1 

Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

Listing of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Requests for Comment* 

Vol. 79, Federal Register, No. 117, Wednesday, June 18, 2014 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule 

*Please note: comments must be received on or before October 16, 2014.

Category Comment 

General The EPA is offering the opportunity to comment on the proposed BSER, the proposed methodology f

computing state goals based on application of the BSER, and the state-specific data used in the compu

General The EPA invites further input through public comment on all aspects of this proposal. Compliance Time The agency is also requesting comment on an alternative option, a 5-year period for compliance, in co

less stringent set of CO2 emission performance levels. 

Building Blocks The EPA is also seeking comment on different combinations of building blocks and different levels of 

each building block. 

Stakeholder Proposals 

During the EPA’s public outreach in advance of this proposal, a number of ideas were put forward tha

reflected in this proposal. We invite public comment on these ideas, some of which are outlined below

Stakeholder Proposals 

Other stakeholders suggested that an ‘‘inside the fence’’ plant- or unit-specific assessment linked to th

control at the source such as heat rate improvements should be considered. They indicated that once p

are established based on on-site CO2 reduction opportunities, the source should have the flexibility to 

fence’’ for the means to achieve the goals, including the use of emissions trading and averaging. The E

comment on these suggestions. 

Legal Interpretation 

The EPA discusses its legal interpretation in more detail in other parts of this preamble and discusses 

more detail in the Legal Memorandum included in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA solicits co

aspects of its legal interpretations, including the discussion in the Legal Memorandum. 
2 

Tribal The EPA invites comment on whether a tribe wishing to develop and implement a CAA section 111(d

the option of including the EGUs located in its area of Indian country in a multi-jurisdictional plan wi

states (i.e., treating the tribal lands as an additional state). 

Tribal If the EPA develops one or more CAA section 111(d) federal plans for areas of Indian country with af

are likewise currently considering doing so on a multi-jurisdictional basis in coordination with nearby 

CAA section 111(d) plans. The EPA solicits comment on such an approach for a federal plan. 

Tribal We invite comment on how the BSER should be applied to potentially affected EGUs in Indian countTribal We particularly invite comment on data sources for setting renewable energy and demand-side energy Tribal The state-specific goals that the EPA is proposing are based on the collection of affected EGUs locate

state. In setting goals specific to an area of Indian country, the EPA proposes to base the goals on the 

affected EGUs located within that area of Indian country. We request comment on this approach. 

Combining Categories 

The EPA is soliciting comment on combining the two existing categories for the affected EGUs into a 

for purposes of facilitating emission trading among sources in both categories. 

Combining Categories 

The EPA is proposing emission guidelines for the two categories and is soliciting comment on combin

categories into a single category for purposes of the CO2 emissions from existing affected EGUs. 

Combining Categories 

The EPA solicits comment on whether combining the two categories would offer additional flexibility

facilitating implementation of CO2 mitigation measures, such as shifting generation from higher to lo

intensity generation among existing sources (e.g., shifting from boilers to NGCC units) or facilitating 

among sources. 

Building Blocks We are proposing that the basis for supporting the BSER should include heat rate improvements only 

EGUs, but we are inviting comment on including heat rate improvements at other EGU types. 

Building Blocks As noted later in this preamble, we are seeking comment on the extent to which existing EGUs could 

order to improve our understanding. 

Building Blocks Gas conversion or co-firing would be available to states and sources as a compliance option, and, as n

preamble, we are seeking comment on whether this option should be considered part of the BSER. 

Building Blocks As noted in Section VI.C.5.d below, we are requesting comment on including heat rate improvement o

other EGU types in the basis for supporting the BSER. 

Building Blocks We believe a reasonable estimate for purposes of developing state-specific goals is that affected coal-

on average could achieve a four percent improvement in heat rate through adoption of best practices t

heat rate variability. This estimate corresponds to the elimination, on average across the fleet of affect

percent of the deviation from top-decile performance in the hourly heat rate for each EGU not attribut

temperature and load variation. We also solicit comment on the use of estimates up to six percent, reflon average of 50 percent of the deviation from top-decile performance. 
3 

Building Blocks We propose to use as a data input for purposes of developing state goals an estimate that, on average a

affected EGUs, only half of the full equipment upgrade opportunity remains—i.e., that for the fleet of 

a whole, the technical potential for heat rate improvements from equipment upgrades incremental to th

opportunity is on average two percent rather than four percent. We solicit comment on increasing this 

percent. 

Building Blocks Based on the analyses of technical potential and cost summarized above, we propose to find that a six 

in the CO2 emission rate of the coal-fired EGUs in a state, on average, is a reasonable estimate of the a

improvement that can be implemented at a reasonable cost. However, as discussed in Section VI.C.5.d 

requesting comment on this aspect of the proposal. Further, states and sources would be free to use heimprovements at those other units to help reach the state goals. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects of our analyses and findings related to heat rate improvements, both 

here and as further discussed in the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures TSD. 

Building Blocks As noted earlier, we specifically request comment on increasing the estimates of the amounts of heat r

achievable through adoption of best practices for operation and maintenance and through equipment u

percent and four percent, respectively, representing a total potential improvement of up to ten percentlight of the reasonable cost of heat rate improvements. 

