1Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power PlantsListing of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Requests for Comment*Vol. 79, Federal Register, No. 117, Wednesday, June18, 2014Environmental Protection Agency40 CFR Part 60Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule*Please note: comments must be received on orbefore October 16, 2014.Category CommentPage No.inFederalRegisterGeneral The EPA is offering the opportunity to comment on the proposed BSER, the proposed methodologyforcomputing state goals based on application of the BSER, and the state-specific data used in the computations.34835General The EPA invites further input through public comment on all aspects of this proposal.34835Compliance Time The agency is also requesting comment on an alternative option, a 5-year period for compliance, in combination with aless stringent set of CO2emission performance levels.34839Building Blocks The EPA is also seeking comment ondifferent combinations of building blocks and different levels of stringency foreach building block.34839StakeholderProposalsDuring the EPA’s public outreach in advance of thisproposal, a number of ideas were put forward thatare not fullyreflected in this proposal. We invite public comment on these ideas, some of which are outlined below.34847StakeholderProposalsOther stakeholders suggested that an ‘‘inside the fence’’ plant- or unit-specific assessment linked tothe availability ofcontrol at the source such as heat rate improvements should be considered. They indicated that once plant-specific goalsare established based on on-site CO2reduction opportunities, the source should have the flexibility to look ‘‘outside thefence’’ for the means to achieve the goals, including the use of emissions trading and averaging. TheEPA invitescomment on these suggestions.34848LegalInterpretationThe EPA discusses its legal interpretation in moredetail in other parts of this preamble and discusses certain issues inmore detail in the Legal Memorandum included in thedocket for this rulemaking. The EPA solicits comment on allaspects of its legal interpretations, including thediscussion in the Legal Memorandum.348532Tribal The EPA invites comment on whether a tribe wishing to develop and implement a CAA section 111(d) plan should havethe option of including the EGUs located in its area of Indian country in a multi-jurisdictional planwith one or morestates (i.e., treating the tribal lands as an additional state).34854Tribal If the EPA develops one or more CAA section111(d) federal plans for areas of Indian country with affected EGUs, weare likewise currently considering doing so on a multi-jurisdictional basis in coordination with nearby states developingCAA section 111(d) plans. The EPA solicits commenton such an approach for a federal plan.34854Tribal We invite comment on how the BSER should beapplied to potentially affected EGUs in Indian country.34855Tribal We particularly invite comment on data sources for setting renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency targets.34855Tribal The state-specific goals that the EPA is proposing are based on the collection of affected EGUslocated within thatstate. In setting goals specific to an area of Indian country, the EPA proposes to base the goals on the collection ofaffected EGUs located within that area of Indian country. We request comment on this approach.34855CombiningCategoriesThe EPA is soliciting comment on combining the twoexisting categories for the affected EGUs into a single categoryfor purposes of facilitating emission trading amongsources in both categories.34855CombiningCategoriesThe EPA is proposing emission guidelines for the two categories and is soliciting comment on combiningthe twocategories into a single category for purposes of the CO2emissions from existing affected EGUs.34855CombiningCategoriesThe EPA solicits comment on whether combining the two categories would offer additional flexibility, for example, byfacilitating implementation of CO2mitigation measures, such as shifting generation from higher to lower-carbonintensity generation among existing sources (e.g.,shifting from boilers to NGCC units) or facilitating emissions tradingamong sources.34855Building BlocksWe are proposing that the basis for supporting theBSER should include heat rate improvements only atcoal-fired steamEGUs, but we are inviting comment on including heatrate improvements at other EGU types.34856Building Blocks As noted later in this preamble, weare seeking comment on the extent to which existing EGUs could implement CCS inorder to improve our understanding.34857Building Blocks Gas conversion or co-firing would be available to states and sources as a compliance option, and, as noted later in thepreamble, we are seeking comment on whether this option should be considered part of the BSER.34857Building BlocksAs noted in Section VI.C.5.d below, we are requesting comment on including heat rate improvement opportunities atother EGU types in the basis for supporting the BSER.34859Building Blocks We believe a reasonable estimate for purposes of developing state-specific goals is that affected coal-fired steam EGUson average could achieve a four percent improvementin heat rate through adoption of best practices toreduce hourlyheat rate variability. This estimate corresponds tothe elimination, on average across the fleet of affected EGUs, of 30percent of the deviation from top-decile performance in the hourly heat rate for each EGU not attributable to hourlytemperature and load variation. We also solicit comment on the use of estimates up to six percent, reflecting eliminationon average of 50 percent of the deviation from top-decile performance.348603Building Blocks We propose to use as a data input for purposes of developing state goals an estimate that, on average across the fleet ofaffected EGUs, only half of the full equipment upgrade opportunity remains—i.e., that for the fleet ofaffected EGUs asa whole, the technical potential for heat rate improvements from equipment upgrades incremental to thebest-practicesopportunity is on average two percent rather than four percent. We solicit comment on increasing thisfigure up to fourpercent.34860Building Blocks Based on the analyses of technicalpotential and cost summarized above, we propose tofind that a six percent reductionin the CO2emission rate of the coal-fired EGUs in a state, onaverage, is a reasonable estimate of the amount ofheat rateimprovement that can be implemented at a reasonablecost. However, as discussed in Section VI.C.5.d below, we arerequesting comment on this aspect of the proposal.Further, states and sources would be free to use heat rateimprovements at those other units to help reach thestate goals.34862Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects ofour analyses and findings related to heat rate improvements, both as summarizedhere and as further discussed in the Greenhouse GasAbatement Measures TSD.34862Building BlocksAs noted earlier, we specifically request comment on increasing the estimates of the amounts of heat rate improvementachievable through adoption of best practices for operation and maintenance and through equipment upgrades up to sixpercent and four percent, respectively, representing a total potential improvement of up to ten percent, particularly inlight of the reasonable cost of heat rate improvements.34862Building Blocks We also solicit comment on the quantitative impacts on the net heat rates of coal-fired steam EGUs of operation at loadsless than the rated maximum unit loads.34862Building Blocks We invite comment on whether the regional or state scenarios should be given greater weight in establishing theappropriate degree of re-dispatch to incorporate