Concise Explanatory Statement

Chapter 80.80.040(11) RCW

Baseload Electric Generation Performance Standard

This statement accompanies form CR-103P filed by the Department of Commerce on March 6, 2013.

Reason for Rule Adoption

In 2007, Washington State established a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission performance standard (EPS) for 

baseload electricity generation. The legislation, RCW 80.80, requires the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) Energy Office to survey and determine the average emissions of GHGs for new,

commercially available, and purchased natural gas-fired combined cycle combustion turbines (CCCT), 

reporting the value to the Legislature by June 30, 2013. Commerce is to adopt by rule the average 

available GHG emission value, and if it is lower than the current standard of 1100 lb. per megawatt-hour 

(MWh), it becomes the updated EPS for the state.

Difference between the Proposed and Adopted Rule

During the development of the EPS survey (Survey) used to establish the new EPS value, Commerce held 

two stakeholder meetings before issuing the proposed rule. We received and responded to comments, 

incorporating changes based on them into the rulemaking process. A technical subgroup of stakeholders 

participated in three conference calls to develop and refine the EPS survey methodology.

Commerce issued the first edition of the EPS report on November 5, 2012. We published the related 

notice of proposed rulemaking (“CR102”) in the Washington State Register (WSR 12-21-138) on 

November 7, 2012. It specified a proposed EPS value of 980 lb. per MWh. There was a public hearing on 

November 28 for the proposed rulemaking, allowing comments until December 3. Commerce received a 

number of stakeholder comments, which resulted in minor modifications to the Survey methodology and 

the resulting EPS value.

On Jan. 17, 2013, after making minor changes to the Survey methodology and the EPS value, we

published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (WSR 13-02-098) which proposed an EPS of 

970 lb. per MWh. There was a public hearing on February 6, allowing public comment until February 

11. No further modifications were made to the Survey or the EPS value.

Summary of Public Comments Received on this Rulemaking.

Commerce accepted comments:

• March 7, 2012 – November 6, 2012: pre-proposal inquiry period (period A)

• November 7, 2012 – December 3, 2012: comment period following notice of proposed rulemaking 

(period B)

• January 16, 2013 – February 11, 2013: comment period following supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (period C).

• November 28, 2012 and February 6, 2013: public hearings held during comment periods B and C.
Attachment 1 is the full comment and response summary. The categories contain comments pertaining to 

the Survey (“SV” numbered comments), comments pertaining to Commerce’s consideration of reliability 

and cost under RCW 80.80.040(11) (“RC” numbered comments), and comments pertaining to process 

and legal issues (“PL” numbered comments).

Attachment 2 contains period B comments that resulted in changes to the Survey. Several stakeholder 

comments made during this period resulted in modifications to the Survey. Comments received during 

period C helped adjust the legislative report but resulted in no further changes to the Survey.
Concise Explanatory Statement Attachment 1: Summary of Stakeholder 

Comments and Commerce Responses.

The comments and responses are organized by topic and commenter. The three topical 

categories are comments pertaining to the CCCT Survey, comments pertaining to the 

Reliability and Cost Consideration, and comments pertaining to Process and Legal issues

Commerce reviewed and separated the comments by topic and frequently shortened or 

paraphrased the text. The comment (second column below) and associated response (fourth 

column below) have an identifying number (first column below) and number indicating the 

source of the comment (third column below). The source index is provided at the end of this 

document. If several comments were on the same topic, then one response was developed 

and a source number for each commenter was provided as a reference. The comment and 

response summary is presented below.

# comment summary sources Commerce response

SV: Comments regarding the CCCT survey (RCW 

80.80.050)

SV-01 The CO2 emission factor used in the EPS 

calculator is incorrect and should be 118.86 

and not 116.98 lb./MMBtu. 

A19 p.12 This comment prompted a review by 

Commerce of published emission factors. 

Commerce finds that the most appropriate 

factor is that presented by the Washington 

Department of Ecology in Washington 

Administrative Code 173-407 for compliance 

reporting. Commerce has changed the survey 

emission factor from 117.0 lb./MWh to 117.6 

lb./MWh.

SV-02 Brochure heat rate values are too optimistic

and do not account for parasitic load and 

other operating factors and therefore should 

not be used in the EPS calculator.

A19 p.13, 

A20 p.3.

The EPS calculator starts with reference to 

the "new and clean" heat rate values 

published annually by Gas Turbine World 

(GTW) and which are provided in a public and 

transparent manner. Commerce then goes 

through a series of steps that adjust each 

reference heat rate to derive an operational 

heat rate, which can then be converted into 

an operational emission factor. The 

adjustment factors are described in detail in 

the legislative report accompanying the 

survey, and are as follows: gross to net 

output, ageing (reflecting a middle age 

CCCT), addition of duct firing capacity, 

start/stop, partial load, climate, inlet and 

condenser cooling reductions. In total these 

adjustment factors increase the average 

CCCT heat rate in the calculator by 21.5 

percent. The adjustment factors were 

extensively discussed by the Technical 

subgroup, and included input from the 

subgroup and independent research by 

Commerce and Ecology. Commerce and other 

stakeholders believe that the calculator is 

moderately conservative, evidenced by a 

comparison of reported versus calculated 

emissions for existing CCCTs: calculated 

emissions of 971 lb./MWh versus reported 

emissions of 913 lb./MWh. When New York 

state established its EPS of 925 lb./MWh it 

went through a similar process to arrive at an 

operational emission factor. No action.
# comment summary sources Commerce response

SV-03 Commerce fails to account for backup fuel A19 p.13 Most of the existing CCCTs do not use oil as a 

backup fuel. A minority of proposed CCCTs in 

the region will use oil backup fuel. The Fuel 

Mix Disclosure report that Commerce 

produces annually indicates that oil is the fuel 

for only a de minimis portion of CCCT 

generation. For example, the 2011 Fuel Mix 

Disclosure report indicates that the Ferndale 

plant used petroleum fuels for less than 

0.01% of generation, which would increase 

the EPS by less than 0.1 lb/MWh. No action.

SV-04 The proposed EPS value is lenient and easily 

achievable under realistic operating 

conditions by modern plants, and would have 

minimal reliability or cost impacts.

A17 p.3, 

A18 p.1

Comment acknowledged.

SV-05 The temperature, aging penalty, and duct 

firing adjustments to the EPS are overly 

generous.

A17 p.3 

p.4

Commerce staff was convinced by arguments 

made by stakeholders that the survey (EPS 

calculator) should not use average 

adjustment factors, but rather should use 

values towards the high ends of their 

distributions. Since compliance is evaluated 

on an annual basis, this protects utilities and 

plant operators from intermittent noncompliance due to late years in the plant 

maintenance cycle, or challenging operating 

conditions related to weather. No action.

SV-06 The Emission Performance Standard Draft 

Emission Calculator needs to be rigorous, 

comprehensive and fair.

A18 p.1 Comment acknowledged.

SV-08 The Trans Alta BHP is a 4x1 configuration. A 

4x1 configuration should be included in the 

survey since one exists in Washington.

A20 p.2 

B03 p.3

4x1 configurations are relatively rare, and 

generally adding gas turbines (GTs) to a 

power plant (4 GTs in a 4x1 config.) 

increases the overall plant efficiency slightly, 

depending on how the plant is run. A General 

Electric reference document shows the same 

heat rate for 2x1 and 4x1 configurations built 

around MS6001B GTs, which are small GTs 

like the ones used at BHP. No action.