Building Blocks We also solicit comment on the quantitative impacts on the net heat rates of coal-fired steam EGUs of 

less than the rated maximum unit loads. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on whether the regional or state scenarios should be given greater weight in estab

appropriate degree of re-dispatch to incorporate into the state goals for CO2 emission reductions, and 

Building Blocks We invite comment on whether we should consider options for a target utilization rate for existing NG

than the proposed 70 percent target utilization rate. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on the findings regarding the potential for increased utilization of existing NGCC 

the BSER and on all other issues raised by the discussion above and the related portions of the Greenh

Abatement Measures TSD. 

Building Blocks We invite comment regarding the treatment of Alaska and Hawaii as part of this method for developin

generation levels. 

Building Blocks For some states, the RE generation targets developed using the proposed approach are less than the sta

generation amounts for 2012. We invite comment on whether the approach for quantifying the RE gen

component of each state’s goal should be modified to include a floor based on reported 2012 RE gene

Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on whether the approach for quantifying the RE generation component of e

should be modified so that the difference between a state’s RE generation target and its 2012 level of generation does not exceed the state’s reported 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation. 
4 

Building Blocks With regard to hydropower, we seek comment regarding whether to include 2012 hydropower genera

state in that state’s ‘‘best practices’’ RE quantified under the proposed approach, and whether and how 

consider year-to-year variability in hydropower generation if such generation is included in the RE tar

part of BSER. Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD presents state RE targets both with an

inclusion of each state’s 2012 hydropower generation. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on the proposed approach to treatment of renewable generating capacity as a basi

system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated and for quantification of state goals. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on the alternative approach to quantification of RE generation to support the BSE

pages 34869-70. We note that the three specific requests for comment made above with respect to the quantification approach— addressing, first, the possibility of a floor based on 2012 RE generation, sepossibility of a limitation based on 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation and, third, the treatment of hydrop

generation—apply to this alternative approach as well. 

Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on other possible techno-economic approaches to quantification of RE gen

the BSER. For example, a conceptual framework for another techno-economic approach is provided iRE Approach TSD. 

Building Blocks We request comment on whether it is appropriate to reflect completion of the five identified nuclear E

under construction in the state goals and on alternative ways of considering these units when setting s

Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects of the approach discussed for treatment of nuclear generation. In ad

specifically request comment on whether we should include in the state goals an estimated amount of 

capacity whose construction is sufficiently likely to merit evaluation for potential inclusion in the goa

computation. 

Building Blocks As discussed in Section VII.E below, the EPA is also taking comment on a less stringent alternative fo

goals. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects of our data and methodology for estimating the potential for deman

efficiency to support the BSER as discussed in the preamble and in the TSD, as well as on the level of propose to define as best practices suitable for representation consistent with the best system of emiss

the level reflected in the less stringent scenario.

Building Blocks For demand-side EE, we also specifically invite comment on several issues: (1) Increasing the annual 

savings rate to 2.0 percent and the pace of improvement to 0.25 percent per year to reflect an estimate 

electricity savings achievable from state policies not reflected in the 1.5 percent rate and the 0.20 perc

of improvement, such as building energy codes and state appliance standards, (2) alternative approach

sources (i.e., other than EIA Form 861) for determining each state’s current level of annual increment

savings, and (3) alternative approaches and/or data sources for evaluating costs associated with implemdemand-side energy efficiency policies. 
5 

Building Blocks We solicit comment on whether natural gas co-firing or conversion should be part of the BSER. Building Blocks We also request comment regarding whether, and, if so, how, we should consider the co-benefits of na

in making the BSER determination. 

Building Blocks The EPA does solicit comment on all aspects of applying CCS to existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs (in e

configurations), but does not expect to finalize CCS as a component of the BSER in this rulemaking. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on whether we should consider construction and use of new NGCC capacity as pa

supporting the BSER. 

Building Blocks We request comment on ways to define appropriate state-level goals based on consideration of new NBuilding Blocks and U.S. territories 

We invite comment on whether heat rate improvements for one or more types of non-coal fossil fuel-f

be identified as a basis for supporting the BSER, with particular reference to U.S. territories. 

Building Blocks We invite comment on a potential BSER comprising a combination of building blocks 1 and 2. Building Blocks The EPA invites comment on a potential BSER comprising building blocks 1 and 2, in light of the con

could support this approach. 

Building Blocks In recognition of stakeholders’ expressed concerns, we invite comment on whether there are special c

affecting small rural cooperative or municipal utilities that might merit adjustments to this 

proposal, and if so, possible adjustments that should be considered. 

Building Blocks We note that some stakeholders have argued that CAA section 111(a)(1) does not authorize the EPA t

redispatch, low- or zero-emitting generation, or demand-side energy efficiency measures (building blo

components of the ‘‘best system of emission reduction . . .adequately demonstrated.’’ According to thas a legal matter, the BSER is limited to measures that may be undertaken at the affected units, and no

beyond the affected units; the measures in building blocks 2, 3, and 4 are ‘‘beyond-the-unit’’ or ‘‘beymeasures because they are implemented outside of the affected units and outside their control; and as 

measurescannot be considered components of the BSER. We welcome comment on this issue. 