into the state goals for CO2emission reductions, and in assessing costs.34865Building Blocks We invite comment on whether we should consider options for a target utilization ratefor existing NGCC units greaterthan the proposed 70 percent target utilization rate.34866Building Blocks We invite comment on the findings regarding the potential for increased utilization ofexisting NGCC units to supportthe BSER and on all other issues raised by the discussion above and the related portions of the Greenhouse GasAbatement Measures TSD.34866Building Blocks We invite comment regarding the treatment of Alaska and Hawaii as part of this methodfor developing annual REgeneration levels.34867Building Blocks For some states, the RE generationtargets developed using the proposed approach are less than the states’ reported REgeneration amounts for 2012. We invite comment on whether the approach for quantifying the RE generationcomponent of each state’s goal should be modified to include a floor based on reported 2012 RE generation in that state.34868Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on whetherthe approach for quantifying the RE generation component of each state’s goalshould be modified so that the difference between astate’s RE generation target and its 2012 level ofcorresponding REgeneration does not exceed the state’s reported 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation.34868-348694Building Blocks With regard to hydropower, we seekcomment regarding whether to include 2012 hydropower generation from eachstate in that state’s ‘‘best practices’’ RE quantified under the proposed approach, and whether and how the EPA shouldconsider year-to-year variability in hydropower generation if such generation is included in the RE targets quantified aspart of BSER. Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD presents state RE targets both with and without theinclusion of each state’s 2012 hydropower generation.34869Building Blocks We invite comment on the proposed approach to treatment of renewable generating capacity as a basis for the bestsystem of emission reduction adequately demonstrated and for quantification of state goals.34869Building Blocks We invite comment on the alternative approach to quantification of RE generation to support the BSER described onpages 34869-70. We note that the three specific requests for comment made above with respect to the proposedquantification approach— addressing, first, the possibility of a floor based on 2012 RE generation, second, thepossibility of a limitation based on 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation and, third, the treatment of hydropowergeneration—apply to this alternative approach as well.34870Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on other possible techno-economic approaches to quantificationof RE generation to supportthe BSER. For example, a conceptual framework for another techno-economic approach is provided in theAlternativeRE Approach TSD.34870Building Blocks We request comment on whether it isappropriate to reflect completion of the five identified nuclear EGUs currentlyunder construction in the state goals and on alternative ways of considering these units when settingstate goals.34870Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects ofthe approach discussed for treatment of nuclear generation. In addition, wespecifically request comment on whether we should include in the state goals an estimated amount of additional nuclearcapacity whose construction is sufficiently likelyto merit evaluation for potential inclusion in thegoal-settingcomputation.34871Building Blocks As discussed in Section VII.E below, the EPA is also taking comment on a less stringent alternative for setting stategoals.34873Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects ofour data and methodology for estimating the potential for demand-side energyefficiency to support the BSER as discussed in thepreamble and in the TSD, as well as on the level ofreductions wepropose to define as best practices suitable for representation consistent with the best system of emission reduction andthe level reflected in the less stringent scenario.34875Building Blocks For demand-side EE, we also specifically invite comment on several issues: (1) Increasing the annual incrementalsavings rate to 2.0 percent and the pace of improvement to 0.25 percent per year to reflect an estimate of the additionalelectricity savings achievable from state policiesnot reflected in the 1.5 percent rate and the 0.20percent per year paceof improvement, such as building energy codes and state appliance standards, (2) alternative approaches and/or datasources (i.e., other than EIA Form 861) for determining each state’s current level of annual incremental electricitysavings, and (3) alternative approaches and/or datasources for evaluating costs associated with implementation of statedemand-side energy efficiency policies.348755Building Blocks We solicit comment on whether natural gas co-firing or conversion should be part of the BSER.34876Building Blocks We also request comment regarding whether, and, if so, how, we should consider the co-benefits of natural gas co-firingin making the BSER determination.34876Building Blocks The EPA does solicit comment on all aspects of applying CCS to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs (in either full or partialconfigurations), but does not expect to finalize CCS as a component of the BSER in this rulemaking.34876Building Blocks We invite comment on whether we should consider construction and use of new NGCC capacity as part of the basissupporting the BSER.34877Building Blocks We request comment on ways to define appropriate state-level goals based on consideration of new NGCC capacity.34877Building Blocksand U.S.territoriesWe invite comment on whether heat rate improvementsfor one or more types of non-coal fossil fuel-fired EGUs shouldbe identified as a basis for supporting the BSER, with particular reference to U.S. territories.34877Building Blocks We invite comment on a potential BSER comprising a combination of building blocks 1 and 2.34878Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on a potential BSER comprising building blocks 1 and 2, in light of the considerations thatcould support this approach.34885Building Blocks In recognition of stakeholders’ expressed concerns, we invite comment on whether thereare special considerationsaffecting small rural cooperative or municipal utilities that might merit adjustments to thisproposal, and if so, possible adjustments that should be considered.34887Building Blocks We note that some stakeholders haveargued that CAA section 111(a)(1) does not authorize the EPA to identifyredispatch, low- or zero-emitting generation, or demand-side energy efficiency measures (building blocks 2, 3, and 4) ascomponents of the ‘‘best system of emission reduction . . .adequately demonstrated.’’ According to these stakeholders,as a legal matter, the BSER is limited to measuresthat may be undertaken at the affected units, and not measures that arebeyond the affected units; the measures in buildingblocks 2, 3, and 4 are ‘‘beyond-the-unit’’ or ‘‘beyond-the-fenceline’’measures because they are implemented outside of the affected units and outside their control; and asa result, thosemeasurescannot be considered components of the BSER. We welcome comment on this issue.34888Building Blocks The EPA solicits comment on whethermeasures in addition to those in building blocks 2, 3, and 4 couldsupport the showing that reduced utilization is ‘‘adequately demonstrated,’’ including additional NGCCcapacity thatmay be built in the future, as discussed in SectionVI.C.5.c above.34890Building Blocks As discussed above, the EPA is soliciting comment on combining the category of steam EGUs and the categoryof combustion turbines (which include NGCC units) into a single category for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, for purposes ofpromulgating emission guidelines for CO2emissions.34892Building Blocks The EPA solicits comment on whethercombining the categories is, as a legal matter, aprerequisite for (i) identifying asa component of the BSER re-dispatch between sourcesin the two categories (i.e., re-dispatch between steam EGUs andNGCC units), or (ii) facilitating averaging or trading systems that include sources in both categories, which states maywish to adopt.348926Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects ofour proposed interpretation and alternate interpretation of the BSER for CO2emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, both as identified above and as further discussed in the LegalMemorandum in the docket. In particular, we invitecomment on our analysis of the four building blocksas componentsof the BSER, whether any other potential measures should be considered, our analysis of the combinations of buildingblocks 1 and 2 and of all four building blocks, andthe legal, technical, and economic bases of our conclusions.34892Building Blocks Some commenters noted that tradingprograms like RGGI have been successful at reducingGHGs, and othercommenters provided specific BSER proposals based on trading and/or emissions averaging approaches. Wespecifically request comment on whether any of these approaches should be considered as the BSER.34892Building Blocks We also specifically invite commenton the question, raised by some stakeholders, as to whether if measures may berelied on in the state plan to achieve emission reductions, they cannot be excluded from the scope ofthe BSER solelybecause they involve actions by entities or at locations other than affected sources.34892State Goals We are requesting comment on a second set of state-specific goals that would reflect lessstringent application of thesame BSER, in this case by 2025, with interim goalsthat would apply over a 2020–2024 phase-in period.34892State Goals As noted in Section VI.C.5.d above, weare requesting comment on whether heat rate improvements for non-coal fossilfuel-fired EGUs should be part of the basis supporting the BSER, with particular reference to the situation ofgeographically isolated jurisdictions such as the U.S. territories.34893State Goals A state’s inability to meet the level of emission reductions anticipated through use of one building block may free upresources that the state could then devote to morestringent implementation of another building block.This approachwould mean that overall, the same nationwide levelof emission reductions as proposed would be achieved. The EPAinvites comment on this aspect of the proposal.34893State Goals With respect to U.S. territories, the EPA is currently aware of potentially affected EGUsin Puerto Rico, the U.S. VirginIslands, and Guam. The EPA requests comment on howthe BSER would apply to these territories, as wellas toAmerican Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands if potentially affected EGUs are subsequently identified in thoseterritories. In particular, the EPA solicits comment on appropriate alternatives for territories thatdo not have access tonatural gas.34893State Goals Because the data sources we have used for purposes of establishing renewable energy and demand-side energyefficiency targets for states do not cover all of the U.S. territories, we also solicit comment on ways to determineappropriate renewable energy and demand-side energyefficiency targets using other data sources.34893State Goals We also recognize that at present EGUsreport gross rather than net load 257 to us under 40 CFR Part 75, and that theproposed GHG standards of performance for new EGUsare expressed in terms of gross generation (although we soughtcomment on the use of net generation instead). We therefore specifically seek comment on whether the goals andreporting requirements for existing EGUs should beexpressed in terms of gross generation instead of net generation forconsistency with existing reporting requirements and with the proposed requirements under the GHGstandards of performance for new EGUs.34894-348957State Goals We invite comment on all aspects of theproposed form of the goals.34895State Goals The details of how states could attainemission performance levels consistent with the goals through different state planapproaches that recognize emission reductions achieved through all the building blocks are discussed further in SectionVIII on state plans. We invite comment on all aspects of the goal computation procedure. (Note that wealso invitecomment on certain specific alternate data inputs to the procedure in Section VI.C above). We also specifically invitecomment on the state-specific historical data to which the building blocks are applied in order to compute the stategoals, as well as the state-specific data used to develop the state-specific data inputs for buildingblocks 3 and 4.34896-34897State Goals With respect to building block 2, we specifically request comment on the following alternate procedure: In Step 3, to theextent that generation from a state’s NGCC group was increased consistent with the NGCC utilization rate target, inorder to maximize the resulting emission reductions, we would decrease generation from the state’s coal-fired steamgroup first, and then decrease generation from thestate’s oil/gas-fired steam group (instead of decreasing generationfrom the coalfired steam and oil/gas-fired steam groups proportionately).34897State Goals With respect to building block 4, we specifically invite comment on the alternative in Step 5 of scaling up the estimatedreduction in the generation by affected EGUs in netelectricity exporting states to reflect an expectation that a portion ofthe generation avoided in conjunction with the demand-side energy efficiency efforts of other, net electricity-importingstates would occur at those EGUs, analogous to theproposed adjustment for net electricity importing states described inStep 5.34897State Goals We also request comment on the alternative of making no adjustment in Step 5 for either net electricity-importing or netelectricity-exporting states.34897State Goals We also request comment on whether CO2emission reductions associated with other measuresnot currently included inany of the four proposed building blocks should beincluded in the state goals.34897State Goals States have the opportunity to commenton the proposed BSER, the proposed methodology forcomputing state goalsbased on application of the BSER, and the state-specific data that is proposed for use in the computations. We expectthat the states will have an adequate opportunity to comment on the state goals during the comment period.34898State Goals In addition to the proposed statespecific emission rate-based goals described above, the EPA has developed for publiccomment an alternate set of goals reflecting less stringent application of the building blocks and a shorterimplementation period. The alternate final goals represent emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, aftera 2020–2024 phase-in period, with interim goals that would apply during the 2020–2024 period on a cumulative oraverage basis as states progress toward the final goals.34898State Goals Accordingly, we request comment on thealternate goals, particularly with respect to whether any one or all of thebuilding blocks in the alternate goals can be applied at a greater level of stringency: Can the heat rate improvementvalue be set at a level above four percent, even six percent? Can NGCC capacity