle 

(NGCC) power plant, and the Navajo, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65489 

16One of these public power agencies is the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

17 63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998. See 40 CFR 49.1 

to 49.11. 

Four Corners and Bonanza facilities are 

coal-fired EGUs. The operators and coowners of these four facilities include 

investor-owned utilities, cooperative 

utilities, public power agencies 16 and 

independent power producers, most of 

which also own or co-own affected 

EGUs within states, but outside of areas 

of Indian country. The EPA requests 

comment on whether there are any other 

affected EGUs located in Indian country 

beyond the four facilities identified for 

this supplemental proposal. 

The EPA indicated in the June 18, 

2014, proposal that, after conducting 

additional outreach, the agency would 

issue this supplemental proposal to 

establish rate-based CO2 emission 

performance goals for the three areas of 

Indian country with affected EGUs. As 

noted above, the EPA intends to take 

final action on this supplemental 

proposal in conjunction with the final 

action for the June 18, 2014, proposal. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

IV.B, tribes are not required to develop 

plans to implement the guidelines 

under CAA section 111(d) for affected 

EGUs in their areas of Indian country. 

Pursuant to the Tribal Authority Rule 

(TAR),17 the EPA must promulgate 

federal plan provisions if it determines 

that such provisions are necessary or 

appropriate, unless a tribe on whose 

lands an affected source (or sources) is 

located seeks and obtains authority from 

the EPA to establish a plan itself. If the 

EPA determines that it is necessary or 

appropriate to promulgate 

implementation plan provisions, it will 

promulgate such provisions as are 

necessary or appropriate to achieve CO2

emission performance goals through a 

transparent public process and after 

providing opportunity for consultation 

with the affected tribal government or 

governments. 

D. Additional Outreach and 

Consultation 

Section III (‘‘Stakeholder Outreach 

and Conclusions’’) of the June 18, 2014, 

proposal documents the EPA’s extensive 

outreach efforts prior to the proposal, 

including outreach to officials in the 

territories and tribal officials. Prior to 

the June 18, 2014, proposal, agency 

officials held meetings with the 

Governor of Puerto Rico, the Governor 

of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Puerto 

Rico Environmental Quality Board and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of 

Planning and Natural Resources. The 

EPA also met with stakeholders from 

Puerto Rico on July 22 and 23, 2014, to 

provide an overview of the June 18, 

2014, proposal and ask for input on this 

supplemental proposal. Issues raised 

during the meetings included concerns 

regarding the crediting of pre-2012 

building block control strategies as well 

as resource plans that integrate some of 

the building block control strategies. On 

September 8, 2014, the EPA met with 

Guam Environmental Protection 

Agency, Guam Power Authority and the 

Consolidated Commission on Utilities to 

provide an overview of the June 18, 

2014, proposal and ask for input on this 

supplemental proposal. Issues raised 

during the meeting included Guam’s 

plans to modify certain power plants, 

including introduction of ultra-low 

sulfur diesel fuel and liquefied natural 

gas (LNG). 

Tribes are not required to, but may, 

develop or adopt CAA programs. 

Because this supplemental proposal 

addresses affected sources located 

within Indian country, the EPA offered 

consultation with tribal officials to 

permit tribes to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. The 

EPA held consultations with all three 

tribes that have affected EGUs on their 

lands, as well as other tribes that 

requested consultation. The EPA held a 

consultation with the Ute Tribe, the 

Crow Nation, and the Mandan, Hidatsa 

and Arikara (MHA) Nation (the Three 

Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold) on July 

18, 2014, the Fort Mojave Tribe on 

August 22, 2014, and the Navajo Nation 

on September 15, 2014. The Navajo 

Nation sent a letter to the EPA on 

September 18, 2014, summarizing the 

information presented at the 

consultation and the Navajo Nation’s 

position on this supplemental proposal. 

The EPA also met with tribal 

environmental staff with the National 

Tribal Air Association, by 

teleconference, on June 26, 2014, 

August 4, 2014, and September 5, 2014. 

In those teleconferences, the EPA 

provided background information on 

the GHG emission guidelines to be 

developed and a summary of issues 

being explored by the agency. The tribes 

expressed an interest in the scope of the 

guidelines being considered by the 

agency (e.g., over what time period, 

relationship to state and multi-state 

plans) and how tribes will participate in 

these planning activities. Tribes raised 

concerns about the impacts of the 

regulations on EGUs and the subsequent 

impact on jobs and revenue for their 

tribes. The Navajo Nation raised 

concerns about the application of 

certain building blocks to the EGUs on 

their lands, the impact of the proposed 

rule on renewable energy projects on 

their lands and the ability of the Navajo 

Nation to control any available carbon 

credits under a trading program. Detail 

regarding the EPA’s outreach to tribes 

can be found in section VI.F of this 

supplemental proposal. 

The EPA has used information from 

these meetings to inform this 

supplemental proposal. The EPA 

expects that a dialogue with tribal 

governments and other stakeholders 

will continue through the comment 

period and even after the rule is 

finalized. The EPA recognizes the 

importance of working with all 

stakeholders to ensure a clear and 

common understanding of the role they 

will play in addressing carbon pollution 

from power plants. 

III. Goals for U.S. Territories and Areas 

of Indian Country 

A. Overview 

In this section, the EPA sets out 

proposed CO2 emission performance 

goals to guide U.S. territories with 

affected EGUs in developing their plans. 

The EPA also sets out proposed 

emission performance goals for areas of 

Indian country with affected EGUs. The 

proposed goals reflect the EPA’s 

quantification of each area’s adjusted 

output-weighted average emission rate 

from affected EGUs that could be 

achieved by 2030 and sustained 

thereafter. The EPA is also proposing 

interim goals that would apply over a 

2020–2029 phase-in period, through 

reasonable implementation, considering 

the unique circumstances of each 

individual area, of the BSER adequately 

demonstrated (based on all four 

building blocks as described in the June 

18, 2014, proposal). See 79 FR 34855. 

These goals are presented in section 

III.B and are the basis for Option 1 in 

the discussion of the impacts of this 

proposed action in sections I.A and V. 

In addition, the EPA is taking comment 

on a second set of area-specific goals for 

U.S. territories and Indian country with 

affected EGUs that would reflect less 

stringent application of the same BSER, 

in this case by 2025, with interim goals 

that would apply over a 2020–2024 

phase-in period. These goals are 

presented in section III.C and are the 

basis for Option 2 in the discussion of 

the impacts of this proposed action in 

sections I.A and V. When promulgated 

in the final rule following consideration 

of comments received, the interim and 

final goals would be binding emission 

guidelines for plans in each area. See 79 

FR 34893 for a discussion of the 

stringency of the building blocks used to 

calculate goals. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18As described below, the emission rate goals 

include adjustments to incorporate the potential 

effects of emission reduction measures that address 

power sector CO2 emissions primarily by reducing 

the amount of electricity produced at an area’s 

affected EGUs (associated with, for example, 

increasing the amount of new low- or zero-carbon 

generating capacity or increasing demand-side 

energy efficiency) rather than by reducing their CO2

emission rates per unit of energy output produced. 

19A method for translating from a rate-based goal 

to a mass-based goal is discussed in the ‘‘Projecting 

CO2 Emission Performance in State Plans Technical 

Support Document’’ (TSD) issued in conjunction 

with the June 18, 2014, proposal. 

20This document is included in the docket with 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602–0460. 

21This document is included in the docket with 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602–0437. 

The proposed goals are expressed in 

the form of area-specific, adjusted 18

output-weighted-average CO2 emission 

rates for affected EGUs. However, 

jurisdictions are authorized to translate 

the form of the goal to a mass-based 

form, as long as the translated goal 

achieves the same degree of emission 

limitation.19

B. Proposed Goals and Computation 

Procedure 

The methodology used to compute the 

proposed interim and final CO2

emission performance goals for U.S. 

territories and areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs mirrors to the fullest 

extent possible the approach used to 

calculate goals for states discussed in 

section VII of the preamble to the June 

18, 2014, proposal. See 79 FR 34892 for 

a detailed discussion of the 

methodology. That methodology is 

described in more detail in the ‘‘Goal 

Computation Technical Support 

Document’’ 20 issued in conjunction 

with the June 18, 2014, proposal, which 

includes a numerical example 

illustrating the full procedure. The 

development of the data inputs used in 

the computation procedure for the state 

goals is discussed in section VI of the 

June 18, 2014, proposal (79 FR 34855), 

and in the ‘‘GHG Abatement Measures’’ 

TSD 21 issued in conjunction with the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. The 

methodology and data inputs used to 

compute the proposed goals for U.S. 

territories and areas of Indian country 

are discussed in detail in the ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Calculating 

Carbon Pollution Goals for Existing 

Power Plants in Territories and Areas of 

Indian Country,’’ available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

The EPA has developed proposed CO2

emission performance goals for 

territories and areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs, reflecting 

application of the BSER, based on all 

four building blocks described in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal, to pertinent 

data for each territory and area of Indian 

country with affected EGUs. The final 

goal for each area, expressed as a CO2

emission rate on an output-weightedaverage basis, is intended to represent 

the emission performance level 

achievable collectively by all of an 

area’s affected EGUs by 2030, after a 

2020–2029 phase-in period, with certain 

computation adjustments described 

below, to reflect the potential to achieve 

emission reductions by avoiding fossil 

fuel-fired generation. For each area, in 

addition to the final goal, the EPA has 

developed an interim goal that would 

apply during the 2020–2029 period on 

a cumulative or average basis as the area 

progresses toward the final goal. The 

proposed goals are set forth in Tables 5 

and 6 below, followed by a discussion 

of several considerations that should be 

noted regarding the computation 

methodology. For U.S. territories, as 

detailed in the discussion of the 

considerations, the EPA is co-proposing 

two approaches for the application of 

building block 3, which are shown as 

approaches A and B in Table 5, and also 

taking comment on an alternative to the 

proposed approaches for the application 

of building block 3, as shown in Table 

7. For areas of Indian country with 

affected EGUs, the EPA is proposing one 

option, as shown in Table 6, and taking 

comment on alternatives. (The issue of 

how areas could demonstrate emission 

performance consistent with the interim 

and final goals is addressed in section 

IV of this supplemental proposal, below, 

which addresses plans.) 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED GOALS FOR TERRITORIES WITH AFFECTED EGUS

[Adjusted output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs] 

Area 

Goal using proposed approach A 

for building block 3 

Goal using proposed approach B 

for building block 3 

Interim goal Final goal Interim goal Final goal 

Guam ............................................................................................... 1,733 1,586 1,708 1,556 

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................... 1,470 1,413 1,459 1,399 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED GOALS FOR AREAS OF INDIAN COUNTRY WITH AFFECTED EGUS

[Adjusted output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs] 

Area 

Goal using proposed approach A 

for building block 3 

Interim goal Final goal 

Lands of the Fort Mojave Tribe ....................................................................................................................... 856 855 

Lands of the Navajo Nation ............................................................................................................................. 1,991 1,989 

Lands of the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ........................................................................ 2,000 1,988 

As stated previously, the EPA applied 

the same four building blocks described 

in the June 18, 2014, proposal to 

determine the goals. However, applying 

the methodology from the June 18, 2014, 

proposal for building block 1 would not 

result in any adjustments to the goals for 

Guam or the Fort Mojave Indian country 

because there are no coal-fired affected 

EGUs in those areas. Applying the 

methodology for building block 2 would 

not result in any adjustments to the goal 

for the Fort Mojave Indian country for 

the same reason. Applying the 

methodology for building block 2 also 

would not result in any adjustments to 

the goals for Guam or any of the other 

areas of Indian country because there 

are no NGCC units for re-dispatch 

within those areas. With respect to 

Puerto Rico, the EPA believes that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65491 

22The information supporting the potential for 

the LNG capacity to support 70 percent dispatch is 

further detailed in the ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for Calculating Carbon Pollution Goals 

for Existing Power Plants in U.S. Territories and 

Areas of Indian Country.’’ 