Building Blocks The EPA solicits comment on whether measures in addition to those in building blocks 2, 3, and 4 cou

support the showing that reduced utilization is ‘‘adequately demonstrated,’’ including additional NGC

may be built in the future, as discussed in Section VI.C.5.c above. 

Building Blocks As discussed above, the EPA is soliciting comment on combining the category of steam EGUs and th

of combustion turbines (which include NGCC units) into a single category for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, promulgating emission guidelines for CO2 emissions. 

Building Blocks The EPA solicits comment on whether combining the categories is, as a legal matter, a prerequisite fo

a component of the BSER re-dispatch between sources in the two categories (i.e., re-dispatch between 

NGCC units), or (ii) facilitating averaging or trading systems that include sources in both categories, wwish to adopt. 
6 

Building Blocks We invite comment on all aspects of our proposed interpretation and alternate interpretation of the BS

emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, both as identified above and as further discussed in thMemorandum in the docket. In particular, we invite comment on our analysis of the four building bloc

of the BSER, whether any other potential measures should be considered, our analysis of the combinablocks 1 and 2 and of all four building blocks, and the legal, technical, and economic bases of our con

Building Blocks Some commenters noted that trading programs like RGGI have been successful at reducing GHGs, an

commenters provided specific BSER proposals based on trading and/or emissions averaging approach

specifically request comment on whether any of these approaches should be considered as the BSER. 

Building Blocks We also specifically invite comment on the question, raised by some stakeholders, as to whether if me

relied on in the state plan to achieve emission reductions, they cannot be excluded from the scope of t

because they involve actions by entities or at locations other than affected sources. 

State Goals We are requesting comment on a second set of state-specific goals that would reflect less stringent app

same BSER, in this case by 2025, with interim goals that would apply over a 2020–2024 phase-in per

State Goals As noted in Section VI.C.5.d above, we are requesting comment on whether heat rate improvements f

fuel-fired EGUs should be part of the basis supporting the BSER, with particular reference to the situa

geographically isolated jurisdictions such as the U.S. territories. 

State Goals A state’s inability to meet the level of emission reductions anticipated through use of one building blo

resources that the state could then devote to more stringent implementation of another building block. would mean that overall, the same nationwide level of emission reductions as proposed would be achi

invites comment on this aspect of the proposal. 

State Goals With respect to U.S. territories, the EPA is currently aware of potentially affected EGUs in Puerto Ric

Islands, and Guam. The EPA requests comment on how the BSER would apply to these territories, as 

American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands if potentially affected EGUs are subsequently ident

territories. In particular, the EPA solicits comment on appropriate alternatives for territories that do no

natural gas. 

State Goals Because the data sources we have used for purposes of establishing renewable energy and demand-sid

efficiency targets for states do not cover all of the U.S. territories, we also solicit comment on ways to 

appropriate renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency targets using other data sources. 

State Goals We also recognize that at present EGUs report gross rather than net load 257 to us under 40 CFR Part 

proposed GHG standards of performance for new EGUs are expressed in terms of gross generation (a

comment on the use of net generation instead). We therefore specifically seek comment on whether th

reporting requirements for existing EGUs should be expressed in terms of gross generation instead of 

consistency with existing reporting requirements and with the proposed requirements under the GHG standards of performance for new EGUs. 
7 

State Goals We invite comment on all aspects of the proposed form of the goals. State Goals The details of how states could attain emission performance levels consistent with the goals through d

approaches that recognize emission reductions achieved through all the building blocks are discussed VIII on state plans. We invite comment on all aspects of the goal computation procedure. (Note that wcomment on certain specific alternate data inputs to the procedure in Section VI.C above). We also sp

comment on the state-specific historical data to which the building blocks are applied in order to comp

goals, as well as the state-specific data used to develop the state-specific data inputs for building block

State Goals With respect to building block 2, we specifically request comment on the following alternate procedur

extent that generation from a state’s NGCC group was increased consistent with the NGCC utilization 

order to maximize the resulting emission reductions, we would decrease generation from the state’s co

group first, and then decrease generation from the state’s oil/gas-fired steam group (instead of decreasfrom the coalfired steam and oil/gas-fired steam groups proportionately). 

State Goals With respect to building block 4, we specifically invite comment on the alternative in Step 5 of scalin

reduction in the generation by affected EGUs in net electricity exporting states to reflect an expectatio

the generation avoided in conjunction with the demand-side energy efficiency efforts of other, net elestates would occur at those EGUs, analogous to the proposed adjustment for net electricity importing 

Step 5. 

State Goals We also request comment on the alternative of making no adjustment in Step 5 for either net electricit

electricity-exporting states. 

State Goals We also request comment on whether CO2 emission reductions associated with other measures not cu

any of the four proposed building blocks should be included in the state goals. 