be dispatched at a utilization rate above65 percent? Can annual incremental electricity savings be achieved at a rate higher than one percent?erDate Mar Jun 17,34898-348998State Goals We request comment on whether, and if so how, the EPA should incorporate greater consideration of multi-stateapproaches into the goal setting process, and on the issue of whether, and if so how, the potential cost savings associatedwith multi-state approaches should be considered inassessing the reasonableness.34899State Goals The flexibility inherent in the rule isresponsive to the CAA’s recognition that state plans for emission reduction can,and must, be consistent with a vibrant and growingeconomy and reliable, affordable electricity to support that economy.The EPA welcomes comments and suggestions on this issue.34900State Plans The agency is soliciting comment on aspects of such CAA section 111(d) plans, as describedin Section V.D of thispreamble.34900State Plans With this in mind, we are proposing toprovide states with additional time to submit complete plans if they do so as partof a multistate plan, and we solicit comment on other potential mechanisms for fostering multi-state collaboration.34900State Plans The EPA requests comment on this proposed approach, as opposed to the approach under whichstate plans simplywould be required to hold the affected EGUs fully and solely responsible for achieving the emission performance level.34901State Plans In addition, the EPA is soliciting comment on several other types of state plans that mayassure the requisite levelof emission performance without rendering certain types of measures federally enforceable and that limit the obligationsof the affected EGUs.34901State Plans The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether it can reasonably interpret CAA section 111(d)(1) to allow states toadopt plans that require EGUs and other entities tobe legally responsible for actions required underthe plan that will, inaggregate, achieve the emission performance level.34901State Plans EPA requests comment on what we refer to as a ‘‘state commitment approach.’’ This approachdiffers from theproposed portfolio approach, described above, in one major way: Under the state commitment approach, the staterequirements for entities other than affected EGUswould not be components of the state plan and therefore would not befederally enforceable. Instead, the state plan would include an enforceable commitment by the state itself to implementstate-enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that would achieve a specified portion of the requiredemission performance level on behalf of affected EGUs. The agency requests comment on the appropriateness of thisapproach.34902State Plans The agency also requests comment on thepolicy ramifications of the following: Under thisapproach, the state programsupon which the state bases its commitment may, in turn, rely on compliance by third parties, and if those state programsfail to achieve the expected emission reductions, the state could be subject to challenges— includingby citizen groups—for violating CAA requirements and, as a result, could be held liable for CAA penalties.34902State Plans We also solicit comment on a variationof this state commitment plan approach that is alsodesigned to addressstakeholder concerns, noted above, about imposing sole legal responsibility on affected EGUs for achieving theemission performance level.34902State Plans We solicit comment on whether, if the EPA were to conclude that CAA section 111(d) requires state plans to includestandards of performance applicable to affected EGUs that achieve the emission performance level, thistype of stateplan would meet that requirement while also assuring those E.349029State Plans The EPA also requests comment on another approach: Whether ‘‘standards of performance for[affected sources]’’ isreasonably read to include the emission performancelevel (i.e., the state goal) on grounds that the level is ‘‘a standardfor emissions’’ because it is in the nature of a requirement that concerns emissions and it is ‘‘for’’the affected sourcesbecause it helps determine their obligations underthe plan.34903State Plans We solicit comment on the extent to which measures such as RE and demand-side EE may be considered‘‘implement[ing]’’measures in state plans if they are not directly tied to emission reductions that affected sources arerequired to make through emission limits, and if they are requirements on entities other than the affected sources.34903State Plans The EPA solicits comment on all aspectsof its proposed interpretation that states have this flexibility in selectingmeasures for their state plans under CAA section 111(d).34903State Plans This alternative interpretation would be based on, for example: A determination that CAA section 111(d)(1) must beread as precluding a state plan from including measures that are neither standards of performance normeasures for theimplementation or enforcement of such standards; aninterpretation that the state’s obligation to setperformancestandards ‘‘for’’ existing sources means that the standards must apply to affected EGUs and not to other entities;and an interpretation that measures ‘‘for the implementation and enforcement of such performance standards’’ do notinclude measures that are not intended or designedto assist affected EGUs in meeting the performancestandards. TheEPA requests comment on whether it must adopt thisalternative interpretation. If so, the EPA also takes comment onwhether there is a way, nonetheless, to allow states to rely on the portfolio approach to some extentand/or for someperiod of time.34903State Plans We request comment on all of the interpretations discussed in this section generally, andon all legal issues underCAA section 111(d)(1) with respect to what measurescan be included in a state plan and what entitiesmust belegally responsible for meeting those measures.34903State Plans The EPA invites comments on this interpretation of CAA section 111(d)(1), including whether this interpretation issupported by the statutory text and whether this interpretation is sensible policy and will further the goals of the statute.34904State Plans In Section VIII.B.2.f of this preamble,the agency also requests comment on alternative requirements aimed at continuedemission performance improvement after 2029. In Section VIII.B.2.g of this preamble, the EPA proposesflexibilityfor states to change from mass-based to rate-basedgoals in different performance periods and, in Section VIII.B.2.h, wesolicit comment on planning requirements that matchthe option of alternative, less stringent state goals.34904State Plans The agency requests comment on a secondoption in which, in addition to submitting a plandemonstrating emissionperformance through 2030, states would be requiredto make a second submittal in 2025 showing whethertheir planmeasures would maintain the final-goal level of emission performance over time. If not, the state submittal would berequired to strengthen or add to measures in the state plan to the extent necessary to maintain that level of performanceover time.3490510State Plans The EPA also requests comment on whether 2025, or an earlier or later year, would be the optimal year for a secondplan submittal under the second option.34905State Plans The agency generally requests comment on the appropriate start date and rationale for theplan performance period forthe interim goal.34905State Plans The agency invites comment on the proposed approach and other approaches to specifying performance periods for stateplans.34906State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there are other types of state plans that should be considered ‘‘self-correcting.’’34907State Plans The EPA alternatively requests commenton whether states should be required to create legal authority and/or adoptregulations providing for corrective measures in developing the state plan. The agency requests comment generally onthe conditions that should trigger corrective measure requirements.34907State Plans For plans with corrective measures adopted into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, the agency solicitscomment on whether actual emission performance inferior to projected performance by ten percent is theappropriatetrigger for requiring a state to report the reasonsfor deficient performance and to implement corrective measures. Weare also soliciting comment on the range of five percent to fifteen percent.34907State Plans For plans without corrective measures adopted into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, the agency solicitscomment on whether the proposed eight percent emission performance deviation trigger is appropriate. We also solicitcomment on the range of five percent to ten percent.34907State Plans The EPA also requests comment on the milestone approach and emission performance checks outlined in the context ofthe alternative 5-year performance period and the planning approach for alternative state goals.34907State Plans For plans that rely in part on end-useenergy efficiency programs and measures, the EPA requests comment on what astate would need to require in its plan to show that performance will be maintained after 2030.34908State Plans The agency requests comment on how theconsequences should vary depending on the reasons for a deficiency inperformance. Specifically, the agency requests comment on whether consequences should include the triggering ofcorrective measures in the state plan, or plan revisions to adjust requirements or add new measures.34908State Plans The agency requests comment on whethercorrective measures, in addition to ensuring futureachievement of the stategoal, should be required to achieve additional emission reductions to offset any emission performancedeficiency thatoccurred during a performance period for the interim or final goal.34908State Plans The agency requests comment on the process for invoking requirements for implementation ofcorrective measuresin response to a state plan performance deficiency.34908State Plans The EPA further requests comment on whether the agency should promulgate a mechanism underCAA section 111(d)similar to the SIP call mechanism in CAA section 110.34908State Plans The EPA proposes that a state must maintain the required level of performance and requestscomment on the alternativeof requiring continued improvement.3490811State Plans The EPA is proposing a mechanism for implementing the objective that the level of emissionperformance for affectedEGUs represented by the final goal be maintained inthe years after 2030, and the EPA is requesting comment on analternative approach to a state’s pre-implementation demonstration that the final-goal level of emission performance willbe maintained after 2030.34908State Plans The EPA generally requests comment on appropriate requirements to maintain the emission performance of affectedEGUs in years after 2030.34908State Plans The EPA also requests comment on whether we should establish BSER-based state emission performance goalsfor affected EGUs that extend further into the future (e.g., beyond the proposed planning period), andif so, what thoselevels of improved performance should be.34908State Plans The agency requests comment on the appropriate time period(s) and final year for the EPA’scalculation of state goalsthat reflect application of the BSER under this approach.34908State Plans The EPA notes that CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for the EPA, at least every eight years,to review and, if appropriate,revise federal standards of performance for new sources. This requirement provides for regular updating of performancestandards as technical advances provide technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The agency requests comment onthe implications of this concept, if any, for CAA section 111(d).34908State Plans In Section VII, the EPA requests comment on alternative, five-year state emission performance goals for affectedEGUs shown in Table 9. The alternative goals represent emission rates achievable on average during the2020–2024 period, as well as emission rates to be achieved and maintained after 2024. These alternative goals are lessstringent than the proposed goals in Table 8. To accompany the alternative goals, the EPA requests comment on anotherapproach for state plan performance periods.34909State Plans In connection with the alternative state goals, for the years after 2027, the EPA requestscomment on the same ‘‘outyear’’ issues and concepts for maintaining or improving emission performance over time that are described above inSection VIII.B.2.f. The EPA requests comment on whether a state plan should provide for emission performance after2025 solely through post-implementation emission checks that do not require a second plan submittal, or whether a stateshould also be required to make a second submittalprior to 2025 to demonstrate that its programs andmeasures aresufficient to maintain performance meeting the final goal for at least 10 years. In addition, the agency requests commenton the appropriate date for any second state plan submittal designed to maintain emission performanceafter the 2025performance level is achieved.34909State Plans The EPA requests comments on all aspects of these general approvability criteria and the twelve specific plancomponents described below.34909State Plans We are seeking comment on the appropriateness of existing EPA guidance on enforceability in the context of state plansunder CAA section 111(d), considering the types ofaffected entities that might be included in a stateplan.3490912State Plans As discussed in section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking comment on whether the agency shouldprovide guidance onenforceability considerations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than affectedEGUs (and if so,which types of entities). Also, as discussed in section VIII.F.4, the EPA intends to develop guidancefor evaluation,monitoring, and verification (EM&V) of renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency programs andmeasuresincorporated in state plans.34909State Plans We are seeking comment on whether, forstate plans where emission limits applicable to affected EGUs alonewould not assure full achievement of the required level of emission performance, the state plan must include additionalmeasures that would apply if any of the other portfolio of measures in the plan are not fully implemented, or if they are,but the plan fails to achieve the required level ofemission performance.34909State Plans We request comment on all aspects associated with enforceability of a state plan and how to ensure compliance. We arealso seeking comment on enforceability considerations under different state plan approaches, which isaddressed inSection VIII.F.1.34909-34910State Plans Existing ISOs and RTOs could provide astructure for achieving efficiencies by coordinating the state plan approachesapplied throughout a grid region. In one possible approach, states would implement a multi-state planand jointlydemonstrate CO2emission performance by affected EGUs across the entire ISO/RTO footprint. States with borders thatcross the boundary of one or more ISO or RTO footprints would need to include multiple plan componentsthat addressaffected EGUs in each respective ISO or RTO.The EPA is seeking comment on this idea. States that are outside thefootprint of an ISO or