SV-09 The Department has chosen to perform a 

survey of the literature focusing primarily on 

data of available turbines from the Gas 

Turbine World handbook. It is not clear that 

the handbook and the format of the survey 

address any and all turbines “purchased in 

the United States” as required by the law.

A20 p.3 RCW 80.80.050 requires Commerce to 

develop "a survey of new combined-cycle 

natural gas thermal electric generation 

turbines commercially available and offered 

for sale by manufacturers and purchased in 

the United States." The models listed in Gas 

Turbine World reasonably cover the gamut of 

those commercially available; Commerce 

conducted a secondary screen of purchasing 

data to ensure that only those models 

actually purchased in the United States in the 

last five years were included in the survey. A 

more complete description of the rationale 

and methodology is offered in the legislative 

report describing the survey. No action.

SV-11 While the legal requirement for a survey is 

clear, the law does not specify what type of 

survey was anticipated by the legislature. An 

actual questionnaire answered by turbine 

manufacturers might result in completely 

different GHG emission results.

A20 p.3 Commerce, in collaboration with 

stakeholders, chose the survey methodology 

it believed fit the purpose of the law most 

closely. A questionnaire would not provide 

performance data calibrated among the 

respondents; would omit performance data 

relevant to non-respondents; and would not 

be representative of turbines "commercially 

available and offered for sale by 

manufacturers and purchased in the United 

States" per the requirement of the law. No 

action.
# comment summary sources Commerce response

SV-12 Trans Alta's BHP is capable of achieving a 

GHG emission rate moderately above the 

1051 lb/MWh that is calculated utilizing the 

assumptions from the EPS development (i.e. 

less than the current 1100 lb/MWh current 

standard) if operating under the baseload 

conditions used in the survey. Any reduction 

of the standard below 1, 100 lb/MWh will 

likely eliminate the ability of TransAlta to 

enter into any new long-term financial 

commitment for the BHP and will strand the 

BHP and eliminate the ability to function as a 

"baseload" operation.

C02 p.2 While BHP is likely capable of achieving an 

emission rate under 1,100 lb/MWh under 

baseload conditions, it is the actual operating 

emission rate that will determine compliance 

with the EPS. Its 2010 emission rate of 1,151 

lb/MWh exceeds the current EPS, and 

therefore BHP is not in compliance. One 

option for BHP, since it has historically run at 

a very low capacity factor, would be to seek 

new air permits to operate as a peaking and 

not a baseload plant. 

SV-13 The Gross Clean Heat Rate for the low NOx 

LM6000PF is reported in the Gas Turbine 

World (GTW) 2012 Handbook at 6408 

Btu/kWh is higher than the standard 

LM6000PF value of 6365 Btu/kWh that is 

used in the calculator. If a new unit would be 

installed in Washington State, the unit would 

be the low NOx model in order to meet the 

low emissions required under any new source 

air permit.

B03 p.4 Commerce will use the low NOx version in 

the EPS Survey. 

SV-14 General Electric currently offers the 

LM6000PC based CCCT (the same type of 

turbine used at the Big Hanaford facility) and 

it should be included in the Survey along with 

the LM6000PF CCCT. 

B03 p.4 Commerce included a representative 

sampling of new CCCTs in its Survey. The 

sampling was guided by a review of recently 

purchased CCCTs (using GTW reports). This 

review indicated that aero derivative turbine 

based CCCTs represented only 3 percent of 

recent CCCT purchases. The current make up 

of the Survey already over-represents this 

class of CCCT and consequently Commerce 

will not add another aero derivative CCCT to 

the Survey.

SV15aCommerce included CCCT models where no 

actual operational data is available, based on 

their interpretation of “new.” For example,

Commerce included the Siemens SGT6-

8000H 2S3 turbine. This model is 

“commercially available” and has been sold in 

the United States but currently there are no 

units in commercial operation in the United 

States, and therefore no operational data. 

For this reason Commerce should exclude 

this CCCT from the Survey. [This comment 

was numbered SV-15 in the 1/15/2013 issue 

of EPS Comments and Responses.]

B05 p.5, 

C01 p.2, 

C03 p.3, 

C01 p.2

The criteria that Commerce applied for 

inclusion in the Survey is that a CCCT had to 

be listed in the GTW Handbook, had to have 

been listed in GTW as ordered by a utility for 

baseload or mid merit operation during 2004-

10, and had to be either installed or in the 

process of being installed (CCCT on site) in 

the U.S. by July 31 of 2012. As noted in the 

comment the SGT6-8000H 2S is available, 

and has been purchased is being installed at 

two sites in the U.S. This particular model (a 

60 hertz version) has been extensively tested 

by Siemens and 50 hertz versions have been 

in operation in other countries, so operational 

information is available. Commerce intends 

to leave one version of the Siemens H class 

based CCCT in the EPS Survey.

SV15bThe EPS Survey should include all new 

designs that are commercially available and 

that have been sold in the United States, 

which would include the Mitsubishi J class 

CCCT and the GE 7FA 0.5 based CCCT. [This 

comment was numbered SV-18 in the 

1/15/2013 issue of EPS Comments and 

Responses.]

B06 See CCCT inclusion criteria in SV-15a. 

Neither CCCT had been shipped to a site for 

installation in the U.S during the 

development of the Survey. 

SV15cThe EPS Survey includes the Mitsubishi 

M501G class CCCT, but not the newer 

derivative Mitsubishi M501GAC CCCT. [This 

comment was numbered SV-17 in the 

1/15/2013 issue of EPS Comments and 

Responses.]

B06,

C04 p.4

See CCCT inclusion criteria in SV-15a. Recent 

reports indicate that both the M501G and 

GAC based CCCTs have been ordered but 

that the GAC version had not been installed 

or even shipped by July 31 2012. Commerce 

will include just the G variant in the Survey.
# comment summary sources Commerce response

SV15dThe Alstom KN24-4 model listed in the EPS 

Survey has a North American installation, but 

has not been installed in the U.S. [This 

comment was numbered SV-16 in the 

1/15/2013 issue of EPS Comments and 

Responses.]

B06 p.5 See CCCT inclusion criteria in SV-15a. 

Commerce will remove this CCCT from the 

Survey.

SV16aSmall CCCTs units are rare, not 

representative of new base load CCCT 

generation, and will not likely be constructed 

in Washington. The over representation of 

small less efficient CCCTs skews the Survey 

overall average emission rate to a higher 

value. Commerce should reduce the number 

of small CCCTs in the Survey. [This 

comment was numbered SV-19 in the 

1/15/2013 issue of EPS Comments and 

Responses.]

B06,

C04 p.4, 

C04 p.5

Commerce has re-evaluated the GTW list of 

Project Orders and Installations and agrees 

that very few small CCCTs were purchased by 

utilities for baseload operation during 2004-

10, and that they are over represented in the 

EPS Survey. Accordingly Commerce will 

remove three smaller CCCTs, including one 

aero derivative CCCT, from the Survey.

SV16bSmall CCCTs units should not have been 

removed from the survey, because the 

assumption that they will not be built in 

Washington has no foundation.

C01 p. 2 See response to SV-16a.

SV-20 Rather than focusing on new designs and 

technology, the Survey developed by 

Commerce included turbines that were 

designed as early as 1977. The 

preponderance of older CCCT designs and the 

lack of a weighting factor skew the Survey 

overall average emission rate to a higher 

value.

B06,

C04 p.3

See CCCT inclusion criteria in SV-15a. 