23Consistent with the methodology used in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal, the proposed RE target for 

Puerto Rico does not include 2012 hydropower 

generation. The ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

Calculating Carbon Pollution Goals for Existing 

Power Plants in U.S. Territories and Areas of Indian 

Country’’ presents Puerto Rico’s RE target both with 

and without the inclusion of 2012 hydropower 

generation. 

24With 0.37 percent, Kentucky had the lowest 

percentage of renewable generation in 2012. See 79 

FR 34868 and Table 4–1 in the ‘‘GHG Abatement 

Measures’’ TSD on page 4–6. 

existing and planned LNG import 

capacity in Puerto Rico supports 70 

percent dispatch at the territory’s 

existing NGCC facility in building block 

2 of goal setting.22

The EPA is co-proposing two options 

for the application of building block 3 

for the territories with affected EGUs. 

The first co-proposal option, shown as 

approach A in Table 5, mirrors the 

proposed methodology from the June 

18, 2014, proposal for determining RE, 

which applies, for each jurisdiction, an 

annual growth factor to the area’s 

baseline (that is, the year 2012) amount 

of RE. This methodology applies the 

annual growth factor for each year from 

2017 to the final target in 2029. The EPA 

is also proposing this option for the 

application of building block 3 for areas 

of Indian country, as shown in Table 6. 

For the territories, the EPA applied 

Hawaii’s 9 percent annual growth factor 

because the territories appear to have 

relatively similar RE resource bases and 

power system characteristics (e.g., 

independent utility grids and unique 

fossil fuel generation portfolios with 

high electricity and fuel costs). For areas 

of Indian country, the EPA applied the 

West region’s 6 percent annual average 

growth factor because those areas are 

geographically located within the West 

region. However, with respect to all of 

the U.S. territories and areas of Indian 

country for which the EPA is proposing 

goals in this supplemental proposal, the 

available information indicates that 

there was no generation from utilityscale, non-hydroelectric RE in 2012. 

Because each territory and area of 

Indian Country has a baseline amount of 

RE equal to zero, the application of the 

growth factor (that is, multiplying the 

baseline amount of zero by the growth 

factor) results in each of those areas 

having an RE amount of zero for 

building block 3. Therefore, strictly 

applying the methodology from the June 

18, 2014, proposal for building block 3 

would result in no additional emission 

reductions required, and, therefore, no 

change to the goals for these areas.23

The second co-proposal option for 

U.S. territories with affected EGUs, 

shown as approach B in Table 5, reflects 

a conclusion that there is potential for 

RE development in the territories and 

includes an adjustment to the proposed 

methodology, which results in a 

positive amount of RE for building block 

3 for each of the territories. This 

adjustment is based on the EPA’s view 

that there is in fact potential for 

renewable generation in each of the 

territories with affected EGUs. With this 

adjustment, the EPA changed the 

amount of RE in 2017 to be 0.37 percent 

of the 2012 total electricity generation, 

which is consistent with the lowest 

amount among the 50 states in 2012.24

Proceeding with the methodology, the 

EPA then applies the annual growth 

factor for each area in the assigned 

amount (noted above) through 2029. 

Using this approach, RE targets for the 

U.S. territories grow from 0.37 percent 

to 1.0 percent of 2012 total generation 

by 2030. The goals calculated using this 

approach are presented as proposed 

approach B for building block 3 in Table 

5. 

The EPA’s view is that there is also 

potential for RE generation in each of 

the areas of Indian country with affected 

EGUs. The EPA notes that if the 

methodology described above (changing 

the amount of RE in 2017 to be 0.37 

percent of the 2012 total electricity 

generation and applying the annual 

growth factor for each area in the 

assigned amount through 2029) is used 

for areas of Indian country, the amount 

of RE included under this option would 

be a significant portion of the area’s 

electricity demand. This is due to the 

fact that, unlike all other jurisdictions 

covered by the June 18, 2014, proposal 

and this supplemental proposal, there 

are significant differences between the 

electricity generation in each of the 

areas of Indian country with affected 

EGUs and electricity demand within 

those same areas. Although the basis for 

including RE in building block 3 as part 

of the BSER, as discussed in the June 18, 

2014, proposal, does not depend on the 

amount of electricity demand within 

state, territory or area of Indian country 

(79 FR 34883–34890), the Navajo Nation 

stated during its consultation, that 

building block 3 is not appropriate for 

the Navajo Nation because the tribe’s 

use of electricity is small compared to 

the generation at the power plants. The 

EPA seeks comment on whether the 

methodology co-proposed for the 

territories is appropriate for areas of 

Indian country, or if adjustments to the 

proposed option or other approaches for 

the application of building block 3 for 

areas of Indian country are more 

appropriate. For example, an RE target 

could be established based on a 

percentage of the electric demand 

within the jurisdiction, where the 

percentage would be consistent with the 

amounts of RE generation in building 

block 3 in other jurisdictions (e.g. the 

lowest, average or greatest percentage of 

RE per electric demand in other affected 

jurisdictions). 

In the June 18, 2014, proposal, the 

EPA solicited comment on an 

alternative RE approach for building 

block 3 that relied on technical potential 

within states, and in this supplemental 

proposal, the EPA is soliciting comment 

on that same approach as applied to 

U.S. territories with affected EGUs. The 

goals calculated using this approach are 

presented in Table 7. The EPA is 

presenting information on this 

alternative approach for Puerto Rico. 

The EPA is not presenting information 

on this alternative approach for Guam 

because the EPA does not have 

technical potential data for Guam. The 

EPA is seeking comments on available 

technical potential for Guam in order to 

allow us to calculate a RE target based 

on the alternative approach. The EPA 

has limited technical potential data for 

Puerto Rico—that is, only solar 

photovoltaic and wind data—and is also 

seeking comments on available 

technical potential for that jurisdiction. 

Even without RE market potential data 

to pair with the technical potential data 

for Puerto Rico, the RE target is 1.2 

percent of 2012 total generation by 

2030, which is well below the 

mandatory renewable portfolio standard 

target of 15 percent by 2020. For areas 

of Indian country, similar to the 

discussion above regarding the 

application of approach B for areas of 

Indian country, in light of concerns 

expressed by the Navajo Nation that its 

use of electricity is small compared to 

generation at the power plants, coupled 

with the fact that the amount of RE 

required for each area of Indian country 

under this alternative approach would 

be in excess of the area’s electricity 

demand, the EPA seeks comment on the 

need for, and possible types of, 

adjustments to the alternative approach 

for the application of building block 3 

for areas of Indian country. 

The cumulative RE amounts for each 

territory using the two options for the 

proposed approach and the alternative 

approach for building block 3, 

represented as percentages of 2012 total 

generation, are shown in Table 8. The 

EPA is co-proposing the two RE 

approaches for U.S. territories and is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

25For states, projected retail sales growth was 

derived from AEO regional results. 

proposing one option and taking 

comment on alternatives for areas of 

Indian country with affected EGUs, as 

well as seeking comment on the 

alternative approach for territories. The 

EPA is also seeking comment on sources 

of RE data from these areas. 

TABLE 7—PROPOSED GOALS FOR TERRITORIES WITH AFFECTED EGUS USING ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR BUILDING

BLOCK 3 

[Adjusted output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs] 

Area 

Goal using alternative approach for 

building block 3 

Interim goal Final goal 

Guam ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,733 1,586 

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,452 1,397 

TABLE 8—RE GENERATION LEVELS FOR TERRITORIES GOAL DEVELOPMENT

[Percentage of 2012 total generation] 

Area 

2012 

Non-hydro 

RE 

(percent) 

2012 

Total RE 

(percent) 

Proposed approach A 

for building block 3 

Proposed approach B 

for building block 3 

Alternative approach 

for building block 3 

Interim 

level 

(percent) 

Final 

level 

(percent) 

Interim 

level 

(percent) 

Final 

level 

(percent) 

Interim 

level 

(percent) 

Final 

level 

(percent) 

Guam ......................... 0 0 0 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 

Puerto Rico ................ 0 0 .7 0 0 0.7 1.0 1 .2 1 .2 

The proposed goal computation 

procedure for building block 4, demandside energy efficiency, for U.S. 

territories and Indian country, mirrors 

the method and data sources used for 

setting goals for states to the fullest 

extent possible. Data sources the EPA 

has used for purposes of establishing 

demand-side energy efficiency targets 

for states are generally available for 

areas of Indian Country with identified 

affected EGUs. These sources include 

reduced fuel expenditures from 

demand-side energy efficiency programs 

(Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) Form 861), retail sales (EIA Form 

861) and projections of future growth of 

retail sales by region (Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO)). For the U.S. territories, 

Guam and Puerto Rico, however, 

projected retail electricity sales growth 

is not available from the 2012 AEO as 

it was for states.25 The EPA is not aware 

of another source for this information 

and, thus, is using a zero percent per 

year growth rate for the retail sales data. 

Other values that the EPA considered 

using were the recent historic sales 

growth value from EIA Form 861 of 

¥0.19 percent annually for Puerto Rico 

and ¥0.76 percent annually for Guam, 

or the projected sales growth rate for the 

continental U.S. from the 2012 AEO of 

0.78 percent per year (2012–2040). The 

EPA solicits comments identifying 

alternative approaches and/or data 

sources for projections of retail 

electricity sales in these two territories. 

For the three areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs, the EPA was able to 

employ the exact same method and data 

sources as used for states to compute 

goals for building block 4. For the Ute 

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, the source for retail sales is 

based on EIA Form 861 data for the 

Moon Lake Electric Association in Utah. 

One issue raised by the Navajo Nation 

during consultation was the need to 

increase access to electricity in areas of 

Indian country where electricity access 

and consumption is significantly below 

the national average. For example, the 

Navajo Nation indicated that 32 percent 

of the Navajo do not have electricity. 

The Navajo Nation indicated that the 

goal for their area of Indian country 

should account for the need to increase 

energy usage on their lands. The 

proposed goal is not intended to limit 

the ability to increase the availability of 

electricity in unserved portions of 

Indian country. The EPA notes that the 

methodology for building block 4 

applies demand-side energy efficiency 

assuming future growth in sales of 

electricity, with the goal of ensuring 

future growth is accomplished 

efficiently. For the areas of Indian 

country, the EPA used the projected 

retail electricity sales growth for the grid 

region from the 2012 AEO, which is 1.3 

percent per year for the Navajo Nation 

and the Fort Mojave Tribe, and 1 

percent per year for the Ute Tribe. The 

EPA requests comment on this 

approach. It should also be noted that 

sales of electricity in areas of Indian 

country are small compared to the total 

generation from affected EGUs in those 

areas. As a result, the avoided 

generation due to demand-side energy 

efficiency measures in building block 4 

would yield very few emission 

reductions and, therefore, would have a 

very small impact on the overall goal for 

these areas. Accordingly, the EPA is 

seeking comment on the 

appropriateness of using, in the 

alternative, a minimum starting value 

for demand-side energy efficiency in 

areas of Indian country, and what that 

value should be. 