State Goals States have the opportunity to comment on the proposed BSER, the proposed methodology for compu

based on application of the BSER, and the state-specific data that is proposed for use in the computatithat the states will have an adequate opportunity to comment on the state goals during the comment pe

State Goals In addition to the proposed statespecific emission rate-based goals described above, the EPA has deve

comment an alternate set of goals reflecting less stringent application of the building blocks and a shoimplementation period. The alternate final goals represent emission performance that would be achiev

a 2020–2024 phase-in period, with interim goals that would apply during the 2020–2024 period on a c

average basis as states progress toward the final goals. 

State Goals Accordingly, we request comment on the alternate goals, particularly with respect to whether any one 

building blocks in the alternate goals can be applied at a greater level of stringency: Can the heat rate 

value be set at a level above four percent, even six percent? Can NGCC capacity be dispatched at a ut

65 percent? Can annual incremental electricity savings be achieved at a rate higher than one percent?e
8 

State Goals We request comment on whether, and if so how, the EPA should incorporate greater consideration of 

approaches into the goal setting process, and on the issue of whether, and if so how, the potential cost with multi-state approaches should be considered in assessing the reasonableness. 

State Goals The flexibility inherent in the rule is responsive to the CAA’s recognition that state plans for emission 

and must, be consistent with a vibrant and growing economy and reliable, affordable electricity to supThe EPA welcomes comments and suggestions on this issue. 

State Plans The agency is soliciting comment on aspects of such CAA section 111(d) plans, as described in Sectio

preamble. 

State Plans With this in mind, we are proposing to provide states with additional time to submit complete plans if 

of a multistate plan, and we solicit comment on other potential mechanisms for fostering multi-state c

State Plans The EPA requests comment on this proposed approach, as opposed to the approach under which state 

would be required to hold the affected EGUs fully and solely responsible for achieving the emission p

State Plans In addition, the EPA is soliciting comment on several other types of state plans that may assure the re

of emission performance without rendering certain types of measures federally enforceable and that li

of the affected EGUs. 

State Plans The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether it can reasonably interpret CAA section 111(d)(1) to 

adopt plans that require EGUs and other entities to be legally responsible for actions required under th

aggregate, achieve the emission performance level. 

State Plans EPA requests comment on what we refer to as a ‘‘state commitment approach.’’ This approach differs 

proposed portfolio approach, described above, in one major way: Under the state commitment approa

requirements for entities other than affected EGUs would not be components of the state plan and ther

federally enforceable. Instead, the state plan would include an enforceable commitment by the state it

state-enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that would achieve a specified portion of themission performance level on behalf of affected EGUs. The agency requests comment on the approp

approach. 

State Plans The agency also requests comment on the policy ramifications of the following: Under this approach, 

upon which the state bases its commitment may, in turn, rely on compliance by third parties, and if tho

fail to achieve the expected emission reductions, the state could be subject to challenges— including b

for violating CAA requirements and, as a result, could be held liable for CAA penalties. 

State Plans We also solicit comment on a variation of this state commitment plan approach that is also designed t

stakeholder concerns, noted above, about imposing sole legal responsibility on affected EGUs for ach

emission performance level. 

State Plans We solicit comment on whether, if the EPA were to conclude that CAA section 111(d) requires state p

standards of performance applicable to affected EGUs that achieve the emission performance level, th

plan would meet that requirement while also assuring those E. 
9 

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on another approach: Whether ‘‘standards of performance for [affect

reasonably read to include the emission performance level (i.e., the state goal) on grounds that the lev

for emissions’’ because it is in the nature of a requirement that concerns emissions and it is ‘‘for’’ the 

because it helps determine their obligations under the plan.

State Plans We solicit comment on the extent to which measures such as RE and demand-side EE may be conside

‘‘implement[ing]’’measures in state plans if they are not directly tied to emission reductions that affec

required to make through emission limits, and if they are requirements on entities other than the affect

State Plans The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of its proposed interpretation that states have this flexibility 

measures for their state plans under CAA section 111(d). 

State Plans This alternative interpretation would be based on, for example: A determination that CAA section 111

read as precluding a state plan from including measures that are neither standards of performance nor 

implementation or enforcement of such standards; an interpretation that the state’s obligation to set pe

standards ‘‘for’’ existing sources means that the standards must apply to affected EGUs and not to oth

and an interpretation that measures ‘‘for the implementation and enforcement of such performance sta

include measures that are not intended or designed to assist affected EGUs in meeting the performancEPA requests comment on whether it must adopt this alternative interpretation. If so, the EPA also tak

whether there is a way, nonetheless, to allow states to rely on the portfolio approach to some extent an

period of time. 

State Plans We request comment on all of the interpretations discussed in this section generally, and on all legal i

CAA section 111(d)(1) with respect to what measures can be included in a state plan and what entities 

legally responsible for meeting those measures. 