Commerce considers these updated older 

designs “new” in the sense that they were 

newly ordered and/or installed. Commerce 

does agrees that the older CCCTs are over 

represented in the Survey and will remove 

two older designs from the Survey.

SV-21 Commerce should weight the CCCTs in the 

Survey by their generation capacity. This will 

reduce the contribution of older and smaller 

CCCTs.

B06 p.5, The original language of RCW 80.80.050 

suggests a simple average of the individual 

CCCT emission rates in the Survey. There are 

a number of ways to arrive at an average 

emission rate, but Commerce believes at this 

time the simple average is currently the best 

approach. Removal of several of the older 

and smaller CCCTs as a result of the two 

previous comments reduces the contribution 

from these subsets of CCCTs.

SV-22 The establishment of a single standard based 

on the average performance of large and 

small base load CCCTs would preclude the 

use of smaller CCCTs and at the same time 

lead to an EPS that is too lenient for larger 

designs. Commerce should consider a 

stratified survey and EPS that treats small 

and large designs separately. 

B06 Early in the rulemaking process Commerce 

did receive a suggestion to establish separate 

EPS values for small CCCTs and an EPS for 

larger CCCTs. Several stakeholders objected 

to this approach and it was not pursued. In 

addition Commerce interprets the current 

statute to require a single standard.

SV-23 Commerce incorporated a factor of two 

percent that is intended to correct the new 

and clean ratings from the manufacturers 

from a gross emissions basis to a net 

emissions basis. However, as set out in the 

GTW Handbook and vendor sites, 

manufacturer ratings are ordinarily provided 

on a plant net generation basis that includes 

inlet and outlet losses. Accordingly, there is 

no basis for the system losses adjustment 

used by Commerce.

B06 Commerce's reading of the GTW Handbook 

revealed two important pieces of information 

on whether the output and efficiency values 

are reported on a net or gross basis. First, it 

is clearly stated that not all power plant 

parasitic losses are accounted for in the GTW 

handbook values. Losses due to emission 

control equipment, some onsite auxiliary 

equipment, and transformers are not 

included. Second, GTW points out that as of 

late some of the turbine manufacturers, to 

improve their published output and efficiency 

values, have altered their heat rate values so 

they are now actually much closer to gross 

output values. Considering these two factors 

and after discussion in the Technical 

Workgroup, Commerce determined a 2 

percent adjustment factor was reasonable. 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

SV-24 Commerce should have included positive 

adjustments for certain factors rather than 

just adjustments that would have the effect 

of increasing in-use emissions. For example, 

a positive temperature adjustment in 

Washington State may be appropriate 

because the average mean temperature is 

less than the ISO design temperature 

employed by manufacturers. Greater 

efficiency (and a lower GHG emission rate) is 

achieved when ambient temperatures are 

less than ISO design conditions, and so, if 

there is to be a correction, it should be to 

lower the emission rate.

B06 Performance adjustments for environmental 

operating conditions can be positive or 

negative and are highly dependent on 

location and when and how a power plant is 

operated. Generally the positive adjustment 

factors are smaller than the negative 

adjustment factors. The Commerce 

environmental adjustment factor is a 

composite (negative and positive aspects 

considered) factor.

SV-25 Heat rate values reported by turbine 

manufacturers to GTW are inherently 

conservative resulting in a higher EPS

B06 Commerce has received comments from 

other stakeholders that GTW heat rates are 

too optimistic. Commerce will continue to use 

the heat rates as reported in the GTW 

Handbook.

SV-26 Commerce did not take into consideration all 

suggested factors, such as the impact of air 

cooling.

C01 p. 2 The adjustment factors were extensively 

discussed by the Technical subgroup, and 

included input from the subgroup and 

independent research by Commerce and 

Ecology. Loss of efficiency due to air cooling 

was included in the adjustment applied to the 

new and clean heat rate.

SV-28 The survey was substantiated by only one 

year of data.

C01 p. 2 This comment is referring to Table 2 in the 

Commerce publication "Survey of Combined 

Cycle Combustion Turbine Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Rates" which compares reported 

and calculated emission rates. A check of the 

CO2 emission rates (lb./MWh) for WA and OR 

CCCTS (EIA or EPA Acid Rain Database) 

demonstrates a relatively small year-to-year 

variance in emission rates. To substantiate 

the comparisons of calculated and reported 

emission rates Commerce will update Table 2 

to include three years of data.

SV-29 The Department reports the BHP emissions 

as 1,389 lb/MWh for 2010, when the actual 

emissions from this facility were 1,151 

lb/MWh in 2010. It appears that the higher 

value is the simple cycle emission rate and 

does not account for electricity produced by 

the steam turbine.

C02 p.2 Commerce appreciates this information and 

will update Table 2 in the "Survey of 

Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Rates".

SV-30 The pool of machines considered should 

accurately represent the units that utilities 

are actually developing. PSE finds the 

following representation: GE 64.2%, Siemens 

23.8%, and Mitsubishi 5.5%. In Commerce's 

Survey of CCCTs GE machines were vastly 

underrepresented (by 26%) whereas 

Mitsubishi machines were vastly over 

represented (by 18%). The over and under 

representation has a significant effect on the 

calculated emission rate.

C03 p.3 Commerce reviewed the recent the GTW 

compilation of orders of CCCTs by utilities for 

baseload and mid-merit operation in the U.S. 

and found a different manufacture 

representation: GE 46.3%, Siemens 40.3% 

and Mitsubishi 11.9%. There could be several 

reasons for the differences between the PSE 

and Commerce CCCT market evaluations 

including; a focus on the existing CCCT fleet 

(versus ordered CCCTs), a focus on just gas 

turbines purchased (versus CCCTs), inclusion 

of nonutility purchases, inclusion of peaking 

CCCT units. It should also be noted that 

each manufacturer produces several classes 

of CCCTs with each offering a roughly 

equivalent performing CCCT unit. For 

instance all three manufacturers produce an 

F class CCCT that have emission rates within 

a few tenths of a percent of each other. The 

manufacturers newer CCCTs diverge from the 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

older naming protocol, but the very newest 

machines (some not quite commercially 

available) have emission rates within a 

percent of each other. As noted in previous 

comments the EPS Survey does not 

represent a laundry list of all available CCCT 

configurations nor an exact census of 

recently purchased CCCTs.

SV-31 The “clean and new” emissions performance 

of the existing Washington units (excluding 2 

outliers) is 810 lb/MWh, very close to the 798 

lb/MWh average for the designs in the 

Revised Survey. The measured 2010 

emission rate for those units is 866 lb/MWh. 

This suggests that the appropriate correction 

is 866/810 (1.069) or 6.9 percent.

C04 p. 2 This comment is referring to Table 2 in the 

Commerce publication "Survey of Combined 

Cycle Combustion Turbine Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Rates" which compares reported 

and calculated emission rates. This table has 

been updated, but if we examine hypothetical 

adjustment factors determined in this 

manner, it currently exhibits an 10.6 percent 

adjustment between "clean and new" and 

reported values for 2010 and 11.7 percent 

for 2011. For just the CCCTs in Washington 

the adjustment is 14.1% in 2010 and 15.9 

percent in 2011 -significantly more than the 

value cited in the comment. Commerce does 

not believe this is an appropriate way to 

establish the adjustment factor: going from a 

"clean and new" to an operational emission 

rate. The CCCTs in Table 2 could be midway 

between major maintenance service and 

could experience further degradation over the 

next several years. In addition a number of 

the CCCTs do not have duct firing which 

tends to decrease the apparent adjustment 

factor between clean an new and reported 

emissions. No change to the adjustment 

factor.