RTO may benefit from consulting with other relevant planning authorities when preparing stateplans. We are also requesting comment on this idea.34910State Plans We solicit comment on whether the process for implementing corrective measures should include the adoption of newplan measures and subsequent resubmission of the plan to the EPA for review and approval, or whether the processshould specify the implementation of measures thatare already included in the approved plan in the event that theprojected level of performance is not being achieved.34910State Plans We also solicit comment on the point atwhich such a process and schedule would be triggered, such as at the end of amulti-year plan performance period if emission performance is not met, or at specified interim stageswithin a multi-yearplan performance period.34910State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriate scope of these reporting requirements andwhether the reports shouldalso be directly submitted by the affected entitiesto the EPA, as well as to the state.34910-34911State Plans We are also seeking comment on two additional options for multi-state plan submittals.34911State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on whether states participating in a multi-state plan should also be given the option ofproviding a single submittal— signed by authorizedofficials from each participating state — that addresses commonplan elements. Individual participating states would also be required to provide individual submittalsthat provide statespecific elements of the multi-state plan.34911State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on an approach where all states participating in a multi-stateplan separately makeindividual submittals that address all elements ofthe multi-state plan.3491113State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on two options for calculating a weighted average, rate-based CO2emission performancegoal for multiple states.34911State Plans We are requesting comment on whether, to assist states that seek to translate the rate-based goal into a mass-basedgoal, the EPA should provide a presumptive translation of rate-based goals to mass-based goals for allstates, for thosewho request it, and/or for multi-state regions.34912State PlansThe agency is seeking comment on the process for establishing mass-based emission goals, including theoptionssummarized above for the EPA’s and states’ roles inthe translation process.34912State Plans The EPA invites comment on technical considerations involved in translating rate-based goals to mass-based goals.34912State Plans The agency requests comment on the amount of emission rate improvement or emission reduction that the correctivemeasures included in the plan must be designed to achieve (e.g., measures sufficient to address a 10 percent performancedeficiency).34912State Plans The agency also seeks comment on whether the emission guidelines should establish a deadline for implementation ofcorrective measures (e.g., two years from the July1 deadline described above for reporting the deficiency as part of thestate’s annual report on plan performance).34912State Plans We also solicit comment on longer and shorter averaging times for emission standards included in a state plan than thoseproposed (i.e., for a rate-based emission standard,no longer than 12 months within a plan performanceperiod and, for amass-based standard, no longer than 3 years).34913State Plans As discussed in Section VIII.C.1, we are seeking comment on the appropriateness of existing EPA guidance onenforceability in the context of state plans underCAA section 111(d), considering the types of affected entities thatmight be included in a state plan.34913State Plans As discussed in Section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking comment on whether the agency shouldprovide guidance onenforceability considerations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than affectedEGUs (and if so,which types of entities).34913State Plans The EPA solicits comment on whether anemission reduction becomes duplicative (and therefore cannot be used fordemonstrating performance in a plan) if it is usedas part of another state’s demonstration of emission performanceunder its CAA section 111(d) plan.34913State Plans However, we are seeking comment on twopossible adjustments to the Part 75 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA)requirements for steam EGU stack gas flow monitorsthat can affect reported CO2emissions.34913State Plans We solicit comment on whether EGUs producing both electric energy output and useful thermal output should berequired to report both electric and useful thermaloutput.3491414State Plans We invite comment on the proposal forreporting of net rather than gross energy output and on the proposed protocols.Specifically, we are seeking comment on: any existing protocols for reporting net output (FERC, NERC,etc.);electricity meter specifications; electricity meterquality assurance testing and reporting procedures; apportionmentprocedures for parasitic load at multi-unit facilities; treatment of externally provided electricity;and monitoring andquality assurance testing and reporting proceduresfor non-electric energy output at CHP units.34914State Plans Consistent with the requests for comment in the proposed CAA section 111(b) GHG NSPS regulations for modified andreconstructed sources, we invite comment here on arange of two-thirds to 100 percent credit for useful thermal output inthe final rule, or other alternatives to better align incentives with avoided emissions.34914State Plans The EPA is proposing that state plans must include a record retention requirement of ten years, and we request commenton this proposed timeframe.34914State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriate frequency of reporting of the different proposed reporting elements,considering both the goals of minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring program effectiveness. Inparticular, the agency requests comment on whetherfull reports containing all of the report elementsshould only berequired every two years.34914State Plans The EPA is soliciting comment on whether reports should be submitted electronically, to streamline transmission.34914State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on othercircumstances for which an extension of time wouldbe appropriate. We arealso seeking comment on whether some justificationsfor extension should not be permissible.34915State Plans We are requesting comment on the approach for extensions and the timing and frequency of updates that the state mustprovide.34915State Plans The EPA is soliciting comment on whether there are other elements that a state must include in its initial submittal toqualify for a date extension. Specifically, the EPArequests comment on whether the guidelines shouldrequire a state to have taken significant, concretesteps toward adopting a complete plan for the initial plan to beapprovable.34916State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on whether, for complete state plans under these guidelines,the agencymay use two approval mechanisms provided for in CAAsections 110(k)(3) and (4), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and (4).First, where a CAA section 111(d) plan includes severable provisions, some of which are approvable andsome of whichare not, the EPA is requesting comment on whether the agency should interpret the CAA as providing theflexibility toapprove those elements that meet the requirements of this guideline, while disapproving those elementsthat do not.Second, where a CAA section 111(d) plan is substantially approvable and requires only minor amendmentsto fully meetthe