The EPA invites comment on all 

aspects of the goal computation 

procedure for U.S. territories and areas 

of Indian country with affected EGUs. 

The EPA also specifically invites 

comment on the area-specific historical 

data for affected EGUs in U.S. territories 

and Indian country to which the 

building blocks are applied in order to 

compute the area’s goals, as well as the 

area-specific data for U.S. territories and 

Indian country used to develop the areaspecific data inputs for building blocks 

3 and 4. These data are contained in the 

‘‘Technical Support Document for 

Calculating Carbon Pollution Goals for 

Existing Power Plants in U.S. Territories 

and Areas of Indian Country.’’ 

Consistent with the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, the EPA also requests 

comment on whether CO2 emission 

reductions associated with other 

measures not currently included in any 

of the four proposed building blocks 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65493 

26 79 FR 34893. 27 79 FR 34877. 

should be accounted for in developing 

the goals for U.S. territories and Indian 

country. Section VI.C.5 of the June 18, 

2014, proposal discusses such other 

measures. See 79 FR 34875. 

C. Alternate Goals Offered for Comment 

and Other Approaches Considered 

Consistent with the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, in addition to the proposed 

area-specific emission rate-based goals 

described above, the EPA has developed 

for public comment an alternate set of 

goals reflecting less stringent 

application of the building blocks and a 

shorter implementation period. The 

alternate final goals represent emission 

performance that would be achievable 

by 2025, after a 2020–2024 phase-in 

period, with interim goals that would 

apply during the 2020–2024 period on 

a cumulative or average basis as areas 

progress toward the final goals. As 

discussed in section III.B of this 

supplemental proposal, the EPA is coproposing two approaches for the 

application of building block 3 for U.S. 

territories. 

The alternate goals are set forth in 

Tables 9 and 10 below. See 79 FR 34898 

for a discussion of the alternate goals 

and how the stringency of the building 

blocks used to calculate alternate goals 

compares to the proposed goals. 

TABLE 9—ALTERNATE GOALS FOR TERRITORIES WITH AFFECTED EGUS

[Adjusted output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs] 

Area 

Goal using proposed approach A 

for building block 3 

Goal using proposed approach B 

for building block 3 

Interim goal Final goal Interim goal Final goal 

Guam ............................................................................................... 1,854 1,794 1,831 1,768 

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................... 1,542 1,521 1,533 1,510 

TABLE 10—ALTERNATE GOALS FOR AREAS OF INDIAN COUNTRY WITH AFFECTED EGUS

[Adjusted output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs] 

Area 

Goal using proposed approach A 

for building block 3 

Interim goal Final goal 

Lands of the Fort Mojave Tribe ....................................................................................................................... 857 857 

Lands of the Navajo Nation ............................................................................................................................. 2,035 2,034 

Lands of the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ........................................................................ 2,052 2,048 

In the June 18, 2014, proposal, the 

EPA discussed issues related to the 

stringency and timing of these 

alternative goals. See 79 FR 34898. The 

EPA continues to seek comment on 

those issues as they relate to U.S. 

territories and areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs. 

D. Additional Considerations for U.S. 

Territories and Indian Country 

With respect to U.S. territories, the 

EPA is aware of affected EGUs in only 

Puerto Rico and Guam. As noted above, 

although the EPA has identified two 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs in the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, neither of these EGUs has 

operated recently or is currently 

operating, and, as a result, the EPA is 

not proposing a goal for the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. The EPA plans to evaluate 

whether a goal is appropriate for the 

U.S. Virgin Islands if either of its 

affected EGUs resumes operations in the 

future. 

In the June 18, 2014, proposal, the 

EPA sought comment on issues related 

to U.S. territories. In particular, the EPA 

solicited comment on appropriate 

alternatives for those territories that do 

not have access to natural gas.26 In 

addition, the EPA requested comment 

on whether heat rate improvements for 

non-coal fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

including oil-fired steam EGUs, should 

be included in the building blocks and, 

therefore, be part of the basis for 

determining the BSER, with particular 

reference to the U.S. territories.27 The 

EPA is reiterating its request for 

comments on those issues, including on 

whether heat rate improvements are 

appropriate for oil-fired steam EGUs in 

territories in light of the fact that these 

EGUs make up a large portion of the 

EGU fleet in the territories. 

In addition, U.S. territories have many 

high utilization oil combustion turbines 

and oil-fired combined cycle units. 

These units are currently not included 

in the 2012 baseline because they are 

not covered by the proposed CAA 

section 111(b) rules for CO2 emissions 

from newly constructed or modified/

reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs. See 

79 FR 1430, 1446 (January 8, 2014) 

(newly constructed EGUs); 79 FR 34960, 

34972 (June 18, 2014) (modified/

reconstructed EGUs). The EPA is 

requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of including these units 

in the CAA section 111(d) plans for the 

territories. 

IV. CAA Section 111(d) Plans 

A. U.S. Territories 

After the EPA establishes the 

jurisdiction-specific rate-based CO2

goals in the emission guidelines, as 

described in section III above, each 

territory that has a goal must then 

develop, adopt and submit a plan under 

CAA section 111(d) for achieving its 

goal. In the June 18, 2014, proposal, the 

EPA discusses at length the procedural 

and substantive requirements for CAA 

section 111(d) plans and solicits 

comment on numerous issues. 

Although, as noted above, that 

discussion is incorporated by reference 

in this proposal, for convenience, key 

aspects of the plan requirements are 

reiterated here. 

A territory must first determine the 

emission performance level it will 

include in its plan, which entails 

deciding whether it will adopt the ratebased CO2 goal set by the EPA or 

translate the rate-based goal to a massbased goal. The territory must then 

establish an emission standard or set of 

emission standards, and, perhaps, other 

measures, along with implementing and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

enforcing measures, that will achieve a 

level of emission performance that is 

equal to or better than the level 

specified in the plan. The territory has 

discretion to choose the measures it will 

include in its plan to achieve its goal as 

long as it can demonstrate that those 

measures will achieve the goal, and 

those measures meet and address 

necessary plan approvability criteria 

and plan components. The territory may 

use the same set of measures as in the 

EPA’s approach to setting the goals, or 

the territory may use other or additional 

measures to achieve the required CO2

reductions. A territory’s plan may rely 

on enforceable CO2 emission limits that 

are applied directly to affected EGUs 

such that those limits are sufficient to 

ensure compliance with the territory’s 

CO2 performance goal, or, alternatively, 

the plan may take a portfolio approach, 

which includes enforceable CO2

emission limits that apply to specific 

affected EGUs as well as other 

enforceable measures, such as RE and 

demand-side energy efficiency 

measures, which avoid EGU CO2

emissions and are implemented by the 

territory or by another entity. 

The EPA is proposing that U.S. 

territories follow the same guidelines for 

developing their plans that were 

proposed for states in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. These guidelines include four 

general plan approvability criteria, 12 

required components for a plan to be 

approvable, the process and timing for 

plan submittal and the process and 

timing for demonstrating achievement 

of the CO2 emission performance level 

in the plan. These guidelines are 

summarized briefly below, and 

discussed in more detail in section VIII 

of the June 18, 2014, proposal. 

The EPA is proposing to evaluate and 

approve a territory’s plan based on four 

general criteria: (1) Enforceable 

measures that reduce EGU CO2

emissions; (2) projected achievement of 

emission performance equivalent to the 

goals established by the EPA, on a 

timeline equivalent to that in the 

emission guidelines; (3) quantifiable 

and verifiable emission reductions; and 

(4) a process for reporting on plan 

implementation, progress toward 

achieving CO2 goals and 

implementation of corrective actions, if 

necessary. In addition, each territory’s 

plan must follow the EPA framework 

regulations at 40 CFR 60.23. The 

proposed components of the plans that 

territories are required to submit under 

CAA section 111(d) are as follows: 

• Identification of affected entities. 

• Description of plan approach and 

geographic scope. 

• Identification of territory’s emission 

performance level. 

• Demonstration that plan is 

projected to achieve emission 

performance level. 

• Identification of programmatic 

milestones. 

• Identification of corrective 

measures. 

• Identification of emission standards 

and any other measures. 

• Demonstration that each emission 

standard is quantifiable, nonduplicative, permanent, verifiable and 

enforceable. 

• Identification of monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

• Description of territory’s reporting. 

• Certification of hearing on 

territory’s plan. 

• Supporting material. 

The plan must also include a process 

for annual reporting on plan 

implementation, provisions ensuring 

progress toward achieving CO2 goals 

and provisions requiring 

implementation of corrective actions if 

necessary. No less frequently than every 

2 rolling calendar years, beginning 

January 1, 2022, the territory will be 

required to compare CO2 emission 

performance achieved by affected EGUs 

in the territory with the emissions 

performance projected in the territory’s 

plan, and report that to the EPA. 

The proposed timetable for 

submission of plans by the territories is 

the same as described in the June 18, 

2014, proposal for the states. That is, 

each territory must submit a plan to the 

EPA by June 30, 2016. However, the 

EPA recognizes that some territories 

may need more than 1 year to complete 

all of the actions needed for their final 

plans, including technical work, 

legislative and rulemaking activities, 

coordination with third parties and 

coordination among jurisdictions 

involved in multi-jurisdictional plans. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing an 

optional two-phased submittal process 

for plans. In phase 1, each territory 

needing additional time to submit a 

complete plan would be required to 

submit an initial plan containing certain 

required components by June 30, 2016. 

The initial plan would also document 

the reasons the territory needs more 

time and include commitments to take 

concrete steps that will ensure that the 

territory will submit a complete plan by 

June 30, 2017 or 2018, as appropriate. 

To be approvable, the initial plan must 

include specific components, including, 

among others, a description of the plan 

approach, initial quantification of the 

level of emission performance that will 

be achieved through the plan, a 

commitment to maintain existing 

measures that limit CO2 emissions, an 

explanation of the path to completion 

and a summary of the territory’s 

response to any significant public 

comment on the approvability of the 

initial plan. 

If the EPA does not notify the territory 

within 60 days that the initial plan is 

deficient because it does not contain 

one or more of the required 

components, the extension of time to 

submit a complete plan will be deemed 

granted and a territory would have until 

June 30, 2017, to submit a complete 

plan if the geographic scope of the plan 

is limited to that territory. If the territory 

develops a plan that includes a multijurisdictional approach, it would have 

until June 30, 2018, to submit a 

complete plan. Further, the EPA is 

proposing that where a territory is 

participating in a multi-jurisdictional 

plan, a single joint plan may be 

submitted on behalf of all of the 

participating jurisdictions, provided it is 

signed by authorized officials for each of 

the jurisdictions participating in the 

plan and contains the necessary 

regulations, laws, etc., for each 

jurisdiction in the plan. 