SV-32 Commerce did not address our comments 

regarding the adjustment factor applied for 

duct burning. In particular, Commerce 

misapplied the results of surveys of duct 

burner usage.

C04 p. 2 The amount and hours of duct firing to be 

included in the Survey was discussed 

extensively in the Technical Subgroup. 

Several participants noted that their faculties 

or planned facilities had significantly higher 

duct firing capacities and hours of use than 

were adopted in the Survey.

SV-33 It is now 2013 and there is no justification to 

exclude sales in the last two years of a 5 year 

review, particularly where new data from the 

2012 GTW Handbook has been available for 

months and was referenced in comments 

during this rulemaking process. In some 

instances, the agency justifies excluding 

information concerning new units on the 

basis that the information was received after 

the initial proposal.6 Commerce may not 

establish an arbitrary cutoff date that 

excludes new units that otherwise fit within 

the definition of RCW 80.80.050. Rather, 

Commerce is required to incorporate all data 

and information in its determination that is 

received prior to the closure of the comment 

period. Otherwise, commenting on the 

proposal would be a meaningless exercise.

C04 p. 3 The singular purpose of this rulemaking is to 

determine a new emissions performance 

standard through setting and following a 

well-defined survey methodology. The 

commenter is requesting that the length of 

the rulemaking be a parameter of the survey 

methodology. Commerce finds this 

technically unreasonable, and further finds 

that this would make the proposed EPS a 

moving target that would add confusion and 

yet more length to this public process. 

Commerce will stick to a single, well-defined

survey period that relates to the date of 

adoption intended in RCW 80.80.050, 

regardless of the length of the rulemaking 

process. No action.

SV-34 Small (<300MW) designs are not 

representative of existing baseload CCCT 

purchases, and there is no reason to believe 

that these units are representative of the 

new designs that will be sold as baseload 

units in the coming years. The Revised 

C04 p. 4 Early in the rulemaking several stakeholders 

noted that smaller CCCTs were being 

considered, primarily because of their lower 

initial cost and ability to respond to variations 

in wind power generation. Future small 

CCCTs would likely be permitted as baseload 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

Survey includes the emission rates from 

small (<300MW) designs at 46 percent of the 

total survey– far higher than any likely sales 

of such units for baseload applications.

plants, but would provide wind integration 

and mid merit service.

SV-35 The Low NOx version suggested by Transalta 

has not, to our knowledge, been sold in the 

United States. Further, Commerce’s 

adjustment factors include a system loss 

adjustment to account for, inter alia, inlet 

and exhaust pressure drops and emission 

control system losses. Therefore the 

adjustment factor should already account for 

any compliance headroom that would be 

affected by installing NOx controls. 

Accordingly, the proposed substitution double 

counts the impact of NOx controls on the 

emission rate of this unit. Commerce should 

remove the unit from the Revised Survey, or, 

at a minimum, use the “standard” version of 

the unit

C04 p. 5 Commerce does not consider the LM 6000PF 

low NOx derived CCCT a new model. It is a 

very modest derivative of the existing 

LM6000 platform. Our understanding is that 

the low NOx performance is achieved by an 

alteration to the gas turbine combustor that 

slightly reduces output and efficiency of the 

gas turbine and the down stream steam 

turbine. Consequently, the NOx control is 

not a separate device that causes an 

increased pressure drop across the CCCT as 

noted in the comment, but is part of the gas 

turbine design.

RC: Comments regarding the consideration of reliability & cost (RCW 80.80.040(11))

RC-01 Commerce's consideration of cost & reliability 

should include more extensive analysis.

A11 p.3, 

A12 p.2, 

A15 p.2, 

A19 p.2, 

A19 p.12, 

B02 p.2, 

B02 p.3, 

B02 p. 4, 

B02 p. 5, 

B02 p. 7, 

CO3 p.3

RCW 80.80.040(11) states that "in adopting 

and implementing the greenhouse gas 

emissions performance standard, the 

department of commerce...shall consider the 

effects of the greenhouse gas emissions 

performance standard on system reliability 

and overall costs to electricity customers." 

Commerce deems a “consideration” of 

reliability and cost impacts of the EPS 

specified in RCW 80.80.040(11) as a more 

modest level of analysis, which does not 

require complex dispatch, cost and 

econometric modeling.

The consideration of reliability and cost will 

make an earnest evaluation of reliability and 

cost impacts but with simple, top-down 

methodologies. Commerce is receiving peer 

review (as required by law) from WECC, BPA, 

UTC, EFSEC and the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council and other entities with 

experience in electric system analysis.

RC-02 The contribution CCCTs make towards 

system reliability is not necessarily 

proportional to the contribution CCCTs make 

to delivered energy. CCCTs' role as backup to 

both renewable generation and hydropower, 

as well as its role as a seasonal resource, is 

undervalued in the consideration.

A11 p.6, 

A12 p.3, 

A19

Taken collectively, the region's CCCTs 

provide 9% of Washington's electricity 

(averaged over the last 10 years) and do 

provide the valuable services that the 

commenters describe. However, it is 

Commerce's responsibility to consider the 

marginal effect of a change in EPS, not to 

consider the value of the state's entire CCCT 

fleet. We found the change in EPS, as of 

August 2012, to affect the regulatory 

environment for at most 0.6% of the state's 

electric generation. No action.

RC-03 Cogeneration units are not exempt from the 

emission performance standard statute.

A19 p.2 The footnote in the Reliability and Cost 

Consideration has been clarified.

RC-04 Commerce inaccurately dismissed simple 

cycle plants as not subject to the rule.

A19 The EPS pertains to baseload generation. 

While there may still be some older simple 

cycle plants permitted as baseload plants, 

they are not operated as baseload, and have 

the option of re-permitting as peaking plants. 

Due to their lower efficiency and high 

operating costs, it is likely that new simple 

cycle plants will be permitted as peaking and 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

not baseload. In addition, there will be no 

issue with compliance if those simple cycle 

plants are utility owned and service that 

utility's load. If an individual utility has a 

unique situation in which a simple cycle plant 

needs to serve baseload power under duress, 

then the utility may apply for an exemption 

under one of the clauses available in RCW 

80.80.060 and 80.80.070. No action.

RC-05 Lowering the EPS will discourage or prohibit 

financing of future plant improvements or 

construction.

A12, A19 Simply lowering the EPS from 1100 to 980 

lb./MWh does not change the legal context of 

financing decisions. The EPS law has been in 

place for five years, during which Commerce 

has found no evidence of the law impacting 

generator financing decisions.

Financiers may find the EPS law of little 

concern for the following reasons:

a. Utilities and IPPs are selecting the cleaner 

and more efficient CCCTs due to the federal 

BACT requirement.

b. Utilities and IPPs are selecting the cleaner 

and more efficient CCCTs because they are 

less expensive on a per kilowatt capacity 

basis. (See Reliability & Cost Consideration 

supporting information S2.)

c. Future EPS updates will only be 

incrementally lower since CCCT efficiency 

gains, the primary factor the will drive a 

lower future EPS, are anticipated to be small 

over the next 5 years. (See Reliability & Cost 

Consideration supporting information S6.)

The Reliability & Cost Consideration has been 

amended to include this additional 

information.

RC-06 Any upgrade to a CCCT will trigger the EPS 

regardless of whether the contracting status 

changes.

A19 Per the definition of upgrade in the law, only 

upgrades that result in an increase in fuel 

usage (heat input) would trigger the EPS. 