requirements of these guidelines, the EPA is requesting comment on whether the agency should interpret the CAA asproviding the flexibility to approve that plan on the condition that the state commits to curing the minor deficiencieswithin one year.3491615State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether, for new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools,and assumptions used should match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of planperformance, orshould be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as assumptions for current and future economicconditions and technology cost and performance.34917State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on the creation of a template for initial and complete state plan submittals. A plantemplate would provide a framework that includes all of the necessary components for an initial and complete submittalthat could be populated by states.34917State Plans We are further seeking comment on whether a template may be more appropriate for initial plan submittals thancomplete plan submittals.34917State Plans The EPA is also seeking comment on whether it should provide for, or require, electronic submittal of initial andcomplete plans.34917State Plans We are seeking comment on the suitability of an approach such as that being used in the electronic state implementationplan submission (eSIPS) pilot program for submittalof state plans under CAA section 111(d).34917State Plans The agency is seeking comment on the contents of the State Plan Considerations TSD and allaspects of the state plandecision points and factors.34917State Plans We are seeking comment on other appropriate examples of affected entities beyond the affected EGUs.34917State Plans We seek comment on whether the EPA should provide guidance on enforceability considerations related to requirementsin a state plan for affected entities other than EGUs (and if so, which such entities).34917State Plans While the EPA is proposing that a statemay apply toward its required emission performancelevel the emissionreductions that existing state programs and measures achieve during a plan performance period as a result of actionstaken after the date of proposal of these emissionguidelines, the EPA also requests comment on the followingalternatives: the start date of the initial plan performance period, the date of promulgation of the emission guidelines, theend date of the base period for the EPA’s BSER-based goals analysis (e.g., the beginning of 2013 for blocks 1–3 andbeginning of 2017 for block 4, end-use energy efficiency), the end of 2005, or another date. We are seeking comment onthe point in time after which such actions should be able to qualify for use during a plan performanceperiod,considering the method used to set state goals.34918State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there is a rational basis for choosing a date that predates the base period fromwhich the EPA used historical data to derive stategoals. The agency generally requests comment on theappropriate dateto select under this option.34918State Plans The EPA also solicits comment on a second broad option. This option would recognize emission reductions that existingstate requirements, programs and measures achievedstarting from a specified date prior to the initialplan performanceperiod, as well as emission reductions achieved during a plan performance period.34918-34919State Plans The EPA requests comment on this option– that emission reduction effects that occur priorto the beginning of theinitial plan performance period could be applied toward meeting the required level of emission performance in a stateplan.3491916State Plans The agency requests comment on whetherpre-2020 implementation of new requirements would be practical for states.The agency generally requests comment on this approach, including the conditions that should apply topre-2020emission reductions that would count toward the state goal.34919State Plans The agency also requests comment on thealternative dates listed above in connection withthis option. We alsorequest comment on whether this option is inconsistent with the forward-looking method that the EPA has proposed forestablishing state goals based on the application of the BSER.34919State Plans The agency is seeking comment on whether some variation of this approach could be justified as consistent with theEPA’s proposed goal-setting approach, as well as the general concept of the BSER and its application in establishingstate goals.34919State Plans We are seeking comment on whether the emission effects of actions that are taken after proposal or promulgation of theemission guidelines or the approval of a state plan, but which occur prior to the beginning of the initial state planperformance period, could be applied toward meetingthe required level of emission performance in a state plan.34919State Plans We are seeking comment on different approaches for providing crediting or administrative adjustment of EGUCO2emission rates, which are elaborated further in the State Plan Considerations TSD.34919State Plans We invite comment on each of these possible approaches.34920State Plans Because some of the CO2emissions avoided through RE and demand-side EE measures may be from non-affectedEGUs, we are seeking comment on how this might be addressed in a state plan, whether when adjusting orcreditingCO2emission rates of affected EGUs based on the effects of RE and demand-side EE measures or otherwise.34920State Plans We are seeking comment on the suitability of these approaches in the context of an approvable state plan, and onwhether harmonization of state approaches, or supplemental actions and procedures, should be requiredin an approvablestate plan. In particular, we intend to establish guidance for acceptable quantification, monitoring,and verification of REand demand-side EE measures for an approvable EM&Vplan, and are seeking comment on critical featuresof suchguidance, including scope, applicability, and minimum criteria. We are also seeking comment on the appropriate basisfor and technical resources used to establish suchguidance, including consideration of existing stateand utilityprotocols, as well as existing international, national, and regional consensus standards or protocols.34921State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the merits of this approach, including whether such guidance should identify typesof RE and demand-side EE measures and programs forwhich evaluation of results is relatively straightforward andwhich are appropriate for inclusion in a state plan.34921State Plans As an alternative to the EPA’s proposedapproach of allowing a broad range of RE and demand-side EE measures andprograms to be included in state plans, provided that supporting EM&V documentation meets applicable minimumrequirements, the EPA is requesting comment on whether guidance should limit consideration to certainwell-establishedprograms, such as those characterized in Section V.A.4.2.1 of the State Plan Considerations TSD.34921State Plans We are seeking comment on the examplesand suitability of potential approaches described in the State PlanConsiderations TSD and any other appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected entities beyondaffected EGUs.3492117State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on the options for treatment of interstate effects summarized below, as well asalternatives.34921State Plans We also request comment on whether a state should be able to take credit for emission reductions out of state due to instate EE measures if the state can demonstrate thatthe reductions will not be double counted when therelevant statesreport on their achieved plan