State Plans The EPA invites comments on this interpretation of CAA section 111(d)(1), including whether this in

supported by the statutory text and whether this interpretation is sensible policy and will further the go

State Plans In Section VIII.B.2.f of this preamble, the agency also requests comment on alternative requirements 

emission performance improvement after 2029. In Section VIII.B.2.g of this preamble, the EPA propo

for states to change from mass-based to rate-based goals in different performance periods and, in Sect

solicit comment on planning requirements that match the option of alternative, less stringent state goa

State Plans The agency requests comment on a second option in which, in addition to submitting a plan demonstr

performance through 2030, states would be required to make a second submittal in 2025 showing whe

measures would maintain the final-goal level of emission performance over time. If not, the state subm

required to strengthen or add to measures in the state plan to the extent necessary to maintain that leve

over time. 
10 

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on whether 2025, or an earlier or later year, would be the optimal ye

plan submittal under the second option. 

State Plans The agency generally requests comment on the appropriate start date and rationale for the plan perform

the interim goal. 

State Plans The agency invites comment on the proposed approach and other approaches to specifying performan

plans. 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there are other types of state plans that should be considered State Plans The EPA alternatively requests comment on whether states should be required to create legal authority 

regulations providing for corrective measures in developing the state plan. The agency requests commthe conditions that should trigger corrective measure requirements. 

State Plans For plans with corrective measures adopted into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, the agenc

comment on whether actual emission performance inferior to projected performance by ten percent is 

trigger for requiring a state to report the reasons for deficient performance and to implement correctivare also soliciting comment on the range of five percent to fifteen percent. 

State Plans For plans without corrective measures adopted into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, the ag

comment on whether the proposed eight percent emission performance deviation trigger is appropriate

comment on the range of five percent to ten percent. 

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on the milestone approach and emission performance checks outline

the alternative 5-year performance period and the planning approach for alternative state goals. 

State Plans For plans that rely in part on end-use energy efficiency programs and measures, the EPA requests com

state would need to require in its plan to show that performance will be maintained after 2030. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on how the consequences should vary depending on the reasons for a d

performance. Specifically, the agency requests comment on whether consequences should include the 

corrective measures in the state plan, or plan revisions to adjust requirements or add new measures. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on whether corrective measures, in addition to ensuring future achievem

goal, should be required to achieve additional emission reductions to offset any emission performance 

occurred during a performance period for the interim or final goal. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on the process for invoking requirements for implementation of correct

in response to a state plan performance deficiency.

State Plans The EPA further requests comment on whether the agency should promulgate a mechanism under CA

similar to the SIP call mechanism in CAA section 110. 

State Plans The EPA proposes that a state must maintain the required level of performance and requests comment 

of requiring continued improvement. 
11 

State Plans The EPA is proposing a mechanism for implementing the objective that the level of emission perform

EGUs represented by the final goal be maintained in the years after 2030, and the EPA is requesting calternative approach to a state’s pre-implementation demonstration that the final-goal level of emissio

be maintained after 2030. 

State Plans The EPA generally requests comment on appropriate requirements to maintain the emission performa

EGUs in years after 2030. 

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on whether we should establish BSER-based state emission perform

for affected EGUs that extend further into the future (e.g., beyond the proposed planning period), and 

levels of improved performance should be. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on the appropriate time period(s) and final year for the EPA’s calculati

that reflect application of the BSER under this approach. 

State Plans The EPA notes that CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for the EPA, at least every eight years, to review 

revise federal standards of performance for new sources. This requirement provides for regular updati

standards as technical advances provide technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The agency requethe implications of this concept, if any, for CAA section 111(d). 

State Plans In Section VII, the EPA requests comment on alternative, five-year state emission performance goals 

EGUs shown in Table 9. The alternative goals represent emission rates achievable on average during 2024 period, as well as emission rates to be achieved and maintained after 2024. These alternative goa

stringent than the proposed goals in Table 8. To accompany the alternative goals, the EPA requests co

approach for state plan performance periods. 

State Plans In connection with the alternative state goals, for the years after 2027, the EPA requests comment on t

year’’ issues and concepts for maintaining or improving emission performance over time that are desc

Section VIII.B.2.f. The EPA requests comment on whether a state plan should provide for emission p

2025 solely through post-implementation emission checks that do not require a second plan submittalshould also be required to make a second submittal prior to 2025 to demonstrate that its programs and 

sufficient to maintain performance meeting the final goal for at least 10 years. In addition, the agency 

on the appropriate date for any second state plan submittal designed to maintain emission performancperformance level is achieved. 

State Plans The EPA requests comments on all aspects of these general approvability criteria and the twelve speci

components described below. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on the appropriateness of existing EPA guidance on enforceability in the co

under CAA section 111(d), considering the types of affected entities that might be included in a state p
12 

State Plans As discussed in section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking comment on whether the agency should provide 

enforceability considerations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than affected EG

which types of entities). Also, as discussed in section VIII.F.4, the EPA intends to develop guidance f

monitoring, and verification (EM&V) of renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency progra

incorporated in state plans. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on whether, for state plans where emission limits applicable to affected EGU

would not assure full achievement of the required level of emission performance, the state plan must i

measures that would apply if any of the other portfolio of measures in the plan are not fully implemen

but the plan fails to achieve the required level of emission performance. 

State Plans We request comment on all aspects associated with enforceability of a state plan and how to ensure co

also seeking comment on enforceability considerations under different state plan approaches, which is 

Section VIII.F.1. 