Upgrades for unit reliability or to produce 

more electricity without additional fuel usage 

would not trigger the EPS. No action.

RC-07 WUTC will not consider prudent short term 

contracts resulting from changes to the EPS.

A11 p.7, 

A19 p.4

Most of the existing baseload CCCT 

generation is compliant with the proposed 

update and owned (not contracted) by 

utilities. Only a very small amount of supply 

may fall under new, short-term contracts as 

a result. For this small amount, WUTC will 

consider prudency in a reasonable legal 

context including the adjusted EPS. While 

there may be a small change to consumer 

cost as a result, Commerce does not find it 

sufficient to surmount the legal obligation to 

adjust the EPS. No action.

RC-08 Financiers will not provide lending because a 

foreclosure would transfer ownership to the 

lender and trigger the EPS.

A19 p.5 Since a lender would be financing either the 

purchase of an existing CCCT or the 

construction of a new CCCT, the EPS would 

already have been triggered by the 

borrower's action. Hence, the lender will 

already have considered whether the facility 

is safely below the EPS (per Commerce's 

response to comment RC-05) for the purpose 

of making the loan. No action.

RC-10 Turbine supply restrictions (due to high 

global demand or long lead times) will make 

the requirement to purchase turbines in the 

top half of the market a financial and/or 

A19 p.5 The turbine market includes a wide selection 

of turbine models, and manufacturers 

cooperate with buyers to meet their needs on 

a purchase-by-purchase basis. The survey 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

operational hardship. identified 19 basic models; restriction to half 

of these (and probably more than half once 

manufacturers' ability to customize is taken 

into account) is unlikely to be prohibitive. 

Furthermore, U.S. EPA BACT requirements 

will push buyers of new machines toward 

more efficient models anyway. No action.

RC-11 Commerce assumes CCCTs operate at 

optimal conditions and does not examine the 

positive impacts on grid reliability that is a 

result of their frequent startups and ramping 

as is necessary to integrate intermittent 

resources. Operating in this fashion moves 

CCCTs towards noncompliance.

A19, A12, 

B02 p.6

The EPS calculator does incorporate the 

effects of frequent startup/shutdown and 

ramping on overall emission rates, one of the 

operational adjustment factors that the 

technical subgroup was involved with setting. 

No action.

RC-12 Commerce wrongly assumes that violations 

of the EPS are not subject to financial 

penalties. Citing 173-407-240 (1) WAC and 

by reference RCW 70.94.

A19 Commerce agrees. The Reliability & Cost 

Consideration has been amended to reflect 

this.

RC-13 Commerce's assessment incorrectly assumes 

that independent power producers (IPPs) are 

not impacted by RCW 80.80. 

A18 p.2, 

A19 p.6

Commerce agrees. RCW 80.80.040(3)(b) 

may restrict the operation of IPP baseload 

generators commencing operation in 

Washington State after June 30, 2008. 

Commerce is updating its Reliability & Cost 

Consideration to reflect this. Operations of 

the existing IPPs will be unaffected by the 

proposed change in EPS. Compliance with 

the EPS would only be triggered by (1) 

entering into a power purchase agreement 

that is at least 5 years in length, (2) a 

change in ownership, or (3) an upgrade that 

results in an increase in fuel usage.

RC-14 Commerce does not consider a scenario 

where there is a change in ownership share 

at an investor owned CCCT. 

A19 p.7 Commerce has added this scenario to the 

Reliability & Cost Consideration.

RC-16 The costs reported in Figure 1 [Supporting 

Information S2 in the Consideration 

published November 7] are not 

representative of installed costs for real 

turbine installations.

A19 p.8 The values plotted are the nominal costs of 

the machines themselves. Site or region 

specific costs (such as land, water treatment, 

etc.) are relatively independent of the CCCT 

chosen and hence should be excluded from 

the analysis. Operating costs typically go 

down with decreasing GHG emissions rate 

because a lower GHG emissions rate is 

caused by lower fuel consumption, so 

excluding them errs on the side of financial 

safety. No action.

RC-18 The R-squared value in Figure 1 [Supporting 

Information S2 in the final Consideration 

published November 7] is low and suggests a 

weak or meaningless correlation.

A19 p.11 The purpose of the figure is to demonstrate 

that a lowered EPS will have little effect 

toward raising consumer costs. That is, it 

should demonstrate that there is NOT an 

Anti-correlation between GHG emissions rate 

and price. A positive correlation of any 

strength, even weak, offers that assurance. 

Nevertheless, Commerce has improved the 

quality of the data graphed by omitting four 

turbine models that are no longer frequently 

purchased, which raised the positive 

correlation even further, to R2=0.874.

RC-19 Commerce should not rely on the UTC and 

utility board exemption clauses to avoid a 

comprehensive reliability & cost analysis.

A19 p.11 

B02 p. 4

The Reliability & Cost Consideration makes an 

earnest evaluation of reliability and cost 

impacts with simple, top-down 

methodologies, consistent with the law (see 

response to comment RC-01). Commerce 

does not have the capacity nor the 

underlying, proprietary data to conduct an 

analysis that treats impacts to individual 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

utilities. The exemption clauses are 

important and meaningful safety valves for 

extraordinary circumstances that could 

impact a single utility. No action.

RC-25 The Reliability and Cost Consideration fails to 

consider whether a lower EPS would 

effectively strand much or all of the existing 

fleet of CCCTs and cause the construction of 

new compliant CCCTs that otherwise would 

not be needed.

A11 p.5, 

A11 p.8, 

A15 p.2 

B04 p.3 

B02 p.1, 

C03 p.3

The Reliability & Cost Consideration now 

considers the impact of the EPS adjustment 

on the entire regional fleet (supporting 

information S4b). The great majority of the 

existing fleet emits below the proposed 

standard, and also below a hypothetical 

standard forecast for 2017.

RC-26 Commerce seems to assume that utilities 

could and even should ignore statutory 

requirements (law does not impose direct 

financial penalties, prevent short-term 

contracts,....) 

A11 p.9 This is not Commerce's intention. Language 

has been adjusted to remove any implication 

that utilities should violate statutory 

requirements. Commerce does not view a 

choice to sell power on short-term contracts 

as violating statutory requirements, since this 

is clearly allowed in the law.

RC-27 The EPS impacts other portions of the utility 

portfolio - besides CCCTs, presumably other 

baseload generation such as coal.

A12 p.2 The commenter is correct that other types of 

generation, especially coal, are impacted by 

the EPS. However, Commerce's 

responsibility is to consider the marginal 

impact of lowering the EPS from the current 

value to the proposed value. All coal-fired 

generation available to Washington is already 

above the current value, so there is no 

marginal impact due to lowering the value. 

Hydropower, nuclear, renewables, and nonbaseload (peaking) gas-fired generation are 

entirely unaffected by the EPS. No action.

RC-28 The reliability and cost consideration should 

consider the impact of the EPS change on 

utilities' integrated resource plans.

A12 p.2 

B02 p.7

Commerce agrees. The Reliability & Cost 

Consideration now includes (1) an estimate 

of the next EPS revision in 2017 and (2) a 

chart of typical turbine capital cost versus 

GHG emission rate. The estimate of the 

2017 EPS revision, which will cover 

compliance years 2017-2022, demonstrates 

that the majority of CCCTs in the Northwest's

fleet and on the market will be compliant for 

at least the next decade. The chart of capital 

costs demonstrates that lower emission rates 

do not correlate to higher capital costs so the 

lowered EPS is unlikely to have any profound 

impacts on integrated resource plans.