performance, and whatsuch a demonstration should entail.34922State Plans We request comment on these and other approaches for taking into account CO2emission reductions from demand-sideEE measures in state plans.34922State Plans The EPA is also seeking comment on howto avoid double counting emission reductions usingthe proposed approachfor accounting for CO2emission reductions from renewable energy measuresimplemented by the state.34922State Plans We also request comment on the option of allowing a state to take into account only thoseCO2emission reductionsoccurring in its state.34922State Plans We also request comment on whether a state should be able to take credit for emission reductions out of state due torenewable energy measures if the state can demonstrate that the reductions will not be double countedwhen the relevantstates report on their achieved plan performance, and on what such a demonstration should entail.34922State Plans We request comment on these and other approaches for taking into account CO2emission reductions from renewableenergy measures.34922States Plans We are seeking comment on the considerations discussed in theProjecting EGU CO2Emission Performance in StatePlans TSD, including options presented for how projections might be conducted in an approvable state plan, and howdifferent types of state plan approaches are represented in these projections.34923State Plans We are seeking further comment on whether the EPA should develop guidance that describes acceptable projectionapproaches, tools, and methods for use in an approvable plan, as well as providing technical resourcesforconducting projections.34923State Plans The agency solicits comment on whethercertain other measures not used to set state goalsare appropriate to include in astate plan to achieve CO2emission reductions from affected EGUs. In addition to the specific requests for commentrelated to specific technologies identified, we also request comment on other measures that would be appropriate. Inaddition, we request comment on whether the EPA should provide specific guidance on inclusion of thesemeasures in astate plan.34923State Plans The agency requests comment on alternative nuclear capacity baselines, including whether the date for recognizingadditional non-BSER nuclear capacity should be theend of the base year used in the BSER analysis of potential nuclearcapacity (i.e., 2012).34923State Plans This proposal does not include new NGCCas a component of the BSER, but the agency requests comment on that inSection VI of this preamble.3492318State Plans The agency requests comment on how emission changes under a rate-based plan resulting fromsubstitution ofgeneration by new NGCC for generation by affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required emissionperformance level for affected EGUs.34924State Plans With respect to new fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the agency also requests comment on the concept of providing credit towarda state’s required CAA section 111(d) performance level for emission performance at new CAA section 111(b) affectedunits that, through application of CCS, is superiorto the proposed standards of performance for new EGUs.34924State Plans We invite comment on whether incremental emission reductions from new fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units withCCS, based on exceeding the CAA section 111(b) performance standards for such units, should be allowedas acompliance option to help meet the emission performance level required under a CAA section 111(d) state plan.34924State Plans We invite comment on whether incremental emission reductions from new NGCC units that outperform the performancestandards for such units under CAA section 111(b) based on the use of CCS should be allowed as a complianceoption to help meet the emission performance levelrequired under a CAA section 111(d) state plan.34924State Plans The agency requests comment on whetherindustrial combined heat and power (CHP) approacheswarrant considerationas a potential way to avoid affected EGU emissions,and whether the answer depends on circumstances that depend onthe type of CHP in question.34924State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there are still other areas beyond those discussed above for which it would beuseful for the EPA to provide guidance.34924State Plans The agency is requesting comment on itsanalysis of the implications of the EPA’s existingregulations interpreting‘‘useful life’’ and ‘‘other factors’’ for purposesof this rulemaking. The agency also requests comment on whether itwould be desirable to include in regulatory text any aspects of this preamble discussion about how theprovisions in theexisting implementing regulations concerning source-specific factors relate to this emission guideline.34925State Plans To the extent that a performance standard that a state may wish to adopt for affected EGUsraisesfacility-specific issues, the state is free to makeadjustments to a particular facility’s requirements on facility-specificgrounds, so long as any such adjustments are reflected (along with any necessary compensating emissionreductions), as part of the state’s CAA section 111(d) plan submission. The agency requests comment onitsinterpretation.34925-34926State Plans The EPA proposes that the remaining useful life of affected EGUs, and the other facility-specificfactors identified in the existing implementing regulations, should not be considered as a basis for adjusting astate emission performance goal or for relieving astate of its obligation to develop and submit an approvable planthat achieves that goal on time. The agency solicits comment on this position.34926State Plans The EPA solicits comment on the approach for providing decision support resources and theinformation currentlyincluded, and planned for inclusion, in the Decision Support Toolbox.3492819Implications forOther EPAProgramsWe request comment on whether, with adequate recordsupport, the state plan could include a provision,basedon underlying analysis, stating that an affected source that complies with its applicable standard would be treated asnot increasing its emissions, and if so, whether such a provision would mean that, as a matter of law,the source’sactions to comply with its standard would not subject the source to NSR. We also seek comment on the level ofanalysis that would be required to support a state’s determination that sources will not trigger NSR whencomplying with the standards of performance included in the state’s CAA section 111(d) plan and the type ofplan requirements, if any, that would need to be included in the state’s plan.34928-34929Small Businesses We invite comments on all aspectsof the proposal and its impacts, including potential impacts on small entities.34947Federalism In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,and consistent with the EPA’s policy to promote communications between theEPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State andlocal officials.34948Tribal We specifically solicit comment from tribalofficials on this proposed rule.34948NationalTechnologyTransfer andAdvancementThis proposed rulemaking does not involve voluntaryconsensus standards – technical standards (e.g., materialsspecifications, test methods, sampling procedures,business practices) developed or adopted by one ormore voluntaryconsensus bodies. The EPA welcomes comments on thisaspect of the proposed rulemaking and specificallyinvites thepublic to identify potentially-applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in thisaction.34949EnvironmentalJusticeThe public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects ofexposure to the pollutants addressed by this proposal.34950