State Plans Existing ISOs and RTOs could provide a structure for achieving efficiencies by coordinating the state 

applied throughout a grid region. In one possible approach, states would implement a multi-state plan demonstrate CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs across the entire ISO/RTO footprint. States 

cross the boundary of one or more ISO or RTO footprints would need to include multiple plan compoaffected EGUs in each respective ISO or RTO. The EPA is seeking comment on this idea. States that 

footprint of an ISO or RTO may benefit from consulting with other relevant planning authorities when plans. We are also requesting comment on this idea.

State Plans We solicit comment on whether the process for implementing corrective measures should include the 

plan measures and subsequent resubmission of the plan to the EPA for review and approval, or whethshould specify the implementation of measures that are already included in the approved plan in the e

projected level of performance is not being achieved. 

State Plans We also solicit comment on the point at which such a process and schedule would be triggered, such a

multi-year plan performance period if emission performance is not met, or at specified interim stages 

plan performance period. 

State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriate scope of these reporting requirements and whethe

also be directly submitted by the affected entities to the EPA, as well as to the state. 

State Plans We are also seeking comment on two additional options for multi-state plan submittals. State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on whether states participating in a multi-state plan should also be given 

providing a single submittal— signed by authorized officials from each participating state — that addplan elements. Individual participating states would also be required to provide individual submittals tspecific elements of the multi-state plan. 

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on an approach where all states participating in a multi-state plan separa

individual submittals that address all elements of the multi-state plan. 
13 

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on two options for calculating a weighted average, rate-based CO2 emis

goal for multiple states. 

State Plans We are requesting comment on whether, to assist states that seek to translate the rate-based goal into a 

goal, the EPA should provide a presumptive translation of rate-based goals to mass-based goals for al

who request it, and/or for multi-state regions. 

State Plans The agency is seeking comment on the process for establishing mass-based emission goals, including 

summarized above for the EPA’s and states’ roles in the translation process. 

State Plans The EPA invites comment on technical considerations involved in translating rate-based goals to masState Plans The agency requests comment on the amount of emission rate improvement or emission reduction tha

measures included in the plan must be designed to achieve (e.g., measures sufficient to address a 10 pdeficiency). 

State Plans The agency also seeks comment on whether the emission guidelines should establish a deadline for im

corrective measures (e.g., two years from the July 1 deadline described above for reporting the deficie

state’s annual report on plan performance). 

State Plans We also solicit comment on longer and shorter averaging times for emission standards included in a s

proposed (i.e., for a rate-based emission standard, no longer than 12 months within a plan performancmass-based standard, no longer than 3 years). 

State Plans As discussed in Section VIII.C.1, we are seeking comment on the appropriateness of existing EPA gu

enforceability in the context of state plans under CAA section 111(d), considering the types of affecte

might be included in a state plan. 

State Plans As discussed in Section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking comment on whether the agency should provide 

enforceability considerations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than affected EG

which types of entities). 

State Plans The EPA solicits comment on whether an emission reduction becomes duplicative (and therefore cann

demonstrating performance in a plan) if it is used as part of another state’s demonstration of emission under its CAA section 111(d) plan. 

State Plans However, we are seeking comment on two possible adjustments to the Part 75 Relative Accuracy Tes

requirements for steam EGU stack gas flow monitors that can affect reported CO2 emissions. 

State Plans We solicit comment on whether EGUs producing both electric energy output and useful thermal outpu

required to report both electric and useful thermal output. 
14 

State Plans We invite comment on the proposal for reporting of net rather than gross energy output and on the pro

Specifically, we are seeking comment on: any existing protocols for reporting net output (FERC, NERelectricity meter specifications; electricity meter quality assurance testing and reporting procedures; a

procedures for parasitic load at multi-unit facilities; treatment of externally provided electricity; and mquality assurance testing and reporting procedures for non-electric energy output at CHP units. 

State Plans Consistent with the requests for comment in the proposed CAA section 111(b) GHG NSPS regulation

reconstructed sources, we invite comment here on a range of two-thirds to 100 percent credit for usefuthe final rule, or other alternatives to better align incentives with avoided emissions. 

State Plans The EPA is proposing that state plans must include a record retention requirement of ten years, and w

on this proposed timeframe. 

State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriate frequency of reporting of the different proposed re

considering both the goals of minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring program effectiv

particular, the agency requests comment on whether full reports containing all of the report elements s

required every two years. 

State Plans The EPA is soliciting comment on whether reports should be submitted electronically, to streamline trState Plans The EPA is requesting comment on other circumstances for which an extension of time would be app

also seeking comment on whether some justifications for extension should not be permissible. 

State Plans We are requesting comment on the approach for extensions and the timing and frequency of updates t

provide. 

State Plans The EPA is soliciting comment on whether there are other elements that a state must include in its init

qualify for a date extension. Specifically, the EPA requests comment on whether the guidelines should require a state to have taken significant, concrete steps toward adopting a complete plan for the initial approvable. 