RC-30 It is not reasonable for utilities to rely on 

short-term contracts.

A12 p.3 

B02 p.7

The lowered EPS does not force a utility to 

enter into short-term contracts. Commerce 

is simply observing that facilities exceeding 

the EPS may still engage in the spot market 

or on contracts up to 4.9 years in length. All 

utilities may continue planning with long time 

horizons in mind and purchasing on long 

term contracts as long as those contracts are 

with compliant facilities. No action.

RC-32 Commerce's consideration of long vs. shortterm contracts is insufficient.A12, A15, 

A19 p.7

Commerce has partnered with UTC to gather 

actual data for investor-owned utilities' CCCT 

contracts and their lengths. The share of 

CCCT generation under long-term contract is 

summarized in supporting information S5 of 

the Reliability & Cost Consideration released 

on November 7.

RC-33 Agreement with Commerce's findings that an 

updated standard in the range of 925-975 

lb./MWh will not materially affect cost or 

reliability

A14 p.2, 

A16 p.3, 

A18 p.1, 

B01 p.1

Comment acknowledged.

RC-35 The reliability & cost consideration incorrectly A12 p.4- Commerce agrees. The language has been 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

implies that there is no cost for utilities to 

comply with the EPS.

5, A18 

p.2

amended.

RC-38 Existing long-term contracts will be 

threatened if the generator is upgraded to 

increase fuel consumption, or if the 

generator's ownership changes.

A19 p.4 A Washington utility holding a long-term 

contract with a generator affected in this way 

remains in compliance until the contract 

expires. If the change in generator 

ownership causes expiration of the contract, 

that is a consequence unrelated to the EPS. 

No action.

RC-39 RCW 80.80.040(11) specifically requires 

consultation with the UTC and others during 

the Reliability and Cost Consideration. 

Commerce needed greater engagement with 

the Utilities and Transportation Commission 

("UTC"). 

B05 p.3 Commerce consulted with the UTC repeatedly 

during the Survey development, the 

Reliability and Cost Consideration, and at 

other points during the rulemaking. No 

action.

RC-40 Adjusting the EPS will have complicated 

effects on the energy sector, Washington 

electric consumers, and potentially Western 

electricity markets. Commerce did not 

adequately or fully address the numerous 

ways in which a lowered EPS rate will impact 

system reliability, load service and utility 

resource planning requirements and 

processes. Moreover, the assessment did not 

adequately foresee the impact a more 

stringent EPS will have on electricity 

consumer costs. A better approach to 

building a reliability and cost analysis would 

be to account for a range of potential 

outcomes. For these reasons, Our Companies 

disagree with the results of Commerce's cost 

and reliability analysis.

B05 p.5 

B04 p.2 

B02 p. 5

In its Reliability and Cost Consideration 

Commerce demonstrated that 1. most 

regional CCCTs operate well below the 

proposed EPS value, 2. new CCCTs have even 

lower emissions and 3. those plants that emit 

above the proposed EPS are owned by large 

utilities, and can serve utility load or sell into 

the short-term market without penalty. 

Commerce therefore concluded that the 

impacts on system reliability and costs to 

customers are minor. Furthermore, at the 

second stakeholder meeting Commerce 

requested, but did not receive, detailed and 

documented information from utilities 

supporting their claims that the EPS would 

negatively impact system reliability and costs 

to customers. 

RC-41 Commerce should not attempt to predict the 

circumstances in 2017/2018 for the next 

update of the EPS and should remove these 

references from the Reliability and Cost 

consideration.

B01 p.1 Commerce agrees. If Commerce chooses to 

issue a revision of the Reliability and Cost 

Consideration then the 2017 analysis will be 

removed.

RC-42 The RCA states that CCCTs currently serve 

9.4% of Washington's electric load and 

concludes that the remaining approximately 

90% of the resource mix will ensure system 

costs and reliability regardless of the EPS's 

effects. This is not explained or supported.

B02 p.6 The Reliability and Cost Consideration does 

take for granted that the portion of the 

resource mix unaffected by the change in 

EPS, will be available to provide electricity 

services to the same extent it was before. 

We find this assumption to be self evident. 

No action.

RC-43 Commerce's draft document states that the 

price penalty for a 4.9 year contract vs. a 10 

year contract will be minimal or non-existent; 

this is contrary to experience - the shorter 

the contract, the shorter the period to spread 

costs over.

B02 p.9 The commenter is apparently referencing an 

early draft of the Reliability & Cost 

Consideration; this statement was removed 

in August of 2012. No action.

PL: Comments regarding the legal context & rulemaking 

process

PL-01 Stakeholders received insufficient notice of 

pre-proposal inquiry activities.

A08, A10 

p.1

The Pre-proposal Statement of Inquiry was 

published in the Washington State Register 

on March 7, 2012. In response to 

stakeholder concerns about adequate 

notification, Commerce delayed the process 

in order to offer all stakeholders adequate 

opportunity for input.

PL-02 The requirements under RCW 80.80.050 to 

report a survey of turbines to the legislature, 

and to adopt by rule the average available 

greenhouse gas emissions output, should be 

A10 p.1-

2, A11 

p.3 B05, 

p.1

Commerce finds the plain language of RCW 

80.80.050 to indicate that the average 

available greenhouse gas emissions output is 

that average determined from the survey. 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

interpreted as separate requirements. Furthermore, definition 80.80.010(3) states, 

"'Average available greenhouse gas 

emissions output' means the level of 

greenhouse gas emissions as surveyed and 

determined by the energy policy division of 

the department of commerce under RCW 

80.80.050." No action.

PL-08 Lowering the EPS will force in-state IPPs out 

of business, reducing grid reliability and 

increasing cost to consumers.

A08 p.2 In-state IPPs will not be forced out of 

business, but they will be more restricted in 

the types of new generating equipment they 

may purchase. They may continue to 

operate any equipment in their ownership as 

of June 30, 2008, but if any of that 

equipment has an emission rate above the 

EPS their future contracts with Washington 

utilities will be under 5 years in length. 

These appear to be intended consequences of 

the law. No action.

PL-10 Commerce should consider the environmental 

impacts of lowering the EPS.

A11 p.4, 

A16 p.2, 

B02 p.3, 

C01 p. 3

RCW 80.80 is itself, in intent, an

environmental law. It is not Commerce's 

responsibility to further evaluate the law's 

environmental consequences. No action.

PL-11 Commerce should not adjust the EPS before 

the Legislature can consider the report on 

need, applicability and effectiveness required 

under RCW 80.80.080.

A11 p.2, 

B02 p.2, 

B03 p.5, 

B04 p.1

The law set up the Legislative report by the 

Department of Ecology, and the adjustment 

of the EPS standard, with the same time 

schedule and due dates to the legislature. 

Ecology will submit this report to the 

Legislature when or before the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is published.

PL-12 Updating the standard is required by law and 

not voluntary

A14 p.1, 

A17 p.1

Comment acknowledged.

PL-13 No reason for further delay; process needs to 

be expedited.

A14 p.3, 

A17 p.6, 

A18 p.1

Commerce is moving forward at the 

maximum rate possible based on available 

staffing and the complexity of answering all 

stakeholders' concerns.

PL-15 There is clear need and value in maintaining 

and updating the Washington EPS over and 

above current federal requirements.

A17 p.2, 

A18 p.2

Commerce agrees. See response to 

Comment PL-22.

PL-16 The claim that the revised EPS should not be 

drawn from the survey of new and 

commercially available CCCTs is fallacious.