The EPA is proposing the same 

process for EPA review of the plans 

submitted by the territories as in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. Following 

submission of complete plans, the EPA 

will review plan submittals for 

approvability. Given the diverse 

approaches territories may take to meet 

the emission performance goals in the 

emission guidelines, the EPA is 

proposing to extend the period for EPA 

review and approval or disapproval of 

territories’ plans from the 4-month 

period provided in the EPA framework 

regulations to a 12-month period. 

The EPA is proposing the same 

timetables for territories to achieve their 

emission performance levels as in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal for states. Under 

this proposed timetable, a territory 

would need to meet its interim CO2

emission performance level on average 

over the 10-year period from 2020–2029, 

as well as achieve its final CO2 emission 

performance level by 2030 and maintain 

that level subsequently. For a more 

detailed discussion of the proposed 

guidelines for plans, see section VIII of 

the June 18, 2014, proposal. In that 

proposal, the EPA specifically solicited 

comment on several aspects of the 

guidelines as they relate to state plans, 

and the EPA now solicits comment on 

the same issues as they relate to U.S. 

territories. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65495 

28This authority is found in CAA section 301(d) 

and the TAR. 29For a list of the topics that the EPA is soliciting 

comment on regarding plans please see http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/

documents/clean-power-plan-commentcategories.pdf under the Category heading of ‘‘State 

Plans.’’ 

30 It should be noted that this subsection applies 

to all types of areas, and not just territories and 

areas of Indian Country. 

31See the June 18, 2014, proposal at 79 FR 34923 

for a more robust description of how new NGCC can 

aid in meeting a jurisdiction’s goal. 

B. Areas of Indian Country With 

Affected EGUs 

The TAR identifies CAA provisions 

for which it is appropriate for the EPA 

to grant Indian tribes treatment in the 

same manner as states (TAS). Pursuant 

to the TAR, tribes may apply for TAS for 

purposes of CAA section 111(d). As a 

result, a tribe that has an affected EGU 

located in its area of Indian country has 

the opportunity, but not the obligation, 

to apply for TAS status and, if granted 

that status by the EPA, to develop a plan 

that establishes standards of 

performance for CO2 emissions from 

affected EGUs located in its area of 

Indian country. The EPA is not 

proposing a determination regarding 

any particular tribe’s eligibility for TAS 

or ability to regulate EGUs located in its 

area of Indian country as part of this 

supplemental proposal. If a tribe has an 

affected EGU located in its area of 

Indian country, but does not seek and 

obtain the authority from the EPA to 

establish a CAA section 111(d) plan, 

then the EPA has the responsibility to 

establish such plans for the areas of 

Indian country where affected sources 

are located if the EPA determines that 

such a plan is necessary or appropriate. 

If a tribe with affected EGUs located in 

its area of Indian country obtains the 

authority to develop and submit a plan, 

the tribe would have the flexibility and 

authority 28 described in section VIII of 

the June 18, 2014, proposal for states in 

developing a plan. 

The EPA asked for comment on a 

number of specific aspects of plans in 

section VIII of the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, and the EPA solicits comment 

on those same issues as they relate to 

areas of Indian country with affected 

EGUs.29 In particular, the EPA requested 

comment on whether a tribe wishing to 

develop and implement a CAA section 

111(d) plan should have the option of 

including the EGUs located in its area 

of Indian country in a multijurisdictional plan with one or more 

states, territories or tribes. As stated 

previously in section II.D of this 

supplemental proposal, the Navajo 

Nation indicated during consultation 

that the Navajo Nation should control, 

under a trading program, any available 

CO2 allowances from the affected EGUs 

at Navajo Generating Station and Four 

Corners Power Plant. The EPA also 

requested comment in the June 18, 

2014, proposal on whether a federal 

plan for areas of Indian country with 

affected EGUs, should the EPA conclude 

at a later date that such a plan is 

necessary or appropriate, could be 

developed on a multi-jurisdictional 

basis in conjunction with nearby (or 

potentially other) states developing 

CAA section 111(d) state plans. 

C. Applicability of the Proposed 

Emission Guidelines to U.S. Territories 

and Eligible Indian Tribes 

As stated previously, the EPA is 

proposing the same emission guidelines 

for U.S. territories and tribes that seek 

and obtain the authority to establish a 

plan that were proposed for states in the 

June 18, 2014, proposal. The term 

‘‘state’’ as used in the emission 

guidelines proposed in the June 18, 

2014, proposal would encompass U.S. 

territories with one or more affected 

EGUs that commenced construction on 

or before January 8, 2014, and any 

Indian tribe that has been approved by 

the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9 as 

eligible to administer the emission 

guidelines, in addition to the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia that have 

one or more affected EGUs. The EPA 

believes that this is the case without the 

need for the emission guidelines to 

directly and separately refer to these 

entities. Section 302(d) of the CAA 

defines the term ‘‘State’’ to include the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. While 40 CFR part 60 

contains a separate definition of ‘‘state’’ 

at § 60.2, this definition expands on, 

rather than narrows, the definition in 

section 302(d) of the CAA. The 

introductory language to 40 CFR 60.2 

provides: ‘‘The terms in this part are 

defined in the Act or in this section as 

follows.’’ Section 60.2 defines ‘‘State’’ as 

‘‘all non-Federal authorities, including 

local agencies, interstate associations, 

and State-wide programs that have been 

delegated authority to implement: (1) 

The provisions of this part and/or (2) 

the permit program established under 

part 70 of this chapter. The term State 

shall have its conventional meaning 

where clear from the context.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) The EPA believes 

that the last sentence refers to the 

conventional meaning of ‘‘state’’ under 

the CAA. Thus, the EPA believes the 

term ‘‘state’’ as used in the emission 

guidelines is most reasonably 

interpreted as including the meaning 

ascribed to that term in section 302(d) 

of the CAA, which expressly includes 

U.S. territories. Further, an Indian tribe 

with one or more affected EGUs in its 

area of Indian country seeking to obtain 

approval of a plan would need to be 

approved by the EPA as eligible to 

administer the emission guidelines 

following the procedure set forth in 40 

CFR part 49. Once a tribe is approved 

as eligible for that purpose, it would be 

treated in the same manner as a state, 

and references in the emission 

guidelines to states would refer equally 

to the tribe. The EPA notes that while 

tribes have the opportunity to apply for 

eligibility to administer CAA programs, 

they are not required to do so. Further, 

the EPA has established procedures in 

40 CFR part 49 (see particularly 40 CFR 

49.7(c)) that permit eligible tribes to 

request approval of reasonably severable 

partial program elements. Those 

procedures are applicable here. 

Although the EPA believes the current 

emission guidelines are sufficiently 

inclusive, the EPA has decided to 

amend the applicability provision of the 

emission guidelines slightly to avoid 

any doubt that the guidelines apply to 

territories with affected EGUs and to 

any Indian tribe that has been approved 

by the EPA as eligible to develop and 

implement a plan. The revised 

regulatory text can be found in the 

‘‘Amended Regulatory Text for 

Supplemental Proposal: Carbon 

Pollution Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Power Plants in Indian Country 

and U.S. Territories’’ memo in the 

rulemaking docket. 

D. Areas Without Affected EGUs 30

Certain areas, including the state of 

Vermont, the District of Columbia, 

certain U.S. territories and most areas of 

Indian country, do not have any affected 

EGUs. Numerous stakeholders have 

expressed interest in areas that do not 

have affected EGUs having the 

opportunity to participate in multijurisdictional plans with areas that have 

affected EGUs. With this approach, an 

area without affected EGUs, which in 

many cases consumes energy produced 

elsewhere, could contribute to meeting 

a multi-jurisdictional CO2 goal with its 

RE resources, demand-side energy 

efficiency programs and other new lowor non-emitting electricity generation.31

The Navajo Nation, which does have 

affected EGUs on its lands, also 

expressed an interest during 

consultation in the ability of RE 

resources on the Navajo Nation to 

contribute to the achievement of state 

CO2 goals. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

32Further discussion of applying RE (in particular 

renewable energy certificates) across jurisdiction 

borders can be found in the ‘‘State Plan 

Considerations’’ TSD, which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

33For more information on plan components see 

the June 18, 2014, proposal at 79 FR 34911. 

34Option 1 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.B of this supplemental proposal. 

35Option 2 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.C of this supplemental proposal, reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks and a 

shorter implementation period. 

36Option 1 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.B of this supplemental proposal. 

37Option 2 represents compliance with the goals 

calculated using the procedure outlined in section 

III.C of this supplemental proposal, reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks and a 

shorter implementation period. 

38See 79 FR 46514, August 24, 2012. 

39See 77 FR 51620, August 8, 2014. 

40See Integrated Planning Model results at: 

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

powersectormodeling/cleanpowerplan.html. 

The EPA requests comment on 

whether areas without affected EGUs 

may participate in multi-jurisdictional 

plans. The EPA requests comment on 

whether there are considerations that 

would specifically pertain to a multijurisdiction mass-based plan versus a 

rate-based plan. The EPA also requests 

comment on how CO2 emissions 

avoided through RE generating 

resources,32 demand-side energy 

efficiency measures, and other new lowand non-emitting electricity generation 

from areas without affected EGUs could 

be used to adjust or credit CO2 emission 

rates in states required to develop CAA 

section 111(d) plans. The EPA also 

requests comment on how RE generating 

resources, demand-side energy 

efficiency measures, and other new lowand non-emitting electricity generation 

in areas of Indian country that do have 

affected EGUs can be included, and if 

their inclusion is dependent upon 

whether or not the tribe has adopted a 

CAA section 111(d) plan or EPA has 

made a finding and adopted a federal 

plan for that area of Indian country. 

Some stakeholders are also interested 

in the treatment of RE across 

international boundaries, particularly in 

instances where entities in another 

country are providing, or could provide, 

low- or non-emitting electricity 

generation to serve an area in the United 

States. In particular, stakeholders have 

asked whether RE resources from 

Canada can be used to contribute to 

meeting a jurisdiction’s goal. The EPA is 

soliciting comment on all aspects of the 

treatment of RE, demand-side energy 

efficiency, and other new low- or nonemitting electricity generation across 

international boundaries in a CAA 

section 111(d) plan, considering the 

components for approvable plans 

described in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, including any mechanisms 

that could be used to ensure that the 

low or non-emitting generation was in 

fact offsetting fossil-fuel-fired generation 

in the jurisdiction that would use it to 

meet its goal. 

It should be noted that multijurisdictional plans that include areas 

without affected EGUs must still meet 

the plan components and criteria to 

determine whether a state’s plan is 

‘‘satisfactory’’ under CAA section 

111(d)(2)(A) as described in section VIII 

of the June 18, 2014, proposal.33 The 

EPA solicits comment on these 

components and criteria for 

jurisdictions without affected EGUs that 

wish to be a part of a multi-jurisdiction 

plan. 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Action 

A. What are the air impacts? 

With regard to Guam and Puerto Rico, 

the EPA estimates implementation of 

Option 1—Approach A 34 will result in 

emission reductions of roughly 1.6 

million metric tons of CO2 in 2020 and 

reductions of 3.1 million metric tons of 

CO2 in 2030. The EPA estimates that 

implementation of Option 2—Approach 

A 35 would result in emission reductions 

of roughly 1.5 million metric tons of 

CO2 in 2020 and reductions of 2.0 

million metric tons of CO2 in 2025. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates implementation of Option 1— 

Approach B 36 will result in emission 

reductions of roughly 1.7 million metric 

tons of CO2 in 2020 and reductions of 

3.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2030. 