State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on whether, for complete state plans under these guidelines, the agen

may use two approval mechanisms provided for in CAA sections 110(k)(3) and (4), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k

First, where a CAA section 111(d) plan includes severable provisions, some of which are approvable 

are not, the EPA is requesting comment on whether the agency should interpret the CAA as providing approve those elements that meet the requirements of this guideline, while disapproving those elemen

Second, where a CAA section 111(d) plan is substantially approvable and requires only minor amendm

the requirements of these guidelines, the EPA is requesting comment on whether the agency should inproviding the flexibility to approve that plan on the condition that the state commits to curing the minwithin one year. 
15 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether, for new projections of emission performance, the projection 

and assumptions used should match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of plan should be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as assumptions for current and futur

conditions and technology cost and performance. 

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on the creation of a template for initial and complete state plan submitta

template would provide a framework that includes all of the necessary components for an initial and c

that could be populated by states. 

State Plans We are further seeking comment on whether a template may be more appropriate for initial plan subm

complete plan submittals. 

State Plans The EPA is also seeking comment on whether it should provide for, or require, electronic submittal of 

complete plans. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on the suitability of an approach such as that being used in the electronic sta

plan submission (eSIPS) pilot program for submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). 

State Plans The agency is seeking comment on the contents of the State Plan Considerations TSD and all aspects 

decision points and factors. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on other appropriate examples of affected entities beyond the affected EGUState Plans We seek comment on whether the EPA should provide guidance on enforceability considerations rela

in a state plan for affected entities other than EGUs (and if so, which such entities). 

State Plans While the EPA is proposing that a state may apply toward its required emission performance level the 

reductions that existing state programs and measures achieve during a plan performance period as a retaken after the date of proposal of these emission guidelines, the EPA also requests comment on the fo

alternatives: the start date of the initial plan performance period, the date of promulgation of the emiss

end date of the base period for the EPA’s BSER-based goals analysis (e.g., the beginning of 2013 for 

beginning of 2017 for block 4, end-use energy efficiency), the end of 2005, or another date. We are se

the point in time after which such actions should be able to qualify for use during a plan performance 

considering the method used to set state goals. 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there is a rational basis for choosing a date that predates the b

which the EPA used historical data to derive state goals. The agency generally requests comment on t

to select under this option. 

State Plans The EPA also solicits comment on a second broad option. This option would recognize emission redu

state requirements, programs and measures achieved starting from a specified date prior to the initial p

period, as well as emission reductions achieved during a plan performance period. 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on this option – that emission reduction effects that occur prior to the beg

initial plan performance period could be applied toward meeting the required level of emission perfor

plan. 
16 

State Plans The agency requests comment on whether pre-2020 implementation of new requirements would be pr

The agency generally requests comment on this approach, including the conditions that should apply t

emission reductions that would count toward the state goal. 

State Plans The agency also requests comment on the alternative dates listed above in connection with this option

request comment on whether this option is inconsistent with the forward-looking method that the EPA establishing state goals based on the application of the BSER. 

State Plans The agency is seeking comment on whether some variation of this approach could be justified as cons

EPA’s proposed goal-setting approach, as well as the general concept of the BSER and its application state goals. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on whether the emission effects of actions that are taken after proposal or pr

emission guidelines or the approval of a state plan, but which occur prior to the beginning of the initia

performance period, could be applied toward meeting the required level of emission performance in a 

State Plans We are seeking comment on different approaches for providing crediting or administrative adjustmen

CO2 emission rates, which are elaborated further in the State Plan Considerations TSD. 

State Plans We invite comment on each of these possible approaches. State Plans Because some of the CO2 emissions avoided through RE and demand-side EE measures may be from 

EGUs, we are seeking comment on how this might be addressed in a state plan, whether when adjustin

CO2 emission rates of affected EGUs based on the effects of RE and demand-side EE measures or oth

State Plans We are seeking comment on the suitability of these approaches in the context of an approvable state p

whether harmonization of state approaches, or supplemental actions and procedures, should be require

state plan. In particular, we intend to establish guidance for acceptable quantification, monitoring, and 

and demand-side EE measures for an approvable EM&V plan, and are seeking comment on critical fe

guidance, including scope, applicability, and minimum criteria. We are also seeking comment on the a

for and technical resources used to establish such guidance, including consideration of existing state aprotocols, as well as existing international, national, and regional consensus standards or protocols.

State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the merits of this approach, including whether such guidance shou

of RE and demand-side EE measures and programs for which evaluation of results is relatively straighwhich are appropriate for inclusion in a state plan. 

State Plans As an alternative to the EPA’s proposed approach of allowing a broad range of RE and demand-side E

programs to be included in state plans, provided that supporting EM&V documentation meets applica

requirements, the EPA is requesting comment on whether guidance should limit consideration to certaprograms, such as those characterized in Section V.A.4.2.1 of the State Plan Considerations TSD. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on the examples and suitability of potential approaches described in the Stat

Considerations TSD and any other appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected 

affected EGUs. 
17 

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on the options for treatment of interstate effects summarized below, as 

alternatives. 

State Plans We also request comment on whether a state should be able to take credit for emission reductions out 

state EE measures if the state can demonstrate that the reductions will not be double counted when the report on their achieved plan performance, and what such a demonstration should entail. 

State Plans We request comment on these and other approaches for taking into account CO2 emission reductions f

EE measures in state plans. 

State Plans The EPA is also seeking comment on how to avoid double counting emission reductions using the pro

for accounting for CO2 emission reductions from renewable energy measures implemented by the stat

State Plans We also request comment on the option of allowing a state to take into account only those CO2 emissi

occurring in its state. 

State Plans We also request comment on whether a state should be able to take credit for emission reductions out 

renewable energy measures if the state can demonstrate that the reductions will not be double counted 

states report on their achieved plan performance, and on what such a demonstration should entail. 

State Plans We request comment on these and other approaches for taking into account CO2 emission reductions f

energy measures. 

States Plans We are seeking comment on the considerations discussed in the Projecting EGU CO2 Emission Perfor

Plans TSD, including options presented for how projections might be conducted in an approvable stat

different types of state plan approaches are represented in these projections. 

State Plans We are seeking further comment on whether the EPA should develop guidance that describes accepta

approaches, tools, and methods for use in an approvable plan, as well as providing technical resources 

conducting projections. 

State Plans The agency solicits comment on whether certain other measures not used to set state goals are appropr

state plan to achieve CO2 emission reductions from affected EGUs. In addition to the specific request

related to specific technologies identified, we also request comment on other measures that would be 

addition, we request comment on whether the EPA should provide specific guidance on inclusion of tstate plan. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on alternative nuclear capacity baselines, including whether the date fo

additional non-BSER nuclear capacity should be the end of the base year used in the BSER analysis ocapacity (i.e., 2012). 

State Plans This proposal does not include new NGCC as a component of the BSER, but the agency requests com

Section VI of this preamble. 
18 

State Plans The agency requests comment on how emission changes under a rate-based plan resulting from substi

generation by new NGCC for generation by affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required em

performance level for affected EGUs. 

State Plans With respect to new fossil fuel-fired EGUs, the agency also requests comment on the concept of provi

a state’s required CAA section 111(d) performance level for emission performance at new CAA sectio

units that, through application of CCS, is superior to the proposed standards of performance for new E

State Plans We invite comment on whether incremental emission reductions from new fossil fuel-fired boilers and 

CCS, based on exceeding the CAA section 111(b) performance standards for such units, should be allcompliance option to help meet the emission performance level required under a CAA section 111(d) 

State Plans We invite comment on whether incremental emission reductions from new NGCC units that outperfor

standards for such units under CAA section 111(b) based on the use of CCS should be allowed as a co

option to help meet the emission performance level required under a CAA section 111(d) state plan. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on whether industrial combined heat and power (CHP) approaches war

as a potential way to avoid affected EGU emissions, and whether the answer depends on circumstance

the type of CHP in question. 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on whether there are still other areas beyond those discussed above for w

useful for the EPA to provide guidance. 

State Plans The agency is requesting comment on its analysis of the implications of the EPA’s existing regulation

‘‘useful life’’ and ‘‘other factors’’ for purposes of this rulemaking. The agency also requests commen

would be desirable to include in regulatory text any aspects of this preamble discussion about how the 

existing implementing regulations concerning source-specific factors relate to this emission guideline

State Plans To the extent that a performance standard that a state may wish to adopt for affected EGUs raises 

facility-specific issues, the state is free to make adjustments to a particular facility’s requirements on f

grounds, so long as any such adjustments are reflected (along with any necessary compensating emiss

reductions), as part of the state’s CAA section 111(d) plan submission. The agency requests comment interpretation. 

State Plans The EPA proposes that the remaining useful life of affected EGUs, and the other facility-specific 

factors identified in the existing implementing regulations, should not be considered as a basis for adj

state emission performance goal or for relieving a state of its obligation to develop and submit an apprthat achieves that goal on time. The agency solicits comment on this position. 

State Plans The EPA solicits comment on the approach for providing decision support resources and the informat

included, and planned for inclusion, in the Decision Support Toolbox. 
19 

Implications for Other EPA Programs 

We request comment on whether, with adequate record support, the state plan could include a provisio

on underlying analysis, stating that an affected source that complies with its applicable standard would not increasing its emissions, and if so, whether such a provision would mean that, as a matter of law, t

actions to comply with its standard would not subject the source to NSR. We also seek comment on thanalysis that would be required to support a state’s determination that sources will not trigger NSR whcomplying with the standards of performance included in the state’s CAA section 111(d) plan and the 

plan requirements, if any, that would need to be included in the state’s plan. 

Small Businesses We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts, including potential impacts on smaFederalism In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA’s policy to promote communicati

EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action f

local officials. 

Tribal We specifically solicit comment from tribal officials on this proposed rule. National Technology Transfer and Advancement 

This proposed rulemaking does not involve voluntary consensus standards – technical standards (e.g., 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 

consensus bodies. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and speci

public to identify potentially-applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in thi

Environmental Justice 

The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effect

exposure to the pollutants addressed by this proposal.