A18 p.2 Commerce agrees. See response to 

Comment PL-02.

PL-18 Commerce's voluntary decision to review 

reliability and cost is welcome.

A14 p.2 Comment acknowledged.

PL-19 The guidance in the law for Commerce to 

"consider" reliability and cost does not 

require an extensive technical and 

econometric evaluation.

A16 p.2 Commerce agrees. The consideration of 

reliability and cost will make an earnest 

evaluation of reliability and cost impacts but 

with simple, top-down methodologies. 

Commerce is receiving peer review (as 

required by law) from WECC, BPA and other 

entities with experience in electric system 

analysis.

PL-21 “Baseload electric generation” as defined in 

process documents or as defined in WAC is 

not consistent with the definition in RCW 

80.80.

A20 p.3 In 2013 Ecology will be making changes to 

WAC 173-407 to incorporate the updated EPS 

and to reflect changes to RCW 80.80 that 

have been enacted since 2008. This issue 

will be addressed within that rulemaking.

PL-22 The EPA Tailoring Rule makes the EPS 

irrelevant.

A11 p.2, 

B02 p. 2, 

C01 p. 3, 

C03 p.2

The U.S. EPA Tailoring Rule applies only to 

facilities exceeding certain size thresholds; 

does not apply to power contracted by 

utilities; and applies a best available control 

technology ("BACT") methodology on a caseby-case basis rather than a uniform 

quantitative standard. Commerce finds the 

EPA Tailoring Rule to be materially different 
# comment summary sources Commerce response

from the EPS. No action.

PL-23 The proposed federal emissions performance 

standard makes the EPS irrelevant.

B04 p.3, 

B05 p.2, 

C01 p. 3

The proposed federal standard is not yet law. 

If it does become law it will affect only new 

plants, while Washington's EPS affects 

existing plants and contracts as well, making 

it materially different from the federal 

standard. No action.

PL-24 Rather than interpreting what "baseload 

electric generation" means as "allowed for by 

current permits", the WAC definition should 

be corrected as part of this process. For 

existing power generation facilities the 

definition should allow evaluation of the 

actual operating history of a plant as the 

method of determining the owner or 

operator's intent, since the GHG law has 

been in place for 5 years now and years of 

operating data under the law is available for 

existing units.

B03 p.4 In 2013 Ecology will be making changes to 

WAC 173-407 to incorporate the updated EPS 

and to reflect changes to RCW 80.80 that 

have been enacted since 2008. This issue 

will be addressed within that rulemaking.

PL-28 The definitions and methodology guiding the 

survey were poorly defined by Commerce.

C03 p.3 Commerce will consult with all stakeholders a 

minimum of two years before the 2017 

adjustment to the standard, in order to allow 

more detailed interpretations of the survey 

terms, and the most robust possible 

methodology.
Comment Source Index

# date organization

A: comments received prior to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A01 04/02/12 PacifiCorp

A02 04/04/12 Avista

A03 04/05/12 PSE

A04 04/10/12 Northwest Energy Coalition, Climate Solutions & 

Washington Environmental Council

A05 04/11/12 stakeholders meeting

A06 04/16/12 Association of Washington Business

A07 04/17/12 Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities

A08 07/24/12 Tenaska

A09 07/27/12 PSE

A10 08/02/12 Tenaska

A11 08/02/12 PSE

A12 08/03/12 Avista & Pacificorp

A13 08/03/12 Washington Public Utility Districts Association

A14 08/22/12 Climate Solutions

A15 08/27/12 PSE

A16 08/27/12 Washington Environmental Council

A17 08/28/12 Natural Resources Defense Council

A18 08/28/12 Northwest Energy Coalition

A19 08/28/12 Tenaska

A20 06/13/12 TransAlta

B: comments received after Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

B01 12/03/12 Washington Environmental Council

B02 12/03/12 Puget Sound Energy

B03 12/03/12 TransAlta

B04 12/03/12 Association of Washington Business

B05 12/03/12 PacifiCorp-Avista

B06 12/03/12 Sierra-NRDC

C: comments received after close of CR-102 comment period (December 

3, 2012 11:59pm)

C01 02/11/13 PacifiCorp

C02 02/11/13 TransAlta

C03 02/11/13 PSE

C04 02/11/13 Sierra-NRDC
Concise Explanatory Statement Attachment 2: Explanation of Changes in 

Revised Survey Edition

Commerce issued the first edition of this legislative report on Monday, November 5 2012. The 

related notice of proposed rulemaking (“CR102”) was published in the Washington State 

Register (WSR 12-21-138) on November 7, 2012. Commerce then held a public hearing on 

November 28 to take comment from stakeholders on the proposed rulemaking and allowed 

public comment by mail or email until December 3. Commerce received a number of 

substantive stakeholder comments resulting in the minor modifications to the Survey 

methodology. The changes to the Survey and the stakeholder comments that initiated the changes 

are presented in this document. 

Because of the change in the Survey methodology Commerce issued a Supplemental Notice of 

Rulemaking on January 16th which was followed by another public hearing on February 6th

where additional stakeholder comments were heard. No further changes were made to the 

Survey.

Four changes were made to the Survey, as follows.

1) Commerce uses the heat rate for the low NOx version of the General Electric LM6000PF in 

the revised Survey, to reflect the installation that would realistically occur in Washington 

State. This changes the clean and new heat rate from 6,385 Btu/kWh to 6,408 Btu/kWh.

2) The Alstom KN24-4 model included in the first edition of the EPS Survey has not been 

installed in the U.S., and has been removed from the revised edition.

3) Small and older CCCT designs were over-represented in the first edition of the survey. 

Commerce has re-evaluated the GTW list of Project Orders and Installations for 2004-10 and 

agrees that very few small and older design CCCTs were ordered, and that they are over 

represented in the EPS Survey. Commerce will remove the following five CCCTs from the 

Survey so it more closely matches recent CCCT orders placed by utilities for baseload 

generation purposes: General Electric LM2500, 106FA and S107EA derived CCCTs, 

Mitsubishi 501F derived CCCT, and Siemens 2000E derived CCCT.

4) The estimate of the 2017 EPS update value has been removed.

The net effect of the modifications to the Survey methodology was to reduce the EPS from the 

initial proposed value of 980 lb/MWh to 970 lb/MWh, a change of approximately one percent. 
Basis for the changes to the Survey

The stakeholder comments that were taken under consideration and Commerce’s responses are 

presented below. Comments that Commerce took action on are noted in italics.

1. Comment: The Gross Clean Heat Rate for the low NOx LM6000PF is reported in the Gas 

Turbine World (GTW) 2012 Handbook at 6408 Btu/kWh is higher than the standard 

LM6000PF value of 6365 Btu/kWh that is used in the calculator. If a new unit would be 

installed in Washington State, the unit would be the low NOx model in order to meet the low 

emissions required under any new source air permit.

Response: Commerce will use the low NOx version in the EPS Survey. 

2. Comment: General Electric currently offers the LM6000PC based CCCT (the same type of 

turbine used at the Big Hanaford facility) and it should be included in the Survey along with 

the LM6000PF CCCT. 

Response: Commerce included a representative sampling of new CCCTs in its Survey. The 

sampling was guided by a review of recently purchased CCCTs (using GTW reports). This 

review indicated that aero derivative turbine based CCCTs represented only 3 percent of 

recent CCCT purchases. Adding a second aero derivative CCCT to the Survey would vastly 

over-represent this class of CCCT.