The EPA estimates that implementation 

of Option 2—Approach B37 would 

result in emission reductions of roughly 

1.6 million metric tons of CO2 in 2020 

and reductions of 2.1 million metric 

tons of CO2 in 2025. 

For all options and approaches, the 

EPA also expects reductions of criteria 

pollutants including SO2, NOX and 

PM2.5 as a result of actions taken to 

implement the goals proposed in this 

action. Due to data limitations, the EPA 

is not able to accurately estimate the coreductions of criteria pollutant that 

would occur as a result of actions to 

implement the proposed goals. 

The EPA does not expect any 

additional emission reductions from 

areas of Indian country with affected 

EGUs. The EGUs in the Navajo Nation’s 

area of Indian country are already 

expected to meet the proposed goals 

through compliance with other 

regulations. Three EGUs at Four Corners 

Power Plant shut down at the beginning 

of 2014 to comply with requirements for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART).38 At Navajo Generating Station, 

the EPA expects that by 2019, one EGU 

will shut down or generation will be 

curtailed to comply with requirements 

for BART.39 These units represented 

approximately 30 percent of total EGU 

CO2 emissions in Navajo territory in 

2012. As a result, substantial CO2

reductions from the shutdowns are 

expected prior to the target date for the 

goals proposed in this action, which 

would mean the Navajo territory would 

meet the proposed goal without 

additional actions beyond the 

shutdowns, if the goal is converted to a 

mass-based goal. The reductions 

associated with compliance with the 

goals for the lands of the Fort Mojave 

Tribe and the Ute Tribe of the Uintah 

and Ouray Reservation were already 

accounted for in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. The impacts analysis for the 

June 18, 2014, proposal did not separate 

out and exclude electricity demand and 

reduced fuel expenditures associated 

with energy efficiency from tribal lands 

from the states in which they are 

located. Thus, the emission reductions 

associated with achieving reduced 

electricity generation levels of building 

block 4 as part of this supplemental 

proposal were previously accounted for 

in the June 18, 2014, proposal. There is 

one affected EGU on Ute territory. This 

EGU was not an affected unit in the June 

18, 2014, proposal, but had the option 

to implement a heat rate improvement 

in the system-wide modeling conducted 

for that proposal.40 Because the 

modeling reflected this optional heat 

rate improvement, the emission 

reductions from a heat rate 

improvement for this EGU were 

accounted for in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. 

B. What are the energy impacts? 

As discussed previously, one area of 

Indian country with affected EGUs is 

expected to meet the proposed goal 

based on compliance with other 

regulations, and the impacts of 

compliance with the proposed goals for 

the other two areas were already 

accounted for in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. In U.S. territories, the EPA 

anticipates a small degree of re-dispatch 

from coal- and oil-fired generation to 

natural gas-fired generation. It is 

possible that some portion of this shift 

away from coal- and oil-fired generation 

may occur in the absence of the rule, 

due primarily to the relatively high cost 

of petroleum-based fuel and electricity 

in these areas. For example, the Puerto 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65497 

41 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0495, 

Technical Support Document: Technical Update of 

Continued 

Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) 

plans to add natural gas capacity at 

existing petroleum-burning plants. 

Additionally, both Guam and Puerto 

Rico are implementing Renewable 

Portfolio Standards programs. 

While the EPA did not perform a full 

resource adequacy analysis as was 

conducted for the June proposal, the 

EPA does not expect actions taken to 

implement the proposed goals to raise 

reliability concerns because these 

actions are likely consistent with 

planned activities in the affected areas. 

(For example, present and planned 

actions on Navajo territory to implement 

criteria pollutant reductions and 

planned expansion of natural gas-fired 

capacity in Puerto Rico.) 

C. What are the compliance costs? 

The compliance costs of this proposed 

action are represented in this analysis as 

the change in electric power generation 

costs between the base case and the 

proposed rule in which U.S. territories 

pursue a distinct set of strategies beyond 

the strategies taken in the base case to 

meet the proposed goals. The 

compliance assumptions and projected 

compliance costs set forth in this 

analysis are illustrative in nature. There 

is uncertainty about the precise 

measures that territories will adopt to 

meet the proposed requirements, 

because there are considerable 

flexibilities afforded to them in 

developing their state plans. These 

illustrative compliance scenarios are 

designed to reflect, to the extent 

possible, the scope and the nature of the 

proposed guidelines. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs for 

Option 1—Approach A are a savings of 

approximately $140 million (2011$) in 

2020 and a savings of $350 million in 

2030, including reduced fuel 

expenditures from energy efficiency 

programs and re-dispatch. For Option 

2—Approach A, the illustrative annual 

compliance costs and monitoring and 

reporting costs for Guam and Puerto 

Rico are a savings of approximately 

$130 million (2011$) in 2020 and a 

savings of $190 million in 2025, 

including reduced fuel expenditures 

from energy efficiency programs and redispatch. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the 

illustrative annual compliance costs and 

monitoring and reporting costs for 

Option 1—Approach B are a savings of 

approximately $140 million (2011$) in 

2020 and a savings of $360 million in 

2030, including reduced fuel 

expenditures from energy efficiency 

programs and re-dispatch. For Option 

2—Approach B, the illustrative annual 

compliance costs and monitoring and 

reporting costs for Guam and Puerto 

Rico are a savings of approximately 

$130 million (2011$) in 2020 and a 

savings of $200 million in 2025, 

including reduced fuel expenditures 

from energy efficiency programs and redispatch. 

The EPA does not expect any 

additional compliance costs for areas of 

Indian country with affected EGUs. As 

discussed in section V.A of this 

supplemental proposal, the EPA expects 

that the goal for the lands of the Navajo 

Nation will be met without any further 

action beyond the shutdowns that are 

occurring, if the goal is converted to a 

mass-based goal. The costs for meeting 

the goal for the lands of the Fort Mojave 

Tribe and the Ute Tribe of the Uintah 

and Ouray Reservation were already 

included in the June 18, 2014, proposal. 

D. What are the economic and 

employment impacts? 

Changes in supply or demand for 

electricity, natural gas, oil and coal can 

impact markets for goods and services 

produced by sectors that use these 

energy inputs in the production process 

or that supply those sectors. Changes in 

cost of production may result in changes 

in price and/or quantity produced and 

these market changes may affect the 

profitability of firms and the economic 

welfare of their consumers. The EPA 

recognizes that these guidelines provide 

significant flexibilities and the 

territories implementing the guidelines 

may choose to mitigate impacts to some 

markets outside the EGU sector. 

Similarly, demand for new generation or 

energy efficiency can result in changes 

in production and profitability for firms 

that supply those goods and services. 

The guidelines provide flexibility for 

territories that may want to enhance 

demand for goods and services from 

those sectors. 

Executive Order 13563 directs federal 

agencies to consider regulatory impacts 

on job creation and employment. 

According to the Executive Order, ‘‘our 

regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation. It must be based on the 

best available science.’’ Although 

standard benefit-cost analyses have not 

typically included a separate analysis of 

regulation-induced employment 

impacts, during periods of sustained 

high unemployment, employment 

impacts are of particular concern and 

questions may arise about their 

existence and magnitude. 

Under all scenarios analyzed for the 

territories of Guam and Puerto Rico, the 

annualized costs of the illustrative 

compliance strategies are expected to be 

negative for each year in the analysis as 

a result of reductions in field 

expenditures. Quantifying any 

employment impacts associated with 

implementing the proposed goals is 

difficult, as each area has the flexibility 

to implement a wide range of policies 

and practices for compliance with the 

proposed goals. The June 18, 2014, 

proposal used the cost projections from 

the engineering-based Integrated 

Planning Model to help estimate 

employment impacts in the electricity, 

natural gas and coal sectors, but these 

projections are not available for 

territories, making quantitative 

assessment of employment impacts for 

Guam and Puerto Rico more difficult. 

However, because annualized costs for 

the territories are relatively low or 

negative, the EPA does not expect 

significant adverse employment impacts 

under the illustrative compliance 

strategies. A critical component of the 

overall labor impacts of implementing 

the GHG guidelines is the impact of the 

labor associated with the demand-side 

energy efficiency activities. Like the RIA 

for the June 18, 2014, proposal 

indicated, the EPA anticipates that this 

rule may stimulate investment in clean 

energy technologies and services, 

resulting in considerable increases in 

energy efficiency in particular. The EPA 

expects these increases in energy 

efficiency, specifically, to support a 

significant number of jobs existing in 

related industries. 

The EPA does not expect any 

economic or employment impacts for 

EGUs in Indian country arising from 

this proposed action, as the costs for 

meeting the proposed goals for the lands 

of the Fort Mojave Tribe and the Ute 

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation were already accounted for 

in the June 18, 2014, proposal, and the 

goal for the lands of the Navajo Nation 

is expected to be met without any 

further action beyond the shutdowns 

that are occurring. 

E. What are the benefits of the proposed 

action? 

The EPA has used the SCC estimates 

presented in the 2013 ‘‘Technical 

Support Document: Technical Update of 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866’’ (2013 SCC TSD) to analyze CO2

climate benefits of this rulemaking.41


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, with 

participation by Council of Economic Advisers, 

Council on Environmental Quality, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department 

of Energy, Department of Transportation, 

Environmental Protection Agency, National 

Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate 

Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office 

of Science and Technology Policy, and Department 

of Treasury (May 2013, Revised November 2013). 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-updatesocial-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatorimpactanalysis.pdf. 

42 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472– 

114577, Technical Support Document: Social Cost 

of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group 

on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by the 

Council of Economic Advisers, Council on 

Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, 

Department of Transportation, Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Economic Council, 

Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury 

(February 2010). Also available at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf. 

43The 2010 and 2013 TSDs present SCC in $2007. 

The estimates were adjusted to 2011$ using the 

GDP Implicit Price Deflator. Also available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI-2013-02/pdf/

ECONI-2013-02-Pg3.pdf. 

The EPA refers to these estimates, 

which were developed by the U.S. 

government, as ‘‘SCC estimates.’’ The 

U.S. government first published the SCC 

estimates in 2010 following an 

interagency process that included the 

EPA and other executive branch 

entities; the process used three 

integrated assessment models (IAM) to 

develop SCC estimates and selected four 

global values for use in regulatory 

analyses. The U.S. government recently 

updated these estimates using new 

versions of each IAM and published 

them in 2013. The 2013 update did not 

revisit the 2010 modeling decisions 

(e.g., with regard to the discount rate, 

reference case socioeconomic and 

emission scenarios or equilibrium 

climate sensitivity). Rather, 

improvements in the way damages are 

modeled are confined to those that have 

been incorporated into the latest 

versions of the models by the 

developers themselves and published in 

the peer-reviewed literature. The 2010 

SCC TSD provides a complete 

discussion of the methods used to 

develop these estimates and the 2013 

SCC TSD presents and discusses the 

updated estimates.42

The EPA and other agencies have 

sought public comment on the SCC 

estimates as part of various rulemakings. 