3. Comment: The Alstom KN24-4 model listed in the EPS Survey has a North American 

installation, but has not been installed in the U.S. 

Response: Commerce will remove this CCCT from the Survey.

4. Comment: Commerce included CCCT models where no actual operational data is available, 

based on their interpretation of “new.” For example, Commerce included the Siemens SGT6-

8000H 2S3 turbine. This model is “commercially available” and has been sold in the United 

States but currently there are no units in commercial operation in the United States, and 

therefore no operational data. For this reason Commerce should exclude this CCCT from the 

Survey. 

Response: Commerce applied the criterion, that to be included in the Survey a CCCT had to 

be listed in the GTW Handbook, and to be listed in GTW’s Project Orders and Installations 

covering the period from January 2004 through December of 2010, ordered by a utility for 

baseload generation, and be either installed or in the process of being installed in the U.S. by 

July 31 2012. The SGT6-8000H 2S is listed as available, has been purchased, and is being 

installed at two sites in the U.S. This particular model (a 60 hertz version) has been 

extensively tested by Siemens and 50 hertz versions have been in operation in other 

countries, so some operational information is available. One version of the Siemens H class 

based CCCT will remain in the EPS Survey.
5. Comment: The EPS Survey includes the Mitsubishi M501G based CCCT, but not the newer 

derivative Mitsubishi M501GAC CCCT, which is available and has a lower heat rate and 

emission rate.

Response: When Commerce developed the initial (CCCT) Survey list in February 2012 the 

GAC version of the G class CCCT was not listed in the 2011 GTW Handbook. Recent 

reports indicate that both the M501G and GAC based CCCTs are available and have been 

purchased in the U.S. but that the GAC version had not been installed or shipped by July 31 

2012 when Commerce finalized the survey. Commerce will include just the G variant in the 

Survey

6. Comment: Small CCCTs units are rare and will not likely be constructed in Washington. 

These small units are not representative of new base load CCCT generation. The EPS Survey 

over represents small CCCTs with six CCCTs of less than 171 MW capacity out of a total of 

nineteen total CCCTs Surveyed. The GTW handbook list of Project Orders and Installations 

for 2007-10 showed only one base load CCCT of similar capacity, a 188 MW facility, being 

purchased and installed. The over representation of small less efficient CCCTs skews the 

Survey overall average emission rate to a higher value. Commerce should reduce the number 

of small CCCTs in the Survey.

Response: Commerce has re-evaluated the GTW list of Project Orders and Installations and 

agrees that very few small CCCTs were purchased, and that they are over represented in the 

EPS Survey. Accordingly Commerce has removed model numbers General Electric models 

106FA and LM2500 G4 RC, Mitsubishi model MPCP1(501F),and the Siemens model SCC6-

2000E from the Survey.

7. Comment: Rather than focusing on new designs and technology, the Survey developed by 

Commerce included turbines that were designed as early as 1977. Only three of the units in 

the Survey can be considered representative of new base load CCCTs. The preponderance of 

older CCCT designs and the lack of a weighting factor skew the Survey overall average 

emission rate to a higher value.

Response: Commerce notes that these older CCCTs have generally gone through several 

updates during the intervening years and that the design dates in the Survey represents the 

initial announcement of that particular class of CCCT which can precede the initial 

installation date by several years. Commerce also considers these older CCCT designs 

“new” in the sense that they do not represent existing CCCTs, and were newly ordered 

during the GTW reporting period of 2004-10 and were installed or were being installed by 

July 31 2012 . However, upon review Commerce does agree that the older CCCTs are over 

represented in the Survey and has removed model numbers General Electric model S107EA. 

In addition the GE 106FA, the Mitsubishi model MPCP1(501F), the Siemens model SCC6-

2000E can be considered both older and smaller models - their removal is noted in comment 

6 above.
8. Comment: The EPS Survey should include all new designs that are commercially available 

and that have been sold in the United States, which would include the Mitsubishi J class 

CCCT and the GE 7FA 0.5 based CCCT. 

Response: The Mitsubishi J class and GE 7FA 0.5 based CCCTs have been announced and 

interested entities have made down payments on these two CCCT designs. Neither CCCT 

had been installed in the U.S. or was in the process of being installed during the development 

as of July 31 2013. Research by Commerce indicates that Mitsubishi and GE just completed 

testing of these two new CCCT models this year, and that the machines had not shipped and 

that initial installations may not occur until 2014. For these reasons the Mitsubishi J class and 

GE 7FA 0.5 based CCCTs were not included in the EPS Survey. However, they will almost 

certainly be included in the next EPS update.

9. Comment: Commerce should weight the CCCTs in the Survey by their generation capacity. 

This will reduce the contribution of older and smaller CCCTs.

Response: The language of RCW 80.80.050 does not suggest or specify a weighted average, 

so Commerce takes the plain meaning to be a simple average of the individual CCCT 

emission rates.

10. Comment: The establishment of a single standard based on the average performance of large 

and small base load CCCTs would preclude the use of smaller CCCTs and at the same time 

lead to an EPS that is too lenient for larger designs. Commerce should consider a stratified 

survey and EPS that treats small and large designs separately. 

Response: Early in the rulemaking process a stratified EPS was discussed, but several 

stakeholders objected to this approach and it was not pursued.

11. Commerce incorporated a factor of two percent that is intended to correct the new and clean 

ratings from the manufacturers from a gross emissions basis to a net emissions basis. 

However, as set out in the GTW Handbook and vendor sites, manufacturer ratings are 

ordinarily provided on a plant net generation basis that includes inlet and outlet losses. 

Accordingly, there is no basis for the system losses adjustment used by Commerce.

Response: Commerce's reading of the GTW Handbook revealed two important pieces of 

information on whether the output and efficiency values are reported on a net or gross basis. 

First, it is clearly stated in the GTW Handbook that not all power plant parasitic losses are 

accounted for in the reported heat rate values. Losses due to cooling and emission control 

equipment, some onsite auxiliary equipment, and transformers are not included. Second, 

some of the manufacturers, to improve their published output and efficiency values, have 

been altering their published values so they are now actually much closer to a gross 

generation heat rate values. Considering these two factors and after discussion in the 

Technical Workgroup, Commerce has determined a 2 percent adjustment factor was 

reasonable.
12. Commerce should have included positive adjustments for certain factors rather than just 

adjustments that would have the effect of increasing in-use emissions in the Survey. For 

example, a positive temperature adjustment in Washington State may be appropriate because 

the average mean temperature is less than the ISO design temperature employed by 

manufacturers. Greater efficiency (and a lower GHG emission rate) is achieved when 

ambient temperatures are less than ISO design conditions, and so, if there is to be a 

correction, it should be to lower the emission rate.

Response: Performance adjustments for environmental operating conditions can be positive 

or negative and are highly dependent on the location and time a power plant is operated. 

Generally the positive adjustment factors are smaller than the negative adjustment factors. 

The environmental adjustment factor applied in the Survey is a composite that considers both 

negative and positive aspects.

13. We do not support the finding that anticipates that the 2018 EPS update will be 965 lb/MWh. 

Technological change is difficult to predict and publishing an anticipated number may 

ultimately be unhelpful to all parties.

Response: Commerce evaluated the series of efficiency improvements to a commonly 

purchased gas turbine over the course of twenty years in order to estimate the 2018 EPS 

update value. That said, technical change is difficult to predict and often is not smooth or 

continuous in nature. Commerce will remove this section form the Legislative Report and 

from any updates to the Reliability and Cost Consideration.