In addition, OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

recently sought public comment on the 

approach used to develop the estimates. 

The comment period ended on February 

26, 2014, and OMB is reviewing the 

comments received. 

The four SCC estimates, updated in 

2013, are as follows: $13, $46, $68 and 

$137 per metric ton of CO2 emissions in 

the year 2020 (2011 dollars).43 The first 

three values are based on the average 

SCC from the three IAMs, at discount 

rates of 5, 3 and 2.5 percent, 

respectively. SCCs at several discount 

rates are included because the literature 

shows that the SCC is quite sensitive to 

assumptions about the discount rate, 

and because no consensus exists on the 

appropriate rate to use in an 

intergenerational context (where costs 

and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 

95th percentile of the SCC from all three 

models at a 3 percent discount rate. It 

is included to represent higher-thanexpected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution (representing less 

likely, but potentially catastrophic, 

outcomes). 

The proposed guidelines would 

reduce emissions of precursor 

pollutants (e.g., SO2, NOX and directly 

emitted particles) in the territories, 

which in turn would lower ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5 and O3. 

However, the EPA is unable to quantify 

the health co-benefits of SO2 and NOX

reductions in the U.S. territories 

because the benefit-per-ton values the 

EPA used in the June 18, 2014, proposal 

are only appropriate for areas within the 

continental U.S. These benefit-per-ton 

values are not appropriate to use in 

estimating co-benefits for the U.S. 

territories because those territories were 

not represented in the air quality 

modeling used to generate the benefitper-ton estimate. 

As described in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal, reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such 

as heart attacks, hospital admissions, 

and respiratory morbidities such as 

asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 

hospital and emergency department 

visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days, and respiratory symptoms. 

Reducing exposure to O3 is also 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

mortality and respiratory morbidity 

such as fewer asthma attacks, hospital 

and emergency room visits and school 

loss days. In addition, the EPA could 

not monetize other important benefits, 

including climate benefits from 

reducing emissions of non-CO2 GHG 

and co-benefits from reducing exposure 

to HAP (e.g., Hg and HCl) 

concentrations, as well as ecosystem 

and visibility benefits. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach A will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $73 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The EPA estimates that in 2030, 

the illustrative compliance approach for 

Option 1—Approach A in Guam and 

Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $170 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). For Option 2—Approach A, the 

EPA estimates that in 2020, the 

illustrative compliance approach for 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $68 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). The EPA 

estimates that in 2025, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 2— 

Approach A in Guam and Puerto Rico 

will yield monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $99 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach B will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $77 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The EPA estimates that in 2030, 

the illustrative compliance approach for 

Option 1—Approach B in Guam and 

Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $180 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). For Option 2—Approach B, the 

EPA estimates that in 2020, the 

illustrative compliance approach for 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $73 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). The EPA 

estimates that in 2025, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 2— 

Approach B in Guam and Puerto Rico 

will yield monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $110 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). 

The EPA does not expect any 

additional benefits associated with 

compliance for areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs, as the benefits for 

meeting the proposed goals for the lands 

of the Fort Mojave Tribe and the Ute 

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation were already accounted for 

in the June 18, 2014, proposal, and the 

goal for the lands of the Navajo Nation 

is expected to be met without any 

further action beyond the shutdowns 

that are occurring. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65499 

44More details about the health benefits 

associated with reductions in PM2.5, SO2 and NOX

can be found in the RIA for the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or to 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or 

communities. The $100 million 

threshold can be triggered by either 

costs or benefits, or a combination of 

them. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 

this action to OMB for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. The EPA also prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action in 

the RIA for this supplemental proposal. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563, the 

EPA estimated the costs and benefits for 

illustrative compliance approaches of 

implementing the proposed guidelines. 

This proposal sets goals to reduce CO2

emissions from the electric power 

industry in U.S. territories and in Indian 

country. Actions taken to comply with 

the proposed guidelines will also reduce 

the emissions of directly emitted PM2.5, 

SO2 and NOX. The benefits associated 

with these PM, SO2 and NOX reductions 

are referred to as co-benefits, as these 

reductions are not the primary objective 

of this rule.44

The EPA has used the SCC estimates 

(i.e., the monetary value of impacts 

associated with a marginal change in 

CO2 emissions in a given year) to 

analyze CO2 climate impacts of this 

rulemaking. The four SCC estimates are 

associated with different discount rates 

(model average at 2.5 percent discount 

rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th 

percentile at 3 percent), and each 

increases over time. In this summary, 

the EPA provides the estimate of climate 

benefits associated with the SCC value 

deemed to be central by the U.S. 

government (the model average at 3 

percent discount rate). There will likely 

be significant health co-benefits 

associated with reductions of SO2 and 

NOX. However, the EPA is unable to 

quantify health co-benefits SO2 and 

NOX reductions in the U.S. territories 

because the benefit-per-ton values that 

the EPA often uses for this purpose are 

only appropriate for areas within the 

continental U.S. In addition, the EPA 

could not monetize other important 

benefits, including climate benefits from 

reducing emissions of non-CO2 GHG 

and co-benefits from reducing exposure 

to HAP (e.g., Hg and HCl) 

concentrations, as well as ecosystem 

and visibility benefits. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach A will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $73 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The annual illustrative 

compliance costs are a savings of 

approximately $140 million (2011$) in 

2020. The EPA estimates that in 2030, 

the illustrative compliance approach for 

Option 1—Approach A in Guam and 

Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $170 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The annual illustrative 

compliance costs are a savings of 

approximately $350 million (2011$) in 

2030. For Option 2—Approach A, the 

illustrative compliance approach for 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $68 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$) in 2025. 

The annual illustrative compliance costs 

are a savings of approximately $130 

million (2011$) in 2020. The EPA 

estimates that in 2025, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 2 in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $99 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). The 

annual illustrative compliance costs 

result in a net savings of approximately 

$190 million (2011$) in 2025, including 

reduced fuel expenditures associated 

with energy efficiency programs and redispatch. 

For Guam and Puerto Rico, the EPA 

estimates that in 2020, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 1— 

Approach B will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $77 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The annual illustrative 

compliance costs are a savings of 

approximately $140 million (2011$) in 

2020. The EPA estimates that in 2030, 

the illustrative compliance approach for 

Option 1—Approach B in Guam and 

Puerto Rico will yield monetized 

climate benefits of approximately $180 

million with a 3 percent model average 

(2011$). The annual illustrative 

compliance costs are a savings of 

approximately $360 million (2011$) in 

2030. For Option 2—Approach B, the 

illustrative compliance approach for 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $73 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$) in 2020. 

The annual illustrative compliance costs 

are a savings of approximately $130 

million (2011$) in 2020. The EPA 

estimates that in 2025, the illustrative 

compliance approach for Option 2 in 

Guam and Puerto Rico will yield 

monetized climate benefits of 

approximately $110 million with a 3 

percent model average (2011$). The 

annual illustrative compliance costs 

result in a net savings of approximately 

$200 million (2011$) in 2025, including 

reduced fuel expenditures associated 

with energy efficiency programs and redispatch. 

The EPA does not expect any 

additional benefits associated with 

compliance for areas of Indian country 

with affected EGUs, as the benefits for 

meeting the proposed goals for the lands 

of the Fort Mojave Tribe and the Ute 

Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation were already accounted for 

in the June 18, 2014, proposal, and the 

goal for the lands of the Navajo Nation 

is expected to be met without any 

further action beyond the shutdowns 

that are occurring. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document prepared by the EPA 

has been assigned the EPA ICR number 

2503.02. 

This proposal does not directly 

impose specific requirements on EGU 

sources, including those located in U.S. 

territories and in Indian country. The 

proposal also does not impose specific 

requirements on tribal governments that 

have affected EGUs located in their area 

of Indian country. For Indian country, 

the proposal establishes CO2 emission 

performance goals that could be 

addressed through either tribal or 

federal plans. A tribe would have the 

opportunity under the TAR, but not the 

obligation, to apply to the EPA for TAS 

for purposes of a CAA section 111(d) 

plan and, if approved by the EPA, to 

establish a CAA section 111(d) plan for 

its area of Indian country. To date, no 

tribe has requested or obtained TAS 

eligibility for purposes of a CAA section 

111(d) plan. For areas of Indian country 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

with affected sources where a tribe has 

not applied for TAS and submitted any 

needed plan, if the EPA determines that 

a CAA section 111(d) plan is necessary 

or appropriate, the EPA would have the 

responsibility to establish the plans. 

Because tribes are not required to 

implement section 111(d) plans and 

because no tribe has yet sought TAS 

eligibility for this purpose, this 

proposed action is not anticipated to 

impose any information collection 

burden on tribal governments over the 

3-year period covered by this ICR. 

This proposal does impose specific 

requirements on U.S. territory 

governments that have affected EGUs. 

Their information collection 

requirements are based on the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the requirement that the 

two affected U.S. territories (i.e., Puerto 

Rico and Guam) develop, implement 

and enforce a plan to limit CO2

emissions from existing sources in the 

power sector within those U.S. 

territories. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this collection 

of information for the territories 

(averaged over the first 3 years following 

promulgation of this proposed action) is 

estimated to be 29,200 hours at a total 

annual labor cost of $2.07 million. The 

total annual burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years following promulgation of this 

proposed action) is estimated to be 

2,530 hours at a total annual labor cost 

of $141,000. Burden means the total 

time, effort or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain or disclose or provide 

information to or for a federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and to OMB. See the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this action for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after November 4, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by December 4, 2014. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201 (for the electric power 

generation industry, the small business 

size standard is an ultimate parent 

entity with less than 750 employees). 

The North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes for 

the affected industry are in Table 11 

below); (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

TABLE 11—POTENTIALLY REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES a

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ................................................................ 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units. 

State/Territorial/Local Government ..................... b 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by municipalities. 

a Include NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric power generating units (includes boilers and stationary combined cycle combustion turbines). bState, territory or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule will not impose 

any requirements on small entities. 

Specifically, emission guidelines 

established under CAA section 111(d) 

do not impose any requirements on 

regulated entities and, thus, will not 

have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small 

entities. After emission guidelines are 

promulgated, each affected U.S. territory 

establishes standards on existing 

sources, and it is those requirements 

that could potentially impact small 

entities. Our analysis here is consistent 

with the analysis of the analogous 

situation arising when the EPA 

establishes national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS), which do not 

impose any requirements on regulated 

entities. As here with regard to U.S. 

territories, any impact of a NAAQS on 

small entities would only arise when 

states take subsequent action to 

maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS 

through their state implementation 

plans. See American Trucking Assoc. v. 

EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043–45 (D.C. Cir. 

1999) (NAAQS do not have significant 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65501 

45 ‘‘State’’ is defined under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) as ‘‘a State of the 

United States, the District of Columbia, a territory 

or possession of the United States, and an agency, 

instrumentality, or fiscal agent of a State but does 

not mean a local government of a State.’’ 

46 ‘‘State’’ or ‘‘States’’ are defined under Executive 

Order 13132 as ‘‘the States of the United States of 

America, individually or collectively, and, where 

relevant, to State governments, including units of 

local government and other political subdivisions 

established by the States.’’ 

impacts upon small entities because 

NAAQS themselves impose no 

regulations upon small entities). 

Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that 

there is substantial interest in the 

proposed rule among small entities. As 

detailed in section II.D of this 

supplemental proposal and section III.A 

of the preamble to the proposed carbon 

pollution emission guidelines for 

existing EGUs (79 FR 34845–34847, 

June 18, 2014), the EPA has conducted 

an unprecedented amount of 

stakeholder outreach on setting 

emission guidelines for existing EGUs. 

While formulating the provisions of the 

June 18, 2014, proposed rule, as well as 

this proposed rule, the EPA considered 

the input provided over the course of 

the stakeholder outreach. Sections II.D 

and VI.F of this supplemental proposal 

and section III.B of the preamble to the 

June 18, 2014, proposal (79 FR 34847) 

describe the key issues and messages 

from stakeholders. The EPA invites 

comments on all aspects of this proposal 

and its impacts, including potential 

impacts on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action does not contain 

a federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state,45 local and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. The emission guidelines 

proposed under CAA section 111(d) do 

not impose any direct compliance 

requirements on EGU sources. As 

explained in section VI.B above, the 

proposal also does not impose specific 

requirements on tribal governments that 

have affected EGUs located in their area 

of Indian country. The proposal does 

impose specific requirements on U.S. 

territory governments that have affected 

EGUs. Specifically, the U.S. territories 

are required to develop plans to 

implement the guidelines under CAA 

section 111(d) for affected EGUs. The 

burden for U.S. territories to develop 

CAA section 111(d) plans in the 3-year 

period following promulgation of the 

rule was estimated and is listed in 

section VI.B above, but this burden is 

estimated to be below $100 million in 

any one year. Thus, this proposed rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

section 202 or section 205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Specifically, the governments with 

affected EGUs for which this action 

proposes specific requirements (i.e., the 

U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and 

Guam) are not considered small 

governments. 

In light of the interest among 

governmental entities, the EPA initiated 

outreach with U.S. territory and tribal 

governmental entities while formulating 

the provisions of this proposed rule. 

Section III.A of the preamble to the 

proposed carbon pollution emission 

guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 

34845–34847, June 18, 2014) describes 

the extensive stakeholder outreach the 

EPA has conducted on setting emission 

guidelines for existing EGUs. Section 

II.D of this supplemental proposal 

details the specific outreach that the 

EPA conducted to the U.S. territories 

with potentially affected EGUs. In 

addition, section VI.F of this 

supplemental proposal and section XI.F 

of the preamble to the June 18, 2014, 

proposed rule describe outreach to 

tribes and consultation with tribal 

officials. The EPA considered the input 

provided over the course of its 

stakeholder outreach developing the 

provisions of these proposed emission 

guidelines. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 

13132 applies only to states, whereas 

this action proposes emission 

performance goals covering affected 

power plants located in the U.S. 

territories and in specified areas of 

Indian country.46 Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

Nevertheless, as described in section 

II.D of this supplemental proposal and 

section III.A of the preamble to the 

proposed carbon pollution emission 

guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 

34845–34847, June 18, 2014), the EPA 

has conducted an unprecedented 

amount of stakeholder outreach on 

setting emission guidelines for existing 

EGUs. Section II.D of this supplemental 

proposal details the outreach that the 

EPA conducted to the U.S. territories 

with potentially affected EGUs. In 

addition, section VI.F of this 

supplemental proposal and section XI.F 

of the preamble to the June 18, 2014, 

proposed rule describe outreach to 

tribes and consultation with tribal 

officials. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA’s policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA welcomes comment on this 

proposed action from U.S. territory and 

tribal officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000) the EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs on tribal 

governments and that is not required by 

statute, unless the federal government 

provides the funds necessary to pay the 

direct compliance costs incurred by 

tribal governments, or the EPA consults 

with tribal officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation 

and develops a tribal summary impact 

statement. 

The EPA has concluded that this 

action may have tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempt tribal 

law. Tribes are not required to develop 

or adopt CAA programs, but they may 

apply to the EPA for TAS and, if 

approved, do so. Tribes are not required 

to develop plans to implement the 

guidelines under CAA section 111(d) for 

affected EGUs in their areas of Indian 

country. To the extent that a tribal 

government seeks and attains TAS 

status for that purpose, these proposed 

emission guidelines would require that 

planning requirements be met and 

emission management implementation 

plans be executed by the tribes. The 

EPA notes that this proposal does not 

directly impose specific requirements 

on affected EGUs, including those 

located in Indian country, but provides 

guidance to any tribe approved by the 

EPA to address CO2 emissions from 

EGU sources found subject to section 

111(d) of the CAA. The EPA also notes 

that none of the affected EGUs are 

owned or operated by tribal 

governments. 

The June 18, 2014, proposed rule and 

this supplemental proposal were 

developed after extensive and vigorous 

outreach to stakeholders, including 

tribes. Tribes were invited to participate 

in the national informational webinar, 

‘‘Building a Common Understanding: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Clean Air Act and Upcoming Carbon 

Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power 

Plants,’’ held August 27, 2013. The EPA 

also held a series of listening sessions 

prior to development of this proposed 

action. Tribes participated in a session 

on September 9, 2013, together with the 

state agencies, as well as in a separate 

tribe-only session on September 26, 

2013. In addition, an outreach meeting 

was held on September 9, 2013, with 

tribal representatives from some of the 

566 tribes. 

As part of the outreach to tribes, EPA 

representatives also met with tribal 

environmental staff with the National 

Tribal Air Association, by 

teleconference, on July 25, 2013, 

December 19, 2013, June 26, 2014, and 

webinars on August 4, 2014, and 

September 5, 2014. In those 

teleconferences and webinars, the EPA 

provided background information on 

the GHG emission guidelines to be 

developed and a summary of issues 

being explored by the agency. Tribes 

have expressed varied points of view. 

Some tribes raised concerns about the 

impacts of the regulations on EGUs and 

the subsequent impact on jobs and 

revenue for their tribes. Other tribes 

expressed concern about the impact the 

regulations would have on the cost of 

water to their communities as a result of 

increased costs to the EGU that provide 

energy to transport the water to the 

tribes. Other tribes raised concerns 

about the impacts of climate change on 

their communities, resources, ways of 

life and hunting and treaty rights. The 

tribes were also interested in the scope 

of the guidelines being considered by 

the agency (e.g., over what time period, 

relationship to state and multi-state 

plans) and how tribes will participate in 

these planning activities. 

The EPA conducted outreach to tribal 

environmental staff and offered 

consultation with tribal officials in 

developing this action. Because this 

supplemental proposal would affect 

sources located within Indian country, 

the EPA offered consultation with tribal 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation to 

permit tribes to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. The 

EPA sent consultation letters to the 

leaders of all of the federally recognized 

tribes. The letters provided information 

regarding the EPA’s development of 

emission guidelines for existing power 

plants and offered consultation. The 

EPA held a consultation with the Ute 

Tribe, the Crow Nation, and the MHA 

Nation on July 18, 2014. On August 22, 

2014, the EPA held a consultation with 

the Fort Mojave Tribe. On September 

15, 2014, the EPA held a consultation 

with the Navajo Nation. The Navajo 

Nation sent a letter to the EPA on 

September 18, 2014, summarizing the 

information presented at the 

consultation and the Navajo Nation’s 

position on this supplemental proposal. 

One issue raised by tribal officials was 

the potential impacts of the June 18, 

2014, proposal and this supplemental 

proposal on tribes with budgets that are 

dependent on revenue from coal mines 

and power plants, as well as 

employment at the mines and power 

plants. The tribes noted the high 

unemployment rates and lack of access 

to basic services on their lands. Tribal 

officials also asked whether the rules 

will have any impact on a tribe’s ability 

to seek TAS. Tribal officials also 

expressed interest in agency actions 

with regard to facilitating power plant 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements. The Navajo Nation made 

the following recommendations in their 

letter of September 18, 2014: The Navajo 

Nation supports a mass-based CO2

emission standard based on the highest 

historical CO2 emissions since 1996; the 

Navajo Nation requests that the EPA 

grant the Navajo Nation carbon credits 

and that the Navajo Nation retains 

ownership and control of such credits; 

building block 2 is not appropriate for 

the Navajo Nation because there are no 

NGCC plants located on the Navajo 

Nation; building block 3 is not 

appropriate for the Navajo Nation 

because the Navajo people already 

receive virtually all of their electricity 

from carbon-free sources (mostly 

hydroelectric power) and their use of 

electricity is negligible compared to the 

generation at the power plants; building 

block 4 is not appropriate for the Navajo 

Nation because of the inadequate access 

to electricity, and the goal should allow 

for an increase in energy consumption 

on the Navajo Nation; the supplemental 

proposal should consider the useful life 

of the power plants located on the 

Navajo Nation; and the supplemental 

proposal should clarify that RE projects 

located within the Navajo Nation that 

provide electricity outside the Navajo 

Nation should be counted toward 

meeting the relevant state’s RE goals 

under the Clean Power Plan. 

The EPA will continue the ongoing 

dialogue with tribal officials regarding 

this proposed action. During the public 

comment period for this proposal, the 

EPA will hold meetings with tribal 

environmental staff to inform them of 

the content of this proposal, as well as 

offer further consultation with tribal 

elected officials, where it is appropriate. 

The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions on environmental health or 

safety risks that may disproportionately 

affect children. The EPA believes that 

the CO2 emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of the proposed 

guidelines, as well as substantial O3 and 

PM2.5 emission reductions as a cobenefit, would further improve 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy. Affected 

EGUs in one area of Indian country are 

expected to meet the proposed goal 

based on compliance with other 

regulations; the impacts of meeting the 

proposed goals for the other two areas 

of Indian country were already 

accounted for in the June 18, 2014, 

proposal. In U.S. territories, the EPA 

anticipates a small degree of re-dispatch 

from coal- and oil-fired generation to 

natural gas-fired generation. It is 

possible that some portion of this shift 

away from coal- and oil-fired generation 

may occur in the absence of the rule, 

due primarily to the relatively high cost 

of petroleum-based fuel and electricity 

in these areas. For example, PREPA 

plans to add natural gas capacity at 

existing petroleum-burning plants. 

Additionally, both Guam and Puerto 

Rico are implementing Renewable 

Portfolio Standards programs which 

may contribute to implementing these 

goals at a different cost than projected 

in the RIA. The ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for Calculating Carbon 

Pollution Goals for Existing Power 

Plants in U.S. Territories and Areas of 

Indian Country’’ provides additional 

information about PREPA’s planned 

expansion of natural gas electricity 

generation and the Guam and Puerto 

Rico Renewable Portfolio Standards 

programs. The EPA does not account for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65503 

47 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 

2009) (‘‘Endangerment Finding’’). 

48 ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter, Final Rule,’’ 78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 

2013). 

49U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

these existing trends in this analysis due 

to data limitations. Additionally, since 

the EPA estimated these impacts 

without the use of an economic dispatch 

model, the EPA is potentially 

overstating the costs of implementation 

in these areas. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory and procurement 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by one or 

more VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

does not use available and applicable 

VCS. This proposed rulemaking does 

not involve technical standards. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable VCS and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the U.S. 

Section II.A of the preamble to the 

proposed carbon pollution emission 

guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 

34841–34843, June 18, 2014) 

summarizes the public health and 

welfare impacts from GHG emissions 

that were detailed in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding under CAA 

section 202(a)(1).47 As part of the 

Endangerment Finding, the 

Administrator considered climate 

change risks to minority or low-income 

populations, finding that certain parts of 

the population may be especially 

vulnerable based on their 

circumstances. These include the poor, 

the elderly, the very young, those 

already in poor health, the disabled, 

those living alone, and/or indigenous 

populations dependent on one or a few 

resources. The Administrator placed 

weight on the fact that certain groups, 

including children, the elderly and the 

poor, are most vulnerable to climaterelated health effects. 

Strong scientific evidence that the 

potential impacts of climate change 

raise environmental justice issues is 

found in the major assessment reports 

by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change and the National 

Research Council of the National 

Academies, summarized in the record 

for the Endangerment Finding. Their 

conclusions include that poor 

communities can be especially 

vulnerable to climate change impacts 

because they tend to have more limited 

adaptive capacities and are more 

dependent on climate-sensitive 

resources such as local water and food 

supplies. In addition, Native American 

tribal communities possess unique 

vulnerabilities to climate change, 

particularly those on established 

reservations that are restricted to 

reservation boundaries and, therefore, 

have limited relocation options. Tribal 

communities whose health, economic 

well-being and cultural traditions 

depend upon the natural environment 

will likely be affected by the 

degradation of ecosystem goods and 

services associated with climate change. 

Southwest native cultures are especially 

vulnerable to water quality and 

availability impacts. Native Alaskan 

communities are likely to experience 

disruptive impacts, including shifts in 

the range or abundance of wild species 

crucial to their livelihoods and wellbeing. The most recent assessments 

continue to strengthen scientific 

understanding of climate change risks to 

minority and low-income populations. 

This proposed rule would limit GHG 

emissions by establishing CO2 emission 

guidelines for use in developing CAA 

section 111(d) plans to address CO2

emissions from affected EGUs. In 

addition to reducing CO2 emissions, 

implementing the proposed rule 

through the development of CAA 

section 111(d) plans would reduce other 

emissions from EGUs that become 

dispatched less frequently due to their 

relatively low energy efficiency. These 

emission reductions will include SO2

and NOX, which form ambient PM2.5

and O3 in the atmosphere, and HAP, 

such as Hg and HCl. In the final rule 

revising the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,48 the 

EPA identified persons with lower 

socioeconomic status as an at-risk 

population for experiencing adverse 

health effects related to PM exposures. 

Persons with lower socioeconomic 

status have been generally found to have 

a higher prevalence of pre-existing 

diseases, limited access to medical 

treatment, and increased nutritional 

deficiencies, which can increase this 

population’s risk to PM-related and O3- 

related effects.49 Therefore, in areas 

where this rulemaking ultimately results 

in reductions in exposure to PM2.5, O3

and methylmercury, persons with low 

socioeconomic status would also 

benefit. The RIA for this rulemaking, 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking, provides additional 

information regarding the health and 

ecosystem effects associated with these 

emission reductions. 

While there will be many locations 

with improved air quality for PM2.5, O3

and HAP, there may also be EGUs 

whose emissions of one or more of these 

pollutants or their precursors increase 

as a result of implementation of the 

proposed emission guidelines for 

existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. This may 

occur at EGUs that become dispatched 

more intensively than in the past 

because they become more energy 

efficient. The EPA has considered the 

potential for such increases and the 

environmental justice implications of 

such increases. 

As noted in the preamble for the June 

18, 2014, proposal, as part of a 

jurisdiction’s CAA section 111(d) plan, 

the jurisdiction may require an affected 

EGU to undertake physical or 

operational changes to improve the 

EGU’s efficiency that result in an 

increase in the EGU’s dispatch and an 

increase in its annual emissions of 

GHGs and/or other regulated pollutants. 

However, a jurisdiction can take steps to 

avoid increased utilization of particular 

EGUs and emissions of regulated 

pollutants whose environmental effects 

would be more localized around the 

affected EGU. To the extent that 

jurisdictions take this path, there would 

be no new environmental justice 

concerns in the areas near such EGUs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

50 65 FR 79831. 

In addition, the applicable jurisdiction 

or federal permitting program can adjust 

its CAA section 111(d) plan to ensure 

that there are no new NAAQS 

exceedances and that no existing 

NAAQS exceedances are made worse. 

For those EGUs in a permitting situation 

for which the EPA is the permit 

reviewing authority, the EPA will 

consider environmental justice issues as 

required by Executive Order 12898. 

In addition to some EGUs possibly 

being required by a jurisdiction to make 

modifications for increased energy 

efficiency, another potential effect of the 

proposed CO2 emission guidelines for 

existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs would be 

increased utilization of other, 

unmodified EGUs with relatively low 

GHG emissions per unit of electrical 

output, in particular high efficiency gasfired EGUs. Such plants would have 

more hours in the year in which they 

operate and emit pollutants, including 

pollutants whose environmental effects 

if any would be localized rather than 

global as is the case with GHG 

emissions. Changes in utilization 

already occur now as demands for and 

sources of electrical energy evolve, but 

the proposed CO2 emission guidelines 

for existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs can be 

expected to cause more such changes. 

Because gas-fired EGUs emit essentially 

no Hg, increased utilization would not 

increase methylmercury concentrations 

in their vicinities. Increased utilization 

generally would not cause higher peak 

concentrations of PM2.5, NOX or O3

around such EGUs than is already 

occurring because peak hourly or daily 

emissions generally would not change, 

but increased utilization may make 

periods of relatively high concentrations 

more frequent. It should be noted that 

the gas-fired sources that are likely to 

become dispatched more frequently 

than at present have very low emissions 

of primary PM, SO2 and HAP per unit 

of electrical output, such that local (or 

regional) air quality for these pollutants 

is likely to be affected very little. For 

natural gas-fired EGUs, the EPA found 

that regulation of HAP emissions ‘‘is not 

appropriate or necessary because the 

impacts due to HAP emissions from 

such EGUs are negligible based on the 

results of the study documented in the 

utility RTC [response to comments].’’ 50

In studies done by the U.S. Department 

of Energy’s National Energy Technology 

Laboratory comparing cost and 

performance of coal- and natural gasfired generation, they assumed SO2, PM 

(and Hg) emissions to be ‘‘negligible.’’ 

Their studies predict NOX emissions 

from a NGCC unit to be approximately 

10 times lower than a subcritical or 

supercritical coal-fired boiler. Many are 

also very well controlled for emission of 

NOX through the application of after 

combustion controls such as selective 

catalytic reduction, although not all gasfired sources are so equipped. 

Depending on the specificity of the 

jurisdiction’s CAA section 111(d) plan, 

the jurisdiction may be able to predict 

which EGUs and communities may be 

in this type of situation and to address 

any concerns about localized NOX

concentrations in the design of the CAA 

section 111(d) program, or separately 

from the CAA section 111(d) program 

but before its implementation. In any 

case, existing tracking systems will 

allow jurisdictions and the EPA to be 

aware of the EGUs whose utilization has 

increased most significantly, and, thus, 

to be able to prioritize our efforts to 

assess whether air quality has changed 

in the communities in the vicinity of 

such EGUs. There are multiple 

mechanisms in the CAA to address 

situations in which air quality has 

degraded significantly. In conclusion, 

this proposed rule would result in 

regional and national pollutant 

reductions; however, there likely would 

also be some locations with more times 

during the year of relatively higher 

concentrations of pollutants with 

potential for effects on localized 

communities than would be 

experienced in the absence of the 

proposed rule. The EPA cannot exactly 

predict how emissions from specific 

EGUs would change as an outcome of 

the proposed rule due to the 

jurisdiction-led implementation. 

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that 

it is not practicable to determine 

whether there would be 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations from this proposed rule. 

In order to provide opportunities for 

meaningful involvement early on in the 

rule making process, the EPA has hosted 

webinars and conference calls on 

August 27, 2013, and September 9, 

2013, for the June 18, 2014, proposal 

specifically for environmental justice 

and tribal communities and has taken 

all comments and suggestions into 

consideration in the design of the 

emission guidelines. Additionally, after 

the June 18, 2014, rule was proposed, 

the EPA hosted public hearings in 

Denver, Colorado, Atlanta, Georgia, 

Washington, DC and Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, from July 29–August 1, 

2014. Additionally, as referenced in the 

public hearing section of this proposal, 

the EPA will also be holding a public 

hearing on this supplemental proposal. 

Also, as part of the outreach conducted 

for the Clean Power Plan, the EPA has 

created interactive maps that provide 

the locations of fossil fuel fired power 

plants covered by the proposed Clean 

Power Plan and summaries that describe 

each area’s power sector CO2 emission 

rates (using 2012 data) and each area’s 

proposed emission rate goal. These 

interactive maps are available at: 

http://cleanpowerplanmaps.epa.gov/

CleanPowerPlan/. Additionally, the 

public is invited to submit comments or 

identify peer-reviewed studies and data 

that assess effects of exposure to the 

pollutants addressed by this proposal. 

VII. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 111, 301, 302, 

and 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 

7607(d)(1)(V)). This action is also 

subject to section 307(d) of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7607(d)). 

Proposed Rule Amendment With 

Changes 

To facilitate understanding of the 

amendments to the proposed subpart 

UUUU being proposed in this action, 

the EPA is providing a Technical 

Support Document in the docket for this 

rulemaking that shows in track changes 

the proposed amendments to the text of 

the proposed subpart UUUU in the June 

18, 2014, Federal Register publication. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 28, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of 

the Code of the Federal Regulations, as 

proposed to be amended at 79 FR 34830, 

June 18, 2014, is proposed to be further 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65505 

Subpart UUUU—Emission Guidelines 

for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Compliance Times for Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

■ 2. Revise § 60.5710 to read as follows: 

§ 60.5710 Am I affected by this subpart? 

If you are the Administrator of an air 

quality program of a state, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam 

and any other United States’ territory, or 

an Indian tribe that has been approved 

by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 49.9 as 

eligible to administer this subsection 

(hereinafter a state) in state with one or 

more affected EGUs that commenced 

construction on or before January 8, 

2014, you must submit a state plan to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. You must submit a negative 

declaration letter in place of the state 

plan if there are no affected EGUs for 

which construction commenced on or 

before January 8, 2014 in your state. 

■ 3. Amend Table 1 to Subpart UUUU 

of Part 60—State Rate-Based CO2

Emission Performance Goals (Pounds of 

CO2 per net MWh)by adding entries for 

Puerto Rico, Guam, Lands of the Navajo 

Nation, Lands of the Ute Tribe of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and 

Lands of the Fort Mojave Tribe to the 

end as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART UUUU OF PART 60—STATE RATE-BASED CO2 EMISSION PERFORMANCE GOALS

[Pounds of CO2 per net MWh] 

State Interim goal Final goal 

*******

Puerto Rico .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,470 1,413 

Guam ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,733 1,586 

Lands of the Navajo Nation ..................................................................................................................................... 1,991 1,989 

Lands of the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ................................................................................ 2,000 1,988 

Lands of the Fort Mojave Tribe ............................................................................................................................... 856 855 

[FR Doc. 2014–26112 Filed 10–30–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS