6-1

Chapter 6

Standards for Fossil Fuel-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 

(Boilers and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Units) 

Contents

6.1 General................................................................................................................................. 3

6.2 Proposed NSPS for New Fossil Fuel-Fired Utility Boilers and IGCC Units is Not an 

NSPS 3

6.3 CCS...................................................................................................................................... 6

6.3.1 Literature on CCS .............................................................................................................. 6

6.3.2 Similarity to Controls Required in Previous NSPS Rulemakings................................... 13

6.3.3 The Range of Emission Limits EPA Is Considering Cannot Be Achieved by a Coal-Fired 

EGU without the Use of CCS................................................................................................... 17

6.3.4 CCS Technical Issues ...................................................................................................... 19

Post-combustion CO2 Capture .............................................................................................. 30

Oxy-combustion.................................................................................................................... 32

Pre-Combustion CO2 Removal............................................................................................. 32

CO2 Transport ....................................................................................................................... 33

Geologic Sequestration ......................................................................................................... 46

Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Utilization........................................................................ 71

6.3.5 CO2 Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory Issues ...................... 93

Geologic Sequestration Property Rights............................................................................... 93

CO2 Transport Legal and Regulatory Issues......................................................................... 96

Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act ......................................................................................... 109

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program .................................................................................. 120

Liability............................................................................................................................... 130

Other CO2 Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory Issues ............... 135

6.3.6 CCS Is/Is Not BSER...................................................................................................... 140

Cost ..................................................................................................................................... 147

Adequate Demonstration .................................................................................................... 204

Promotion of Technological Development......................................................................... 227

Nationwide, Long-Term Perspective .................................................................................. 233
6-2

Energy and Nonair Quality Environmental Impacts........................................................... 236

Use of Purportedly Extra-Statutory "Purposes" to Justify Standard of Performance......... 243

Other BSER Options........................................................................................................... 245

6.3.7 EIA Analysis.................................................................................................................. 252

6.3.8 Effect of the Proposed NSPS Rule on CCS Development, Demonstration and 

Deployment............................................................................................................................. 253

6.4 Proposed Emission Limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh ............................................................ 257

6.4.1 Achievability of Proposed Standard with CCS Technology.......................................... 268

6.5 Other Subcategories......................................................................................................... 272

6.5.1 Coal-Fired Projects Under Development....................................................................... 274
6-3

6.1 GENERAL

Comment 6.1-1: Commenter (9646, 10092) supported the EPA's proposal to set separate 

performance standards for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and integrated gasification combined 

cycle units and natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. Commenter (9646) stated that 

this approach better allows EPA more regulatory flexibility to craft standards of performance

tailored to the unique characteristics of each fuel and generator type. Commenter (10092) 

expressed concern about promulgating uniform nationwide limits.

Response 6.1-1: The Agency appreciates the comments regarding its proposal to set separate 

performance standards for steam generating EGUs (i.e., utility boilers and IGCC units) and 

natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. The Agency also notes that Clean Air Act 

section 111(b) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are intended to be applicable 

nationwide.

6.2 PROPOSED NSPS FOR NEW FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED UTILITY 

BOILERS AND IGCC UNITS IS NOT AN NSPS

Comment 6.2-1: Commenter 9666 stated that EPA's proposed NSPS for new fossil fuel-fired 

utility boilers and IGCC units is not an NSPS as it is not a standard that requires an enforceable, 

on-site reduction in the total emissions generated by new sources. The commenter noted that the 

proposed standard merely reflects the amount of unseparated CO2 a source would release from 

the stack, yet the total CO2 generated by the source does not change as the remainder of the CO2

generated by the source is separated and sent somewhere with the expectation that it will be 

sequestered. Therefore, the commenter argued it would not violate the proposed NSPS if 100 

percent of the CO2 separated by the capture technology subsequently was released to the 

atmosphere. According to the commenter, a standard defining "new source performance" must 

be based on a system of emission reduction incorporated into the new source itself and the 

underground "sequestration" of separated CO2 at an off-site location miles away from (and not 

under the control of) the new source does not meet this requirement, nor does on-site 

sequestration, as sequestration facilities are not subject to the standard and are not a part of the 

"affected facility" to which the standard applies. According to the commenter, the proposed 

Subpart Da standard does not reduce emissions; the proposal, which is based on one element of 

CCS, produces no reduction in the CO2 generated by a source: instead, it merely requires that 

new sources separate some percentage of the CO2 from its flue gas stream, without imposing any

requirements regarding the CO2's ultimate fate. The commenter stated that the proposal is a 

"carbon separation" system, not a "carbon capture and sequestration" system, and therefore it 

does not reduce emissions. The commenter concluded that the proposed standard for Subpart Da 

units must be withdrawn because it is unlawful and not a "performance" standard based on a 

"system of emission reduction" as it does not contain any limitation requiring on-site disposal of 

captured CO2 through sequestration or any limitation requiring off-site sequestration.

Response 6.2-1: First, as explained in more detail in response to this same commenter 9666 

(UARG) in RTC Chapter 2, the commenter is mistaken that a standard of performance must 

include standards for a captured pollutant, be it particulate captured by a baghouse and disposed 

of as solid waste, a waste water captured in a wet scrubber and discharged to waters, or (as here) 

a gas captured in supercritical phase and sequestered. Second, as part of its obligation under 
6-4

section 111 (a) (1) to consider non-air quality health and environmental impacts and other 

collateral consequences of this rulemaking, the EPA has carefully assessed the integrity and 

safety of the transport and sequestration of captured CO2. It is EPA’s considered and reasonable 

belief that the plenary regulatory standards for CO2 pipelines assure pipeline safety, and the 

comprehensive regulatory standards for Class VI and Class II injection wells (and the long 

history of safely-conducted use of CO2 for EOR), in combination with the reporting requirements 

of the subpart RR GHG reporting rule (including the comprehensive monitoring, reporting and 

verification plan required under those rules) assures that captured CO2 will be safely tracked to a 

sequestration repository, and that CO2 will be safely and securely sequestered for long-term 

storage. See preamble section V.N. In particular, the EPA notes that the Class VI standards for 

protection of underground sources of drinking water, such as a rigorous site characterization 

process and a rigorous sub-surface monitoring regime, would assure containment within a well’s 

injection zone, and thereby also prevent any release of sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere. The 

monitoring would also be sufficient detect any potential escape from the injection zone before 

there could be any release of CO2 to atmosphere, with backup assurance provided by the 

monitoring required under the subpart RR GHG Reporting regulations (as part of the monitoring, 

reporting, and verification plan). Id. Indeed, some of the same commenters arguing that EPA 

had arbitrarily failed to address sequestration in the standard criticized features of the Class VI 

rules as overly stringent (e.g. the 50-year post-closure care requirement).

In short, section 111 (a)(1) standards of performance are not required to address disposition of a 

captured pollutant. EPA is required to consider such disposition as part of the requirement to 

consider a standard’s potential non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and has 

reasonably done so here. 

Comment 6.2-2: Commenter 9774 stated that EPA is applying the NSPS to a range of sizes and 

types of generation technology that were not evaluated in EPA's analysis of CCS. The 

commenter stated that EPA only evaluated the cost of CCS based on applying the technology to 

a 550 MW supercritical boiler and therefore the proposed NSPS should not apply to other types 

of coal generating units. According to the commenter, EPA must acknowledge that generating 

units employ varying technologies serving specific needs and a NSPS analysis and limit must be 

developed specifically for and allows for the continued use of these types and sizes of coal-fired 

generation units. Commenter 9774 also stated that the proposed NSPS will also apply to future 

boiler technologies, such as oxy-firing, which has the potential to significantly increase the 

efficiency of boilers and decrease CO2 emissions as compared to the super-critical coal-fired 

boiler assumed in the analysis. However, the commenter stated that oxy-firing cannot be 

considered as a stand-alone option if it cannot meet the CCS-based NSPS. Thus, the commenter 

concluded the proposed NSPS could effectively prohibit the use of this and other emerging boiler 

technologies, even if they provide a better overall outcome.

Response 6.2-2: The final standard of performance is based on the performance of a highly 

efficient SCPC implementing partial CCS – at a reasonable cost. The final standard of 1,400 lb 

CO2/MWh-g can be achieved by a highly efficient SCPC burning bituminous coal by 

implementing about 16% CCS and by such a unit burning low rank coal by implementing about 

23% CCS. The EPA did base its projections of cost and performance on a 500 MW-net new 

source (using information from DOE/NETL studies). However, the primary metric that the 

agency used to evaluate the reasonableness of costs – the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) –
6-5

is normalized on a per megawatt-hour basis (i.e., as $/MWh) and thus is indicative of costs over 

a range of sizes. In addition, as shown in Table 8 of the rule preamble, the EPA presented the 

anticipated costs as a range to account for uncertainties in capital costs from -15% to +30% (per 

guidance from DOE/NETL). While the cost for a new unit that is larger or smaller than the 500 

MW example may deviate somewhat from the point estimate provided by DOE/NETL, the costs 

should fall within the range presented in Table 8. The final BSER determination does not 

mandate in any way that utilities and project developers must build a new 500 MW SCPC that 

implements partial CCS. Project developers are still free to choose other generation options and 

the EPA has specifically discussed the alternative compliance option of natural gas co-firing –

and option that can be implemented at a cost that is less costly than the BSER option (see Table 

9 in the final preamble; though for reasons explained in the final preamble, the EPA does not 

find natural gas co-firing to be the BSER). Regarding the use of oxyfuel combustion, there is no 

need for an oxyfuel combustion system to implement CCS. The system inherently produces a 

high concentration CO2 stream. In fact, such a system would be able to achieve a much more 

stringent emission rate than is required by the final standard. The EPA did not consider oxyfuel 

combustion as a BSER technology because of the relatively few demonstration projects 

(especially in the U.S. – no large-scale demonstration projects) and the lack of cost information. 

However, if a project developer chooses to construct a new oxyfuel combustion EGU in the 

future, the final NSPS will not hinder the feasibility to pursue the project in any way.

Comment 6.2-3: Commenter 9513 stated that the exemption for IGCC less than 50% syngas 

from the CCS requirement would result in the units not being subject to any regulation and 

allows unregulated combustion of large amounts of coal, which undermines partial CCS 

obligation.

Response 6.2-3: Some IGCC units co-produce chemicals along with power. The final 

applicability requirements for IGCC units is that the unit is an affected source if it sells more 

than one-third of its potential electric output to the grid. Such a unit would be required to meet 

the final standard performance of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g. However, as we note in the preamble, 

many new IGCC units will be able to meet this standard by co-firing only a small amount of 

natural gas and would be unlikely to install a CCS system just to meet the final standard. 

However, some new IGCC units may choose to install CCS technology in order to take 

advantage of the flexibilities of the integrated gasification system – such as the co-production of 

chemicals.

Comment 6.2-4: Commenters 8022, 9725, 9734, 10023, 10031, 10039, 10050, 10520, 9190, 

10552 stated that EPA has utterly failed to propose any system of emission reduction in its 

proposed NSPS for Subpart Da units, in direct contravention of section 111 of the CAA, and that 

as proposed, the standard requires only on-site separation of CO2, with no limits on its release to 

the atmosphere. According to the commenters, that is not a NSPS within the meaning of the 

CAA. 

Commenter 10664 noted that attributing of emissions beyond the capture is unusual.

Response 6.2-4: The standard of performance does ensure that there is a reduction in the 

emission of CO2 from the affected facility. The comment suggests that the EPAs proposed 

performance standards should have included some additional requirements to ensure that 
6-6

captured CO2 is not ultimately released into the atmosphere. This comment is addressed in this 

unit above at Response 6.2-1, and also in RTC Chapter 2. 

6.3 CCS

Comment 6.3-1: Commenter 0775 stated that they are pleased that the allowable CO2 emission 

thresholds would effectively prohibit any future coal-fired power plants unless those plants can 

capture and sequester at least 60% of their carbon dioxide emissions.

Commenter 10961 stated power utilities must either capture and sequester their carbon, or cease 

burning the most carbon-intensive source of boiler-generated electricity, namely coal. According 

to the commenter, nothing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to permit any particular source of 

fuel. The commenter stated that natural gas-fired generators are an available and cost-effective 

technology for the generation of electricity, and is identifiable under this rulemaking as an 

alternative to coal-fired generators.

Response 6.3-1: The EPA notes that the rule does not require the use of CCS, nor does it specify

any particular percentage that must be captured and sequestered. Instead, the rule specifies the 

allowable emission (in pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour-gross) from a new fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating EGU (utility boiler or IGCC unit). Although the EPA conservatively costed the 

rule based on the use of 16% partial CCS (for new SCPC plants burning bituminous coal), the 

EPA also noted that there are other compliance paths available for both of these types of sources. 

6.3.1 Literature on CCS

Comment 6.3-2: Commenter 10618 stated that EPA has only considered a narrow fraction of 

available information to inform its literature review. The commenter pointed to literature 

summarized in 2012 comments under EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660-10038, page 42.

Response 6.3-2: While the EPA believes that it did conduct a thorough literature review for the 

proposal, we have specifically included a Technical Support Document – “Literature Survey of 

Carbon Capture Technology” in the rulemaking docket.

Comment 6.3-3: Commenter 2471 stated that EPA may not have conducted a proper peer 

review, including cross-media impacts to water and soil. 

Response 6.3-3: The EPA disagrees. In fact, the SAB Workgroup stated by letter endorsed by

the full Committee that “while the scientific and technical basis for carbon storage provisions is 

new and emerging science, the agency is using the best available science ....”. Letter of Jan. 7, 

2014 from SAB Workgroup Chair to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons, p. 

3. The same Workgroup likewise found that the NETL materials had been fully peer reviewed, 

and that the Department of Energy peer review procedures also satisfied the EPA Peer Review 

Guidelines. Id.

Comment 6.3-4: Commenters 8966 and 9396 stated that EPA has violated the Data Quality Act 

because the supporting literature cited by the proposed rule constitutes a highly influential 

scientific assessment (HISA) that requires its own peer review under the OMB Peer Review 
6-7

Bulletin pursuant to the Data Quality Act. Commenter 8966 further stated that the controversial 

and precedent-setting nature of the proposal as well as the significant interagency interest 

constitutes an HISA.

Response 6.3-4: These comments are addressed in Chapter 2 in the unit discussing issues related 

to the Data Quality Act.

Comment 6.3-5: Commenters 9426, 9666, 9780, 10095, 10098, 10239 and 10618 asserted that 

the government studies cited by EPA do not constitute an extensive record nor do they illustrate 

that the technical, economic and legal barriers to implementing commercial scale CCS have been 

surmounted. For example, Commenter 9666 stated that the literature does not address the issue 

of scale-up for PC and IGCC units, generalization to different fuels, or actual lessons learned. 

Response 6.3-5: The EPA is not relying exclusively on government studies or on the scientific 

literature as the basis for its determination that partial CCS, along with highly efficient SCPC, is 

the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated. As stated in section V.D of the 

preamble to the final rule, the principal justification are plants operating CCS at full commercial 

scale. EPA likewise explains the basis for its conclusions that costs will decline for the next 

plants which deploy partial CCS in section V.H.8 of the preamble to the final rule The EPA has 

also addressed issues associated with scale-up (see generally in section V.G.3), and variable 

operating conditions, and use of different fuel types (see sections V.J.1 and V.J.2).

Comment 6.3-6: The commenters then discussed the EPA cited studies, noting that the Task 

Force report is not a final report of research and development results, the 2009 PNNL report cites 

CCS for coal-fired EGUs as a future technology requiring vigorous ongoing research, 

development and demonstration, and NETL's Cost and Performance Report models potential 

efficiency rates and costs of CCS units rather than assessing actual coal-fired power plants 

(because no power plant has operated with the 40 percent capture CCS system EPA proposes to 

define as BSER). Commenter 10239 also noted that the Task Force report was available when it 

issued the GHG Guidance in 2011, yet the EPA offers no rational basis for reversing its prior 

conclusion that CCS was unlikely to meet the higher BACT standard. 

Response 6.3-6: The EPA has noted several times that the charge of the CCS Task Force was to 

propose “a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS 

within 10 years ...” Much of what is written in technology readiness assessments and other 

technology development “roadmaps” involves the readiness of CCS technology that can be 

widely implemented and often examines the readiness of “full capture” (i.e., 90+% capture). 

Widespread implementation would only be applicable as a retrofit technology of existing 

facilities. Existing sources are not covered in this rulemaking. In the EPA’s proposal for its 

CAA 111(d) emission guidelines, the Agency explained that it evaluated implementation of CCS 

as a potential component of the BSER for existing sources and ultimately rejected it due to cost 

and other considerations. 

The EPA also examined application of CCS technology at existing EGUs. CCS 

offers the technical potential for CO2 emission reductions of over 90 percent, or 

smaller percentages in partial applications. In the recently proposed Carbon 

Pollution Standards for new fossil fuel-fired EGUs (79 FR 1430), we found that 
6-8

partial CCS was adequately demonstrated for new fossil fuel-fired steam EGUs 

and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units. We also found that for 

these new units the costs were not unreasonable, either for individual units or on a 

national basis, and we proposed to find that application of partial CCS is the 

BSER. 

However, application of CCS at existing units would entail additional 

considerations beyond those at issue for new units. Specifically, the cost of 

integrating a retrofit CCS system into an existing facility would be expected to be 

substantial, and some existing EGUs might have space limitations and thus might

not be able to accommodate the expansion needed to install CCS. 

Further, the aggregated costs of applying CCS as a component of the BSER for the 

large number of existing fossil fuel-fired steam EGUs would be substantial and 

would be expected to affect the cost and potentially the supply of electricity on a 

national basis. For these reasons, although some individual facilities may find 

implementation of CCS to be a viable CO2 mitigation option in their particular 

circumstances, the EPA is not proposing and does not expect to finalize CCS as a 

component of the BSER for existing EGUs in this rulemaking. Nevertheless, CCS 

would be available to states and sources as a compliance option.

Comment 6.3-7: Additionally, Commenter 10618 noted that none of the reports consider the 

lessons learned and experiences of actual projects such as the AEP Mountaineer CCS validationscale plant or the coal-based electric generation CCS projects under development. The 

commenters surmised that in light of these issues within the literature, EPA cannot claim that 

CCS is adequately demonstrated. Commenters 9426, 9666 and 10095 further asserted that rather 

than supporting EPA's conclusion that CCS is BSER, the studies provides support for the 

immaturity of CCS. Commenter 9666 then cited several reports stating that CCS is not 

demonstrated for large or commercial scale power plants.

Response 6.3-7: The EPA stands by its determination that implementation of partial CCS is 

adequately demonstrated as described in the section V.D. and E. of the preamble to the final rule. 

The EPA also understands that there is available literature and there are studies (some of which 

are dated) that offer more cautious or pessimistic views on the state of CCS development. Many 

of the reports cited in the comments have evaluated the technology readiness or feasibility on 

whether “full capture” (90+% capture) can be economically deployed on a wide-scale. EPA 

found that the costs of full capture, at this time, may not be reasonable as they are predicted to 

exceed the costs of other low CO2 emitting, base load generating options that are being 

considered as alternatives to new NGCC units. Most of the studies have focused on the 

availability and the economic and technical feasibility of retrofitting carbon capture technology

to existing sources. EPA is not predicating any standard for existing sources on utilization of 

full- or partial-CCS.

Comment 6.3-8: Commenter 9666 also stated that the NETL reports use cost data from a single 

engineering firm that reflects market conditions prior to and during the escalation in capital 

equipment cost from about 2006 through 2010 introducing significant uncertainty into cost 

estimates. The commenter further noted that the estimated CO2 separation equipment are based 
6-9

on an equipment list that was not peer reviewed and not based on actual operating experience 

under a range of relevant conditions. The commenter concluded that the report cannot therefore 

be relied upon to support a finding that the CO2 separation rates are actually "achievable" within 

the meaning of section 111.

Response 6.3-8: First, the NETL cost estimates were adequately peer reviewed, and the SAB 

Workgroup so found. The study report(s) the DOE/NETL explained that the Total Plant Costs 

(TPC) and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for each of the cases in the study were 

estimated by WorleyParsons using an in-house database and conceptual estimating models. This 

database and the respective models are maintained by WorleyParsons as part of a commercial 

power plant design base of experience for similar equipment in the company’s range of power 

and process projects. A reference bottoms-up estimate for each major component provides the 

basis for the estimating models. Costs were further calibrated using a combination of adjusted 

vendor-furnished and actual cost data from recent design projects. (See DOE/NETL report, pages 

44-45). The EPA understands that costs can change with time and location. However, as the 

DOE/NETL noted (report p. 9): “The value of the study lies not in the absolute accuracy of the 

individual case results but in the fact that all cases were evaluated under the same set of technical 

and economic assumptions. This consistency of approach allows meaningful comparisons among 

the cases evaluated.” Increases in capital costs, labor costs, transportation costs, etc. affect the 

construction of all new technologies – with or without the inclusion of carbon capture 

equipment. While the relative comparisons presented in the NETL reports may vary somewhat as 

a result, the EPA’s conclusion regarding the costs – that implementation of “partial capture” 

CCS is not exorbitantly expensive – should still be valid. The EPA also notes that the cost and 

performance projections that were used for the final rule were updated versions of the reports 

used for proposal. DOE/NETL noted in the updated (2015 report) that “[T]his revision reflects 

varying degrees of technology vendor input for updates to the pollution control equipment for 

PC plants, and the CO2 capture, CO2 compression, and steam turbine technology for PC and 

NGCC plants ...”

Comment 6.3-9: Commenter 10044 stated that the NETL data on which EPA relies are no 

longer valid according to the authors and comments by Commenter 0065 and 0066.

Commenter 9423 cited a May 2013 NETL report disputing the current technological and 

economic feasibility of CCS on coal fired plants. The commenter recommended that EPA

withdraw the proposed rule until the issues are addressed

Response 6.3-9: The commenter references comments (0065 and 0066) that came from OMB 

and Interagency review of DRAFT versions of the proposal preamble. In particular, the DOE 

was concerned that EPA, in a DRAFT version of the preamble, had not clearly explained the cost 

numbers that relied on DOE/NETL studies and they recommended that EPA use first-of-a-kind 

costs instead. The EPA explained the rationale for using the next-of-a-kind estimates – as it did 

in the proposal –and provided the responses given in comment 0066. The EPA worked with 

staff at the DOE/NETL to ensure that the language in the proposal preamble clearly explained 

the nature of the costs (i.e., that they represent next-of-a-kind or ‘next commercial offering’ 

costs). The proposal – as it was published in the Federal Register – was cleared through OMB 

and Interagency review. The final rule likewise indicates clearly that the cost estimates represent 

the next commercial offering costs, consistent with their presentation in the NETL reports. It 
6-10

should be noted that these interagency review comments are not part of the record for judicial 

review (see CAA section 307 (d)(7)(A) ), but the EPA is addressing these comments in the 

interests of transparency, and to correct the mistaken suggestion in the comments that the EPA 

proposal and final rule evaluated and made use of NETL materials in a manner inconsistent with 

the authors’ intent.

However, partly in response to this and similar comments, the EPA continued to evaluate cost 

information in order to consider the most up-to-date information. The cost information for postcombustion CCS comes from NETL (2015) and reflects latest vendor cost quotes for the Shell 

Cansolv process – the process in use at the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility.

Comment 6.3-10: Commenter 10618 stated that the data in the 2010 NETL report is unreliable 

because data is based on conceptual designs and limited to bituminous coals. The commenter 

further stated that no data validates the emission rates. Commenter 10618 recommended that 

EPA analyze operating data from the CAMD database for emission rates in practice as well as 

talk with vendors, operators and manufacturers to determine sustainable, representative emission 

rates for coal based technologies.

Response 6.3-10: The commenter is mistaken in suggesting that a standard of performance 

cannot reflect a conceptual design. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has explained that a standard of 

performance is ‘‘achievable’’ if a technology can reasonably be projected to be available to new 

sources at the time they are constructed that will allow them to meet the standard. 

Specifically, the D.C. Circuit explained: 

Section 111 looks toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated future, 

rather than the state of the art at present, since it is addressed to standards for 

new plants. . . .—It is the ‘‘achievability’’ of the proposed standard that is in issue 

. . . . The Senate Report made clear that it did not intend that the technology 

‘‘must be in actual routine use somewhere.’’ The essential question was rather 

whether the technology would be available for installation in new plants. . . . The 

Administrator may make a projection based on existing technology, though that 

projection is subject to the restraints of reasonableness and cannot be based on 

‘‘crystal ball’’ inquiry.

Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 486 F. 2d at 391. EPA has no way of pre-determining the 

specific design configuration that individual project developers will choose and so an evaluation 

of “conceptual designs” is appropriate. In particular, regarding the conceptual designs in the 

NETL reports. The ‘Objective’ of the NETL studies was given (report in ‘NETL Viewpoint’) as 

follows:

Objective:

To establish baseline performance and cost estimates for today’s fossil energy plants, it is 

necessary to look at the current state of technology. Such a baseline can be used to benchmark 

the progress of the Fossil Energy RD&D portfolio. This study provides an accurate, independent 

assessment of the cost and performance for Pulverized Coal (PC) Combustion, Integrated 

Gasification Combined Cycles (IGCC), and Natural Gas Combined Cycles (NGCC), all with and 
6-11

without carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration assuming that the plants use technology 

available today. [Emphasis added] (“Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants 

Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity” Revision 2a, September 2013. 

DOE/NETL-2010/1397)

So, while the designs are necessarily conceptual, they represent fossil fuel fired plants that “use 

technology available today”. 

We also note that, while we did rely on Volume 1 of the Cost and Performance reports, there are 

companion reports that evaluate very similar configurations that utilize low rank coals with very

similar results. Achievability of the final standard under a variety of operating conditions and 

using varying fuel types is discussed in the preamble section V.J.1 and V.J.2 and also in a 

Technical Support Document (TSD) – “Achievability of the Standard for Newly Constructed 

Steam Generating EGUs” available in the rulemaking docket.

Comment 6.3-11: Commenters 9505 and 10088 noted that although EPA's Science Advisory

Board (SAB) dubiously reversed its position because the proposed rule only requires the capture 

of carbon emissions and does not directly address carbon storage, the SAB questioned the 

adequacy of the peer reviewed studies in a November 2013 memo.

Response 6.3-11: This comment reflects a significant misstatement or misimpression. See full 

response in RTC 2.4 concerning comments on the Data Quality Act. In fact, the EPA addressed 

the SAB Work Group's recommendations from the November 2013 memorandum in subsequent 

meetings with the SAB Work Group. The EPA provided the Work Group with additional 

information on the peer review process of the DOE/NETL studies and noted that the peer review 

of the NETL studies, conducted by DOE, met the requirements of EPA's Peer Review 

Handbook. The Workgroup, in a letter endorsed by the full Committee, then found that “while 

the scientific and technical basis for carbon storage provisions is new and emerging science, the 

agency is using the best available science ...”. (See Letter of Jan. 7, 2014 from SAB Workgroup 

Chair to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons, p. 3.) The EPA further noted that 

the proposed rule applied only to the capture of carbon emissions. Requirements for 

storage/sequestration of the captured CO2 rely on existing promulgated standards. In the same 

January 7, 2014 memorandum, the SAB Work Group recommended that the SAB not review the 

science supporting the proposed rule, noting that:

This recommendation is based on the (1) information provided on the Clean Air 

Act statutory requirements for feasible technology, the (2) status of carbon 

sequestration under the Underground Injection Control Program, and (3) 

additional information on the EPA peer review process. The work group finds 

that a review by the SAB would not provide additional benefit to the proposed 

rule.

Comment 6.3-12: Commenter 10098 provided literature which estimates that CCS can increase 

water consumption by 30-100 percent.

Response 6.3-12: The EPA is aware that the use of CCS can increase water usage/consumption 

at a new facility. The EPA has carefully evaluated this issue in preamble section V.O.2 and finds 

the water use impacts of the final standard of performance to be reasonable. 
6-12

Comment 6.3-13: Commenter 8925 stated that CCS is likely to play a key role in any efforts to 

significantly reduce carbon emissions, as evidenced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) 

World Energy Outlook 2013, World Energy Council (WEC) World Energy Insight 2013, Energy

Modeling Forum (EMF) 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies and the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 

III Summary for Policy Makers.

Response 6.3-13: The EPA agrees that numerous assessments have concluded that ultimate 

widespread use of CCS is likely necessary to significantly reduce global anthropogenic CO2

emissions.

Comment 6.3-14: Commenter 10108 provided a list of important and independent technical 

studies, such as the 2009 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report and the SBC Energy

Institute CCS Factbook, as a source of independent support for EPA's finding that CCS is 

technically feasible, adequately demonstrated, and ready for broader deployment.

Response 6.3-14: The EPA appreciates that the commenter has provided the list of these studies.

Comment 6.3-15: Commenter 9514 states that the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council's 

public comments arguing that the Third National Climate Assessment contradicts EPA's BSER 

determination is wholly without merit.

Response 6.3-15: The EPA generally agrees with the summary provided by Commenter 9514 on 

the scope of the National Climate Assessment and that the NCA does not purport to be an 

assessment of CCS. 

Comment 6.3-16: Commenters (9201, 9426, 9666, 10046, 10239, 10618) discussed reports and 

literature that support the commenter's statements that CCS is not adequately demonstrated.

Commenter 9426 submitted that EPA should rely on NETL, who recently concluded that 

"capture technologies - are not ready for implementation on coal-based power plants because 

they have not been demonstrated at appropriate scale, require approximately one-third of the 

power plant's steam and power to operate, and are very expensive", to determine the status of 

CCS development for fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units. 

Commenters 9666 and 10239 asserted that CCS is not adequately demonstrated and cites the 

recent Climate Change Impacts in the United States study as stating that CCS demonstration at 

scale is uncertain and there are substantial increases energy penalties and construction and 

operating costs associated with CCS. 

Commenter 9201 cited Global CCS Institute, International Energy Agency, and DOE as support 

for the commenter's statement that there is a need for integrated commercial scale demonstration 

of whether CO2 control processes can respond with the rest of the plant to meet a variable, and at 

times unpredictable, operational load. The commenter further stated that CCS is not adequately 

demonstrated by the examples provided because they do not provide relevant, or authentic, 

experience for dedicated power generation, remain in construction or design phase, or only 

address post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-combustion as if the experience from one 
6-13

technology can be readily applied to another despite the fundamental differences in the process 

steps.

Commenter 10046 stated that CCS technology is not technologically feasible, as demonstrated 

by the academic literature on which EPA relies which concludes that there are unresolved 

technical challenges to scaling and integrating CCS parts into new coal-fired power plants. 

Commenter 10618 argued that EPA ignored available information on CCS, providing references 

to and citations from numerous assessments by public and private organizations that recognize 

that CCS has not been proven to be technically feasible or adequately demonstrated for coalbased generation and that significant development barriers remain.

Response 6.3-16: The EPA stands by its determination that implementation of partial CCS is

adequately demonstrated. See preamble sections V.D. and E. The EPA also understands that 

there is available literature and there are studies (some of which are dated) that offer more 

cautious or pessimistic views on the state of CCS development. Many of the reports cited in the 

comments address a different issue than the one presented in this rulemaking. The reports 

evaluated the technology readiness or feasibility of “full capture” (90+% capture) can be 

economically deployed on a wide-scale and concluded such widespread implementation was not 

yet feasible. EPA is not basing the promulgated standard of performance on full capture –

regarding it as unreasonably costly. See preamble section V.P.2. Most of the studies have 

focused on the availability and the economic and technical feasibility of retrofitting carbon 

capture technology to existing sources. In none of the CAA 111 GHG proposals does the EPA 

suggest a requirement for widespread deployment of CCS across the existing fleet or for 

implementation of full-capture CCS. . 

6.3.2 Similarity to Controls Required in Previous NSPS Rulemakings

Comment 6.3-17: Commenter 9666 stated that the current state of CCS development is not 

similar to that of controls required for SO2 and NOx in previous NSPS rulemakings. According 

to the commenter, showing that CCS is adequately demonstrated will require extensive 

demonstration experience on a greater scale than was required for SO2 and NOx control 

technologies and certainly requires more commercial experience than EPA identifies in this 

proposed rule. The commenter noted that SCR had been widely applied in utility industry in the 

United States and abroad by the time that it was incorporated into an NSPS for power plants in 

1997. In comparison, the commenter notes that today there is no commercial scale coal-fired 

generating capacity equipped with CCS and only 45 MW of generating capacity has ever been 

equipped with a fully integrated CCS system. 

Commenters 8024, 9396, 9666, 10031, 10046, 10618 stated that adequate demonstration requires 

successful commercial scale demonstration, the ability to generalize single source test results 

nationally, and commercial assurance that components will integrate seamlessly. The 

commenters stated that CCS is not at the same development phase as FGD and SCR at the time 

of NSPS, is far more complex, and does not meet the requirements for adequate demonstration. 
6-14

Response 6.3-17: First, post-combustion CCS is demonstrated at commercial scale at Boundary

Dam Unit #3. Second, there is no legal requirement that technology be in commercial use before 

it is identified as BSER. See preamble section III.G.1. Third, CCS is actually further developed 

than were FGD scrubbers when selected as BSER in the 1971 NSPS for this same industry. This 

did not impede the successful development and deployment of the technology, and spurred 

innovation as well. See preamble section V.L. With regard to scrubbers, the agency notes that 

industry pronouncements in the 1970s about the non-availability of the technology were as 

strident, and misplaced, as those regarding partial CCS. For example,

 In attack ads, the coal industry called scrubbers “monstrously expensive, unproven 

technology” and that “it is regrettable that workable technology doesn’t exist”;

 They said that “scrubbers are undeveloped, unreliable, and unacceptable for electric 

utility use” and these negative assertions “cannot be seriously challenged by anyone 

wishing to avoid ridicule”;

 Over the next decade, the amount of coal capacity with scrubbers increased 15-fold, 

reducing emissions by millions of tons;

 The industry made similar claims about other technologies to remove NOx and Hg. Each 

of these claims has been proven wrong.

Comment 6.3-18: Commenter 9666 discussed how the Great Plains Synfuels Plant is different 

because it does not generate power and does not need to satisfy a wholesale or regulated power 

market that can vary on an hour-by-hour basis.

Response 6.3-18: The commenter is correct that the Great Plains Synfuels Plant is not an EGU 

and does not need to satisfy a wholesale or regulated power market. However, the facility is so 

functionally similar to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) EGU that it can be 

used to inform the EPA’s understanding of the carbon capture process and the integrated 

transportation and ultimate storage of the captured CO2 and how that might be transferred to an 

IGCC that implements partial CCS to meet the final standards of performance. See preamble 

section V.E.2. 

Comment 6.3-19: Commenter 9197 stated that unlike previous NSPS, this proposed rule is not 

supported by actual test data derived from full-scale, commercial facilities employing the 

claimed "best system of emission reduction."

Response 6.3-19: This comment is addressed in preamble section V.G.2. Since the very

inception of the CAA section 111 program, courts have noted that “[i]t would have been entirely 

appropriate if the Administrator had justified the standard, not on the basis of tests on existing 

sources or old test data in the literature, but on extrapolations from this data, on a reasoned basis 

responsive to comments, and on testimony from experts and vendors ....” Portland Cement v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d at 401-02. The EPA notes that the cost and performance data that the 

EPA relied on (NETL, June 2015 and NETL, July 2015) reflect information provided by Shell 

Cansolv, the vendor supplying the carbon capture technology for Saskpower Boundary Dam 

Unit #3, which is a commercial-scale EGU employing fully-integrated CCS at 90% capture.
6-15

Comment 6.3-20: Commenters 9666, 10618 stated that the development and demonstration 

history of controls for conventional pollutants like SO2 and NOx cannot accurately reflect the 

experience needed to demonstrate CCS, which is more complex and technically challenging than 

any system of emission control applied to date.

Response 6.3-20: There is no question that post-combustion CCS is adequately demonstrated, 

POWER magazine just gave its power plant of the year award to Boundary Dam for its 

successful implementation and operation of full CCS. The award mentioned the technology’s 

reliability, that it came in at budget and on time, and quoted a company executive as stating “if 

coal has a future, this is it”. See also preamble section V.D. 

Comment 6.3-21: Commenter 9666 stated the quantity of pollutants that facility operators 

would need to remove in order to meet EPA's proposed standard is unprecedented: for a new 500 

MW unit firing Powder River Basin coal, the amount of CO2 that the operator would need to 

capture and remove would be over 100 times greater than the amount of captured SO2, and over 

1,000 times greater than the captured NOx.

Response 6.3-21: The same hypothetical 500 MW facility would need to capture and remove 

about 50,000 times more SO2 than the amount of mercury that would need to be captured. That 

does not make SO2 control infeasible. The amount of CO2 that would need to be captured for a

new 500 MW unit firing bituminous coal would be approximately 600,000 tons of CO2 per year, 

which is only about 6 times higher than the amount of SO2 that would be required to be captured 

from a high sulfur bituminous coal (or nearly 100 times the captured SO2 when burning low 

sulfur PRB coal). However, in order to keep things in perspective – the hypothetical new 500 

MW coal fired power plant would also require the mining, transport and burning of about 1.5

million tons of coal per year. So, power plants are already accustomed to handling large 

quantities of coal and other combustion by-products and the relative quantities of pollutants that 

must be captured are not an issue.

Comment 6.3-22: Commenter 9666 noted that unlike with FGD and SCR, the byproduct of CCS 

- captured CO2 requires specialized processing because it is unstable under normal atmospheric 

conditions; captured CO2 must be compressed to a pressure of 100 atmospheres, transported long 

distances in that volatile state, and injected 4,000 to 8,000 feet below the Earth's surface into a 

geologically suitable repository, where chemical reactions secure the CO2 over time.

Response 6.3-22: The particulate matter (PM, ash) that is captured from a coal-fired power plant 

must be carefully handled and properly stored as it contains toxic metals. So must spent 

activated carbon used to capture mercury. The CO2 that is captured must be compressed and 

transported (potentially long distances) before it is either utilized for enhanced oil recovery or 

injected for long-term storage. All of these operations are well proven and have been adequately 

demonstrated. See 76 FR 48082-83 (Aug. 8, 2011) (plenary regulatory requirements for CO2

pipelines). EOR operations using captured CO2 transported in subcritical state via pipeline have 

been conducted successfully for decades. Class VI standards for Deepwell injection assure 

secure storage of captured CO2 for geologic timeframes. See preamble section V.N.

Comment 6.3-23: Commenter 10098 cited the Sierra Club decision, noting that the D.C. Circuit 

held that dry scrubbing, an "emerging technology" at the time, could not have been an adequately 
6-16

demonstrated technology under Section 111. The commenter noted in the case of dry scrubbing, 

the court found that there was no record support for the Administrator to make a BSER 

determination due to (1) the absence of full scale dry scrubber use at utilities; (2) the 

Administrator's failure to explain how pilot scale testing "may be used to predict performance in 

full scale plants throughout the industry;" and (3) the absence of test data for different types of 

coals. Without data showing that dry scrubbing would actually allow coal-fired EGUs of various 

types to achieve the NSPS, it could not be considered to be adequately demonstrated. The 

commenter stated that dry scrubbing at the time of the Sierra Club decision was ahead of where 

CCS is today as no full scale CCS unit has yet been installed and it has not "adequately 

demonstrated."

Response 6.3-23: EPA’s final BSER determination is entirely consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s 

analysis of availability of dry scrubbing in the extended footnote in Sierra Club. The court did 

not hold that a technology must be in full-scale use before it could be considered “adequately 

demonstrated” for purposes of section 111. Rather, the court indicated that EPA failed to explain 

how pilot scale testing predicted full-scale performance. The court (in a passage not cited by the 

commenter) contrasted this situation with the standard based on baghouse performance, which 

also reflected pilot scale data. There, the court found sufficient record evidence justifying that 

pilot scale baghouse performance could be scaled up (657 F. 2d at 382), and that inconsistent test 

data from a single larger facility reflected inefficient design and operation. Id. Thus, the case 

stands for the proposition that pilot scale data alone can be sufficient to justify that a technology

is adequately demonstrated, provided there is a reasonable explanation of how the technology

(and its level of performance) can be scaled up.

The record supporting technical feasibility and availability of partial CCS at full scale 

commercial operation is stronger than the record justifying demonstration of baghouses in Sierra 

Club. Most obviously, the final standard reflects successful, full-scale operation of both pre- and 

post-combustion CCS. Second, EPA has explained how CCS technology in full-scale use in 

other industry sectors may reasonably be transferred to EGUs. See preamble section V.E.2. The 

record further explains in detail how CCS can be implemented at full scale. The NETL reports 

contain hundreds of pages of detailed, documented explanation of how every aspect of full- and 

partial-scale CCS can be implemented at full-scale for both PC and IGCC facilities. Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“the agency need only 

identify the major steps necessary for development of the device, and give plausible reasons for 

its belief that the industry will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining."). For 

example, the NETL reports provide a detailed description of the following systems projected to 

be needed for a supercritical PC to capture CO2: coal and sorbent receiving and storage, steam 

generator and ancillaries, NOx control system, particulate control, flue gas desulfurization, flue 

gas system, CO2 recovery facility, steam turbine generator system, balance of plant, and 

accessory electric plant, and instrumentation and control systems.1 Moreover, the AEP Front 

 

1 NETL, pp. 54-74 (2013). There are comparably detailed descriptions for full-scale pre-combustion capture system 

for an IGCC. Id. pp. 192-222 (describing coal receiving and storage, coal grinding and slurry preparation, air 

separation unit choice and integration, gasification, raw gas cooling/particulate removal, syngas scrubber/sour water 

stripper, water gas shift reactors, mercury removal, acid gas removal, CO2 compression and dehydration, sulfur 

recovery/tail gas cleanup process selection, slag handling, power island, steam generation island, accessory electric 

plant, and instrumentation and control).
6-17

End Engineering and Design (FEED) Report, prepared after conclusion of the development 

study, describes in detail precisely how the development scale CCS could be successfully scaled 

up to full scale operation for post-combustion carbon capture at a PC plant. According to the 

FEED report, the challenge is “operating a complex system of chemical processing equipment 

[for post-combustion CO2 capture], typically designed with a chemical plant operations 

philosophy of high consistency and low variability, with a continuously variable feedstock of 

flue gas, to produce a highly consistent, high purity ... CO2 product.” FEED Report p. 11. 

Chapter 6 of the Report then details how to do so, discussing the chilled ammonia process, 

process chemistry and process equipment (flue gas cleaning and cooling, CO2 absorption, water 

wash and CO2/NH3 stripping, refrigeration system, and high pressure regeneration and 

compression). AEP concluded that it “has a high level of confidence in the robustness of the 

developed design .....”. Id. p. 64. See also preamble section V.G.3.

6.3.3 The Range of Emission Limits EPA Is Considering Cannot Be Achieved 

by a Coal-Fired EGU without the Use of CCS

Comment 6.3-24: Commenters 3176, 3360, 6949, 7433, 7977, 8974, 9422, 9590, 10024, and 

10393 stated that coal fired plants would have to install CCS to meet EPA's proposed standard. 

Commenter 7433 further added that this appears to be a mandated work practice and that EPA 

has not made the findings to justify imposition of a work practice required by CAA section 111 

(b)(5).

Response 6.3-24: The commenters suggest that the proposed standards of performance would 

require the installation of CCS technology. According to Commenter 7433 this would contradict 

CAA requirement in section 111 (b)(5) of the Act . 

“...nothing in this section shall be construed to require, or to authorize the 

Administrator to require, any new or modified source to install and operate any 

particular technological system of continuous emission reduction to comply with 

any new source standard of performance.”

These comments are mistaken. The final standard is a performance standard which may be met 

by any means of a source’s choosing. EPA specifically notes that there are alternative 

compliance paths to achieve the promulgated standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross for both PC 

units and IGCC units, including co-firing with natural gas without using CCS. 

Comment 6.3-25: Similarly, Commenters 1959, 8032, 8348, 8923, 9408, 9666 and 9471 stated 

that achieving the proposed emissions limit at a coal-fired unit can only be accomplished by at 

least partial CCS however the technology has never been commercially deployed. Additionally, 

Commenter 9471 noted that CCS has not been demonstrated as the best system when costs, 

environmental impacts and energy requirements are considered. Commenter 1959 further stated 

requiring CCS would remove coal from use as a hedge against natural gas swings and is costly.

Response 6.3-25: As previous stated, the EPA has shown that partial CCS has been adequately 

demonstrated and is commercially available for deployment at new coal-fired utility boilers and 

IGCC EGUs. As just described above, the standards do not require utilization of partial CCS 
6-18

technology. Responses to comments related to cost of the technology are in unit below; see also 

preamble section V.I.

Comment 6.3-26: Likewise, Commenter 10239 stated that EPA has not identified a single 

commercial-scale EGU that can meet the proposed emission limit using CCS or any other 

technology nor is CCS adequately demonstrated, as determined by past BACT determinations 

and EPA's own guidance.

Response 6.3-26: The EPA has identified a commercial-scale EGU that can meet – and currently

is meeting – the emission limit using CCS technology. The SaskPower Boundary Dam facility is 

capturing 90% of the unit’s CO2 emissions using commercially available carbon capture 

technology (from Shell Cansolv; http://www.shell.com/global/products-services/solutions-forbusinesses/globalsolutions/shell-cansolv/shell-cansolv-solutions/CO2-capture.html). The 

facility’s emissions are well below the 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-gross standard. Actually the 

emissions at the Boundary Dam facility must be below 1,400 lb CO2/MWh as Canada’s emission 

standard is 0.42 tonnes CO2/MWh, which is roughly equivalent to about 925 lb CO2/MWh. The 

plant’s operations with CCS are so successful that POWER magazine has awarded Boundary

Dam its power plant of the year accolade (August 1, 2015).

Comment 6.3-27: Commenter 9666 stated that EPA normally invites discussion regarding 

achievable emission limits, however they have not allowed outside analysis because no full-scale 

EGUs have deployed CCS.

Response 6.3-27: The EPA has engaged with a diverse set of stakeholders and specifically 

requested comment on the achievability and feasibility of the proposed emission limits. As just 

described above, the Boundary Dam plant is an example of a full-scale, fully-integrated EGU 

that is successfully deploying full CCS.

Comment 6.3-28: Commenter 9666 asserted that any emission limit within the suggested range 

lead to an arbitrary and unachievable range of possibilities, including CCS. The commenter 

stated that EPA must withdraw its proposal with respect to coal-fired EGUs and reissue it with 

an emission limit that may be met with ultra-supercritical boiler designs.

Response 6.3-28: The EPA stands by its determination that partial CCS is adequately

demonstrated, that it is technically feasible, and that it can be implemented at a cost that is not 

exorbitant. See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-29: Similarly, Commenter 10952 asserted that BSER is arbitrary and otherwise 

not supported by law, fact or adequate demonstration.

Response 6.3-29: The EPA stands by its determination that partial CCS is adequately

demonstrated, that it is technically feasible, and that it can be implemented at a cost that is not 

exorbitant. A detailed description of the BSER determination is found in the preamble section V. 

of the final rule. As shown in that preamble discussion, it is supported by law, fact and adequate 

demonstration.

Comment 6.3-30: Commenter 9664 asserted that the NSPS emission limits must reflect those 

achievable through application of the best emission reduction system which the Administrator 
6-19

determines has been adequately demonstrated, however the demonstration may be based on 

reasonable projection (Sierra Club, 657 F.2d at 298). The commenter further noted that the 

proposal does not mean that all existing sources are able to meet the new source standards or 

even that the available technology are in active use in the industry at the time of the rulemaking 

as long as appropriate lead time is provided (Portland Cement I, 486 F.2d at 391).

Response 6.3-30: The EPA agrees with this interpretation.

6.3.4 CCS Technical Issues

Comment 6.3-31: Commenter 10239 noted that permit writers have uniformly rejected CCS 

after concluding that it is technologically infeasible, prohibitively expensive, or both and the 

EPA has uniformly supported these decisions. The commenter provided three examples where 

EPA did not question conclusions made by state agencies regarding BACT analyses that rejected 

CCS due to such considerations as parasitic energy load, the lack of a sequestration site, 

excessive transport costs, logistical challenges, and property right issues.

Response 6.3-31: The commenter cites to individual permit determinations reflecting 

performance of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) per CAA section 169 (3). None of 

these permits involved determinations by EPA for coal-fired EGU. Nor are individual BACT 

decisions determinative of whether a particular technology is adequately demonstrated for 

purposes of section 111 (b). The definition of BACT differs from that of BSER as well. Nor is 

EPA’s silence with regard to individual state permits at all precedential (or probative at all) for 

EPA’s actions in this rulemaking. See generally preamble section XII.C.

Comment 6.3-32: Commenter 10239 discussed how carbon capture from natural gas streams 

cannot establish that CCS is adequately demonstrated for coal-fired EGUs. The commenter 

described differences in the processes needed to capture CO2 from power plant combustion 

stacks, including different amines and different characteristics of natural gas streams and flue gas 

combustion streams.

Commenters 9426 and 10098 stated that while it is true that natural gas sources have historically 

separated CO2 from natural gas streams, the processes are significantly different than the ones 

that are needed to capture CO2 from power plant combustion stacks. Commenter 100098 stated 

that the differences include:

 the need for primary amines like MEA rather than tertiary amines for the absorption 

process, 

 the variability, number and types of contaminants in the gas stream characteristics, and

 the tolerance needs of the catalyst (e.g., amines must be active at a very low CO2 partial 

pressure, must also be capable of tolerating nitrogen oxide and oxygen contamination) 

Commenter 10618 stated that EPA incorrectly uses the experience of other industries to support 

their evaluation of CCS for fossil fuel-fired electric generating sources. For example, EPA notes 

in the proposal that "the capture of CO2 from industrial gas streams has occurred since the 1930's 

using a variety of approaches." For EPA to suggest that capture technologies should be readily 

transferable to coal-based electric generating units because of a long history of use in other 
6-20

industries ignores the multitude of technical, process design, and operational differences between 

the "industrial gas streams" referenced and a coal-based power plant. It also ignores the 

significant difference in the quantities and end use of the captured CO2, which will be orders of 

magnitude greater from coal-based generation units than that for most "industrial gas streams." 

In addition, the likely end-use for coal-based CO2 will be geologic sequestration or enhanced oil 

recovery processes, which pose much different challenges than capture from industrial gas 

streams "to produce food and chemical-grade CO2."

Therefore, Commenters 9426, 10098, and 10618 asserted that EPA must adequately demonstrate 

the use CCS technologies in power plants rather than a different, irrelevant industry.

Response 6.3-32: The EPA agrees that the separation and capture of CO2 from natural gas 

process is not the same as separation and capture of CO2 from the flue gas stream of a fossil fuel 

fired EGU. However, the EPA does believe that the experience gained from those operations has 

informed – and continues to inform – the development of very similar (amine-based) CO2

capture systems. The EPA has not used those systems as the principal basis for its “adequately 

demonstrated” determination. Rather, it has used the accumulated experience of CO2 capture in 

various industrial sectors – especially those experiences at fossil fuel fired EGUs such as the 

Boundary Dam facility in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

Comment 6.3-33: Similarly, Commenter 9780 stated that even in cases where the CO2 is 

captured from an EGU, such as the Searles Valley Mineral Soda Ash plant, the process is not 

analogous to CCS integrated with a full-scale EGU due to the difference in volume and the 

added responsibility of EGUs to reliably supply power to the grid. 

Response 6.3-33: The EPA agrees that the separation and capture of CO2 from non-EGU 

industrial facilities can differ from separation and capture of CO2 from the flue gas stream of a 

fossil fuel fired EGU. However, the EPA does believe that the experience gained from those 

operations has informed – and continues to inform – the development of very similar (aminebased) CO2 capture systems. The EPA has not used those systems as the principal basis for its 

“adequately demonstrated” determination. Rather, it has used the accumulated experience of 

CO2 capture in various industrial sectors – especially those experiences at fossil fuel fired EGUs 

such as the Boundary Dam facility in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Comment 6.3-34: Commenter 9505 stated that the proposal fails to explore and explain the 

problems of using CCS technology on a commercial scale, and EPA must do this prior to 

finalizing any regulation that establishes CCS as the BSER. The commenter referenced 

numerous court decisions regarding the need for demonstration of commercial scale systems.

Commenter 9661 stated that CCS integrated with electricity generation is not commercially 

available or technically feasible. In addition, the commenter stated that it is very unlikely that a 

new coal unit would be built, even if CCS was commercially available. Due to its high 

costs, state public utility regulators nor any utility would approve construction for a new coal 

plant. The commenter continues that this rule will not allow the development of this technology

to progress, and that this rule should be based on the best demonstrated technology. EPA may

then assess the status of CCS development and deployment during the CAA mandated review of 

the proposed NSPS in eight years.
6-21

Response 6.3-34: The EPA notes that while the commenters claims that “CCS integrated with 

electricity generation is not commercially available or technically feasible”, the facts show that it 

clearly is both technically feasible and commercially available. The SaskPower Boundary Dam 

facility is currently using commercially available Shell Cansolv technology to capture CO2 at 

full-scale. The captured CO2 is being transported for use in EOR operations or for long term 

sequestration. Boundary Dam Unit 3 (BD3) was recently awarded POWER Magazine’s “Plant of 

the Year” award. (www.powermag.com/saskpowers-boundary-dam-carbon-capture-projectwins-powers-highest-award/). In recognizing the Boundary Dam Unit 3 plant, with they

described as “the most interesting and worthy project worldwide”, POWER noted that “the 

SaskPower team has taken what actually constitutes a giant leap for the coal-fired power 

industry”.

Indeed, even before Boundary Dam started operating, Alstom Senior Vice President for Power 

and Environment Policies MacNaughton was extolling CCS technology after successfully 

installing it at the existing AEP Mountaineer coal-fired EGU: “The technology works” and 

“findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated 

by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon 

energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear.”2

Comment 6.3-35: Commenter 9505 stated that several government entities have concluded that 

CCS technologies are not commercially viable, citing the Report of the Interagency Task Force 

on Carbon Capture and Storage the DOE FY 2014 Budget Request, Vol. 3.

Response 6.3-35: These statements were in a different context: deployment of full scale CCS, 

and retrofitting CCS to existing facilities on a widespread scale. The final standard of 

performance is not based on full CCS nor is there an expectation that it will require widespread 

deployment of CCS technology. 

Comment 6.3-36: Commenter 9505 stated that rather than follow the statutory text, EPA 

effectively rewrites Section 111 requirements to justify the proposal's BSER determination. 

According to the commenter, to justify its BSER determination, EPA crafts from whole cloth a 

'technical' feasibility benchmark in place of the 'adequately demonstrated' standard, and rather 

than assessing whether CCS technology is reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient, and capable 

of controlling pollution without imposing exorbitant costs on the commercial scale, the proposal 

looks to whether the separate components of CCS are technically feasible. The commenter stated 

that any BSER discussion that does not address whether the elements of CCS can be integrated at 

a commercial scale with the generation of electricity is flawed.

Response 6.3-36: Many of these issues are addressed in chapter 2 of this RTC. In brief, EPA’s 

analysis of whether partial CCS is adequately demonstrated tracks the language first enunciated 

in Essex Cement (486 F. 2d at 433) and explains why: the technology is reasonably reliable (i.e. 

technically feasible under the range of operating conditions under which it would operate), 

reasonably efficient, and capable of performance at commercial scale without exorbitant costs. 

 

2 www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf

(August 4, 2011).
6-22

Boundary Dam and Dakota Gasification are both full scale operations where CCS is operating 

successfully. Although Dakota Gasification does not generate electricity, the process by which 

syngas is generated is equally usable by IGCC or chemical gasification (see section V.E.2 of the 

preamble to the final rule).

Comment 6.3-37: Commenter 10036 stated that more research on CO2 compression and 

transportation is required before the technology is feasible for new power plants. Commenter 

referred to specific NETL research testing different projects that will improve the components of 

CCS for large-scale application. 

Response 6.3-37: Standards for CO2 pipelines under 49 CFR Part 195 are well established and 

assure safety of transported CO2 of whatever origin. 

Comment 6.3-38: Commenter 9770 stated that EPA would need to demonstrate that existing 

infrastructure-pipelines and CO2 storage exists to safely sequester large amounts of CO2 across 

the country before the technology is considered achievable.

Response 6.3-38: EPA has already made (unchallenged) findings that the existing regulatory 

structure for CO2 pipelines assures safety of transported CO2. See 76 FR at 48082-83 (Aug. 8, 

2011); 79 FR 352, 354, 358-59 (Jan. 3, 2014). The EPA likewise reasonably believes that the 

Class VI rules for geologic sequestration of CO2, in concert with the GHGRP subpart RR 

reporting provisions, provide assurance that CO2 will remain sequestered for long-term storage

without endangering underground sources of drinking water and without release to the 

atmosphere.

Comment 6.3-39: Commenter 10095 stated that carbon capture has not been "adequately 

demonstrated" in a pre or post-combustion application. The commenter described pressure 

swing absorption and temperature swing absorption, both of which are being researched. The 

commenter provided a table showing limited pre and post-combustion carbon capture projects 

referenced in the proposal and noted that none of these projects is commercial-scale and none 

has been proven to deliver the reliable, continuous CO2 removal needed for compliance with this 

proposal.

Commenter 10618 stated that while pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion 

capture systems are technically feasible, they have not been adequately demonstrated at a coalbased power plant on a commercial scale. The commenter continues that this has certainly not 

been demonstrated as an integrated process with CO2 utilization or storage.

Commenter 10039 stated that EPA did not consider the stack conditions differences when a CCS 

system is operated and when it is not operated. When carbon capture is being operated, the flue 

gas stream is colder, denser and lower in volume, which effects the concentrations of other 

pollutants in the flue gas stream. These pollutants are regulated by the EPA and may not be able 

to meet regulations without additional equipment with a CCS system. This could also subject a 

plant to contribute analysis under PSD. Commenter saw no indication that EPA made an analysis 

of this effect in the docket.
6-23

Commenter 2471 stated that EPA's support for CCS makes false assumptions, including the 

ability of CCS to separate, inject and hold or store CO2 deep into saline formations across the US 

for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.

Commenter 9770 stated CCS is not an "adequately demonstrated" system of emission reduction 

and the acreage requirements for installation of carbon capture, about 6 acres of surface land, has 

not been demonstrated to be achievable in most areas of the country where power plants are 

located. According to the commenter, no such land exists around most municipal power plants in 

Minnesota as they were constructed inside city limits.

Response 6.3-39: Commenter 10095 and 10618 indicates that neither pre- nor post combustion 

CCS is demonstrated. In fact, both are demonstrated at full scale in commercial applications. 

See preamble sections V.D.2 and V.E.2. Commenter 10095 also mentions pressure swing 

adsorption (PSA) and temperature swing adsorption (TSA) technologies. The EPA notes that 

PSA and TSA technologies are both potential post-combustion capture technologies involving 

solid sorbents. The EPA is aware of research efforts in this area; however, the EPA is unaware 

of any larger scale demonstration projects or larger scale implementation of either technology. 

As such, these technologies were not considered as potentially being part of the best system for 

reduction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs. A more in-depth discussion of carbon 

capture technologies is provided in a Technical Support Document (TSD) – “Literature Survey

of Carbon Capture Technology” – available in the rulemaking docket – EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0495.

Regarding Commenter 10039’s assertions that the EPA did not consider impacts of CCS on stack 

conditions and the resulting effects on other pollutants. The EPA first notes that meeting the 

standard would only require a CCS system that treats a small portion of the bulk flue gas (~ 

20%). Further, the use of post-combustion chemisorption-based capture systems (primarily

amine-based) will require added heat to desorb the captured CO2 and regenerate the solvent. The 

EPA also notes in the final preamble that ... “[M]any post-combustion solvents will also 

selectively remove other acidic gases such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrochloric acid (HCl), 

which can result in degradation of the solvent. For that reason, the CO2 scrubber systems are 

normally installed downstream of other pollutant control devices (e.g., particulate matter and flue 

gas desulfurization controls) and in some cases, the acidic gases will need to be scrubbed to very

low levels prior to the flue gas entering the CO2 capture system. See also RIA chapter 5 

(quantifying SO2 reductions resulting from this scrubbing process).

Commenter 9770 indicates that siting CCS requires considerable land, but appears to equate that 

issue with retrofitting difficulties. The standard of performance does not apply to existing 

sources, and new sources can site where there is available acreage (or pursue a compliance 

alternative not involving CCS or sequestration if it is imperative to site where there is 

insufficient space).

Geologic sequestration is demonstrated. See Preamble Section V.M and V.N. The EPA has 

issued six Underground Injection Control permits to two projects under the Class VI program. It 

would not have done so, and under the regulations could not have done so, without 

demonstrations that CO2 would be securely confined to prevent the movement of fluids into or 

between USDWs or into any unauthorized zones. One of these projects was for a steam 
6-24

generating EGU. Furthermore, international experience with large scale commercial GS projects 

has demonstrated through extensive monitoring programs that large volumes of CO2 can be 

safely injected and securely sequestered for long periods of time at volumes and rates consistent 

with those expected under this rule.

Regarding the comment that installation of carbon capture systems would require acreage that 

may not be available “in most areas of the country where power plants are located” – the 

commenter seems to confuse requirements for new sources with those for existing sources. The 

EPA notes that space availability is one of the concerns expressed by the agency in considering 

the potential for retrofit CCS technology to be part of the BSER for emission guidelines for 

existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The EPA did not find retrofit CCS technology to be part of the 

BSER for existing sources and there is no requirement to add CCS technology to those sources. 

However, developers of new sources – those that have not yet been constructed – have the ability

to select the site for the new facility in a location that ensures adequate space for the carbon 

capture system. 

Comment 6.3-40: Commenter 10952 referenced EPA's permitting guidance for greenhouse 

gases and noted that in this proposal EPA fails to disclose whether it followed its own 

longstanding policy that is to actually look at real data associated with actual BACT 

determinations where carbon capture was considered as required by EPA permitting guidance 

and to gauge whether carbon capture is 'available' is for widespread implementation. The 

commenter stated that best available information shows that EPA did not consider most relevant 

technical data in its determination that carbon capture is BSER, referencing the 2011 approval of 

a BACT determination for Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in which CCS was 

rejected as too expensive in addition to other rejection factors.

Response 6.3-40: EPA first notes that the Guidance document does not create “requirements”. 

It provides non-binding guidance. Moreover, the Guidance does not address CCS for coal-fired 

EGUs specifically, contain any specifics about CCS cost, operating mechanics, use within 

various industries, or otherwise. Rather, in general terms, the Guidance advises that “although 

CCS is not in widespread use at this time, EPA generally considers CCS to be an ‘available’ addon pollution control technology for facilities emitting CO2 in large amounts and industrial 

facilities with high-purity streams.” Guidance p. 35. EPA continued that CCS might be rejected 

in individual ‘top-down’ BACT analyses, and concluded that “[w]hile CCS is a promising 

technology, EPA does not believe that at this time CCS will be a technically feasible BACT 

option in certain cases.” Id. p. 36. The EPA thus does not believe that this general guidance, 

issued years before the present proceeding, addressed to multiple industries and not specific to 

coal-fired steam electric generating units, is binding in any way, or is especially probative of 

whether partial CCS is BSER for coal-fired EGUs. See preamble section XII.C.

Comment 6.3-41: Commenter 9666 provided discussion about each of the three methods of CO2

capture, noting that none has been adequately demonstrated.

Response 6.3-41: See preamble sections V.D. and E.

Comment 6.3-42: Commenter 9202 encouraged EPA to tighten the rule with regard to CCS 

technology and supported the use of captured CO2 for enhanced oil and gas recovery
6-25

Response 6.3-42: The EPA is not predicating its cost analysis on EOR revenue opportunities, 

but of course such opportunities exist. See preamble section V.H.8.

Comment 6.3-43: Commenter 9666 provided a figure titled Schedule of Pilot and 

Demonstration Plants Employing Carbon Capture with Enhanced Oil Recovery or Sequestration, 

in which various CCS projects are identified. The commenter noted that a minimum of two years 

operation is required to synthesize data into CO2 capture design lessons, and additional issues 

separate from CO2 capture will require at least an additional 2-4 years of observation beyond 

first CO2 injection.

Response 6.3-43: The EPA notes that there is already good information on the operation of CCS 

demonstration projects as described in the final rule preamble in section V. The EPA also notes 

that the Boundary Dam project – a full-scale, fully integrated utility boiler that is implementing 

full CCS is now operational. To facilitate the transfer of the technology and to accelerate 

development of carbon capture technology, SaskPower has created the CCS Global Consortium. 

This consortium provides SaskPower the opportunity to share the knowledge and experience 

from the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility with global energy leaders, technology developers, and 

project developers. SaskPower, in partnership with Mitsubishi and Hitachi, is also helping to 

advance CCS knowledge and technology development through the creation of the Shand Carbon 

Capture Test Facility (CCTF). The test facility will provide technology developers with an 

opportunity to test new and emerging carbon capture systems for controlling carbon emissions 

from coal-fired power plants. The DOE also sponsors testing at the National Carbon Capture 

Center (NCCC). The NCCC – located at Southern Company’s Plant Gaston in Wilsonville, AL –

provides first-class facilities to test new capture technologies for extended periods under 

commercially representative conditions with coal-derived flue gas and syngas. The EPA has 

provided much discussion regarding the status of CO2 injection in preamble section V.M and 

elsewhere throughout this Chapter of the RTC.

Comment 6.3-44: Commenter 9666 discussed the difficulties of scaling pilot plant, 

demonstration, and early commercial tests to large generating capacities. The commenter noted 

concerns with the large scale of the necessary control equipment, stated that generalizing 

equipment design for each of post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-combustion CO2

control methods will require experience with at least the three "ranks" or categories of coal 

broadly used in the U.S., as well as various sites; and the need for assuring the components work 

as an integrated system in a seamless manner. The commenter concluded that the need to scale, 

generalize, and integrate the operation of these processes requires additional demonstrations

Commenter 10095 stated that the full-scale integration of CCS at multiple commercial EGUS is 

extremely important before considering the technology BSER. Even non-natural gas EGUs face 

continuous load changes due to customer demand and dispatch. Commenter agreed with EPA 

for not making CCS BSER for NGCC units due to frequent load changes, but challenged that 

this would occur for the non-NGCC fossil fuel units also. It is unknown whether CCS operations 

can withstand the ramping and shedding transitions to meet demand. 

Commenter 10618 identified a set of items to indicate the integration of CCS and coal-based 

generation technologies has many challenges. The commenter begins that chemical plants which

have demonstrated CCS operation at steady-state operating conditions, as opposed to the EGU 
6-26

dynamic operation. In addition, some capture systems may have a capture system design 

specifications requiring other treatment and equipment. In addition, the capture systems may

have high power or steam demands. The commenter continued stating that a commercial-scale 

CCS system would encompass a large amount of plant real estate for capturing just 20%, as 

demonstrated by AEP's Mountaineer Plant CCS Project. The commenter finished pointing out 

that the EGU's power production may become limited by the CCS and EOR systems' demands 

for CO2 instead of customer demand leading to availability risks. 

Commenter 10052 stated that to meet the proposed standard, a typical 500 MW plant would 

require injection capability of more than 2 million tons per year, which over a 20 year period 

would require storage in excess of 40 million tons. According to the commenter, to date, no 

geologic sequestrations have operated at this injection rate or demonstrated this level of capacity. 

The commenter also noted that the increased auxiliary load for CO2 capture equipment is likely

to result in an overall decline in plant efficiency, thus increasing the real CO2 emission rate.

Response 6.3-44: The EPA has discussed scaling issues and challenges in the preamble (see 

discussions in the section V of the preamble regarding the FEED studies performed by AEP and 

Tenaska). The AEP FEED study indicates how the development scale post-combustion CCS 

could be successfully scaled up to full-scale operation. See Section V.D.3.b. Tenaska Trailblazer 

Partners, LLC also prepared a FEED study for the carbon capture portion of the previously 

proposed Trailblazer Energy Center, a 760 MW SCPC EGU that was proposed to include 85 to 

90 percent CO2 post-combustion capture. Tenaska selected the Fluor Econamine FG PlusSM

technology and contracted Fluor to conduct the FEED study. One of the goals of the FEED study

was to “[c]onfirm that scale up to a large commercial size is achievable.” Tenaska ultimately 

concluded that the study had achieved its objectives resulting in “[c]onfirmation that the 

technology can be scaled up to constructable design at commercial size through (1) process and 

discipline engineering design and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analysis, (2) 3D model 

development, and (3) receipt of firm price quotes for large equipment.” The EPA also disagrees 

that the each of the carbon capture options (post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxycombustion) must be demonstrated with three ranks of coal at various sites to ensure that 

components work. The EPA has provide considerable evidence that storage capacity is available 

broadly and carbon capture technologies have been – and are being – demonstrated by facilities 

utilizing a variety of fuels, including lignite, petroleum coke, and sub-bituminous and bituminous 

coals. Regarding the effect of load changes on CCS system operation, the EPA discusses this in 

preamble section V.J.1 and also in a Technical Support Document (TSD) on Achievability of the 

Standards available in the rulemaking docket. The EPA agrees that some capture systems may

require additional control equipment to be installed upstream to remove flue gas components that 

may degrade the capture solvents (especially amine-based solvents). These considerations have 

been included the cost estimates developed by DOE/NETL and used by EPA in this final 

rulemaking. The EPA has specifically addressed energy demands (and increased water use) in 

the preamble in sections V.N and V.O.

As described in the preamble, Boundary Dam has been operated successfully since October 

2014, showing that captured CO2 from a fossil-fired EGU can go to both EOR, and the excess to 

a deep saline formation, while still meeting customer demand.
6-27

Geologic sequestration is demonstrated. See Preamble Section V.M and V.N. The EPA has 

issued six Underground Injection Control permits to two projects under the Class VI program. 

The Archer Daniels Midland Class VI permit is for injection and sequestration of an estimated 

5.5 million tons of CO2. The FutureGen Class VI permits are for 22.5 million tons of injected 

CO2. These projects are of a magnitude comparable to the (hypothetical) example in the 

comment. We repeat that the EPA’s findings, and administrative record supporting those 

findings, is that each site was capable of safely sequestering the injected CO2 indefinitely

consistent with the requirements of the Class VI regulations. As explained in section V.N.3 of 

the preamble to the final rule, these standards also assure that there will be no release of 

sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere. Additionally, there are several large scale CO2 sequestration 

projects including the Illinois Basin Decatur Project and the Cranfield (Tuscaloosa) Project that 

demonstrate that storage of large amounts of CO2 can be achieved. In April 2015, DOE 

announced that CCS projects supported by the department have safely and permanently stored 10 

million metric tons of CO2, which is the same order of magnitude expected for an EGU.

Furthermore, international experience with large scale commercial GS projects has demonstrated 

through extensive monitoring programs that large volumes of CO2 can be safely injected and 

securely sequestered for long periods of time at volumes and rates consistent with those expected 

under this rule.

Comment 6.3-45: Commenter 9666 stated that recognizing the limited experience with oxycombustion capture technology, EPA noted in its Technical Support Document addressing 

EPAct that the proposed rule relies only on post- and pre-combustion capture as the basis for its 

BSER determination for Subpart Da units

Response 6.3-45: Yes, that is correct.

Comment 6.3-46: Commenter 966 discussed that one additional aspect of CCS is the 

implication for increased water use, which escalates significantly for CO2-control power stations. 

The commenter discussed a DOE study on water use patterns for different types of coal plants.

Commenter 9497 stated that while the Kemper facility has access to a plentitude of water for its

operations, many other plants in the US would not be able to overcome the obstacle of an 

adequate water supply. Currently, Kemper has a 90 acre reservoir, which is a 50 day supply.

Response 6.3-46: See preamble section V.O.2.

Comment 6.3-47: Commenter 10097 stated the proposed BSER of partial carbon capture is not 

available over reasonably wide geographic areas and is therefore not adequately demonstrated. 

According to the commenter, although the proposed BSER does not include necessary

infrastructure availability such as CO2 pipelines, deep well sequestration or EOR fields and other 

apparatus necessary to meet the proposed NSPS, such infrastructure must nonetheless be 

available. The commenter noted that the proposal glosses over the availability of infrastructure 

needed to transport and sequester the CO2 captured by coal-fired EGUs with the proposed BSER, 

because there is little infrastructure available to support this requirement.
6-28

Commenter 10504 stated requiring new coal-fired EGUs in Alaska, especially in the interior, to 

implement partial CCS would require a significant amount of infrastructure that is currently not 

available or even considered. It is simply not feasible given the unique circumstances in Alaska.

Commenter 10052 stated EPA's assessment that CO2 has been safely transported via pipelines in 

the U.S. for nearly 40 years and that 95 percent of the 500 largest CO2 point sources are within 

50 miles of a possible geologic sequestration site is broadly conclusory and does not account for 

the geographically diverse and distant nature of power plant locations in much of the United 

States.

Commenter 9683 stated the feasibility of CCS has not been shown for its constituent parts, 

capture and storage, and faces very wide variations in technical feasibility regionally.

Commenter 7977 stated that the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled that Section 111 of the CAA 

standards "must not give a competitive advantage to one State over another in attracting 

industry" citing Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901, 918 (D.C. Cir., 1990). The 

commenter continued that geological features necessary for EOR and sequestration are not 

evenly distributed throughout the country, and as a result, the proposed regulation will have

significant disparate geographic impacts. According to the commenter, the implementation of the 

system for pollution control must not be dependent on geographical distinctions, such as EOR, 

geological formations for storage capability, and feasibility of installing pipelines for CO2

transportation. The commenter also stated EPA must identify and practically address the conflict 

between the inability of some fossil fuel-fired EGUs to locate in certain areas and the legislative 

intent behind the NSPS to encourage the use of local fuels. The commenter also stated EPA must 

also consider increased fuel transportation costs and increased electricity transmission costs 

incurred by locating an EGU facility proximate to geologic formations favorable to CO2

sequestration.

Response 6.3-47: The commenter’s (commenter 7977) citation to the WEPCO decision is 

obscure. The case (decided, incidentally by the 7th Circuit, not the D.C. Circuit) deals primarily 

with the issue of what activities constitute a modification. To the extent the case deals with the 

issue of fuel use, the case holds that section 111 standards are to be based on use of technological 

controls and that fuel switching is not a permissible means of meeting them. 893 F. 2d at 918-

19. As to the commenter’s argument that BSER cannot be dependent on types of control which 

are geographically limited, EPA notes that this is not the case here. As discussed in section V.M

of the preamble and Figure 1 of the technical support document on geographic availability, there 

is ample sequestration capacity available in most areas of the country. EOR opportunities also 

exist. These areas also allow, for the most part, ready connection to the electricity grid. See 

Figure 2 of the technical support document on geographic availability. There are also alternative 

compliance pathways for both PC and IGCC sources which would not involve CO2 capture and 

sequestration at all, and for which there would be no issues of geographic availability. With 

respect to the commenter’s assertion about Alaska, the EPA disagrees that geologic sequestration 

is not feasible in Alaska. NETL has noted GS potential in hydrocarbon reservoirs of the North 

Slope and Cook Inlet because of their proximity to large stationary CO2 sources and the potential 
6-29

for CO2-EOR.3 NETL has also found that Alaska has potential capacity of 24 billion metric tons 

in unmineable coal seams alone, or an estimated 610 to 1,420 years worth of emissions from all 

stationary sources.4The development of pipeline infrastructure is proven and, as described in 

preamble section V.M.5, the operational experience of the oil and gas industry provides 

confidence that CO2 transportation and storage can be undertaken in a safe and effective way.

The EPA agrees that pipelines of longer or shorter distances than 50 miles may be constructed 

for compliance with the NSPS. In estimating impacts of the rule, the EPA relied on NETL 

studies referenced in Section V.I.2 of the preamble, which base transport costs on a generic 100 

km (62 mi) pipeline and a generic 80 kilometer pipeline. For new sources, pipeline distance and 

costs can be factored into siting and, as discussed in section V.M, there is widespread availability

of geologic formations for geologic sequestration. Moreover, data from the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show that in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO2

pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a seven percent increase in CO2 pipeline 

miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles since 2004. The 

design, construction, operation, and safety requirements for CO2 pipelines have been proven, and 

the costs of CO2 pipelines have been taken into account in the development of the standard. 

The commenter mentioned AEP’s experience in developing a GS project at Mountaineer. Each 

sequestration site involves highly site-specific circumstances. A monitoring program and its 

associated infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells) and costs will be dependent on site-specific 

characteristics, such as CO2 injection rate and volume, geology, the presence of artificial 

penetrations, among other factors. It is thus not appropriate to generalize from AEP’s experience, 

and thus not appropriate to assume that other sites will require the same number of wells for site 

characterization or injection. In this regard, we note that the ADM and FutureGen permits for 

Class VI wells involved far fewer injection and monitoring wells than AEP references. We also 

note that the Mountaineer project involved a retrofit to an existing facility, which may have 

increased difficulties because the site was not selected with potential sequestration in mind.

Comment 6.3-48: Commenter 8957 provided the following: "In the EPA's discussion on the 

technical feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the storage segment relies on existing 

data from several small scale projects and from the Permian basin injection for enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR). Part of this information boasts the injection of 93 million metric tons of CO2

from 1972 to 2005 in the Permian basin, which equates to approximately 3.1 million short tons 

injected per year. It is also stated that 3 8 million metric tons of CO2 were re-emitted from the 

same project, meaning that only 1.8 million short tons per year of the injected CO2 was 

sequestered. This translates to 60% retention as compared to the 100% retention assumed by the 

EPA in establishing the 40% partial CCS requirement. An uncontrolled base plant with an 

efficiency of 40% and a parasitic load of 6.5% that must have a net electrical output of 500 MW 

would require an installed capacity of 535 MW and would emit 4.3 million short tons of CO2

while operating at a 100% capacity factor."

 

3 The United States 2012 Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas, Fourth Edition, U.S Department of 

Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), p. 94.

4

Id. at 95 and 122. 
6-30

Response 6.3-48: The EPA does not agree with the commenter’s assertion. In the EOR process 

some of the CO2 is recovered with the oil and the recovered CO2 is separated from the oil and 

recycled so that it can be re-injected into the reservoir. Large amounts of CO2 can be stored via 

residual trapping, solubility trapping and stratigraphic trapping. In the example cited by the 

commenter, 55 million tons of CO2 were stored in the SACROC Unit in the Permian Basin over 

25 years. No evidence of leakage was detected.

Post-combustion CO2 Capture

Comment 6.3-49: Commenter 9201 stated given the lack of full scale, commercialized, 

constantly operating post-combustion CCS capture facilities, broad commercial deployment of 

post-combustion carbon capture cannot be reasonably anticipated to be a demonstrated option 

until 2020 at the earliest. The commenter noted that EPA's examples of operating postcombustion carbon capture, AES/Warrior Run, AES/Shady Point and Searles Valley Minerals, 

are comprised principally of small coal-fired boilers with a very small slip-stream capture of CO2

with the CO2 used for commercial purposes such as food or chemicals. The commenter also 

referenced the two test pilot projects discussed by EPA, AEP/Mountaineer and Alabama 

Power/Barry, noting that both use different processes and capture technology and they only

capture small fractions of CO2 as compared to the requirements of a commercial scale power 

plant. The commenter also discussed that the only electric power generation projects 

incorporating carbon capture and reuse for EOR, Sask Power/Boundary Dam and W.A. Parish, 

remain under construction or at the preliminary engineering study stage.

Response 6.3-49: EPA noted at proposal that the Boundary Dam Unit #3 was scheduled to 

commence operations in the near future, which proved to be the case. The facility is operating 

successfully and reliably (the project developer has stated publically that operation is even better 

than anticipated). See also preamble section V.D. explaining why other facilities provide 

corroborative information regarding demonstration of post-combustion CCS.

Comment 6.3-50: Commenter 9201 stated that the large amount of energy required in 

regenerating CO2 in amine-based post-combustion technologies, and the extensive number of 

process steps required, challenges the commercial viability of such processes. According to the 

commenter, the parasitic energy burden of amine-based post-combustion CO2 control is 

significant; whereas a conventional pulverized coal-fired plant equipped with FGD for SO2 

control and SCR for NOx control will devote 5-6% of the plant output to the environmental 

control system, post-combustion CO2 control for a comparable new unit will consume more than 

19% of the gross plant output. According to the commenter, as a consequence, net thermal 

efficiency of power generation for a new unit decreases from 39.1% to 27.2% (for a supercritical

boiler).

Response 6.3-50: The EPA has specifically addressed energy requirements in preamble section 

V.O.3. The results in Table 14 in the preamble show that a new SCPC unit without CCS can 

expect a parasitic power demand of about 5.2 percent. A new SCPC unit meeting the final 

standard of performance by implementing 16 percent partial CCS will see a parasitic power 

demand of about 6.3 percent, which is not a significant increase in energy requirement. Of 

course, new SCPC EGUs that choose to implement higher levels of CCS will expect higher 

amounts of parasitic power demand.
6-31

Comment 6.3-51: Commenter 9666 summarized demonstrated instances of post-combustion 

CO2 capture and concluded that the sole relevant experience with post-combustion CO2 control 

is with Plant Barry's 25 MW-equivalent pilot plant. The commenter noted the SaskPower 110 

MW Boundary Dam unit may soon be operating and provide similar information. According to 

the commenter, the small commercial applications (Warrior Run, Shady Point, Searles Valley 

Minerals) do not transport or sequester CO2 and thus do not provide authentic utility experience 

or a complete scope of operation. The commenter characterized remaining units as either 

uncertain in status due to financing or other concerns.

Response 6.3-51: The Boundary Dam facility is in fact now operating successfully – See 

preamble section V.D.2.a. It is selling much of the captured CO2 and sequestering the 

remainder. Thus, the facility not only demonstrates feasibility of post-combustion CO2 capture, 

but successful sequestration of CO2 as well, along with successful transport and use of captured 

CO2 for EOR. EPA notes that the commenter correctly anticipated that the facility would be 

operating and provide information relevant to this proceeding. The remaining sources mentioned 

in this comment are discussed in section V.D. of the preamble where EPA explains how 

information from these sources further supports the BSER determination. 

Comment 6.3-52: Commenter 2741 suggested EPA include a provision in the final rule enabling 

fossil fuel-fired power plants to comply with the carbon dioxide emission standard by capturing 

carbon through effective, permanent, and commercially promising carbon utilization 

technologies such as Blue Planet's Liquid Condensed Phase (LCP) platform. According to the 

commenter, the LCP technology platform offers a unique means of permanently sequestering 

and utilizing CO2 into high value green building products and highway materials. The 

commenter explained that the process combines various natural and wastewaters with raw flue 

gas containing CO2 as inputs and, making use of established water process membrane 

technologies, produce solutions that are rich in bicarbonate (HCO3 -) ions. The commenter 

stated that in their second-generation technology, one equivalent of CO2 is being sequestered as 

solid calcium carbonate material (CaCO3), and the other equivalent of CO2 is evolved as a pure 

stream, which can be sold for use in EOR, or re-cycled in the LCP process. According to the 

commenter, Blue Planet's LCP process can capture in excess of 50 percent of the carbon dioxide 

emissions from a stationary source, enabling a coal-fired power plant to comply with EPA's 

proposed emission limits for new electricity generating facilities, and because this process uses 

little energy and creates a number of marketable products, it provides a promising and potentially

profitable option to traditional gas separation that turns the conventional assumptions of the 

economies of carbon capture on their heads.

Response 6.3-52: The final standard is a performance standard, and so does not compel a source 

to adopt any particular control type. 

Comment 6.3-53: Commenter 8952 stated the proposed rule does not suggest that carbon 

capture is a viable adaptation for a combined cycle, however, it does not explicitly state--but 

should so state--that carbon capture is not viable for a simple cycle gas turbine. According to the 

commenter, the operating environment at the exhaust for a simple cycle is much more severe 

than for the combined cycle, making the application of that technology a near impossibility.
6-32

Response 6.3-53: The EPA discusses the technical uncertainties associated with implementation 

of CCS technology with natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines in the final preamble.

Oxy-combustion

Comment 6.3-54: Commenter 9201 states technical concerns with oxy-combustion technology, 

including the increased potential for corrosion due to increased SO2 concentrations in CO2 gas 

streams and long-term research and development needs that are unlikely to be completed in the 

near future. Commenter 9201 notes that operating experience with oxy-combustion is mainly

limited to test facilities. The commenter believes the most significant challenges for oxycombustion based on conventional cryogenic processes are scale-up and reliability, and the 

auxiliary power penalty. The commenter states that the auxiliary power penalty negates any cost 

advantage of oxy-combustion over post-combustion CO2 removal. As a result, the commenter 

believes that this CCS technology is an unavailable commercial application at this time.

Response 6.3-54: The EPA did not consider oxy-combustion a potential component of the 

BSER for new fossil fuel-fired steam generating EGUs. The EPA believes that the technology

has not been demonstrated to the extent that both post-combustion capture and pre-combustion 

capture systems have. Further, importantly, oxy-combustion is not applicable as a partial capture

option as it inherently results in a highly enriched flue gas stream. Thus the opportunity to reduce 

compliance costs by adjusting the capture rate is not available to oxy-combustion systems.

Comment 6.3-55: Commenters 9201 and 9666 provide summary information on oxycombustion projects that are completed, operating or in the process of being designed, 

constructed or planned in the U.S. and abroad. 

Response 6.3-55: See response to previous comments on oxy-combustion.

Pre-Combustion CO2 Removal

Comment 6.3-56: Commenters 9201 and 9666 stated that IGCC equipped with CO2 removal has 

yet to operate in an integrated system for power production and although several chemical plants 

in the U.S. use gasification with CO2 recovery, none are primarily designed for or representative 

of power generation as base load operations. The commenters discussed the demonstrated 

instances of pre-combustion CO2 capture and noted where DOE provided funds for the partial 

costs associated with the projects. Commenter 9201 stated that several IGCC units equipped with 

pre-combustion CO2 removal and designed for power generation have been proposed but only

one is under construction, and given the uncertainties in present state-of-art IGCC, broad 

commercial deployment with carbon capture cannot be reasonably anticipated to be a 

demonstrated option until 2020 at the earliest.

Response 6.3-56: The EPA notes in the final preamble that a new IGCC unit will be able to meet 

the final standard of performance by co-firing with a small amount (< 10%) of natural gas. 

However, the EPA still finds that pre-combustion carbon capture is a technically feasible and 

demonstrated technology.
6-33

CO2 Transport

Comment 6.3-57: Commenter 10095 noted that fossil fuel-fired EGUs cannot control actions of 

a downstream, third party CO2 off-taker. The commenter further asserted that a robust network 

of CO2 pipelines, offering power plants multiple CO2 off-taker options is needed to minimize 

these third-party compliance risks but will require significant investment. Commenter 9197 

noted that the EPA’s CCS cost estimates do not appear to consider the likelihood that EGUs will 

be required to rely on third-party CO2 pipeline and sequestration service providers. The need to 

overbuild will clearly raise costs even further than the EPA estimates.

Response 6.3-57: The EPA’s cost estimates do in fact include costs associated with 

transportation and storage of CO2. See preamble section V.I.5. The United States has a robust 

pipeline network and the EPA disagrees that the rule will necessitate “overbuilding” of CO2

pipeline systems. The CO2 pipeline network in the United States has almost doubled in the past 

ten years in order to meet growing demands for CO2 for EOR. CO2 transport companies have 

recently proposed initiatives to expand the CO2 pipeline network. Several hundred miles of 

dedicated CO2 pipeline are under construction, planned, or proposed, including projects in 

Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. 

Comment 6.3-58: Commenters 10039 and 10095 stated that the EPA cannot rationally conclude 

that the U.S. CO2 pipeline network is adequate when it is 76 times smaller than the U.S. natural 

gas pipeline network, which will limit new coal-fired power plants to within proximity to a 

sequestration site. Commenter 8966 cited CRS' statement that a national carbon pipeline network 

is several years away. Commenter 10087 also noted that for many locations for coal-fired power 

plants, such as in the Midwest, there are no existing CO2 pipelines and none proposed. 

Commenter 8966 noted that the vast majority of the country lacks any sort of dedicated CO2

pipeline network altogether, including virtually the entire U.S. Midwest, Appalachian, and 

Eastern Seaboard regions. Commenter 10010 noted that CO2 pipelines and storage capacity are 

not available in Florida. Commenter 9657 notes that the EPA’s own analysis notes that northern 

Georgia has no EOR operations, oil and gas reserves, saline formations, unmineable coal areas, 

existing or planned CO2 pipelines, or natural CO2 sources, and notes that there are dozens of coal 

electric generating units in the region that are hundreds of miles from the closest saline 

formations. 

Commenter 10662 concludes that the EPA has dismissed issues related to the long term storage 

of CO2 by simply stating that 95 percent of the 500 largest CO2 sources are within 50 miles of a 

"possible geologic sequestration site," which ignores the significant hurdles that must be 

overcome. Commenter 10662 noted that even if a state has the requisite geologic formations, 

facilities would be required either to build in proximity to the formations regardless of other 

considerations, or to build miles of CO2 pipeline simply to reach the formation. 

Commenters 10023 and 9472 also identified pipeline siting and construction issues as a legal and 

regulatory impediment to implementation of CCS. Commenter 8949 noted that many regions 

throughout the United States lack access to suitable storage sites and/or infrastructure to provide 

access to storage sites, and that there are no companies operating commercially in the United 

States that offer CCS. Commenter 8949 stated that for those regional locations where Enhanced 
6-34

Oil Recovery (EOR) is a potential option, there remain technical, legal, and cost challenges to 

siting and constructing pipelines from EGUs to EOR fields.

Response 6.3-58: The EPA does not agree that the transport of CO2 through pipelines is an 

impediment to compliance with the NSPS. There is a robust regulatory framework in place 

already that addresses CO2 pipelines. CO2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 

(Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source of the CO2 and 

take into account CO2 composition, impurities, and phase behavior. These rules contain (among 

other provisions) detailed requirements related to reporting, pipeline design (temperature, 

pressure variation both internal and external, loads, types of pipes, valves and fittings, 

connections, closure, and leak detection), construction, pressure testing, and corrosion control. 

CO2-specific provisions require special design for CO2 at low temperatures. 49 CFR section 

195.102 (b). These requirements have applied for years, successfully, to compressed, 

supercritical CO2 captured, transported via regulated pipeline, and used for EOR. Additionally, 

issues of pipeline availability and use did not pose obstacles to the EPA granting Class VI 

permits to ADM and FutureGen. Denbury recently completed the final section of the 325-mile 

Green Pipeline for transporting CO2 from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to EOR oil fields in Texas, 

and completed construction and commenced operation of the 232-mile Greencore Pipeline in 

Wyoming. Chaparral completed an 8-inch, 68-mile CO2 pipeline from fertilizer plant in 

Coffeyville, Kansas, to an oil field in Oklahoma. These large CO2 pipeline projects demonstrate 

that long CO2 pipelines can be sited effectively under the current regulatory system. 

The commenters do not address whether new sources could site a source advantageously to 

account for pipeline availability. Such siting opportunities are, of course, available, as illustrated 

by the Boundary Dam and Kemper facilities (two of the most recent projects, both of which sited 

proximate to EOR sources). The EPA thus regards these comments as overstated. In any case, 

compliance alternatives exist under the final standard which would not necessitate sequestration. 

Additional information about pipeline requirements and availability is discussed in Section 

V.M.5 of the preamble.

Comment 6.3-59: Commenter 8501 stated that the presumptions the EPA makes regarding EOR 

as an ancillary form of partial CCS are not supportable. There is little discussion of the actual 

demand of CO2 for EOR operations or pipeline delivery capability of the CO2 to the oil fields. 

Commenter 9236 noted that many oil fields are not able to utilize CO2 flooding as an enhanced 

production method and in most cases the oil fields that are amenable to CO2 use are located in 

remote areas far from electricity load centers, where large power plants would need to be sited in 

order to meet electric demands. This results in either long pipelines to deliver CO2 to the oil 

fields or long electric transmission lines to deliver electricity to load centers. Commenter 9666 

stated that broad use of both EOR and deep saline reservoirs will require investment in 

infrastructure for pipeline delivery.

Commenter 9734 stated that any suggestion that CCS for EOR could be accomplished through 

pipelines from states without EOR opportunities ignores the lack of infrastructure to accomplish 

this. 
6-35

Response 6.3-59: The EPA does not agree that the rule would preclude the development of new 

EGUs in states that do not have current CO2-EOR operations. New coal-fired EGUs in states or 

areas in which EOR operations are not available could locate in the proximity of non-EOR 

sequestration formations such as deep saline formations and transport the captured CO2 by

pipeline, or could locate near a sequestration site and transport the electricity generated to 

customers by electric transmission lines. Additionally, there are alternative compliance paths 

available to meet the promulgated standard of performance which do not involve sequestration. 

Comment 6.3-60: Commenter 9774 noted that the major portion of coal-fired generating 

capacity in Wisconsin is located in urban areas, and that the EPA should address the difficulties, 

logistics and significant additional expense related to placing CO2 pipelines in urban areas. 

Commenter 9201 also noted that existing CO2 pipelines are rare near most population centers, 

and states with little or no storage capacity would have to construct costly, lengthy and expensive 

CO2 pipeline systems.

Response 6.3-60: The rule would not affect the ability of existing power plants to operate and 

would not require or necessitate construction of CO2 pipelines to existing power plants. 

Comment 6.3-61: Commenter 10786 noted that no federal agency has given a favorable 

assessment to associated storage via CO2-EOR as an alternative in an Environmental Impact 

Analysis (“EIA”) conducted under NEPA. Commenter 10786 noted that in FERC’s recent final 

EIA for the Cameron LNG export terminal project, FERC concluded that a CCS-based solution 

was technically and economically infeasible because the nearest CO2 pipeline (which, in turn, 

supplied EOR projects) was a mere twenty miles away. FERC also concluded that while closer 

CO2 pipelines appeared to be available, that CO2 pipeline network “appears to be fully

subscribed with CO2” thereby frustrating the ability of the Cameron LNG export terminal to 

engage in associated storage via CO2-EOR. FERC’s analysis of the potential for associated 

storage via CO2-EOR accurately reflects some of the complexities of the typical EOR situation –

to wit, even siting one’s project within a short twenty miles of an EOR-supplying CO2 pipeline 

failed to enable the use of CO2-EOR as a control technology.

Response 6.3-61: The rule applies only to new EGUs and the EPA rulemaking process is not 

related to FERC’s review process for proposed LNG export terminals. The EPA has determined 

that CCS, including construction and operation of CO2 pipelines, has been adequately 

demonstrated for transporting large volumes of CO2 safely. See Preamble section V.N.

Comment 6.3-62: Commenter 8966 stated that if the proposed rule is enacted, it is highly 

unlikely that any new coal power plant operator would be able to transport captured CO2 from its 

facility to a storage site for at least several years. Without the certainty of pipeline network 

development, few, if any, coal power plants would be built. But without the existence of new 

plants that use such pipelines, it is equally unlikely that any national pipeline network could 

develop. Therefore, Commenter 8966 concludes that the EPA must abstain from issuing any 

CCS-based emissions standards until development of a nationwide CO2 pipeline network is 

substantially in progress.

Commenters 9600, 10097, and 10952 stated that the proposed rule offers no rational discussion 

regarding the availability of needed offsite CO2 pipeline facilities required to augment the 
6-36

proposal’s identified BSER, without which the rule would allow new sources to capture CO2

emissions and subsequently emit these emissions at the boundary of the source, an irrational 

result. Commenter 9734 stated that states including Kentucky are not located close to states with 

EOR sites where captured CO2 could be used, and that any suggestion that CCS for EOR could 

be accomplished through pipelines from states without EOR opportunities ignores the lack of 

infrastructure to accomplish this. 

Commenter 950 stated municipal utilities such as CU are very limited in their authority to secure 

sufficient storage capacity in distant locations or to construct the necessary transportation 

infrastructure to support long-term CCS. The commenter referenced their own case, for example, 

the Missouri Supreme Court has held that CU is prohibited from constructing a pipeline by lack 

of condemnation rights beyond their native counties. See City of Springfield ex rel. Bd. of Public 

Utilities of Springfield, MO v. Brechbuhler, 895 S.W.2d 583 (Mo. 1995). Thus, under 

controlling case law, CU can only transport captured CO2 a distance of twenty miles from the 

source. In addition, the commenter has learned, through a recently concluded DOE-funded 

research project, that local basal geography and hydrology preclude the long-term sequestration 

of CO2 in the immediate area. Accordingly, the commenter stated that logistical hurdles are very

much in play in Springfield, Missouri, as they would be for any number of municipal utilities in 

the Midwest. The commenter noted that EPA's current proposal does not address how these 

hurdles can be overcome by generators in our situation. Therefore, according to the commenter, 

the compliance technology is inapplicable and sources such as our own would be unable to 

construct either a conventional coal-fired steam unit or an integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC) unit in the future. The commenter noted that this is immediately problematic in that the 

existing natural gas supply to Springfield is incapable of supporting a future natural gas 

combined cycle (NGCC) unit and although the supply problem might be rectifiable in the future, 

CU would be totally dependent on outside interests to do so.

Commenters 9407 and 10097 asserted that the lack of availability of CO2 pipelines will prevent 

affected facilities from meeting the NSPS and applying the BSER. Commenter 9407 states that 

although the proposed BSER does not include necessary infrastructure availability such as CO2

pipelines, deep well sequestration or EOR fields and other apparatus necessary to meet the 

proposed NSPS, such infrastructure must nonetheless be available. The commenter asserted that 

the EPA proposal glosses over the availability of infrastructure needed to transport and sequester 

the CO2 captured by coal-fired EGUs with the proposed BSER, because there is little CO2

pipeline infrastructure available to support this requirement. A BSER must be available 

immediately as opposed to even one or two years hence. Commenters 9409, 9600, and 10097 

state the CO2 pipeline infrastructure needed to transport the captured CO2 must be available 

immediately in order for a facility to capable of achieving the proposed NSPS. Commenters 

9407, 10097, and 10952 assert that the CO2 pipeline transportation infrastructure needed to 

comply with the NSPS does not exist and will not exist within the foreseeable future.

Response 6.3-62: The EPA does not agree that a nationwide CO2 pipeline network must be 

developed in order for the EPA to issue this rule or that there needs to be changes in how CO2

pipelines are operated. At least one study estimated that of the 500 largest point sources of CO2

in the United States, 95 percent are within 50 miles of a potential storage reservoir. See preamble 

section V.I.5. For new sources, pipeline distance and costs can be factored into siting, and there 

is widespread availability of geologic formations for GS. The design, construction, operation, 
6-37

and safety requirements for CO2 pipelines have been proven, and the U.S. CO2 pipeline network 

has been safely used and expanded. Moreover, PHMSA data show that in 2013 there were 5,195 

miles of CO2 pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a seven percent increase in 

CO2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles since 

2004. GS capacity is available domestically in the form of geologic formations (e.g., deep saline 

formations) and EOR sites in most areas of the country. Where such GS capacity is unavailable, 

electricity demand in those areas can be served by coal-fired power plants built in neighboring 

areas with GS. See Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability showing that virtually all areas of 

the continental United States are within 100 kilometers of a geologic formation or EOR site (the 

length of pipeline assumed in the EPA’s cost estimates), and may be served by coal-fired 

electricity generation built in nearby areas with geological sequestration, and this electricity can 

be delivered through transmission lines. For other of those areas, coal-fired power plants are 

either not being built due to state law restrictions, or other available compliance alternatives exist 

allowing a new coal-fired power plant meeting the promulgated NSPS to be sited. See also 

previous responses and Section V.M.5 of the preamble.

Comment 6.3-63: Commenter 10660 stated that siting of CO2 pipelines raises technical 

considerations that have yet to be resolved at scale and in all geographies. Commenter 10662 

stated that the EPA simply dismisses CO2 transportation and storage concerns and assumes that 

effective sequestration will occur. The transportation component of CCS is well-established as 

technically feasible and is not a significant component of the cost of CCS. However, the EPA 

dismisses concerns over CO2 pipelines and does not take into account the scale of transportation 

infrastructure and investment required to enable large-scale deployment of CCS. 

Response 6.3-63: The EPA’s cost estimates include reasonable cost estimates for CO2 pipelines. 

See section V.I.5 of the final rule preamble for the NSPS. Moreover, there are alternative 

compliance pathways for new sources that do not involve geologic sequestration or other CO2

storage. Finally, the EPA is not “assuming that effective sequestration will occur”. The EPA is 

reasonably relying on the robust and rigorous Class VI regulatory program to assure long-term 

storage.

Comment 6.3-64: Commenter 9201 stated that the EPA should not apply the rule to “modified” 

facilities in part because of space limitations. Commenter 9201 noted that transportation 

pipelines for the captured CO2 would require significant space and are extremely site-specific 

determinations, and as such must be incorporated at the very beginning of EGU planning. Such 

design issues were not factored in to the construction of the vast majority of EGUs constructed in 

the U.S. to date. 

Commenter 9472 stated that existing power plants face a number of site- and plant-specific 

limitations to participating in a CCS demonstration project, including proximity to existing 

pipeline infrastructure to sell CO2 into an EOR facility.

Response 6.3-64: The final emission limits for modified and existing sources do not require 

implementation of CCS, nor are they based on that technology. Additionally, the rule does not 

require that EGUs participate in CCS demonstration projects.
6-38

Comment 6.3-65: Commenter 9683 noted that the CO2 generated by facilities in several large 

western states, e.g., Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada, would need to be piped somewhere through 

CO2 pipelines due to limitations on storage capacity. The EPA has not factored into its 

rulemaking the unavailability of a CO2 pipeline network throughout the vast majority of the 

country, nor the fact that a substantial portion of existing CO2 pipelines are not "common carrier" 

lines open to anyone’s use, but rather, are dedicated pipelines.

Response 6.3-65: The EPA has considered the existing CO2 pipeline network in the U.S, as well 

as the ability to expand that network if needed beyond existing dedicated or common carrier 

pipelines. The CO2 pipeline network in the United States has almost doubled in the past ten years 

in order to meet growing demands for CO2 for EOR. CO2 transport companies have recently 

proposed initiatives to expand the CO2 pipeline network. Several hundred miles of dedicated 

CO2 pipeline are under construction, planned, or proposed, including projects in Colorado, 

Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. As discussed earlier, the EPA does not 

foresee additional needs for CO2 pipelines that transport captured CO2 as an impediment to the 

NSPS. Moreover, there are alternative compliance pathways for meeting the promulgated 

standard of performance that do not involve geologic sequestration.

Comment 6.3-66: Commenter 10098 asserts that the proposed rule provided virtually no 

explanation or supporting rationale for its finding that coal-fired EGUs will be able to transport 

compressed CO2 streams for geologic sequestration at either EOR operations or commercial 

storage facilities. The commenter further stated that the proposed rule provides no support for the 

EPA’s assumption that a future coal-fired EGU will be reasonably close to an EOR site.

Response 6.3-66: In the final rule the EPA has provided multiple compliance pathways for this 

NSPS, including geologic sequestration in various storage formations and through EOR, as well 

as storage alternatives that entities may submit to the EPA for case-by-case consideration. 

Therefore, the EPA does not agree that implementation of the rule depends upon the proximity of 

EGUs to EOR sites for CO2 injection. Potential sequestration sites are located throughout the 

U.S., including deep saline formations and other non-EOR formations. Additionally, for the few 

states that do not have geologic conditions suitable for GS, or may not be located in proximity to 

these areas, in some cases, demand in those states can be served by coal-fired power plants 

located in areas suitable for GS and the electricity they generate can be delivered through 

transmission lines, and in other cases, coal-fired power plants are unlikely to be built in those 

areas for other reasons, such as the lack of available coal or state law restrictions against coalfired power plants.

Comment 6.3-67: Commenter 10108 suggested it would be reasonable for the EPA to conclude 

that future coal-fired EGUs and EOR operators would develop new long-distance pipelines to 

transport CO2 to EOR sites. Commenter 10108 cited a study that concluded that concluded that 

there are “no significant technical barriers” to building an extensive network of CO2 pipelines to 

link large power plants with sequestration sites and that connecting large coal-fired power plants 

in the Eastern, Midwestern, and Southern United States to storage sites would require only about 

50 miles of pipeline per plant. Commenter 10108 also noted that there are existing CO2 pipelines 

that are 200 to 500 miles long, illustrating that such pipelines are feasible to construct. 
6-39

Response 6.3-67: The EPA agrees that transport of CO2 is feasible and that CO2 pipelines of 

various lengths and capacities have already been sited and constructed and are feasible to 

construct.

Comment 6.3-68: Commenter 10662 stated that the EPA references the existence of 3,600 miles 

of CO2 pipeline in the U.S., the location of which are identified in Appendix H of the Global 

CCS Institute 2012 report cited by Commenter 10662. Commenter 10662 noted that only 11 

states have operating CO2 pipelines, and 54 percent of the total CO2 pipeline mileage is in Texas. 

Commenter 10095 notes that these 3,600 miles of existing pipelines only transport less than 50 

million metric tons of CO2 annually, and Commenter 10662 provided a map of the existing CO2

pipeline network and asserted that the limited CO2 pipeline network will effectively eliminate the 

ability to site new coal-fired power plants as an option in numerous states. 

Commenter 10662 further noted that the capacities of those 3,600 miles of CO2 pipelines are not 

addressed by the EPA; the EPA dismisses the volume of gas that would need to be transported 

by simply stating that 50 million metric tons of CO2 are currently transported annually by 

pipeline. The Commenter provided an estimate indicating that the entire existing CO2 pipeline 

transport capacity is 188.3 million tons CO2 per year, as compared to the 70 million tons per year 

of CO2 emitted by West Virginia alone. 

Response 6.3-68: CO2 pipelines are the most economical and efficient method of transporting 

large quantities of CO2. CO2 has been transported via pipelines in the United States for nearly 40 

years. Over this time, the design, construction, operation, and safety requirements for CO2

pipelines have been proven, and the U.S. CO2 pipeline network has been safely used and 

expanded. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) reported that 

in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO2 pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a 

seven percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in 

CO2 pipeline miles since 2004. The expansion of the CO2 pipeline network in recent years 

provides assurance that if needed, CO2 pipelines can be permitted and constructed, and overall 

U.S. capacity for transporting CO2 via pipelines can be increased as needed to meet growing 

demands (e.g., for EOR). Moreover, given the reasonable projection that there will be little new 

coal-fired capacity being built (for reasons independent of this rulemaking), see RIA chapter 4, 

commenters’ predictions of inadequate pipeline capacity appear to lack foundation.

Comment 6.3-69: Commenter 10095 asserted that CO2 compression and transportation is 

extremely energy intensive and expensive, and has not been adequately demonstrated at the 

commercial-scale. The commenter stated that more experience is needed to understand how 

pipeline transportation specifications to maintain CO2 quality (e.g., dehydration, CO2 polishing) 

may impact the overall reliability of the CCS system, and therefore the operation of the EGU. 

Commenter 9597 stated that CCS is challenged by safety issues associated with long distance 

transport of CO2, a super-critical fluid. 

Commuter 9666 stated that the byproduct of CCS—captured CO2— requires specialized 

processing because it is unstable under normal atmospheric conditions. Captured CO2 must be 

compressed to a pressure of 100 atmospheres, transported long distances in that volatile state, 

and injected 4,000 to 8,000 feet below the Earth’s surface into a geologically suitable repository, 

where chemical reactions secure the CO2 over time. 
6-40

Commenter 10095 also stated that CO2 transportation operations could also be affected by the 

unsteady flow of CO2 generated by EGUs during load changes and planned and forced outages, 

and it is unknown how these fluctuations and suspensions will impact transportation and 

injection operations. 

Commenter 10036 noted that after CO2 is captured, it must be compressed “from near

atmospheric pressure to a pressure between 1,500 and 2,200 psia (pounds per square inch 

absolute) in order to be transported via pipeline and then injected into an underground storage 

site” and noted that compressing CO2 is energy intensive and expensive.

Commenter 10036 also noted that the CO2 transported for use in EOR operations has historically

been from the steady state production of natural geologic deposits and not from CO2 captured at 

power plants. Compression and transportation operations, similar to storage operations, could be 

affected by the unsteady flow of CO2 sourced by power plants. 

Response 6.3-69: The EPA does not agree with the commenters’ assertions. CO2 has been safely

compressed and transported via dedicated pipelines in the U.S. for nearly 40 years. Pipelines can 

indeed convey captured CO2 to sequestration sites with certainty and provide full protection of 

human health and the environment. Existing and new CO2 pipelines are comprehensively 

regulated by the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety 

Administration. The regulations govern pipeline design, construction, operation and 

maintenance, and emergency response planning. See generally 49 CFR 195.2. Additional 

regulations address pipeline integrity management by requiring heightened scrutiny to assure the 

quality of pipeline integrity in areas with a higher potential for adverse consequences. See 49 

CFR 195.450 and 195.452. On-site pipelines are not subject to the Department of Transportation 

standards, but rather adhere to the Pressure Piping standards of the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME B31) which the EPA has found would ensure that piping and 

associated equipment meet certain quality and safety criteria sufficient to prevent releases of CO2

such that certain additional requirements were not necessary. See 79 FR 358-59 (Jan. 3, 2014). 

These existing controls over CO2 pipelines assure protective management, guard against 

releases, and assure that captured CO2 will be securely conveyed to a sequestration site. 

CO2 used for EOR may come from anthropogenic or natural sources. The source of the CO2 does 

not impact the effectiveness of the EOR operation. CO2 capture, treatment and processing steps 

(including compression, as commenter 9666 states) provide a concentrated stream of CO2 in 

order to meet the needs of the intended end use. CO2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 

CFR part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source 

of the CO2 and take into account CO2 composition, impurities, and phase behavior. Additionally, 

EOR operators and transport companies have specifications to ensure related to the composition 

of CO2. These requirements and specifications ensure EOR operators receive a known and 

consistent CO2 stream.

Lastly, the EPA acknowledges that generation of captured CO2 from natural gas treatment plants 

and industrial sources may be more steady-state than the generation of captured CO2 from EGUs. 

However, the EPA does not agree that the technical and economic feasibility of operation of CO2

pipelines depends upon steady-state generation of CO2 from capture sources. There are 
6-41

technically and economically feasible technologies (e.g., looping, pressure maintenance, and 

diversion to/from other pipelines) that EGUs and CO2 pipeline can apply to manage pipeline 

pressure and flow fluctuations associated with EGU load fluctuations and EGU planned or 

unplanned outages to avoid detrimental effects on CO2 pipeline operations. 

Comment 6.3-70: Commenter 9472 and commenter 9033 stated that the EPA has ignored the 

technical challenges of CO2 storage. Commenter 9472 notes that full scale application of CCS on 

a power plant requires that CO2 transportation and long-term subsurface storage is available at all 

times, and that CO2 removed from an emissions stream by CO2 capture equipment are in a 

gaseous form and cannot be stored onsite; the captured CO2must be transported for long-term 

storage. Commenter 9033 inquired about the risk associated with shutting down electricity 

generation when the capture or subsequent processes fail. Commenter 9033 also questioned what 

would happen to EGU CO2 compression systems when load on the CO2 capture plant is reduced, 

and would that situation subsequently impact CO2 transportation or injection given the 

instantaneous load drop and increase. 

Response 6.3-70: The EPA does not anticipate that the CO2 transportation network will need to 

be available “at all times” in order for EGUs to achieve compliance with the proposed rule. 

Moreover, a new fossil fuel-fired steam generating EGU – if constructed – would, mostly likely, 

be built to serve base load power demand and would not be expected to routinely start-up or 

shutdown or ramp its capacity factor in order to follow load demand. Thus, planned start-up and 

shutdown events would only be expected to occur a few times during the course of a 12-

operating-month compliance period. Post-combustion partial and full CCS have also proven 

highly reliable in actual operation (e.g. at Boundary Dam, and AEP Mountaineer).

Comment 6.3-71: Commenter 10786 noted that the Class VI regulatory approach is inconsistent 

with the legal and regulatory framework governing CO2-EOR operations. For example, EOR 

industry’s standards and requirements for CO2 pressure, allowed co-constituents and the like are 

by and large focused on what is needed and acceptable for the pipeline infrastructure, surface 

handling facilities, and target oil & gas reservoir(s). The EOR industry is not in the generic CO2

offtake business.

The EOR industry instead acquires CO2 that is suitable for meeting both its pipeline and its 

mineral extractive needs. Commenter 10786 also stated that EOR operators and CO2 pipeline 

companies are unlikely to allow CO2 intended for use in EOR to be commingled with CO2 from 

other sources. 

Response 6.3-71: CO2 used for EOR may come from anthropogenic or natural sources. The 

source of the CO2 does not impact the effectiveness of the EOR operation. CO2 capture, 

treatment and processing steps provide a concentrated stream of CO2 in order to meet the needs 

of the intended end use. CO2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 (Transportation of 

Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source of the CO2 and take into account 

CO2 composition, impurities, and phase behavior. There is thus no a priori restriction on 

commingling CO2 from different sources. Additionally, EOR operators and transport companies 

have specifications to ensure related to the composition of CO2. These requirements and 

specifications ensure EOR operators receive a known and consistent CO2 stream.
6-42

Comment 6.3-72: Commenter 7977 noted that the proposed regulation relies on the expected 

typical pipeline CO2 distance to be 50 miles to possible geologic sequestration sites, but that this 

distance underestimates the actual distances that may be necessary for the transmission of CO2. 

Commenter 9648 noted that even if 95 percent of the sources are located within 50 miles, it is 

unclear if the pipelines that would be needed in their state to transport CO2 could receive the 

necessary permits to allow construction. Commenter 9426 cited a study of CO2 pipeline options 

that concluded that sequestration is not economically or technically feasible in North Carolina, 

and asserted that based on these studies it would not even be possible to develop a new coal-fired 

EGU if CCS were required.

Commenter 9774 noted that coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin are between 200 and 500 miles 

from the nearest sequestration formation and that there are no CO2 pipelines in Wisconsin, and 

that the cost of building such a pipeline would exceed the cost of installing CO2 capture

technology on the coal-fired plants. Comment 10106 however, noted that although there are no 

identified sequestration sites in Wisconsin, as there are existing locations where sequestration 

geology has been demonstrated, and since the transport of CO2 through pipelines is a wellestablished practice throughout the nation, the presence of sequestration geology within state 

lines does not dictate the availability or feasibility of CCS.

Commenter 9666 cited the studies conducted of CO2 pipeline feasibility for North Carolina and 

Wisconsin that concluded that CCS would only be viable if multi-state CO2 pipelines were 

constructed, and that suggested that the 50-mile CO2 pipeline transport distance presumed in cost 

studies is inadequate in many cases. 

Response 6.3-72: The EPA does not agree that technical or permitting feasibility would limit the

development of CO2 pipelines (see also previous responses). In estimating impacts of the rule, 

the EPA relied on NETL studies referenced in Section V.I.2 of the preamble and based transport 

costs on a generic 100 km (62 mi) pipeline and a generic 80 kilometer pipeline. At least one 

study estimated that of the 500 largest point sources of CO2 in the United States, 95 percent are 

within 50 miles of a potential storage reservoir. For new sources, pipeline distance and costs can 

be factored into siting and, as discussed in section V.M, there is widespread availability of 

geologic formations for geologic sequestration (GS). Moreover, data from the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show that in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO2

pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a seven percent increase in CO2 pipeline 

miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles since 2004. 

Therefore, the EPA’s assumptions, while they may apply to all cases, are representative for cost 

estimation purposes. In reality, the EPA understands that pipelines of longer or shorter distances 

may be constructed for compliance with the NSPS. With respect to pipeline construction in the 

southeast (such as North Carolina), offshore saline geologic capacity exists within 100 

kilometers of the state, and state demand could also be served by coal-fired electricity generation 

capacity built in nearby areas and this electricity then delivered through transmission lines. See 

Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability. In any case, there are alternative compliance 

pathways available for achieving the final standard of performance which do not involve 

sequestration. 

Comment 6.3-73: Commenter 10618 provided cost estimates of CO2 pipeline development: 

Duke Energy estimated a CO2 pipeline along existing right of way from North Carolina to sites 
6-43

in the Gulf States and Appalachia would approach $5 billion, and the International Energy

Agency estimated nearly $300 billion to construct necessary pipelines to transport the CO2 from 

capture to end use facilities for a 50% reduction. Commenter 9666 cited a study that as of 2010 

industry had spent $2.2 billion for construction of over 2,200 miles of CO2 pipelines within the 

Permian Basin alone. Commenter 9596 noted that the costs for CO2 pipeline construction 

predicted by a study conducted for the Carolinas vary from $3.8 billion to $4.3 billion. 

Commenter 8925 noted that CO2 pipeline cost estimates published in the open literature for the 

U.S. range from $50,000 to $110,000 per inch-mile of pipeline, including labor, materials and 

right-of-way costs, which vary by location. Commenter 9195 noted that at a cost factor of 

$100,000 per inch-mile, a 24-inch pipeline would cost roughly $2.4 million per mile, and a two 

thousand mile pipeline of modest size would cost roughly $5 billion to construct.

Commenter 7977 noted that the EPA is required to comprehensively evaluate the impact of all 

associated transportation costs via CO2 pipelines, including availability and acquisitions of rightof-way for new pipelines, capital and operating costs, and actual length of transmission pipelines. 

Commenter 10043 noted that it is unclear whether the EPA's estimate of CO2 pipeline 

construction costs includes the costs of right-of-way, pipeline construction, permitting delays, 

and length of transportation, among other costs. Commenter 9600 also stated that it does not 

appear that the EPA has taken into account the costs of CO2 pipelines, Commenter 9734 stated 

that the cost that would be required to construct CO2 pipelines to transport captured CO2 to oil 

fields would be insurmountable, and that the EPA has recognized this. Commenters 9657 and 

9734 also noted that there are significant costs for building the CO2 pipeline framework and 

believe that the EPA has not incorporated these burdens into its analysis.

Commenter 8925 noted that published sources indicate that CO2 pipeline construction costs 

range from $50,000 to $110,000 per inch-mile of pipeline, including labor, materials and rightof-way acquisition costs. Commenter 8925 noted that once permits and rights-of-way were 

secured, construction of a 12.2 mile intrastate CO2 pipeline to support a CO2 capture and EOR 

project was completed within 3 months. Commenter 8925 noted that the applicant needed to 

consult with eight separate Federal and State agencies as part of the pipeline permitting process.

Commenter 10039 asserted that the lack of a regulatory framework and the NETL cost and 

performance assumptions that the EPA has relied on renders the proposal arbitrary and 

unreasonable, with no nexus with any EGU siting requirements. Commenter 10039 notes that all 

CCS analysis cases assume generation will be located within 62 miles of a local available 

sequestration site for purposes of estimating CO2 transportation costs. The commenter asserted 

that sequestration sites are not possible in large parts of the country and therefore transportation 

cost assumptions are arbitrarily low. The cost assumption has no basis in any real siting 

requirement or electric generation needs analysis and is therefore arbitrary and inappropriate for 

consideration of the costs of the technology when developing the NSPS. Commenter 10039 notes 

that under no EPA, DOE, or EIA models of the electric generating sector, does the EPA show 

that 200 individual generating units will be installed within 62 miles of any area of the country

which is assumed to be suitable for CO2 storage.

Response 6.3-73: The EPA estimated costs for CO2 based on the NETL studies referenced in 

Section V.I. of the preamble and based transport costs on a generic 100 km (62 mi) pipeline and 

a generic 80 kilometer pipeline. At least one study estimated that of the 500 largest point sources 
6-44

of CO2 in the United States, 95 percent are within 50 miles of a potential storage reservoir. For 

new sources, pipeline distance and costs can be factored into siting and, as discussed in section 

V.K, there is widespread availability of geologic formations for geologic sequestration (GS). 

Moreover, data from the Pipeline the and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show that 

in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO2 pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a 

seven percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in 

CO2 pipeline miles since 2004. Therefore, the EPA’s assumptions are representative for cost 

estimation purposes. See responses to previous comments on the regulatory framework for CO2

pipelines and Section V.I.5 and N.4 of the preamble. See also Figure 1 of TSD on geographic 

availability. In any case, there are alternative compliance pathways available for achieving the 

final standard of performance which do not involve sequestration. 

The EPA recognizes that siting and construction of CO2 pipelines will generally involve securing 

permits from multiple jurisdictions. Costs of acquisition of both land and subsurface property 

rights (‘pore acquisition rights’) are included in the EPA’s cost estimates. 

Comment 6.3-74: Commenters 9600 and 10097 noted that the EPA relied exclusively on DOE 

studies to predict the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for EGUs, and noted that the LCOE 

data do not factor in CO2 transport and sequestration costs where EOR is not available. 

Commenters 9201, 9600, and 10097 noted that the proposal completely ignores any costs 

associated with the transportation and storage components of CCS, and concludes that based on 

these facts within the proposal, the EPA cannot reasonably conclude that partial carbon capture 

is of reasonable cost based on this information derived from these DOE studies. Commenter 

7977 also noted that the DOE/NETL costs the EPA relied for the rule on exclude transportation 

costs of CO2, which could significantly increase the cost estimate for new sources implementing 

CCS technology. Commenter 7977 also noted that Section 111 (a)(1) of the CAA requires that 

the EPA account for the "costs of achieving such reductions." Since EPA is proposing that CCS 

is the BSER for coal-fired EGUs, the EPA must account for the cost of transporting CO2.

Commenter 9396 stated that the proposed rule’s analysis of partial sequestration as BSER 

effectively ends with CO2 capture at the plants, failing to provide analysis of the other 

component parts of CCS – pipeline CO2 transportation, CO2 monitoring, and permanent CO2

sequestration. In determining the BSER, the EPA has not examined the entire process and fails to 

include in the standard full evaluation of all the critical components to assure the emissions 

reductions are accomplished permanently.

Response 6.3-74: The EPA in fact included cost estimates for CO2 transport when EOR 

opportunities are not available – consistent with its overall conservative cost methodology of 

assuming no revenues from sale of captured CO2. The EPA also carefully reviewed the 

assumptions on which the transport cost estimates are based and continues to find them 

reasonable. For transport, costs reflect pipeline capital costs, related capital expenditures, and 

O&M costs. Sequestration cost estimates reflect the cost of site screening and evaluation, the 

cost of injection wells, the cost of injection equipment, operation and maintenance costs, pore 

volume acquisition expense, and long term liability protection. These sequestration costs reflect 

the regulatory requirements of the Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP 

subpart RR for geologic sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations. See the preamble for 

additional information in Section V.I.5. 
6-45

Comment 6.3-75: Commenter 9648 stated that not all the energy and emissions related effects 

impacted for the CCS systems by the proposed rule have been identified and incorporated in the 

rulemaking. For example, electric power consumption for operation of CCS CO2 separation and 

injection technologies are estimated to be 30 percent of the plant’s total electricity generation 

rate, and this estimate does not include additional energy requirements for transport and 

compression for EGU sites that do not have nearby geologic reserves for storage, such as those 

in North Carolina.

Response 6.3-75: The cost studies used by the EPA in the cost analysis for the rulemaking 

include both construction cost and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for CO2 transport. 

Pipeline O&M costs included in the studies include the cost of electricity and other consumables 

that would be needed to operate the CO2 pipeline. Typically the electricity needed to operate a 

CO2 pipeline would not come directly from the EGU from which the captured CO2 is being 

transported, but rather would be provided directly to the pipeline by the pipeline operator, which 

could be a separate entity from the EGU operator. Therefore the electric power consumption for 

operation of the pipeline would not generally directly affect the EGU’s net electricity generation 

rate.

Comment 6.3-76: Commenter 7977 noted that the economics of EOR change drastically with 

distance and CO2 transportation needs. The cost of building infrastructure for CO2 transport or 

transporting CO2 hundreds of miles far exceeds that of a facility located on an existing EOR site. 

The EPA should provide cost calculations for new facilities that do not have EOR within a 

certain geographic distance, as CCS won't be economically feasible for facilities without easy

access to EOR. Based on the EPA's own analysis, there are 37 states where CO2-EOR is not 

utilized and eleven states that have virtually no CO2 storage capacity or CO2-EOR operations. 

Commenters 7977 concludes that the cost of building infrastructure for CO2 transport or 

transporting CO2 hundreds of miles far exceeds that of a facility located on an existing EOR site. 

Response 6.3-76: The EPA does not agree that the absence of EOR sites in the vicinity of new 

EGUs would render the EGU sites infeasible. The EPA recognizes that the cost of CCS may vary

depending upon the proposed location of the EGU based on geographic and other factors 

including locations of potential sequestration sites; however, the EPA does not agree that CCS is 

economically infeasible for new EGUs located in areas in which there are no EOR operations. 

Potential sequestration sites including both EOR sites and deep saline formation sites as well as

other non-EOR sites are located throughout the U.S. and construction of CO2 pipelines is 

adequately demonstrated. 

Comment 6.3-77: Commenter 9195 noted that the EPA's proposal will have significant 

disparate geographic impacts, and that geologic features appropriate for EOR or geologic 

sequestration are not evenly distributed throughout the country. Commenter 9195 noted that the 

DC Circuit Court has said that sec. 111 standards “must not give a competitive advantage to one 

State over another in attracting industry” and questioned whether construction of CO2 pipelines 

can solve this issue. Commenter 9780 in testimony stated that it is not clear how EOR could 

defray the costs of an overall CCS project if long pipelines or transmission lines would have to 

be built (and paid for), and stated that the EPA has made no effort to quantify whether the price 

of captured CO2 would overcome the increased costs associated with pipeline or transmission 

construction. Commenter 9780 also noted that the EPA has failed to account for the lengthy, 
6-46

costly, and uncertain permitting processes for major infrastructure like pipelines and 

transmission lines, and has not addressed the fact that the owners of new EGUs installing CCS 

are not likely to be the entities responsible for permitting, building and paying for this critical 

infrastructure. Commenter 9780 concluded that in an effort to dismiss the geographic constraints 

of EOR, the EPA has made unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims about the ease and cost of 

building pipelines and transmission lines.

Response 6.3-77: The EPA does not agree that the rule provides a “competitive advantage” to 

one state over another in attracting industry. There are various compliance paths which may be 

used, some of which do not involve sequestration, so that compliance is not limited by

geographic location.

Geologic Sequestration

Comment 6.3-78: Commenter 10098 stated that the EPA's claim that geologic sequestration is 

currently available is contradicted by the extensive ongoing research and development seeking to 

make geologic sequestration commercially available. Commenter 10098 further stated that 

although the proposed rule provides a theoretical overview of how geologic sequestration could 

work a discussion of commercial geologic storage facilities is conspicuously absent. Commenter 

10098 noted that it is arbitrary and capricious to declare that an experimental technology is 

technically feasible and available without any explanation as to why the technology is considered 

ready for commercial use or acknowledgment of the evidence of operational setbacks.

Commenter 9472 stated that the EPA has not adequately examined the feasibility and challenges 

of CO2 storage in the proposed NSPS. Commenter 9472 further noted that the EPA failed to 

consider several aspects of CO2 storage that limit the feasibility of utilizing CCS at a coal-fueled 

power plant.

Response 6.3-78: Geologic sequestration is demonstrated. See Preamble Section V.M and V.N. 

The EPA has issued six Underground Injection Control permits to two projects under the Class 

VI program. It would not have done so, and under the regulations could not have done so, 

without demonstrations that CO2 would be securely confined to prevent the movement of fluids 

into or between USDWs or into any unauthorized zones. One of these projects was for a steam 

generating EGU. Furthermore, international experience with large scale commercial GS projects 

has demonstrated through extensive monitoring programs that large volumes of CO2 can be 

safely injected and securely sequestered for long periods of time at volumes and rates consistent 

with those expected under this rule.

Comment 6.3-79: Commenter 10095 stated that the EPA's development of its proposal does not 

account for the costs and burdens associated with the level of effort necessary to confirm the 

feasibility of sequestration sites and that the EPA instead relies on theory and generalizations.

Commenter 10392 stated that the cost-effectiveness of partial CCS – particularly if involving 

permanent geologic sequestration – is entirely unproven and not commercially available.

Response 6.3-79: The EPA’s cost estimates account for the costs of GS, among them site 

screening and evaluation costs, costs for injection wells and equipment, O&M costs, and 
6-47

monitoring costs. The EPA’s cost estimates for sequestration thus cover all aspects commenters 

claimed the EPA disregarded. The EPA believes that the use of costs and scenarios presented in 

the studies referenced are representative for purposes of the cost analysis. The NETL cost 

estimates upon which the EPA’s costs are based draw directly from the UIC Class VI economic 

impact analysis. That analysis is based on estimated characteristics for a representative group of 

projects over a 50-year period of analysis, as well as industry averages for several cost 

components and sub-components. See also RIA chapter 4.

Comment 6.3-80: Commenters 1959, 2471, 8349, 9194, 9426, 9780, 10086, and 10239 stated 

that there is no power plant with full-scale geologic sequestration functioning anywhere in the 

US today. Commenters 1959, 8349, 9194, 9780, and 10239 noted that there is no evidence of 

successful commercial implementation. Commenters 2471, 8349, 9780 and 10239 noted that the 

EPA made reference to a number of plants, but none of them are actually operating, but are only

planned. Commenter 10239 additionally noted that the EPA provides no analysis regarding these 

facilities and fails to acknowledge that at least one has been suspended due to concerns over 

vertical leakage. Commenter 9780 noted that there is insufficient monitoring experience with 

post-injection storage of CO2 to support findings of adequate demonstration.

Commenter 9780 specifically noted that 3 of the 4 large-scale storage projects listed by the EPA 

as evidence of the technical feasibility of storage are capturing their CO2 from natural gas 

extraction or processing facilities while the fourth receives captured CO2 from a gasification 

plant for use in EOR, none receive captured CO2 from an EGU.

Commenters 9426 and 9683 stated that there is not relevant experience to support a finding that 

permanent geological sequestration of CO2 on the scale required for use with commercial power 

generation has been adequately demonstrated, or that any level of CO2 emission from 

sequestration repositories is achievable under the range of relevant conditions for the industry as 

a whole.

Commenters 9725 and 10050 stated that the EPA cannot show that the proposed coal unit 

standard can be met on a continuous basis given the lack of any demonstration of continuous 

sequestration of the large amounts of CO2 from a commercial scale base load generation plant.

Response 6.3-80: The EPA notes that SaskPower’s Boundary Dam CCS Project in Estevan, 

Saskatchewan, Canada, less than 10 miles from the US border, is the world’s first commercialscale fully integrated post-combustion CCS project at a coal-fired power plant. The project fully

integrates the rebuilt 110 MW coal-fired Unit #3 with a CO2 capture system The CO2 from the 

capture system is more than 99.999 percent pure with only trace levels of N2 in the product 

stream. The captured CO2 is transported by pipeline to nearby oil fields in southern 

Saskatchewan where it is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. 

In the United States, the EPA has issued Class VI UIC permits for six wells for two projects. 

EPA considered, among other information, information on the regional geology and local 

geologic features at each site as part of its permitting process to determine that the wells were 

appropriately sited and met the Class VI requirements. Additionally, there are several large scale 

CO2 sequestration projects including the Illinois Basin Decatur Project and the Cranfield 

(Tuscaloosa) Project that demonstrate that storage of large amounts of CO2 can be achieved. In 
6-48

April 2015, DOE announced that CCS projects supported by the department have safely and 

permanently stored 10 million metric tons of CO2, which is the same order of magnitude 

expected for an EGU.

Existing commercial CCS facilities in other countries demonstrate the commercial storage of 

CO2, and the ability to inject large quantities over long period of time. The CO2 streams from 

these facilities have physical and chemical characteristics similar to pipeline grade CO2 that 

would be expected from an EGU so the source of the CO2 is not a factor in assessing the 

feasibility of long term secure storage. Commenter 10239 refers to the In Salah project where 

CO2 injection has been suspended due to concerns over vertical leakage. Monitoring data and 

analyses indicated that CO2 had migrated from the injection zone into the lower caprock, but had 

not reached the main caprock seal. No CO2 was released. While the In Salah project is no longer 

injecting CO2, the events demonstrate that the monitoring program served its intended purpose in 

detecting adverse conditions prior to the release of any CO2. (Indeed, the Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit research organization funded by the electric utility

industry, likewise stated in its public comments that In Salah served as an example of the 

efficacy of sub-surface monitoring in preventing environmental release of sequestered CO2.)

Post injection site care, including monitoring of the stored CO2, is required under UIC Class VI 

permits, and all Class VI permits issued to date have included required post injection site care

plans. The risk of release is highest during the injection phase and decreases during the post 

injection period and monitoring requirements reflect the relative risk during each phase.5

The EPA has reviewed and considered the results from several long-term monitoring programs, 

including more than 10 years of monitoring from the sequestration site at the Weyburn oil field,

and the Sleipner project, which began injecting CO2 into the deep subsurface in 1996. The EPA 

also recognizes that several EOR projects have been monitoring reservoir conditions for more 

than 30 years. The EPA believes that the proposed standard can be met on a continuous basis 

because several of the sequestration projects described in the proposal including Sleipner in the 

North Sea, Snohvit in the Barents Sea and Weyburn in Canada have demonstrated continuous 

operation for many years. 

Comment 6.3-81: Commenter 9426 noted that geologic storage of CO2 is not technologically 

viable in some regions of the United States since the necessary geologic conditions to support 

CO2 storage simply do not exist in those regions. 

Commenter 10778 stated that the theoretical feasibility of sequestration geology in the Coastal 

Plains and Gulf Coast does not mean sequestration is actually available and capable of being 

implemented in the Region. The commenter stated that the Coastal Plains region of the United 

States, especially the Gulf Coast, contains the largest storage sequestration resource of any 

region; however, the commenter clarified as a threshold matter, the potential feasibility of 

geologic sequestration does not equate to a finding that this technology is either “available” or 

that it has been “adequately demonstrated” within the meaning of CAA Section 111. Further, the 

commenter stated that while the Coastal Plains region could have a greater percentage of the 

 

5 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (August 2010), page 47.
6-49

basic geologic systems that might support sequestration, this does not equate with sequestration 

capability.

Commenter 9426 stated that because the geology necessary for carbon sequestration is highly 

site-specific and suitable sites are concentrated in a few areas of the country, it may be 

impossible for the EPA to determine that an NSPS based on CCS is achievable for sources across 

the nation. The commenter stated that before the EPA may impose a standard across the entire 

electric generating industry it must show that the standard is achievable across the entire 

industry, which includes a wide variety of geologic characteristics. According to the commenter, 

geologic limitations require long-distance transportation of removed CO2 prior to sequestration, 

then the EPA must factor in the transportation and associated costs as part of its BSER 

demonstration.

Commenter 9596 stated storage sites for CO2 are simply not available in many areas of the 

country. According to the commenter, CCS is only an option in certain areas of the United States 

that has the correct geological formations to sequester CO2 (or have access to long-distance CO2

pipelines that can convey CO2 to a proper sequestration site). The commenter concluded that 

EPA cannot require the use of a compliance option that is only available in some regions of the 

United States.

Commenter 10033 stated it is likely that many areas are simply unsuitable for CCS based on 

geology or other factors.

Commenter 10039 stated that the EPA’s basis for the technical feasibility of CO2 sequestration is 

based on the potential technologies for monitoring and verifying sequestration and that the data 

presented is insufficient to show that CO2 sequestration is a feasible, permanent storage solution 

for CO2 from EGUs. Commenter 10039 notes that the USGS analysis cited by the EPA as to the 

availability of CO2 storage resources shows that large sections of the US are unsuitable for 

sequestration for various reasons. Commenter 10098 stated that USGS does not know how much 

of these regional areas may actually be used for CO2 storage.

Commenter 9326 stated that much is yet to be proven regarding the permanent storage of CO2 in 

deep geologic formations. Commenter 9326 further stated that not every power plant is located 

on or near favorable geology for CO2 storage and that hundreds of miles of pipelines would have 

to be built to service these facilities, which continues to add on to this high cost of CO2 capture.

Commenter 10095 stated that injection and storage of commercial volumes of CO2 produced by 

an EGU is not available in all regions, has not progressed beyond the research, development and 

early demonstration phase, and requires additional study and development before it can be 

considered adequately demonstrated.

Commenter 9197 stated their doubts that CCS will be feasible to implement in many parts of the 

country because storage sites for CO2 are simply not available in many areas of the country. 

Commenter 9197 further stated that the EPA should not require new facilities to use a 

compliance option that is only available in some regions of the United States.
6-50

Commenters 8949, 9201, 9381, 9407, 9666, 10023, 10052, 10100 and 10660 asserted that CCS 

is not available in all areas of the U.S. due to geologic restrictions, lack of transportation 

infrastructure, or lack of EOR. Commenter 9407 further stated that NSPS is nationally applicable 

and must be implementable over broad geographic regions.

Commenters 9201, 9381, 9666, 10052, 10100 and 10660 stated that the requirement would result 

in advantages for states such as those in the Coastal Plains and Southwest that have storage 

capacity or EOR, and disadvantages for states that lack sufficient resources for sequestration, 

such as the Pacific Northwest and Atlantic Coast. 

Commenters 9201, 9381, 10048, and 10052 stated that areas with little or no storage capacity 

would have to construct costly, lengthy and expensive pipeline systems to meet the regulatory

requirements, if property rights and easements were obtainable. Furthermore, Commenters 9201 

and 9666 reiterated that the National Carbon Storage Atlas assessment of potential geological 

storage opportunities was an initial assessment and more precise assessments that identify all 

relevant properties (e.g., permeability, penetrations, understanding of underground fluid 

displacement, fractures and potential for fractures) will take additional time to complete. 

Additionally, Commenter 9666 stated that the EPA did not consider economic viability or lack of 

accessibility to storage resources due to land-management or regulatory restrictions, such as 

areas containing freshwater in the West.

Commenter 9407 stated that pipelines, deep well sequestration, EOR and other infrastructure 

must be available for the proposed BSER.

Commenter 9780 stated that there is no evidence in the proposal that the EPA considered 

regional differences in EOR opportunities and sequestration site availability in assessing the 

feasibility of deploying partial CCS for coal-based units.

Commenter 9426 further stated that in regions of the country where storage is not available, the 

EPA would be required to establish alternative standards.

Response 6.3-81: See Section V.M. of the preamble and the technical support document on 

geographic availability. Potential GS formations are widely available in the United States. The 

EPA recognizes that geologic conditions to support CO2 storage may not exist in all regions of 

the country. Where such capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in those areas can be served 

by coal-fired power plants built in neighboring areas with geologic availability with generated 

electricity being supplied via transmission line, see Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability, 

or the CO2 can be transported to available GS sites via pipeline. For other of those areas, coalfired power plants are either not being built due to state law prohibition s against building such 

units, or other available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power plant 

meeting the promulgated NSPS to be sited. There are alternative means of complying with the 

final standards of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting 

difficulties based on lack of a CO2 repository would be obviated. 

Comment 6.3-82: Commenter 9683 stated that industry-wide carbon storage has even less 

evidence of feasibility than does carbon capture, but is the only feasible large-scale fate for the 

amount of CO2 to be captured from a full-scale electric generating unit. Commenter 9683 further 
6-51

stated that depleted oil and gas formations provide the only evidence that large amounts of CO2

can be stored safely over the long term, but noted also that these formations do not exist in 

sufficient geographic dispersion throughout the US.

Response 6.3-82: The commenter is correct that depleted oil and gas formations provide 

potential capacity for CO2 captured from a full-scale electric generating unit and that the CO2

can be stored safely over the long term. However, the EPA does not agree that oil and gas 

formations provide the only evidence of large scale storage. The three international sites 

(Sleipner, Snohvit and In Salah) and DOE pilot and demonstration projects provide evidence of 

the feasibility of saline storage sites also. The issue of geographic availability is addressed 

elsewhere in this section and in Preamble section V.M. 

Comment 6.3-83: Commenter 10106 stated that the presence of sequestration geology within 

state lines does not dictate the availability or feasibility of CCS. Commenter 10106 noted that 

different states are positioned differently in terms of the ease of compliance for many reasons, 

including cost, and that this is true under most Clean Air Act regulations.

Commenter 10095 stated that some states may not have the capability of implementing CCS 

without exporting CO2 to other states or offshore. Commenter 10095 noted that the EPA 

proposal does not broach how a state would address these barriers and externalities.

Commenters 9423 and 10500 stated that carbon sequestration may not be available in various 

regions of the United States and that the CCS requirement will result in a competitive advantage 

for states that have EOR or sequestration opportunities and disadvantages for those that do not.

Commenter 9774 stated that fourteen states do not have any geologic formations suitable for 

carbon sequestration. Commenter 10031 stated that at least 30% of the states have little to no 

known storage capacity in the form of saline reservoirs.

Commenter 9770 stated Minnesota does not have the geology to sequester CO2 either for saline 

aquifer storage, which has not been commercially demonstrated, or for enhanced oil recovery

(EOR).

Commenter 9194 specifically addressed their concerns with geologic sequestration viability in 

Florida.

Commenter 2470 stated Florida has insufficient ability to utilize enhanced oil recovery for the 

captured carbon from the CCS process due to the minimal oil and gas production currently 

within the State. According to the commenter, moving the captured CO2 to other areas within the 

Southeast with greater oil and gas resources will require the construction of a pipeline and 

additional associated costs.

Response 6.3-83: The EPA largely agrees with the commenter that each state has unique 

geologic circumstances. Transporting CO2 to areas of geologic availability is an option for 

complying with the NSPS and there are many examples of transportation of CO2. 

The EPA noted in the January 2014 Proposed Rule that certain sources may be precluded from 

locating in certain areas for economic or technical reasons which is not inconsistent with 
6-52

congressional intent for CAA section 111. The presence of suitable geology for sequestration is 

an initial factor to consider in determining the feasibility of a specific site for a new EGU. Site 

specific studies must then be conducted to ensure the location is capable of safe, long-term 

storage of CO2 and not all locations will meet the siting criteria.

The EPA notes that DOE and USGS resource assessments have identified 39 states that have 

saline storage opportunities. Many of the states that do not have storage access are unlikely to 

see new coal fired power plants because there is no need for the additional power, coal-fired 

power has never been utilized in the area (e.g. Hawaii), or there are other preferred power 

options that can meet the performance standard. The EPA believes that the rule offers a wide 

range of options that allow states considerable flexibility to comply with the rule without 

creating an economic disadvantage. States with little or no saline storage capacity may choose to 

transport CO2 to locations with available storage, or site facilities near storage areas and using 

transmission lines to provide power to other areas. In addition, there are various compliance 

alternatives to achieve the promulgated standard of performance, not all of which involve 

sequestration.

With respect to the commenter’s assertions about the lack of availability of EOR in Florida, the 

BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline 

formations. The EPA notes that Figure 1 of the technical support document on geographic 

availability shows the areas of Florida that are within 100 kilometers of a potential GS 

formation; electricity demand may be served by coal-fired electricity generation built in areas 

that are proximate with geologic sequestration, and this electricity can be delivered through 

transmission lines. See preamble section V.M.7.

Comment 6.3-84: Commenter 9426 stated that the EPA must show that storage of large volumes 

of CO2 has been adequately demonstrated on a consistent basis and must also identify locations 

where suitable geological conditions would allow for such storage. Commenter 9426 specifically

stated that while there may be potential CO2 storage areas offshore of the Carolinas, the ability to 

inject CO2 in these areas has not been demonstrated.

Commenter 10095 noted that geologic data may simply show large areas are not suitable for 

underground injection and storage of CO2 and that consistent geology is imperative for ensuring 

the adequacy of a formation for CO2 injection and storage. 

Response 6.3-84: The EPA has identified and described several large storage projects that 

demonstrate the ability to safely store large volumes of CO2. Analyses by DOE and USGS 

identify many areas where conditions are favorable for storage, but recognize that site specific 

studies will be required to ensure the location is capable of safe, long-term storage of CO2. DOE 

studies have identified several offshore areas, including the Carolinas, with the potential for 

saline storage. In addition, should none of these storage opportunities be readily available, there 

are alternative compliance pathways to meet the promulgated standard.

Comment 6.3-85: Commenter 10030 cited the WCEV project in Michigan, and stated that as the 

design of the project was only in relation to a slip-stream, it cannot form a basis for concluding 

that the facility as a whole or the available geology feasibly could accommodate a full-scale CCS 
6-53

system capable of sequestering the CO2 necessary for the WCEV to meet the proposal’s emission 

limitations.

Commenter 9426 noted that neither the Kemper County nor the SaskPower Boundary Dam 

projects shed light on the challenges associated with storing CO2 in saline geological formations, 

and these first generation of CCS systems will likely reveal performance and reliability issues 

that may require costly additional measures to address.

Response 6.3-85: The EPA has not used the Wolverine Clean Energy Venture (WCEV) project 

in Michigan as a basis for concluding that the facility, as a whole could accommodate a full-scale 

CCS system. Today’s rule specifically notes the proposed Wolverine EGU project in Rogers 

City, Michigan has been cancelled and is therefore not addressed in the final rule. See preamble 

section III.J. With regards to the issue of slip stream, see section V.D.2.a. of the final rule 

preamble of the NSPS for the EPA’s response to this comment. We also note that the Boundary

Dam project developer has publically extolled the reliability of the CCS system in operation, and 

that the system in fact has been on-line without incident since it commenced operations.

Commenter 9426 is correct that neither the Kemper County nor the SaskPower Boundary Dam 

projects plan to store CO2 in a deep saline formation as a primary location. However, Boundary

Dam is in fact sequestering the excess CO2 which it is not selling for EOR in a deep saline 

formation. 

The EPA has issued six UIC Class VI permits to two applicants under the Class VI program, 

each permit involving deep saline injection of large volumes of captured, anthropogenic CO2. 

The EPA would not have issued these permits without finding (and demonstrating in the 

administrative record) that the permittees would meet all requirements of the rigorous Class VI

regulation, whose requirements assure that sequestered carbon dioxide will remain confined 

without endangering underground sources of drinking water.

Comment 6.3-86: Commenter 10239 stated that it is unlawful for the EPA to prohibit coal-fired 

EGUs in areas that lack geologic storage options. According to the commenter, applying a 

national standard based on CCS would have the effect of creating the exact type of localized 

competitive advantages that Congress sought to avoid when it enacted the NSPS program, as 

only regions with geologic storage could construct coal-fired EGUs. The commenter also stated 

that using Section 110 attainment provisions to prohibit facilities from being constructed in 

certain areas is irrelevant since GHGs do not produce localized air impacts and there are no 

national ambient air quality standards for GHGs that could be used to invoke Section 110.

Response 6.3-86: The final standard of performance for fossil-fired EGUs does not create these 

effects. Most areas of the country have potential GS opportunities. Some states prohibit new 

coal-burning capacity. In the unlikely event that a new source locates in another state (and there 

is no record evidence of any such possibility), there are alternative compliance pathways 

available under the final standard which do not involve capture and sequestration and which have 

associated geographical constraints. The EPA has determined that more than 95 percent of the 

500 largest CO2 point sources in the U.S. are within 50 miles of a possible geologic sequestration 

site so localized competitive advantages would be minimized. In drafting the CAA Section 111, 

Congress recognized that certain emission sources may be precluded from locating in certain 
6-54

areas for economic or technical reasons and there is no requirement that BSER apply to all 

locations equally. 

Comment 6.3-87: Commenters 10098 and 10239 stated that the EPA lacks record support for its 

assertion that geologic storage capacity is widespread and available throughout the U.S. and 

Canada, and typically available within 50 miles of existing power plant locations. Commenter 

10098 noted that the USGS review cited in the proposed rule is an initial assessment of storage 

capacity and provides no information on areas that may actually be used for CO2 storage. 

According to Commenter 10239, it is arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to simply rely on the 

potential availability of suitable formations, further stating that such reviews of potentially

suitable formations cannot establish actual availability because each potential geologic 

sequestration site must undergo appropriate site characterization to ensure that the site can safely 

and securely store CO2.

Commenter 9780 stated that the distance to geology suitable for geologic storage, and the 

distance to oil production development activities that might purchase CO2 for EOR, vary widely 

from location to location and from region to region and can have a substantial impact on the 

feasibility of deploying CCS at a particular EGU.

Commenters 8974, 10024, 10393, and 10665 stated that most utilities are not located near 

enhanced oil and gas or geologic formations that may be able to permanently sequester CO2. The 

commenters additionally note that until those issues are resolved, no utility could realistically 

build a new coal-fired power plant under the proposed rule.

Commenter 8349 noted approval in Illinois for a 30 mile pipeline intended to carry CO2 from the 

plant site to the injection site, but stated that this fact only emphasizes the complications of 

locating the correct geology for sequestration in relation to a plant site.

Commenter 9648 noted, that sequestration of CO2 in large-scale geologic storage areas is not an 

option for North Carolina, particularly in areas where coal-fired EGUs are located.

Response 6.3-87: The EPA recognizes that the USGS review cited in the proposed rule is an 

initial assessment of storage capacity and additional site specific work would be needed to 

demonstrate that a specific site meets the requirements for safe and secure storage under the UIC 

Class VI rules. Given the large areal extent of potential storage areas, the EPA believes that 

based on the USGS assessment suitable storage areas can be identified in proximity to new 

power plants. 

The distance to geology suitable for geologic storage is a factor that will be necessary to consider 

in siting new coal fired EGUs. The EPA believes that while there may be regional differences in 

the proximity to storage, there is widespread availability of storage capacity near likely new coal 

fired plants. While additional planning and permitting may be required, building pipelines to 

transport CO2 to storage areas may allow for additional flexibility in siting EGUs. 

The USGS has identified storage capacity in North Carolina, primarily in offshore areas. Siting 

new coal fired EGUs in North Carolina may require transporting CO2 to storage areas by

pipeline to offshore sub-seabed geologic formations. 
6-55

Comment 6.3-88: Commenter 10239 disagreed with the EPA's reliance on case law for the 

geologic sequestration requirement for coal-fired EGUs. With respect to EPA reliance on the 

"basic demand" theory, under which it claims it can ban new coal-fired EGUs under Section 111 

as long as basic demand for electricity can be met through other sources, the commenter cited 

Int’l Harvester Co. v. EPA, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), noting that the court affirmed the 

EPA’s decision not to extend the deadline for Title II emissions standards after concluding that 

petitioners failed to demonstrate that the necessary control technology was not available. In 

contrast, the commenter stated, the EPA proposes a rule that requires a technology "geologic 

storage" that is not, and never will be, available in some parts of the country. Further, the 

commenter noted in Int’l Harvester, the requirement to apply the "basic demand" theory was 

mandated by the statute, id. at 640; no such statutory mandate applies under Section 111. The 

commenter also stated the EPA's reliance on NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007) is 

equally unavailing. According to the commenter, NRDC involved a claim under Section 112 that 

certain control technology, while technically available, was too expensive. Id. at 1375-76. The 

commenter stated that in addition to the fact that the Section 112, maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) is much more stringent that the Section 111 BSER standard, geologic 

storage faces significant technological, geological, and legal challenges, not merely economic 

challenges associated with implementing a control technology.

Response 6.3-88: First, the EPA believes that a new steam generating affected source could 

meet the promulgated standard and be located anywhere in the country. There is available 

sequestration capacity in most areas of the country, and there are alternative ways a new EGU 

could meet the standard, not involving sequestration, should a new source decide to locate in an 

area where these sequestration opportunities are unavailable. See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 

665 F. 3d 177, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2011), holding that the EPA could adopt section 111 standards of 

performance based on the performance of a kiln type that kilns of older design would have great 

difficulty satisfying, since among other things, there were alternative methods of compliance 

available should a new kiln of this older design be built. The court also noted that it was highly 

unlikely that such a new kiln would ever be constructed and that the EPA could consider this in 

adopting a standard of performance reflecting a different type of kiln design. Similarly here, 

there is significant doubt that a new steam generating unit would be sited in one of the few areas 

without ready access to sequestration or EOR opportunities (and commenters have supplied no 

information indicating that such a possibility actually exists). Finally, the promulgated standard 

of performance can be met without capturing CO2 or sequestering it, using alternative means of 

control which have no associated geographical constraints.

Moreover, as explained at 79 FR 1466-67, the legislative history to section 111 makes clear 

Congress did not intend that every new source would be able to meet a standard. The EPA is 

required, in adopting section 111 standards of performance, to consider impacts on energy (CAA 

section 111 (a)(1)), and has done so here, finding with ample record support that the final 

standards of performance for coal-burning EGUs will not impair electricity availability or 

reliability. See RIA chapter 4 and preamble section V.O.3. This determination tracks well with 

the holding of International Harvester that under the technology-forcing CAA provision there at 

issue, the EPA could legitimately adopt a standard that would not be feasible for every vehicle 

type so long as basic demand is satisfied. Likewise, under Plywood MACT (NRDC v. EPA), the 

court held that the EPA was not required to create a separate subcategory to accommodate a 

particular type of plant for which control technology was more expensive, again indicating that 
6-56

technology-based standards do not have to be tailored to accommodate the circumstances of each 

type of source. The commenter’s statement that MACT requirements are more stringent than 

those for BSER is not germane, since this part of the opinion involved the EPA’s authority to 

subcategorize under section 112 (d)(1), a provision which is identical in all material respects to 

the subcategorization authority for new source standards in section 111 (b)(2). See 479 F. 3d at 

1376. 

Comment 6.3-89: Commenter 9514 stated that though the EPA’s proposal intends to ensure 

captured CO2 emissions are permanently stored over the long-term, the rule does not contain 

sufficient enforceable requirements for permanent sequestration. The commenter provided the 

example that if the geologic storage facility reports high leakage rates, the rule does not require 

any action on the part of the EGU that was the source of the carbon in question. As a result, the 

commenter recommended the EPA work with the appropriate state and federal authorities to 

establish a comprehensive regulatory structure governing sequestration of captured CO2.

Commenters 1959 and 9396 stated that legal and regulatory uncertainties remain regarding 

widespread deployment of long term storage for both EOR and non-EOR operations.

Commenter 10039 remarked that the EPA has no regulatory structures or operating data to 

adequately demonstrate that permanent sequestration can be achieved and verified at a 

commercial scale, under commercial scale timeframes.

Commenter 10039 stated that the EPA ignores that sequestration is not proposed or required in 

this or any other rule and has no regulations which require permanent sequestration, accounts for 

CO2 disposition from any entity, or monitors for or prevents the re-emission of captured CO2 and 

therefore cannot conclude that control of CO2 is required by this rule.

Response 6.3-89: Commenter 9514 notes that GHGRP subpart RR does not provide 

mechanisms to assure containment of sequestered CO2. The EPA believes that the monitoring, 

verification and reporting plan required by subpart RR provides some measure of assurance 

when implemented in conjunction with Class VI (or II) requirements under the UIC program. 

The Class VI rules contain rigorous requirements for site selection, well construction and 

operation, testing and monitoring, corrective action, financial responsibility and post-injection 

site care and site care. These requirements assure that there will be no endangerment of 

underground sources of drinking water from sequestered CO2 and should, by extension, reduce 

releases to the atmosphere. The Class VI Director may also require surface air monitoring and/or 

soil gas monitoring to detect movement of CO2 that could endanger a USDW. UIC Class II 

regulations provide minimum federal requirements for site characterization, area of review, well 

construction (e.g., casing and cementing), well operation (e.g., injection pressure), injectate 

sampling, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and abandonment, financial responsibility, and 

reporting. UIC wells must undergo periodic mechanical integrity testing which will detect well 

construction and operational conditions that could lead to loss of injectate and migration into 

USDWs. In conjunction with the subpart RR monitoring requirements, these standards likewise 

assure that injected CO2 does not endangering underground sources of drinking water and is not

released to the atmosphere.

To comply with the CCS requirement in the rule an EGU must send its captured CO2 to an EOR 

or geologic sequestration site reporting under subpart RR. Facilities reporting under subpart RR 
6-57

are required to have a monitoring and leak detection program in accordance with the EPAapproved Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) plan. Additionally, Class VI well 

owners or operators must develop and update a site-specific, comprehensive emergency and 

remedial response plan that describes actions to be taken (e.g., cease injection) to address 

potential events that may cause endangerment to a USDW during the construction, operation, 

and post-injection site care periods of the project (40 CFR §146.94). Geologic sequestration sites 

operating under a Class VI permit must continuously monitor the operation, and, injection must 

cease if there is evidence that the injected CO2 and/or associated pressure front may cause 

endangerment to a USDW (40 CFR § 146.94(b)). Once the anomalous operating conditions are 

verified, the cessation of injection, as required by UIC permits, will minimize any risk of release 

to air. The EPA believes that the protections provided by the existing regulatory framework 

demonstrate sufficient enforceable requirements to minimize leakage. 

The EPA cites several studies that have demonstrated the effective and safe storage of CO2 in 

EOR operations including the SACROC Unit in the Permian basin which has been injecting CO2

since 1972, the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, the Sleipner gas storage project in the North 

Sea, Snöhvit in the Barents Sea, and In Salah in Algeria, which have all been operating for many 

years. Under the DOE Phase III Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership six projects are 

currently conducting large volume injections, and one, the Cranfield Early Test has injected over 

8 million metric tons of CO2 since 2009. The U.S. experience with large-scale CO2 injection, 

combined with ongoing research, development, and demonstration programs in the U.S. and 

throughout the world, provide confidence that the storage can be achieved and verified at a 

commercial scale, under commercial scale timeframes.

Comment 6.3-90: Commenter 9666 provided a discussion about characteristics of CO2 storage. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that USGS concludes the Gulf Coast area contains almost 

60% of the national CO2 storage capacity in deep saline reservoirs.

Response 6.3-90: The USGS assessment estimates a mean of 3,000 billion metric tons of 

subsurface CO2 storage potential across the United States which is 500 times the 2011 annual 

U.S. energy related CO2 emissions. If 60% of this capacity is in deep saline reservoirs in the Gulf 

coast, there will still be 1200 billion tons of storage in the remainder of the U.S. – more than 200 

times the 2011 annual energy related CO2 emissions.

Comment 6.3-91: Commenters 9666 and 10036 stated that although DOE-NETL studies show 

that large areas of the US are potentially feasible for CO2 storage, CO2 storage at any one site 

will not be known until the site is assessed for specific criteria, such as a regionally extensive 

confining zone and injectivity. According to Commenter 9666, these criteria cannot be evaluated 

until the subsurface physical characteristics of a site are mapped or documented, an analysis that 

requires an extensive effort. Commenters 9666 and 10036 concluded that it can take at least five 

years to evaluate a site for CO2 storage potential. Commenter 10036 further stated that no 

geologic storage site has been characterized sufficiently to guarantee that it will provide secure 

permanent storage for a commercial-scale power plant.

Commenter 10098 stated that simply identifying a geologic formation as a potential candidate 

site is not enough to assume that it will actually be viable for carbon storage. Commenter 10098 

further stated that nothing in the proposed rule evinces that the EPA has performed any analysis 
6-58

regarding the actual availability of geologic formations that could comply with the requirements 

of the Agency’s Class VI injection well regulations.

Commenter 10048 stated that a significant investment is required to better characterize and 

quantify the country’s sequestration capability. Commenter 10048 further stated that although a 

site many initially appear to be ideal for CO2 sequestration, it may be determined to be 

unworkable after further detailed investigation.

Commenter 9426 stated that to be feasible for CO2 storage, a site indicated to be favorable for 

CO2 storage must be fully characterized and shown to demonstrate particular geologic features, 

including CO2 containment in the target geologic formations. 

Response 6.3-91: The EPA agrees with the commenters that each sequestration determination 

involves site-specific determinations, which require time and care to perform sufficiently. The 

site characterization requirements and permit review process for Class VI wells provide a 

comprehensive framework to ensure sites are suitable for long-term storage of CO2. The site

characterization requires analysis of many factors including those mentioned by the commenters 

to ensure CO2 can be securely contained in the target geologic formations. If the site 

characterization process identifies unsuitable geologic conditions the developer may be required 

to remediate the site or to select an alternate storage location. This is one of the strengths of the 

Class VI and Class II regulatory programs, and why reliance on these standards is a reasonable 

way for the EPA to meet the requirement in CAA section 111 to consider non-air health and 

environmental impacts of a standard of performance.

The EPA issued Class VI permits to the FutureGen Alliance, a commercial scale power plant, to 

inject and sequester captured CO2 into deep saline formations pursuant to the Class VI regulatory

standards. In doing so, the EPA found, and demonstrated in the administrative record for these 

permits, that the captured CO2 can be securely sequestered for long-term storage. The 

commenters are thus incorrect that no geologic site has been sufficiently characterized to 

guarantee that it will provide long-term storage for a commercial scale power plant.

Because of the lead times for planning, permitting and constructing a new power plant, the EPA 

believes the current state of characterization of potential geologic sequestration sites would not 

be a barrier to CCS. In the time since the commenter submitted comments, several Class VI 

permits have been issued by the EPA. These projects demonstrate that a GS site permit applicant 

could potentially prepare and obtain a UIC permit concurrent with permits required for an EGU.

As just noted, the EPA’s analyses and findings supporting issuance of permits under the Class VI

regulations to Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen indicate the availability of “geologic 

formations that can comply with the Class VI injection well regulations”. (Of course, the 

formation does not itself comply; even if the area of containment is otherwise suitable, the rules 

require comprehensive construction, monitoring, testing, financial responsibility and other 

requirements to assure complete and safe containment). The EPA’s estimated compliance costs 

include the costs for sequestration site characterization and are based on the NETL CO2 Saline 

Storage Cost Model and documented in Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Costs in NETL 

Studies (DOE/NETL-2013/1614). The model includes costs for four sites simultaneously

undergoing characterization, each having a 2-D seismic survey and one test well drilled to collect 
6-59

relevant reservoir data. One of these four sites is selected as the eventual storage site and has an 

additional test well drilled plus a 3-D seismic survey covering the Area of Review; pore-space 

rights and property access are also costed. 

Comment 6.3-92: Commenter 9426 stated CCS cannot serve as a system of emission reduction 

without a suitable site for carbon storage or reuse that eliminates any emissions or limits on a 

continuous basis CO2 emissions to the ambient air.

Commenter 9003 stated that it is inappropriate to require CCS as BSER when the infrastructure 

to accommodate new units only exists in some areas of the country.

Commenter 9600 stated that the proposal glosses over the availability of infrastructure needed to 

transport and sequester the CO2 captured by coal-fired EGUs with the proposed BSER.

Response 6.3-92: The EPA has determined that partial CCS is the BSER that will meet the 

standard set in the rule, and suitable sites are available for geologic sequestration. A new SCPC 

with partial CCS can meet the limits on a continuous basis, thus reducing CO2 emissions to the 

atmosphere. The rule requires monitoring of emissions from the source to verify compliance with 

the standard. 

As discussed in previous responses, studies by the USGS and DOE have identified the capacity

to store large volume of CO2 across broad areas of the country. Many of the areas without saline 

storage potential are not expected to have new coal-fired EGUs built without CCS for legal or 

practical reasons. The EPA believes that the rule will advance CCS technology and spur 

development of the necessary infrastructure to support broad development of CCS. 

Comment 6.3-93: Commenter 10618 noted the experiences of the Mountaineer CCS programs 

that indicated the complexity at every level of developing injection wells in regards to technical, 

financial, and schedule risks. Commenter 10618 further noted that the agency failed to properly 

account for various design and development barriers in their evaluation of CCS as BSER.

Response 6.3-93: Each sequestration site involves highly site-specific circumstances. A 

monitoring program and its associated infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells) and costs will be 

dependent on site-specific characteristics, such as CO2 injection rate and volume, geology, the 

presence of artificial penetrations, among other factors. It is thus not appropriate to generalize 

from AEP’s experience, and thus not appropriate to assume that other sites will require the same 

number of wells for site characterization or injection. In this regard, we note that the ADM and 

FutureGen permits for Class VI wells involved far fewer injection and monitoring wells than 

AEP references.6

 

6

The FutureGen UIC Class VI injection well permits (four in total) require nine monitoring wells. 

http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/futuregen/. The Archer Daniels Midland UIC Class VI injection well permit issued 

in September 2014 (CCS2) requires five monitoring wells and the Archer Daniels Midland UIC Class VI injection 

well permit issued in December 2014 (CCS1) was permitted with two monitoring wells. 

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/.
6-60

The commenter’s reference to the experiences with the Mountaineer project is not reflective of 

the rule for new fossil fired EGUs. The Mountaineer CCS project was an early pilot scale 

development project to demonstrate the commercial viability for retrofitting an existing coalfired power plant. The plant was not initially sited and constructed to consider the needs and 

technical requirement of CCS, but initial assessment indicated that the plant may be suitable for 

retrofit and associated CCS storage. The project was cancelled in July 2011 due to several factors 

including economic and policy conditions; however, the project increased the understanding of 

technical and project risks associated with CCS development. In the time since the Mountaineer 

project was initiated, there have been numerous technical advancements, and much has been 

learned to facilitate the development of CCS projects. The EPA has evaluated potential design 

and development barriers for CCS as part of the BSER analysis, and has concluded that there are 

no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that would 

prevent broad deployment of CCS.

Comment 6.3-94: Commenter 9194 stated that there is no factual basis on which the EPA may 

assert that sequestration technology meets the required three part test for Section 111 

technologies-that it is widely usable and technically and economically feasible. Commenter 9194 

further stated that the EPA has not examined the entire system and fails to include in the standard 

the critical components--sequestration, transportation and monitoring--to assure emission 

reductions are accomplished.

Commenter 9648 agreed with the EPA’s conclusion that there is not sufficient information and 

knowledge about geologic sequestration and the commenter believes that the EPA's statements 

about CO2 storage confirm that this technology is not BSER.

Response 6.3-94: The commenter’s legal argument is addressed in section 2 of this document. 

Briefly, there is no requirement in section 111 that a standard of performance address the fate of 

captured pollutants which are not emitted to the atmosphere. Rather, there is a requirement that 

non-air health and environmental impacts of a standard be considered, and the EPA has done so 

here, documenting that captured CO2 will be safely transported, accounted for, and sequestered 

over the long-term (in Class VI or Class II sites).

The comments are also factually mistaken. CO2 transport is demonstrated many times over. A 

substantial network of CO2 pipelines exist, and are comprehensively regulated under standards 

adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline). 

Sequestration of captured CO2 is likewise comprehensively regulated under the regulations for 

underground injection. The UIC Class VI requirements facilitate injection of CO2 for GS, while 

protecting human health and the environment by ensuring the protection of underground sources 

of drinking water. Moreover, the EPA has issued class VI permits under the Class VI program, 

and obviously would not have done so without the administrative record for each permit 

demonstrating that geologic sequestration of captured CO2 in the injection sites was both 

technically feasible, and fully protective.

Finally, injection of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR has a many decades long operating experience, 

is well understood, and has been successfully applied.
6-61

The EPA’s recognition that additional work is needed to advance the understanding of certain 

aspects of sequestration should not be construed to suggest that there is currently insufficient 

information or knowledge to evaluate the technical feasibility and availability of CCS. The EPA 

has documented many successful projects that demonstrate that the technology meets the 

requirements for BSER. 

Comment 6.3-95: Commenter 9666 stated that because any NSPS must actually reduce 

emissions, the EPA must show that its proposed standard based on CCS contains achievable 

limits on the CO2 emitted from sequestration sites receiving separated CO2 from regulated new 

sources. According to the commenter, the EPA has not made, and cannot make, this showing. 

Furthermore, the commenter stated that the EPA provides no evidence that the separated CO2

will remain in geological storage, and does not require such storage in the proposed 

rule. Commenter 9666 stated the EPA's proposed rule does not even evaluate permanent 

geological storage of large volumes of CO2, much less find that such storage has been 

demonstrated.

Response 6.3-95: See Section V.N.5 of the final rule preamble of the NSPS for the EPA’s 

response to this comment.

As described in previous responses within this section, the EPA has evaluated GS of large 

volumes of CO2 through a review of several large scale commercial CO2 injection and storage 

cases as well as the latest research and development conducted by DOE and has concluded, 

based on these examples, that such storage has been demonstrated. Additionally, the 

effectiveness of long-term trapping of CO2 has been demonstrated by natural analogs in a range 

of geologic settings where CO2 has remained trapped for millions of years. 

Comment 6.3-96: Commenter 1902 stated that knowledge about potential formations that might 

be suitable for permanent storage of commercial volumes of CO2 produced by a power plant is 

incomplete. Commenters 1902 and 9602 stated that it is not feasible or demonstrated to hold the 

CO2 volume for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. Commenter 10036 further stated that 

there is little experience injecting CO2 into coal seams for permanent storage because of various 

setbacks. Commenter 7977 noted that the proposed regulation provides no scientific evidence of 

long-term storage of CO2.

Commenter 10095 stated that limitations and uncertainties regarding the adequacy of coal seams 

for CO2 storage remain and that access to coal seams may not be available due to the value of 

coal as a commodity. Commenter 10095 further stated that there is little experience injecting 

CO2 into hydraulically fractured coal seams for permanent storage due to their structure posing 

risks to their structural integrity and drinking water sources.

Commenter 9194 noted that deep saline aquifers have not been geologically assessed by either 

the private sector or the government on the level needed to adequately demonstrate that there are 

consistent caprock type formations to hold CO2 under pressure for hundreds and perhaps 

thousands of years.

Response 6.3-96: As discussed elsewhere in this section, the EPA not only has found that large 

scale geologic sequestration of anthropogenic CO2 is possible and promulgated a regulatory
6-62

framework for how to do so safely without endangering underground sources of drinking water, 

but has issued permits under the Class VI UIC program to conduct such geologic sequestration. 

Four of these permits were for injection of CO2 from a fossil-fuel (coal-fired steam generating 

EGU (FutureGen). As described in section V.N of the preamble to the final rule, the Class VI 

rules, complemented by the subpart RR reporting and monitoring requirements, assure as well 

that injected CO2 will remain sequestered without release to the atmosphere.

The EPA believes that existing data from DOE research programs show that CO2 can be 

sequestered safely and effectively. The monitoring programs required as part for the UIC Class 

VI permit and GHGRP subpart RR reporting will identify any such releases. The rule requires 

captured CO2 to be sent to a facility that will ensure the safe and secure long term storage, and 

document the volume received. 

The site characterization, modeling and monitoring requirements under UIC Class VI Program 

ensure that knowledge about potential formations for long-term storage is developed and 

reviewed prior to authorizing injection. Site characterization requires a significant level of 

geologic data collection, testing and modeling to demonstrate that the caprock (i.e., confining 

zone) can provide the containment necessary to ensure long term storage. 

The BSER analysis and RIA rely on GS in deep saline formations. Current estimates of storage 

capacity indicate that coal seams provide only a small percentage of total US storage capacity. 

Comment 6.3-97: Commenter 10664 stated that there is a strong implication that technologies 

that recycle captured CO2 to produce a sustainable fuel, which will subsequently release CO2

into the atmosphere when later combusted by a mobile source, do not permanently store or 

isolate that CO2 molecule from the atmosphere and therefore may not be used by EGUs to meet 

the CO2 emission limit.

Response 6.3-97: The rule generally requires that captured CO2 be either injected on-site for 

geologic sequestration or transferred offsite to a facility reporting under 40 CFR subpart RR. The 

EPA recognizes there are emerging technologies alternative to geologic sequestration that are 

designed to safely sequester or otherwise utilize captured CO2 such that it is not released to the 

atmosphere. These technologies are not sufficiently advanced that the EPA is prepared to 

unqualifiedly structure this final rule to allow for their use, nor are there plenary systems of 

regulatory control and GHG reporting for these approaches, as there are for geologic 

sequestration. Nonetheless, as stated above, these technologies not only show promise, but could 

potentially be demonstrated to show permanent storage of CO2. The final rule provides for a 

case-by-case adjudication by the EPA of applications seeking to demonstrate to the EPA that a 

non-geologic sequestration technology would result in permanent confinement of captured CO2

from an affected EGU.

Comment 6.3-98: Commenter 9513 agreed with the EPA that CO2 injection into geologic 

formations is technically feasible and that the EPA’s decision to move forward with a CCS 

requirement is justified, but also noted that more work needs to be done to ensure that the 

injected CO2 will remain sequestered for geologic time frames and will not cause or contribute to 

unintended adverse consequences. Commenter 9513 stated that the EPA must work with the 

appropriate authorities to develop a better technical understanding of the risks and develop 
6-63

definitive site characterization, monitoring and remediation protocols and a comprehensive 

regulatory scheme for geologic sequestration.

Response 6.3-98: Facilities that inject CO2 for long-term storage must obtain a UIC Class VI 

permit. The UIC Class VI program requires extensive subsurface analysis, computational

modeling to delineate the project area (the “area of review”) and monitoring, as well as postinjection site care and site closure to ensure the CO2 will remain sequestered for long periods. 

The EPA has developed detailed guidance documents for UIC Class VI permit applicants 

regarding project plans, well construction, site characterization, monitoring and remediation 

protocols. Research is being conducted by DOE through the National Risk Assessment 

Partnership to develop risk assessment tools to support geologic sequestration project risks and 

ensure safe, long-term storage. 

The EPA believes that there is a comprehensive regulatory framework for geologic sequestration 

that includes the SDWA UIC Class VI rule, CAA GHGRP Reporting Program rule, the RCRA 

CO2 Hazardous Waste Exemption and DOT pipeline safety standards. These federal rules 

provide the basic framework for the safe and secure storage of CO2. 

The Class VI permits issued to Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen reflect the EPA’s 

findings, documented in the administrative record for each permit, that the sequestration sites at 

issue were suitable for long-term, secure and safe storage of large volumes of CO2. 

Comment 6.3-99: Commenters 9666 and 9774 stated carbon sequestration has not been proven 

on a long-term basis and CCS has not been implemented within the utility sector to the extent 

necessary for setting an NSPS. Commenter 9666 stated there is no relevant operating experience 

to support a finding that permanent geological sequestration of CO2 on the scale required for use 

with commercial power generation has been adequately demonstrated, or that any level of CO2

emission from sequestration repositories is achievable under the range of relevant conditions for 

the industry as a whole.

Commenters 9197 and 9596 noted that experts and stakeholders have raised significant questions 

about the long-term feasibility of sequestering large amounts of CO2 underground.

Response 6.3-99: EPA cites several examples of CO2 injection sites that have been in operation 

for many years, including the SACROC site in Texas that has been safely injecting CO2 for more 

than 40 years. The EPA believes that the examples provided demonstrate that the three 

components of CCS, capture, transport and storage, have been adequately demonstrated and 

support the development of this NSPS. Monitoring data from injection sites in a wide range of 

geologic settings indicate that CO2 can be sequestered safely and effectively.

Comment 6.3-100: Commenters 10036 stated that the US could potentially store billions, maybe 

trillions, of tons of CO2 in deep saline formations (based on the Carbon Atlas), but sustained 

operations and monitoring of CO2 in saline formations in the US have not progressed beyond the 

demonstration phase. Commenter 10095 stated that the US could potentially store more than 12 

billion tons of CO2 in deep saline formations, according to a DOE report. Commenter 10095 

further stated that saline formations must demonstrate particular geologic features, including CO2

containment in the target geologic formations and non-interference with underground sources of 
6-64

drinking water. Commenter 10095 noted that CO2 storage in saline formations is occurring but 

not with CO2 captured from an EGU.

Commenters 9774 stated that carbon sequestration capacity is not proven and available at all 

potential sites of a new coal-fired generating unit. Commenters 0587 and 10036 stated that 

carbon sequestration has not been proven on a commercial scale. Commenter 9774 noted that the 

EPA identifies the carbon storage capacity in North America while also acknowledging that 

virtually all of this capacity is unproven. According to Commenter 9774, the EPA must rely only 

upon proven sequestration sites in the analysis of CCS. 

Commenter 8925 cited a real-life example studied by the SECARB partnership to illustrate that 

the area in the subsurface occupied by injected CO2 emissions from a single EGU will likely

extend over many square miles and stresses the importance of characterizing and utilizing large 

regional reservoirs for storage due to the large quantities of CO2 from multiple EGUs.

Commenter 10031 stated that significant uncertainties exist with regard to candidate sites for 

sequestration. 

Commenter 9396 referred to a statement from API stating that there are significant challenges to 

scaling up CCS for EGUs.

Response 6.3-100: The monitoring and operational experience gained from EOR projects over 

the past 40 years is directly applicable to storage in saline formations, and provides a strong basis 

for demonstrating the feasibility of CO2 storage in saline formations. Large scale demonstration 

projects such as Cranfield and Illinois Basin Decatur Project further support the feasibility of 

saline storage. Prior to receiving a UIC Class VI permit the applicant must demonstrate that 

geologic features at the proposed injection site ensure CO2 containment in the target geologic 

formations and that the GS project would not impact underground sources of drinking water. 

The response to Commenters’ 0587, 10036 and 9774 assertion that sequestration has not been 

proven on a commercial scale is addressed elsewhere in this section. 

The review process for UIC Class VI permit applications will address the commenters’ concerns 

that regional reservoirs are used for storage due to the large quantities of CO2 from multiple 

EGUs. The rigorous review and ongoing monitoring required under UIC Class VI will reduce the 

uncertainties that exist with regard to candidate sites for sequestration. 

Comment 6.3-101: Commenter 9666 stated the adequate demonstration of CO2 storage will 

depend on the resolution of numerous technical issues and that sequestration of CO2 generated 

by a new source may not prevent the emission of that CO2 to the ambient air. According to the 

commenter, CO2 must be injected at extremely high supercritical pressures to enter either a 

saline reservoir or a depleted oil and gas reservoir. Once injected below the surface, supercritical 

CO2 is buoyant and will both rise to the top of the storage formation and radiate outward from 

the injection point in a horizontal manner below the caprock layer. The commenter stated it is 

essential that the geology of a carbon storage site ensures a secure fate and that CO2 does not 

migrate through fractures to penetrate groundwater reservoirs and is not released to the ambient 

air through abandoned wells.
6-65

Commenter 8966 stated that carbon storage raises many safety, environmental, and liability

issues that have not been adequately demonstrated by the EPA. Commenter 8966 noted that the 

reservoirs required under the CCS model must contain a capacity not yet achieved or tested in 

practice. Commenter 8966 raised concerns that sequestration on such a large scale poses severe 

risks in the event of reservoir leaks that can rise to the ground surface. Commenter 8966 further 

stated that a fundamental lack of understanding in the physics of CO2 leakage and the processes 

that control leakages dictates that development of large CO2 reservoirs is not ready for 

commercial implementation.

Commenter 1747 stated that any standard that relies on sequestration must ensure that CO2

injected stays out of the atmosphere, and that the parties required to meet the standard are 

responsible for the leakage.

Commenter 7433 stated that there is a concern with leakage of stored CO2 and whether that will 

compromise CCS as a GHG emission mitigation option.

Commenter 9202 stated that the storage of captured CO2 must be secure for an exceptionally 

long time frame and that leakage of stored CO2 negates all benefits of capturing emissions.

Response 6.3-101: The site characterization and monitoring requirements in the UIC Class VI 

permit program and the monitoring required by Subpart RR provide a framework to ensure that 

the geology of a carbon storage site provides a secure storage and that CO2 does not migrate 

through fractures to endanger underground sources of drinking water and does not migrate 

through abandoned wells or other leakage pathways (UIC Program) and is not released to the 

atmosphere (Subpart RR). Site characterization requires extensive data collection and 

computational modeling to predict the behavior of CO2 in the subsurface, and ongoing 

monitoring to demonstrate that the CO2 is behaving as predicted. These computational models 

apply fundamental and advanced understanding of the chemical and physical interactions of CO2

in the subsurface. UIC Class VI regulations require computational modeling to determine the fate 

of the CO2 as part of the Area of Review. Specifically, 40 CFR 146.84(c)(1) states that owners or 

operators of Class VI wells must predict, using existing site characterization, monitoring and 

operational data, and computational modeling, the projected lateral and vertical migration of the 

CO2 plume and formation fluids in the subsurface from the commencement of injection activities 

until the plume movement ceases, until pressure differentials sufficient to cause the movement of 

injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW are no longer present, or until the end of a fixed 

time period. The requirement goes on further to specify the model must take into account any

geologic heterogeneities or other discontinuities. The MRV Plan that is prepared under subpart 

RR requires an assessment and risk evaluation of potential leakage pathways. 

Several large CO2 injection and storage examples have demonstrated that CO2 can be 

sequestered at a capacity necessary for commercial implementation. The SACROC Unit in the 

Permian basin has injected CO2 since 1972 for enhanced oil recovery purposes. One study

evaluated a portion of this project, and estimated that the injection operations resulted in final 
6-66

sequestration of about 55 million tons of CO2.

7

This study used modeling and simulations, along 

with collection and analysis of seismic surveys, and well logging data, to evaluate the ongoing 

and potential CO2 trapping occurring through various mechanisms. The monitoring at this site 

demonstrated that CO2 is trapped in geologic formations. In a separate study in the SACROC 

Unit, the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology conducted an extensive groundwater sampling 

program to look for evidence of CO2 leakage in the shallow freshwater aquifers. No evidence of 

leakage was detected.8 An extensive CO2 leakage monitoring program was conducted by a third 

party (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme) for 10 years at the Weyburn 

oil field in Saskatchewan, during which time over 16 million tonnes of CO2 have been stored. 

The Cranfield test in Mississippi has stored over 4.7 million metric tons of CO2 in a saline 

reservoir since 2009, with no evidence of leakage. At the Sleipner site in Norway more than 15 

million tons of CO2 have been stored in the saline aquifer with no evidence of leakage. The EPA

believes that these large scale injection and demonstration projects show the capacity to store 

CO2 from EGUs on a commercial scale. 

Comment 6.3-102: Commenter 9666 provided the following technical information related to 

sequestration: to comply with the proposed standard, a 500 MW boiler firing bituminous coal at 

a gross heat rate of 8,500 Btu/kWh and an 80 percent capacity factor would need to separate 

almost 1.2 million tons of CO2, which would produce approximately 1.5 million cubic meters of 

CO2 at supercritical pressure annually for sequestration.

Response 6.3-102: The Archer Daniels Midland Class VI permit is for injection and 

sequestration of an estimated 5.5 million tons of CO2. The FutureGen Class VI permits are for 

22.5 million tons of injected CO2. These projects are of a magnitude comparable to the 

(hypothetical) example in the comment. We repeat that the EPA’s findings, and administrative 

record supporting those findings, is that each site was capable of safely sequestering the injected 

CO2 indefinitely consistent with the requirements of the Class VI regulations. As explained in 

section V.N.3 of the preamble to the final rule, these standards also assure that there will be no 

release of sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere.

The commenter’s estimate of the mass and volume of CO2 produced from a standard 500 MW 

boiler is consistent with the estimates DOE has used as guidelines for the Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership Phase III Demonstration projects for large scale injection and storage. 

Under the DOE Phase III Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership six projects are currently

conducting large volume injections, and one, the Cranfield site has injected over 8 million metric 

tons of CO2 since 2009. Globally, there are commercial integrated CCS facilities safely and 

 

7 Han, Weon S., McPherson, B J., Lichtner, P C., and Wang, F P. “Evaluation of CO2 trapping 

mechanisms at the SACROC northern platform, Permian basin, Texas, site of 35 years of CO2

injection.” American Journal of Science 310. (2010): 282-324.

8 Romanak, K.D., Smyth, R.C., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S., Detection of anthropogenic CO2 in 

dilute groundwater: field observations and geochemical modeling of the Dockum aquifer at the 

SACROC oilfield, West Texas, USA: presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Carbon 

Capture & Sequestration, Pittsburgh, PA, May 10-13, 2010. GCCC Digital Publication Series 

#10-06.
6-67

effectively sequestering captured CO2 into deep geologic formations at rates of one million 

tonnes per year.

Comment 6.3-103: Commenter 9194 noted that CO2 currently used in the oil and gas sector in 

the US and worldwide is recycled, not permanently stored, and that CO2 in this industry has a 

residence time of only days. The commenter additionally noted that this is in sharp contrast to 

the idea of CO2 storage for the power sector that the EPA is proposing.

Response 6.3-103: The EPA does not agree with commenter’s assertion that CO2 currently used 

in the oil and gas sector is recycled, not permanently stored. In the EOR process some of the CO2

is recycled but large amounts are stored via residual trapping, solubility trapping and 

stratigraphic trapping. Direct observation of trapping in the deep subsurface is not possible but 

numerous monitoring and modeling studies have demonstrated the permanent storage of CO2 in 

EOR operations. The SACROC Unit in the Permian basin is one example of long term CO2

storage. A 2010 study evaluated the trapping mechanisms using numerical models, and identified 

residual trapping and solubility trapping as the dominant trapping mechanisms over a 200 year 

modeling period. The volumes of CO2 injected and stored at SACROC are consistent with the 

volumes expected from plants covered under this rule. 

Comment 6.3-104: Commenter 10035 stated that excessive emphasis on underground injection 

and geologic sequestration as approaches to achieve the standards would be shortsighted, as it 

would limit the amount of CO2 that could be sequestered, reused, or recycled by other means. 

Commenter 10035 further stated that excluding CO2 utilization would directly impact 

investments in the US manufacturing base and development of innovations to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions.

Commenter 9317 stated that a blanket prohibition on alternatives to geologic sequestration 

actually discourages the development of alternatives and that the EPA should instead propose a 

streamlined approach for approving alternatives to CCS that states could consider.

Response 6.3-104: . The final rule provides for a case-by-case approval mechanism for 

alternative CO2 storage methods.

Comment 6.3-105: Commenter 10098 stated that EPA has not grappled with findings that many 

potential geological storage areas could be impacted by shale gas development. Commenter 

10098 noted that a recent study found that as much as 80% of deep saline aquifers overlap with 

potential shale-gas production regions (commenter provided journal article citation). Commenter 

10098 further notes that this could lead to the EPA imposing restrictions on the very gas 

production activities that make a severe curtailment of new coal-fired electricity generation 

possible.

Response 6.3-105: The presence of shale gas development areas that are spatially coincident 

with areas potentially suitable for geologic storage or EOR does not necessarily preclude the use 

of the saline or oil bearing zone for sequestration. Under the Class VI permit, each sequestration 

site must undergo a rigorous risk analysis to determine if safe long-term storage is possible. The 

depth and thickness of potentially productive shale formations would be evaluated along with the 

depth of the saline storage formation, and the type and thickness of the intervening geologic 
6-68

layers. Only areas where storage locations are incompatible with oil and gas extraction would 

potentially affect production.

Following Class VI geologic storage site closure, the owner or operator of a Class VI injection 

well must record a notation on the deed to the facility property (40 CFR 146.93(g)). The notation 

must state that the land has been used for GS, the name of the state agency, local authority, 

and/or tribe with which the survey plat was filed, as well as the address of the EPA Regional 

Office to which it was submitted; and the volume of fluid injected, the injection zone(s), and the 

period over which the injection occurred. This notification will enable regulatory authorities to 

impose appropriate conditions on subsequent drilling activities that may penetrate the injection 

and confining zone(s). 

Comment 6.3-106: Commenter 9683 noted that scale-up presents perhaps even thornier 

complexities for storage than for capture. For large-scale storage, an area potentially dozens of 

square miles across must be studied. A confining zone free of transmissive faults and fractures

must be present and must be of sufficient thickness, and the formation must exhibit porosity and 

permeability to accommodate high-volume injections over decades. Furthermore, storage of tens 

of millions of tons of CO2 in a saline or other non-EOR formation requires aggregation of 

property rights across a broad area potentially encompassing not only areas to which the CO2

may migrate, but areas into which brines and other materials displaced by CO2 injections may

reach.

Response 6.3-106: The commenter is correct that large areas may need to be studied for certain

storage sites. Site characterization is critical to operating safe and effective geologic 

sequestration projects and identifies potential risks and eliminates unacceptable sites. Large scale 

subsurface studies are commonly required in other industries including mining, oil and gas 

exploration, water resources and waste management. 

See the Section 6.3 topic titled Geologic Sequestration Property Rights for responses to property 

rights comments.

Comment 6.3-107: Commenter 9600 noted that while the proposal recognizes that CO2

sequestration, or storage or utilization in EOR activities at an EGU site would require pipeline 

transportation and subsurface injection facilities offsite, the proposal offers no rational discussion 

regarding the availability of these facilities. Additionally, Commenter 9600 noted that the 

proposal does not address physical or economic considerations associated with CO2 storage.

Commenter 10618 stated that the equipment to capture CO2 is large and an entire system capable 

of treating the effluent of a power plant requires extensive tracts of land. The commenter cites an 

AEP/Alstom study and further states that size alone would preclude the use of the technology at 

many existing power plants and must be carefully considered in the design of any new power 

plant.

Response 6.3-107: The commenter is mistaken. The physical and cost issues associated with 

CO2 sequestration (i.e. storage) were discussed in detail at the proposal. See e.g. 79 FR at 1482-

1484 (preamble); Draft RIA (EPA-452/R-13-003) at pp. 5-29 to 30 and NETL Cost and 

Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture (DOE/NETL-
6-69

2011/1498) at pp. 46-50. The EPA has addressed the availability of CO2 pipelines in the Section 

6.3 topic titled CO2 Transport, and the availability of offsite subsurface injection facilities in the 

Section 6.3 topics titled Geologic Sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Utilization. 

The EPA discusses the physical considerations associated with CO2 storage in terms of the 

capacity estimates of saline storage areas and notes that 95% of the current coal fired plants are 

within 50 miles of potential storage sites. The proposal also discusses the availability and 

location of EOR, where injection facilities, pipelines and other supporting infrastructure are in 

operation. An extensive discussion of economic and cost considerations is presented in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the NSPS, and summarized in the preamble to the rule. 

The EPA agrees with the commenter that additional equipment is required for CO2 capture at 

EGUs and the footprint of some existing plants may not allow for the equipment to be installed. 

Today’s rule applies to new plants exclusively which can be sized to accommodate the 

equipment. 

With regard to AEP and Alstom statements, contemporaneous statements of both companies 

extolled CCS, praised the success of the Mountaineer project, indicated that a regulatory 

mandate for CCS would further investment in and further deployment of CCS, and that the 

project was not implemented full scale due at least in part to the absence of such regulatory

certainty. See preamble section V.I.4. See also statement of Alstom senior Vice President for 

Power and Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton (August 4, 2011): “AEP’s decision to put 

Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain 

climate policy. The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 

90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant’s emissions. The technology works. But 

without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hardpressed to invest in its continued refinement.” The press release further states that Vice 

President MacNaughton “presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing 

that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is 

competitive with other low or no-carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro 

and nuclear.” See 

http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSb

riefing_FINAL.pdf

Comment 6.3-108: Commenter 10098 stated that it would not be unreasonable to assume that, 

in certain geographic locations with limited CO2 transportation and storage options and under 

certain market conditions, a power plant with CCS capability could find itself having to give 

away CO2 or even pay for the disposal of its captured CO2 stream, which reverses the EPA’s 

prior position on the issue of selling CO2 for EOR without any explanation.

Response 6.3-108: The BSER and regulatory impact analysis assume GS in deep saline 

formations. The EPA recognizes that some EGUs may not be located near EOR areas, which 

provide an opportunity to defray some of the cost associated with partial CCS, and may incur 

costs for the transportation and storage of CO2. 

Comment 6.3-109: Commenter 9195 noted a DOE document "Mitigation Action Plan for the 

W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project" and proposed the 

following questions to the EPA regarding DOE’s view on carbon storage activities:
6-70

1. Does EPA fully agree with this assessment? (Explain EPA rationale/legal justifications)

2. If EPA does not fully agree, has or will EPA object? Why or why not?

3. (Commenter also asks to) Provide any documentation that EPA considered this or other 

determinations made by DOE or other agencies that CCS is a connected system that includes 

storage.

Response 6.3-109: A response is not provided here as this comment is outside the scope of the

NSPS. The referenced document relates to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

mitigation plan for DOE’s action of providing partial funding to construct an industrial CO2

capture system and pipeline, and conduct monitoring. The CO2 will be used for EOR and the 

EOR aspect of the project, although not funded by DOE, was included in the project description 

because the system components are integrated into the project concept and considered connected 

actions. 

Comment 6.3-110: Commenter 10786 also discussed the storage of CO2, stating that the EPA

has not provided support for the position that CO2 losses downstream are expected to be modest.

Response 6.3-110: The EPA believes that CO2 losses downstream will be modest based on the 

review of monitoring data from numerous CO2 storage sites. The characterization, construction 

and operational requirements in the UIC Class VI permit and the monitoring requirements in 

subpart RR provide additional support to ensure safe operation and early detection of leakage. 

Comment 6.3-111: Commenter 8925 discussed the relative scale and relevant lessons learned 

from the three large scale projects in the world currently injecting CO2 at approximately one 

million metric tons per year. The commenter notes the following project comparisons and 

lessons learned:

 Each project is only approximately one-third of the CO2 that would be stored by a single 

1,000 MW coal-fired EGU, illustrating the need to rapidly expand our experience base to 

scales commensurate with full scale commercial power projects to improve technical

certainty, operational reliability and a better understanding of project costs upon which 

sound financial investment decisions can be made. Commenter 9666 also echoed the 

need for an expansion of experience and commercial demonstration.

 Adequate monitoring and analyses at the sites are critical to inform the operator of a 

potential problem and shut down of CO2 injection before the caprock is breached. 

 There are significant risks associated with geologic uncertainty at storage site. The large 

volumes involved with full-scale CO2 storage and scarcity of information on saline 

formations may require that several attempts be made to identify specific injection sites 

with suitable storage capacity and formation injectivity. For example, project developers 

for the onshore ZeroGen project in Australia spent AU$90 million on site 

characterization activities before the project was abandoned because the formation was 

found to be uneconomical for large scale CO2 storage. Commenter 9666 also discussed 

the economic and temporal implications of assessing the viability of a site for storage, 

determining that the site is unsuitable, and then starting the evaluation process again at a 

different site.
6-71

Commenter 10097 stated that the proposal does not address physical and economic 

considerations associated with transport and storage. 

Response 6.3-111: The EPA believes that the current experience with large scale capture and 

storage projects is applicable to larger systems, such as the 1000 MW plants the commenter 

describes. The selection of partial CCS as BSER will further technological development and 

improve operational reliability and provide a better understanding of project costs for larger 

projects. 

The current regulatory framework provides extensive requirements for operators to monitor and 

analyze site operations to ensure the safe storage of CO2. In particular the UIC permit requires 

monitoring to detect anomalous conditions that could indicate leakage. Failure of mechanical 

integrity would necessitate the cessation of injection in accordance with the UIC permits.

Site characterization is an essential element in reducing risks associated with geologic 

uncertainty at storage sites, and not all proposed sites will meet the requirements for 

demonstrating safe and secure storage of CO2. DOE has developed guidance for selecting sites, 

and through the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships has conducted detailed geologic 

evaluations of regional areas to help focus the assessments and reduce the time and cost of site 

selection.

The response to the transportation considerations in this comment are addressed in the prior 

section. The EPA discusses the physical considerations associated with CO2 storage in terms of 

the capacity estimates of saline storage areas and also discusses the availability and location of 

EOR, where injection facilities, pipelines and other supporting infrastructure are in operation. An 

extensive discussion of economic and cost considerations is presented in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the NSPS, and summarized in the preamble to the rule.

Comment 6.3-112: Commenter 9425 stated water use could also be an issue in many locations 

as it is estimated that the addition of an amine-based CCS system would double the consumptive 

water use of a power plant, which may be unacceptable in some locations. 

Response 6.3-112: The commenter appears to exaggerate the extent of water use needed for 

post-combustion partial CCS. See preamble section V.O.2.

Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 Utilization

Comment 6.3-113: Commenter 9664 stated that EOR is an essential part of a widely available 

near term system for transportation and sequestration of CO2.

Response 6.3-113: EOR provides an opportunity for EGUs to defray some of the cost of CCS 

using infrastructure that is already in place. Twelve states currently have active EOR operations, 

and 18 states are within 100 kilometers of active EOR areas. 

Comment 6.3-114: Commenters 10098 and 10239 stated that, without justification, the EPA

arbitrarily and capriciously asserts that CO2 captured from coal-fired EGUs can be transported 

and sold for enhanced recovery of oil and other hydrocarbons and fails to account for the 
6-72

regulatory and economic conditions that may prevent or dissuade EOR operators from using 

anthropogenic CO2 in their operations. Commenter 10618 states that regulatory challenges for 

EOR operators may be significant as well, citing the October 2013 comments from U.S. EPA on 

the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Hydrogen Energy California 

IGCC/CCS project. The EPA's comments note that for the Elk Hills Oil Field, the thousands of 

well bores on the site create a potential for leaking of the injected CO2, and the EPA

recommended that the old wells with the potential for leaking should be located and permanently 

sealed. Commenter 10618 stated that the prospect of being required to locate and permanently 

seal "hundreds of wells" and "thousands of well bores" is simply not practical, far outside the 

typical scope of EOR operations, and alone would likely doom any CCS project from being 

developed, as the process is time-consuming and the outcome of requirements is wrought with 

uncertainties. 

Response 6.3-114: The BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies 

on GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes the potential for 

sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option. The EPA

disagrees with the commenters’ example that locating and plugging wells is not practical and far 

outside the typical scope of EOR operations. The current UIC Class II permit process for EOR 

projects includes conducting studies that ensure USDWs are protected from endangerment 

during injection. This process requires identifying active and inactive wells within the Area of 

Review, and demonstrating that all wells are properly constructed or have been plugged in a 

manner that will not permit the movement of fluids into strata other than the permitted injection 

zone. Where new Class II wells are constructed, wells within their Areas of Review must 

undergo correction actions, including plugging or remediation, prior to injection to ensure 

protection of USDWs. Additionally, planning for EOR includes identifying and mitigating 

barriers that prevent full contact of CO2 with the oil, such as preferential flow paths or movement 

of CO2 into non oil-bearing areas, caused by manmade conditions such as improperly plugged

boreholes and wells.

Comment 6.3-115: Commenters 9201, 9472, 9426, 9683, 9666, 9678, 10048, 10098 and 10239 

stated that the EPA provides no support that a future coal-fired EGU will be reasonably close to 

one of the approximately 100 EOR sites in the country. Commenter 8024 disagrees with the 

EPA’s view that potential EOR applications represent a viable path for capturing and 

sequestering CO2 emissions from utility-scale power plants. Commenter noted that EOR 

opportunities are inherently limited to petroleum-producing regions, or areas with available 

pipeline access, and do not extend to the full range of states to which the NSPS apply. 

Commenters 10036 and 10095 noted the limited availability of EOR as an option for new EGUs 

in certain regions. Commenters 9657 and 10017 stated that enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is not 

widely available across the U.S. Commenter 9657 noted that the vast majority of CO2 -EOR is 

conducted in oil reservoirs in southwest Texas and southeast New Mexico, along with eleven 

other states. Commenter 7977 noted that although the proposed rule has nationwide applicability, 

the fact that EOR seldom occurs in Kentucky prevents EGUs located in the state from relying on 

EOR to defray the costs of implementing CCS, making CCS not economically feasible. 

Commenters 1959 and 9657 noted that for large portions of the U.S., EOR cannot be viable, 

geologically. Commenter 10105 stated that Nevada’s ability to employ CCS for enhanced oil 

recovery is limited, as Nevada has small oil fields, and the conditions of Nevada's oil fields are 

geologically unsuitable and are susceptible to leakage. Commenters 9678 and 10043 assert that 
6-73

EOR is not a widely available method and Commenter 10043 asserted that most utilities are not 

near EOR sites or geologic formations suitable for long term storage. Commenter 2471 stated 

that the projects used by EPA to justify CCS as BSER are EOR projects and none are planned to 

inject CO2 into geology that has no recovery opportunities for oil and gas. According to the 

commenter, by contrast, many coal and natural gas fired plants in the US are located in states 

with little or no oil and gas recovery opportunities.

Response 6.3-115: Analysis of recent DOE and USGS storage resource assessments indicate 

that twelve states currently have active CO2 EOR operations and 18 states are within 100 

kilometers of active CO2 EOR locations. To access the existing EOR areas, as well as other 

potential EOR locations not currently utilizing CO2 EOR, construction of CO2 pipelines is 

feasible. 

Any new EGUs proposed would need to be planned prior to siting and construction and new 

EGUs have several compliance options including constructing coal fired plants near EOR and 

transporting the electricity via transmission lines, or transporting captured CO2 to deep saline 

formations or other non-EOR sequestration sites. The costs for CCS either with or without EOR 

are consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s criteria for determining that costs are reasonable. 

Comment 6.3-116: Commenters 9201, 9472, 9426, 9683, 9666, 9678, 10098 and 10239 asserted 

that the rulemaking places additional regulatory burdens on an EOR operator that it would not 

face if it accepted any other CO2 stream. Commenter 9666 asserted that EOR operators have 

stated that they will refuse to accept CO2 from EGUs under this rule because of the additional 

regulatory constraints on EOR operators that the EPA plans to impose.

Response 6.3-116: The NSPS establishes a standard of performance based on a highly efficient 

SCPC using partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the BSER. Sequestration sites receiving 

and injecting the captured CO2 are required to obtain UIC permits and report under subpart RR 

of the GHGRP. Although the NSPS does not impose regulatory requirements on the 

transportation pipeline or the sequestration site, such requirements already exist under other 

regulatory programs of the Department of Transportation and the EPA. In order to ensure the 

EGU is compliant with the standard the EPA is reasonably relying on UIC requirements in 

combination with the subpart RR requirements to provide secure sequestration of captured CO2. 

Comment 6.3-117: Commenter 9772 expressed concern that federal rules will deter not 

encourage the use of CO2 captured by emissions sources in EOR operation. Commenter 9772 

specifically noted that Subpart RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules will allow an emitter 

to use EOR-based storage only where the offsite injector reports the CO2 storage to the EPA, 

which would result in an emitter trying to mandate an EPA rule for an EOR operator now only 

subject to Subpart UU of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. This is a situation that would 

certainly lead to EOR avoiding the purchase of CO2 subject to those rules. Concern about 

Subpart RR compliance, commingling of purchased and other CO2, and rules governing storage 

would also lead to litigation. 

Response 6.3-117: The Commenter is concerned that the use of subpart RR will discourage use 

of anthropogenic CO2. The EPA disagrees with this comment in several respects. First, the 

BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline 
6-74

formations, not on EOR. However, the EPA also recognizes the potential for sequestering CO2

via EOR, but disagrees that subpart RR is prohibitive to the use of EOR. The rule provides 

requirements for EGUs to verify that CO2 captured at an affected unit is geologically sequestered 

CO2 through an arrangement with EOR operators complying with the requirements of Subpart 

RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (40 CFR 98.440 et seq.). This specification limits 

qualifying geologic sequestration operations only to those operations adhering to Subpart RR of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and does not apply to EOR operations that do not report

under subpart RR. Subpart RR requires that facilities that conduct geologic sequestration of CO2

for long-term containment in subsurface geologic formations, regardless of the class of 

Underground Injection Control permit that they hold, report basic information on the amount of 

CO2 received for injection; develop and implement an EPA-approved monitoring, reporting, and 

verification (MRV) plan; and report the amount of CO2 sequestered using a mass balance 

approach and annual monitoring activities. Reporting under subpart RR will not change the 

status of a Class II well. See preamble section V.N.5.a.

Comment 6.3-118: Commenter 8024 also stated that the agency's assumed $20/ton to $40/ton 

revenue stream from EOR CO2 sales is inadequate to offset the full costs of CO2 capture, 

compression and transport, which is recognized by proposed federal legislation such as S. 3581 

(112th Cong., 2d Sess.)

Response 6.3-118: The BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies 

on GS in deep saline formations, not on EOR. The EPA recognizes that the revenue stream from 

CO2 sales to EOR operators does not currently cover all costs associated with CO2 capture, 

compression and transport, but does provide a revenue stream to offset some of the costs 

associated with the implementation of partial CCS. The EPA is assessing costs conservatively by 

not including any revenues from EOR, even though new plants may well avail themselves of 

EOR opportunities (e.g. Boundary Dam and Kemper).

Comment 6.3-119: Commenters 9201, 9505, 10786, 10087 and 10088 stated that many

locations for coal-fired power plants have no CO2 pipelines and none proposed, therefore EOR 

technology cannot be representative. Commenter 10088 therefore suggested that the cost 

estimates are inadequate and incomplete, as requiring CCS in locations with no access to EOR 

will be far more costly than in locations within 50 miles of geology suitable for EOR.

Commenter 9487 stated EPA identifies only 13 states with in which carbon dioxide has been 

used in such formations for EOR and recognizes that EOR will not be "practically available" in 

all geographic locations. Thus, the commenter contends, meeting the NSPS will not be feasible 

and sustainable in up to 37 states. According to the commenter, the inability to build new coalfueled generation in those states will be a function of the facility's inability to meet the NSPS 

itself, and not result from otherwise existing state or local factors (such as air quality or zoning 

limitations) disallowing an NSPS compliant facility.

Response 6.3-119: First, the final standard assumes (conservatively) that captured CO2 will be 

sequestered for long-term containment. The preamble to the final rule explains our basis for 

finding that there is ample geologic sequestration capacity available in most parts of the country. 

The proposal also notes the possibility (borne out by experience) that captured CO2 can also be 

used for EOR in many areas. Thus, geologic sequestration is available in most, of the continental 
6-75

United States. EOR is available in certain areas, including the areas for which demand can be 

served by coal-fired power plants located in neighboring areas with EOR. Although there are 

some areas in which GS is not available, that is not an impediment to our defining BSER to be 

partial CCS because --

a. For at least some of those areas, demand in those areas can be served by coal-fired power 

plants built in neighboring areas with GS; 

b. For other of those areas, coal-fired power plants are not being built due to state law 

restrictions.

In addition, new fossil-fired EGUs could utilize other compliance alternatives which do 

not involve sequestration. 

In the final rule the EPA identified partial CCS as the BSER and determined that estimated costs 

are reasonable compared to other options, even without EOR. Many EOR operators have found 

that pipelines longer than 50 miles are economically feasible in EOR projects. For example, 

Chaparral Oil recently constructed a 68 mile pipeline in eastern Oklahoma for its EOR 

operations in Osage County, Oklahoma. Denbury Resources completed the final section of the 

325-mile Green Pipeline for transporting CO2 from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to EOR oil fields 

in Texas, and also completed construction and commenced operation of the 232-mile Greencore 

Pipeline in 2013. NRG (Petra Nova) has begun construction on a project to capture CO2 from a 

power plant in Fort Bend County, Texas for transport to EOR sites in Jackson County, Texas 

through an 82-mile CO2 pipeline. These examples demonstrate that the cost of pipeline 

construction is not expected to be a constraint on using CO2 from new power plants affected by

this rule. 

Comment 6.3-120: Commenter 8949 states that EPA should not use the Kemper County facility 

as a viable example that CCS is BSER. Commenter continues that this facility is only 

commercially-viable because of a suite of financial incentives and public subsidies, including 

revenue from CO2 sales for EOR. The commenter believes that it is unreasonable for the EPA to 

expect every new facility subject to this rule to be able to acquire federal financial assistance and 

revenue from EOR. Commenter 10048 also states that CCS will only be possible at locations 

where developers can take advantage of financial incentives

Response 6.3-120: Southern Company Mississippi Power Kemper County Energy Facility has 

reached an advanced stage of construction and is expected to be fully operational in 2016. The 

advanced stage of the project and agreements for offtake of the CO2 for EOR demonstrate the 

availability of the technology to perform partial pre-combustion CCS at solid fuel power plants

should plants choose to pursue this alternative means of achieving the standard of performance.

While some funding for this project was provided by federal assistance the majority was funded 

privately by the utility. Sales of CO2 and other products will offset some of the costs of the plant. 

Subsidies to support emerging energy generation and pollution control technology are not 

unusual. Government subsidies in the form of tax benefits, loan guarantees, low-cost leases, or 

direct expenditures have supported development of fossil fuel as well as nuclear, geothermal, 

wind, and solar energy development.

Comment 6.3-121: Commenters 10036 and 10095 stated that delivery of CO2 is likely to be 

sporadic in quantity and timing due to constantly changing electricity demand. Commenter 
6-76

10036 also noted that any issue at the injection site, or along the pipeline, impact would directly 

affect the power plant’s ability to operate and to serve its customers while remaining in 

compliance with the NSPS emission limit. Commenter 8024 expressed concern that the EPA has 

not addressed the possibility that EOR or carbon sequestration facility operators (who may be 

third parties) may be unable to accept CO2 from power plants due to operational constraints, 

even when those plants would be required to continue producing power.

Response 6.3-121: See section V.N.3.c of the final rule preamble of the NSPS for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. The EPA disagrees with the premise of the comment that CO2 from an 

affected EGU must go to either EOR or saline storage, where operational constraints may cause 

the facility to be unable to accept CO2. As described in the preamble, the design of optional 

saline storage at Boundary Dam shows that captured CO2 from a fossil-fired EGU can go to both 

EOR, and the excess to a deep saline formation. 

Comment 6.3-122: Commenters 9513 and 10119 stated that the Proposed Rule considered the 

economic benefits of CO2 injection for EOR but did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with production, refining, and combustion of additional oil reserves made available 

through EOR operations that otherwise might not be produced at all. The commenters asserted 

that the omission not only skews the costs and benefits assessment but may undercut or even 

eliminate any emissions reductions achieved by requiring CCS in the first place and undermine 

the purpose of the CAA.

Commenter 0588 stated that EPA, in assessing emission reductions from the proposed rule, 

failed to take into account the CO2 attributable to the oil that is recovered using gas captured at 

the coal plant and sold to oil companies to enhance EOR activities. According to the commenter, 

these emissions -a direct consequence of the NSPS- would significantly undermine the 

effectiveness of the proposed standard, and could even exceed the mass of the CO2 "saved" by 

partial CCS. The commenter therefore stated that such a standard would be arbitrary and 

capricious, for "control technologies cannot be "best" if they create greater problems than they 

solve." The commenter stated that EPA completely fails to take into account the expanded 

carbon footprint of the oil industry caused by its power plant rule, which is an impermissible 

omission by the administrator, because the emissions attributable to EOR are inherent to the 

NSPS as envisioned by the administrator, as opposed to being indirect in nature. According to 

the commenter, in the final rule, she must reasonably account for all CO2 emissions attributable 

to the NSPS as envisioned by the EPA.

Commenters 5532 and 1612 object strongly to the use of CCS as a mechanism to extract more 

fossil fuels from the earth that will, for the most part, be burned for energy and themselves 

contribute GHG’s to the atmosphere. Commenters 5532 and 1612 are also concerned that this 

policy might indirectly encourage inadequately regulated oil-fracking operations and that it will 

lengthen, not shorten the time before the United States has done its fair share to protect the 

climate and that employing EOR is a form of fuel switching from coal to oil that works against 

EPA’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution, fight climate change and protect the environment.

Commenter 9202 affirms the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants as a 

good and essential component of policies to reduce U.S. climate impacts. However, the 

commenter has concerns about allowing the use of captured CO2 for enhanced oil and gas 
6-77

recovery and disagrees with the provisions in Section VII. E. 2. (c) that would allow the use of 

captured CO2 for EOR. Commenter notes that the purpose of carbon capture and storage is 

defeated when the "storage" leads directly to the production and combustion of other fossil fuels. 

The climate impact of that new oil or gas production should be added to the measured CO2

output from the power plant, and considered part of the 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

Commenter 10046 noted that substantially more carbon dioxide is emitted from burning this oil 

than is stored. Commenter 10046 explained that this means that the EPA's regulations will 

actually lead to more carbon dioxide emissions than no regulation at all.

Commenter 9513 references the study by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology that assessed 

CO2 leakage at the SACROC field in the Permian Basin based on extensive groundwater 

sampling, as well as a study by Jaramillo et al. (2009) which looked at SACROC in addition to 

for other fields, and noted that the study found that the net life cycle GHG emissions for each 

project, was actually larger than the CO2 injected and stored in the reservoirs. In particular, the 

SACROC project had the largest net emissions, exceeding 300 million metric tons of CO2e. In its 

evaluation of the impact of using EOR for CCS, the EPA should consider this and other analyses 

that do not draw boundaries that exclude the emissions associated with the full life cycle of 

power generation and oil production and processing. 

Commenter 9034 stated that the EPA’s BSER analysis should have taken into account CO2

emissions generated by combustion of the oil recovered, as required by CAA Section lll. 

Commenter further stated that the Competitive Enterprise Institute studied this issue and found 

that if a typical coal plant in compliance with the EPA's proposed emissions standard sells its 

captured CO2 for EOR, it would generate 1.3 million more kilograms of CO2 emissions per 

megawatt capacity annually than the plant would "save" using CCS. Commenter further stated 

that such a negative cost-benefit is unreasonable and unacceptable.

Commenter 10680 noted that the EPA’s proposed rule states that increased supply of 

anthropogenic CO2 may allow for further oil production from “depleted” oil fields, and will 

result in increased emissions, as CCS promotes EOR.

Commenter 10680 stated that the rule is fundamentally flawed in that the emissions the EPA

wishes to reduce are instead increased as a direct result of the very practices the EPA prescribes 

to defend partial CCS as BSER. Commenter 10680 noted that new CCS equipped coal-fired 

power plants coupled with EOR projects inherently lead to net increases in CO2 emissions 

compared to identically constructed new coal-fired power plants without CCS systems. 

Commenter 10680 stated that science indicates that when CCS-EOR projects are examined in 

tandem these systems lead to net positive CO2 emissions.

Response 6.3-122: The EPA reiterates that the BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, not on EOR. 

Some commenters expressed concerns regarding the use of captured CO2 for CO2-EOR on a lifecycle basis. Most of those commenting on this issue reference the work by Jaramillo et al. 
6-78

(2009),

9 while other comments present a back-of-the-envelope analysis related to emissions from 

the combustion of oil. These commenters are mistaken and EPA has in fact thoroughly 

considered these factors in finalizing the rule.

There is more recent work by Jaramillo and her colleagues, published in 2013, which has 

expanded on the 2009 work.

10 The 2013 study compares the lifecycle GHG emissions from EOR 

operations using different sources for CO2 (assuming a 90% capture efficiency at the source in 

all cases) and to non-CO2-EOR methods. The 2013 study also includes a case of coal as a source 

of CO2 for EOR based on a reference coal IGCC plant with CO2 capture. Based on its 

assumptions, the 2013 study concluded that sources of CO2 derived from the scenario of coal as 

a source of CO2 for EOR result in about 31% lower net CO2 emissions per barrel of oil recovered 

compared to natural-source CO2-EOR. The paper further notes that if even 25% of the CO2

currently used for EOR came from the scenario of coal as a source of CO2 for EOR instead of 

natural CO2 sources, then approximately 5-6 million metric tons of CO2e would be avoided and 

sequestered per year. 

The EPA also notes that very important in the studies by Jaramillo and her colleagues, as well as 

other researchers that have investigated this topic, are the assumptions for CO2 utilization – the 

amount of CO2 needed to recover the incremental oil from CO2 -EOR – which then provides the 

basis for the amount of CO2 assumed to be stored in the reservoirs from the application of CO2-

EOR; the quantity against which offsetting CO2 emissions is compared. A study by NETL 

concluded that, by far, this was the most important parameter that can impact estimates of net 

emissions from CO2-EOR operations.11 Most studies use assumptions of CO2 utilization (and 

perhaps ultimately stored) as a result of CO2-EOR that are based on historical CO2-EOR 

operations. Most of these studies assume values for CO2 utilization on the order of 0.2 metric 

tons of CO2 per incremental barrel of oil recovered (Jaramillo assumed values ranging from 0.15 

to 0.22). Current EOR operations in the Permian Basin have typical utilization values of 0.4 

metric tons of CO2 per barrel of oil recovered.12 Alternative assumptions about CO2 utilization 

can result in significant increases in the volumes of CO2 stored per barrel of oil recovery, and 

result in significantly greater amounts of CO2 avoided and sequestered associated with CO2-

EOR.

CO2-EOR has been successfully used for decades at many production fields throughout the 

United States, and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The decision to initiate or 

expand an EOR project is based on the economic viability of the specific project, and driven by

 

9

Jaramillo, Paulina., W. Michael Griffin, and Sean T. McCoy, S., “Life Cycle Inventory of CO2 in an Enhanced Oil 

Recovery System,” Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 42, No. 21, 2009.

10 Hussain, Daniar, David A. Dzombak, Paulina Jaramillo, and Gregory V. Lowry, “Comparative lifecycle inventory 

(LCI) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods using different CO2 sources, 

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 16 , pp. 129–144, 2013.

11 U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, An Assessment of Gate-to-Gate 

Environmental Life Cycle Performance of Water-Alternating-Gas CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Permian 

Basin, Report No. DOE/NETL-2010/1433, September 30, 2010 (http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/CO2_EOR_LCA_093010.pdf).

12 National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, Analysis for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery: A Critical 

Domestic Energy, Economic, and Environmental Opportunity – Detailed Methodology and Assumptions (May 25, 

2012), page 6 (http://neori.org/NEORI%20Methodology%20Brief.pdf). 
6-79

broad market dynamics. In making a decision, EOR operators consider many cost components of 

the EOR project including engineering and design, new infrastructure development, electricity, 

and fuel costs in addition to the long term cost of purchasing CO2. These costs are balanced 

against the long-term demand for oil and the price EOR owners or operators can receive for the 

additional oil produced throughout the lifetime of the project. EOR operators will obtain CO2

from the most cost effective reliable source to make their projects viable. New sources of natural 

CO2 are available and awaiting the right market conditions for development. Likewise, many

new anthropogenic sources other than EGUs such as gas plants are available to support the oil 

industry’s expansion of EOR as market conditions allow. Thus, the industry is not dependent 

solely on the CO2 from new EGUs complying with this rule to generate additional oil from EOR. 

Even if one thinks of CO2-EOR’s oil as additive, the amount of oil produced through EOR with 

captured CO2 from new EGUs would vary by project but would likely have a negligible impact 

on the overall demand for oil, and CO2-EOR provides a net GHG emissions benefit compared to 

non-CO2-EOR oil production processes due to the amounts of CO2 stored with CO2-EOR.

The commenter is incorrect in asserting that EOR will encourage additional hydraulic fracturing. 

Hydraulic fracturing creates preferential high permeability pathways for the produced fluids to 

flow towards the producing well, and would encourage the channeling of injected CO2 though 

these fractures. EOR projects are designed to create a large uniform front of CO2 to contact the 

maximum volume of the reservoir and not flow through preferential pathways. Furthermore, the 

commenter has failed to recognize that hydraulic fracturing is regulated by state and federal 

agencies. 

Comment 6.3-123: Commenter 9780 suggested that EGUs should not be held liable for 

emissions that may occur during storage or EOR, as this would require EGUs to rely on thirdparties to ensure compliance with required operating permits. Commenter 10239 stated that just 

because a company can recover CO2 does not mean they have a contractual customer or partner 

willing to purchase the CO2. 

Response 6.3-123: The BSER for the standard is partial CCS, which includes transport of 

captured CO2 to an on-site or off-site repository reporting under GHGRP subpart RR. This is the 

affected source’s sole obligation regarding sequestration. However, the EPA is further 

reasonably relying on the protective requirements for injection wells under the Class VI and II 

UIC rules, complemented by the monitoring and reporting requirements of the GHGRP, to 

assure long-term and safe sequestration.

Comment 6.3-124: Commenter 9666 suggested that extensive time may be required to 

characterize the storage capability of depleted oil and gas reservoirs for EOR, although likely

less than the minimum 5 years cited for saline reservoirs.

Response 6.3-124: Because of the long lead times for planning, permitting and constructing a 

new power plant, the EPA believes the current state of characterization of potential oil and gas 

fields for CO2 EOR would not be a barrier to CCS with EOR. The EPA notes that DOE has 

conducted initial assessments of oil producing states and identified 220 million metric tons of 

storage capacity in oil and gas reservoirs. DOE has also conducted detailed CO2 EOR modeling 

of oil fields in nine regions of the United States to evaluate the application of “next generation” 
6-80

CO2-EOR technologies that would significantly increase the geographic extent and accessibility

of CO2-EOR operations. 

Comment 6.3-125: Commenter 9514 noted that although permanent sequestration of CO2 via 

EOR is essential for rule's objectives, EOR operations have not historically been designed for 

this purpose.

Response 6.3-125: The EPA reiterates that the BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis relies on GS in deep saline formations, not EOR. The EPA agrees that EOR operations 

have not historically been designed specifically for long term storage of CO2, but recognizes that 

CO2 storage associated with EOR is a common occurrence.

Comment 6.3-126: Commenter 10786 stated that the EPA fails to identify the technical and 

economic complexities of EOR, let alone analyze and discuss them. Commenter explained that 

the EPA incorrectly suggests, without reference or support, that the EOR industry is ready, 

willing and able to abide by the current CCS regulatory program, as further revised by the NSPS.

Response 6.3-126: The EPA is reasonably relying on the existing protective standards for 

injection wells under the Class VI and II UIC rules, complemented by the monitoring and 

reporting requirements of the GHGRP.

The “current regulatory CCS program” for EOR is identical, for the most part, to the status quo 

before promulgation of the NSPS: EOR operators receiving CO2 from any source must comply

with requirements for Class II injection wells. The requirement in this rule is reporting and 

monitoring pursuant to the subpart RR GHG reporting regulations. The EPA further notes that 

commenters to the Class VI rulemaking vociferously maintained that Class II operations are well 

understood, successful and have a long history of safe operation, so the commenter’s reference 

here to “technical complexity” is unclear. See e.g. Comments of Texas Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration Association (“gas storage is substantially similar to EOR and in those instances 

any regulations for Class VI should more closely resemble Class VI”); Comments of British 

Petroleum (safety of Class II requirements); Comments of U.S. Chamber of Commerce (same); 

Sandridge Energy (same).13,14,15,16

Comment 6.3-127: Commenter 10618 stated that EOR operators are in the business of timely

and cost-effectively producing hydrocarbons, not providing reliable, affordable electricity or 

playing an integral role in the definition of a best system of emission reductions for another 

industry. EOR processes operate outside the influence of electricity demand, power prices, or 

generation outages. EOR operators are part of a larger industry where competition and 

opportunities for development continue to expand, especially with the growth of hydraulic 

fracking and shale- gas extraction techniques. In other words, if the power industry is able to 

provide another supply of CO2 to support EOR operations that is cost- effective, then EOR 

operators may be willing use it.

 

13 See Docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0223.

14 See Docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0225.

15 See Docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0148.

16 See Docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0219.
6-81

Response 6.3-127: DOE-sponsored studies have shown that one barrier to expanded use of CO2

EOR is the availability of CO2.

17 The NSPS will increase the availability and geographic 

distribution of anthropogenic CO2 for use by the EOR industry, which will provide additional 

opportunities for development of EOR fields. The increased availability and lower cost from 

these efforts will provide further cost-effective supplies of CO2 to support EOR operations.

Comment 6.3-128: Commenter 9735 stated that in addition to technical feasibility, economic 

feasibility is required for BSER technologies. This has yet to be demonstrated for CCS. All four 

of the projects cited by EPA relied on substantial government support and the analysis failed to 

demonstrate any financial benefit for utility companies or how rates will remain affordable for 

customers. Commenter 10017 stated that the EPA”s CCS technology examples also skews 

affordability because every plant uses EOR, which provides a substantial revenue stream to 

offset the high capital costs and operating costs of CCS. U.S. EPA should not develop a standard 

based on the economics relevant to only a fraction of the country. Commenter 10087 suggested 

that plants wouldn't be economic unless they can sell the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

Response 6.3-128: The EPA reiterates that the BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, not on EOR. The EPA analyzed the 

cost of partial CCS as a BSER as compared to other fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel options that 

achieve emissions control, and determined that the cost structure, with and without EOR, is 

reasonable as defined by case law. The EPA notes that under CAA section 111, an emissions 

standard may meet the requirements of a “standard of performance” even if it cannot be met by

every new source in the source category that would have been constructed in the absence of that 

standard. 

Comment 6.3-129: Commenter 10618 stated that in some cases, EOR operators have been 

economically driven to minimize the quantity of CO2 left underground in favor of reusing the 

injected CO2 in other recovery operations.

Response 6.3-129: The EPA recognizes that in some cases the economics of a particular EOR 

project may minimize the amount of CO2 left underground. Research by DOE has shown that 

increasing the volume of CO2 used in EOR projects will increase the amount of contact between 

oil and CO2, and will result in higher oil production. The use of increased CO2 volumes is one of 

the advanced technologies DOE considers “next-generation EOR” that improve the performance 

of CO2 EOR floods and result in significant increase in oil production and CO2 storage.

18

Comment 6.3-130: Commenter 10034 stated that when promulgating rules for oil and gas 

extraction the EPA should evaluate the effect on EOR use and subsequent demand for captured 

 

17 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy-analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba-6b4b-4721-a7b4-

04a505a19185.

18 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy-analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba-6b4b-4721-a7b4-

04a505a19185.
6-82

CO2. Changes in demand for captured CO2 will affect whether the partial CCS technologies 

prescribed in this rule are actually economically viable for new coal-fired power plants, and 

whether any further implementation costs will be incurred. The commenter suggested that as the 

EPA promulgates new regulations related to the extraction of oil and natural gas using EOR, it 

should consider the cumulative effect on the incentives provided in this rulemaking. 

Commenter 9731 encourages the EPA to adopt a holistic approach to ensuring that CCS and the 

use of CO2 in EOR operations will be a viable option for controlling GHG emissions and must 

be mindful of the consequences of other significant regulations including the Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Class VI rule and Subpart RR of the GHG reporting rules.

Response 6.3-130: The commenter refers to rules governing oil and gas extraction which are 

outside the scope of this NSPS. The EPA notes that data from the Oil & Gas Journal Annual 

EOR survey has shown a steady increase in the number of CO2 EOR projects and the volume of 

oil produced by CO2 EOR over the last 20 years. Such expansion and increased oil production 

increase the demand for CO2. 

The EPA believes that the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI rule and Subpart RR 

of the GHG reporting rules offer an integrated and complementary set of regulations that ensure 

an appropriate level of verification and accounting of CO2 from EGUs. 

Comment 6.3-131: Commenter 7977 stated that if the regulated industry as a whole does not 

have EOR as a means of reducing costs, CCS cannot be deemed adequately demonstrated to 

achieve a standard that may apply to the industry as a whole. Therefore, the EPA eliminates new 

opportunities for coal-fired EGUs in states where EOR is not readily available.

Response 6.3-131: As explained in section V.N.6 of the preamble to the final rule, and in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the final NSPS, the EPA’s consideration of cost for 

purposes of determining whether the BSER is adequately demonstrated is based on geologic 

sequestration of captured CO2. We show there that those costs are reasonable for new coal-fired 

EGUs. This cost analysis is, however, quite conservative. EOR opportunities should exist for 

some new sources, which have the leeway to site near EOR wells (e.g. the Boundary Dam EGU 

in Saskatchewan, or the Kemper facility in Mississippi, both of which are located proximate to 

EOR sites, and Boundary Dam is presently supplying CO2 for EOR operations). In addition, the 

final standard is a performance standard which may be achievable without using capture and 

sequestration. 

Comment 6.3-132: Commenter 10786 explained that nowhere in the NSPS does the EPA

purport to describe the current commercial make-up of the EOR industry, which is relatively 

small, geographically focused in a handful of areas, and composed of a few companies. 

Commenter noted that the NSPS suggests falsely that there are many EOR companies dispersed 

throughout the United States who are poised to purchase and inject NSPS-compliant CO2. 

Commenter 8501 stated that the presumptions the EPA makes regarding enhanced oil recovery

(EOR) as an ancillary form of partial CCS are not supportable, as there is little discussion of the 

actual demand of CO2 for EOR operations or pipeline delivery capability of the CO2 to the oil 

fields. If the demand currently existed and it were economically feasible, market forces would 

dictate greater interest in developing carbon capture projects to meet this demand. It is not 
6-83

apparent this demand has ever materialized or will ever materialize. If, as EPA projects, no one 

is going to build a coal-fired plant with CCS for at least ten years, then the EOR market to 

capture and transport the CO2 will never develop.

Response 6.3-132: The EPA believes that the EOR industry is well established, geographically

diverse, and is well positioned to expand operations in response to the availability of new sources 

of CO2. DOE has identified 220 million metric tons of storage capacity in 29 states with oil and 

gas reservoirs. DOE has identified “next generation CO2 EOR” technologies that improve the 

performance of CO2 EOR floods that will further increase the EOR production by making CO2

EOR available in reservoirs previously believed to be unsuitable for CO2 EOR.19 “Next 

generation CO2 EOR” will further expand the geographic extent and accessibility of CO2-EOR 

operations in the U.S. DOE sponsored studies have shown that one barrier to expanded use of 

CO2 EOR is the limited availability of CO2. 

Comment 6.3-133: Commenter 10786 noted that the optimistic picture of the EOR industry as 

potential purchasers of NSPS-compliant CO2 in the NSPS conflicts with the comparable 

assessments of associated storage via CO2-EOR in GHG PSD and EIS proceedings.

Response 6.3-133: Previous assessments of proposed projects with respect to application of CO2

capture and transport were conducted on a site-specific basis and considered site-specific factors 

in the analyses. Analyses conducted by FERC and other agencies for the purposes of 

environmental impact assessments of proposed energy projects are conducted under a different 

set of criteria than the BSER and BACT analyses conducted under the CAA. A CAA New 

Source Performance Standard (NSPS) establishes a “BACT floor” that is to be considered in 

facility-specific BACT analyses conducted under the PSD program. 

The definition of BACT in the CAA specifies that “[i]n no event shall application of [BACT] 

result in emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act.” This has historically been 

interpreted to mean that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard of 

performance under the NSPS. See e.g. EPA, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for 

Greenhouse Gases, p. 20-21 (March 2011). Thus, upon completion of an NSPS, the EPA reads 

the CAA to mean that the NSPS establishes a “BACT Floor” for PSD permits issued to affected 

facilities covered by an NSPS. 

Comment 6.3-134: Commenter 10039 noted that EPA’s Technical Support Document "Effect of 

EPAct05 on BSER for New Fossil Fuel-Fired Boilers and IGCCs" indicates that the studies EPA 

uses to justify the technical feasibility of CO2 injection and storage have shown that 20% or more 

of CO2 used for EOR is not permanently sequestered but is re-emitted or "produced" with the oil 

recovered. Consequently the EPA cannot utilize this technology as a justification of the technical 

feasibility of CO2 injection and permanent sequestration.

 

19 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy-analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba-6b4b-4721-a7b4-

04a505a19185.
6-84

Response 6.3-134: The Technical Support Document referenced by the commenter provides 

background information on several EOR projects, but none of the studies cited in the TSD show 

that 20% or more of the CO2 used is emitted. Furthermore, CO2 that is produced and recycled is 

accounted for and reported as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requirements at 40 

CFR Part 98 subpart RR. 

Comment 6.3-135: Commenter 10039 stated that the studies that the EPA cites are not empirical 

evidence of the permanence of the sequestration process, but instead estimate the viability of the 

EOR to store injected CO2. The EPA’s analysis of the CO2 reduction potential of CCS does not 

account for the CO2 emissions that will occur. It is not reasonable for the EPA to claim that EOR 

is the likely method for permanent storage of CO2 but fails to acknowledge that CO2 from EOR 

does not actually permanently store all of the CO2 injected. It appears that data is extremely

limited on the exact extent to which EOR operations permanently sequester CO2 and use of this 

technology as justification of the Best System of Emission Reduction must preclude any reemission of CO2 or the reduction potential of the technology is overstated.

Response 6.3-135: The EPA has cited several studies that have demonstrated the safe and 

effective storage of CO2 in EOR operations. CO2 has been injected in the SACROC Unit in the 

Permian basin since 1972 for EOR purposes. A study evaluated a portion of this project, and 

estimated that the injection operations resulted in final sequestration of about 55 million tons of 

CO2.

20 In a separate study in the SACROC Unit, the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology

conducted an extensive groundwater sampling program to look for evidence of CO2 leakage in 

the shallow freshwater aquifers.21 No evidence of leakage was detected. The International 

Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme conducted an extensive monitoring program at the 

Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan between 2000 and 2010 (the site receiving CO2 captured by 

the Dakota Gasification synfuel plant). During that time, over 16 million metric tons of CO2

were safely sequestered as evidenced by soil gas surveys, shallow groundwater monitoring, 

seismic surveys and wellbore integrity testing. An extensive shallow groundwater monitoring 

program revealed no significant changes in water chemistry that could be attributed to CO2

storage operations.22 The International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme developed a 

best practices manual for CO2 monitoring at EOR sites based on the comprehensive analysis of 

surface and subsurface monitoring methods applied over the 10 years.23 Furthermore, DOE has 

conducted surface and subsurface monitoring at numerous sites to assess the permanence of 

injected CO2. The studies provide no evidence to suggest that the CO2 from EOR cannot be 

permanently sequestered. 

 

20 Han, Weon S., McPherson, B J., Lichtner, P C., and Wang, F P. “Evaluation of CO2 trapping mechanisms at the 

SACROC northern platform, Permian basin, Texas, site of 35 years of CO2 injection.” American Journal of Science 

310. (2010): 282-324.

21 Romanak, K.D., Smyth, R.C., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S., Detection of anthropogenic CO2 in dilute groundwater: 

field observations and geochemical modeling of the Dockum aquifer at the SACROC oilfield, West Texas, USA: 

presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Pittsburgh, PA, May 10-13, 2010. 

GCCC Digital Publication Series #10-06.

22 Roston, B., and S. Whittaker (2010), 10+ years of the IEA-GHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 monitoring and storage 

project; success and lessons learned from multiple hydrogeological investigations, to be published in Energy 

Procedia, Elsevier, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, IEA 

Greenhouse Gas Programme, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

23 Hitchon, B. (Editor), 2012, Best Practices for Validating CO2 Geological Storage: Geoscience Publishing, p. 353.
6-85

Comment 6.3-136: Commenter 10618 stated that EPA is naive in assuming that the EOR 

experience to date could readily accommodate the requirement to install CCS technologies on 

fossil-fuel based generating units. Commenter referenced excerpts from the July 2010 PNNL19557 report entitled "CO2 -driven Enhanced Oil Recovery as a Stepping Stone to What?" by

Dooley, et.al. of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which detailed the reasons that CO2

-EOR and CCS is not a viable option. Commenter 10618 stated the viability of opportunities for 

use of CO2 -EOR faces many challenges, including those associated with the validation and 

accounting for CO2 storage permanence. Current and past EOR practices have not been required 

to demonstrate permanent CO2 storage.

Response 6.3-136: Experience from over 40 years of CO2 EOR provides an extensive history

that demonstrates the availability of technologies required for geologic sequestration of CO2

captured from fossil fuel based generating units. The commenter refers to the analysis conducted 

by Dooley et al., but incorrectly summarizes the conclusion of the paper which is that CO2 EOR 

offers an opportunity to jumpstart climate change mitigation motivated CCS deployment, but is 

unlikely to be a major or mandatory step to large-scale CCS deployment. The determination that 

the BSER is adequately demonstrated and the regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on 

GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes the potential for sequestering 

CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option (provided the EOR site 

complies with the subpart RR reporting and monitoring rules). The BSER determination and 

regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, not on EOR. 

Comment 6.3-137: Commenters 5532 and 1612 expressed objection to the inclusion of 

enhanced oil-recovery (EOR) in the types of carbon capture and storage (CCS) that the proposed 

standard promotes, even if it stimulates technology development. Commenters 5532 and 1612 do 

not dispute the science of carbon capture and storage, but are dubious of many of its proponents’ 

claims with respect to the permanence and efficacy of such storage. Commenters 5532 and 1612 

support carbon capture in cement or calcium carbonate, but not for additional petroleum 

extraction. 

Response 6.3-137: The EPA is reasonably relying on the already-adopted, and very rigorous, 

Class VI well requirements in combination with the subpart RR requirements to provide secure 

sequestration of captured CO2. The commenters’ support for CO2 storage technologies other than 

geologic sequestration is noted, however from a practical perspective these technologies are not 

sufficiently advanced that the EPA is prepared to unqualifiedly structure this final rule to allow 

for their use, nor are there plenary systems of regulatory control and GHG reporting for these 

approaches, as there are for geologic sequestration. Nonetheless, as stated above, these 

technologies not only show promise, but could potentially be demonstrated to show permanent 

storage of CO2. The EPA is establishing a mechanism in this final rule to provide for a case-bycase adjudication by the EPA of applications seeking to demonstrate to the EPA that a nongeologic sequestration technology would result in permanent confinement of captured CO2 from 

an affected EGU.

Comment 6.3-138: Commenter 10137 recommended that the EPA adopt a NSPS that includes 

provision for using CCS, and that the Agency modify its proposal to allow EGU operators to 

direct captured CO2 streams to EOR operators who comply with subpart W and subpart UU 

reporting. Commenter noted that this has been successfully implemented by the agency and the 
6-86

reporting community for several years, and imposes no new mandatory requirement on the EOR 

operator. Commenter 10137 stated that emissions reported under subpart W can be subtracted 

proportionately from total CO2 received from the EGU source, which must report the total CO2

sent under subpart PP. Taking this approach would allow for EOR operators to incorporate 

supplies of anthropogenic CO2 into the supply portfolio if, as, and when such anthropogenic CO2

may become available. However, Commenter noted that the Commenter is not suggesting that 

using subpart W and UU reporting could make the proposed rule workable, because there are 

many additional areas that need to be addressed, and the proposal as a whole is a barrier to CCS 

development.

Response 6.3-138: Under subpart UU of the GHGRP, all EOR operators who inject CO2 are 

required to report only basic information including the amount of CO2 received. Under subpart 

W of the GHGRP, onshore oil and gas producers who meet certain criteria are required to report 

CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions for specified sources at basin-level facilities. While these reporting 

requirements help provide an understanding of CO2 received for injection and petroleum and 

natural gas system GHG emissions, neither provide verification of geologic sequestration of 

CO2. The reporting and monitoring required under subpart RR of the GHGRP is necessary and 

helps to provide a nationally uniform and practical methodology to provide assurance of longterm storage. 

Comment 6.3-139: Commenter 10043 noted that the oil industry captures relatively small 

amounts of CO2 to help move oil and gas more effectively, that fact says little if anything about 

the viability and adequate demonstration of CCS on the scale and in the locations that would be 

required for large coal-fired generating units. In addition, the commenter states that the EOR 

industry does not have the requisite experience with and technical knowledge of long-term CO2

sequestration. The EOR industry stores CO2 gas for short periods of time, and then transports it 

by pipeline for use at the next oil and gas recovery site, but the Proposed Rule would require 

permanent sequestration of CO2 in massive quantities.

Response 6.3-139: The oil industry has successfully employed CO2 EOR for more than 40 years 

and currently uses more than 72 million metric tons per year of CO2 for EOR. DOE has 

determined that using today’s technology, expanded EOR would demand and store 

approximately 9 billion metric tons of CO2.

24 This number increases significantly if advanced 

EOR technologies are employed. While some of the CO2 injected may be available for removal, 

a large portion may be dissolved in formation fluids or immobile because it is residually trapped 

in small pores. The dissolved and immobile CO2 is permanently sequestered. 

Comment 6.3-140: Commenter 9657 noted that the EPA assumes CCS will be viable based on 

EOR revenue, and assumes that costs for EOR are uniform throughout the U.S. Commenters 

9657, and 9734 and 10105 noted CCS can only be viable for plants near areas geologically 

suitable for EOR, which are located within sufficient proximity to pipelines that could transport 

the captured CO2 to EOR operations. Commenter 9734 explained that the EPA rationalizes that 

 

24 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy-analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba-6b4b-4721-a7b4-

04a505a19185.
6-87

locations where EOR is not economical are limited due to other legal or practical limits on 

building coal-fired power plants, such as high reserve margins and large renewable energy

targets. This assumption is not correct. There are numerous areas throughout the country where 

constructing new coal-fired power plants would be economical, but for the need to comply with 

EPA rules. In these areas, technical and regulatory uncertainty regarding underground 

sequestration makes CCS infeasible.

Response 6.3-140: The commenter is mistaken that the EPA assumes CCS will be viable based 

on EOR revenue. As explained in section V.N.6 of the preamble to the final rule, and in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the final NSPS, the EPA’s consideration of cost for 

purposes of determining whether the BSER is adequately demonstrated is based on geologic 

sequestration of captured CO2 in deep saline formations, not EOR. The Regulatory Impact 

Analysis does not assume that EOR costs are uniform throughout the US. The EPA included an 

analysis with a “low EOR” case and a “high EOR” case. New EGUs could be located near EOR 

or deep saline formation sites or transport CO2 to the sites via CO2 pipelines. Alternatively new 

EGUs could be located closer to sequestration sites and provide electric power to customers 

through transmission lines. The demonstration of carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage at 

multiple sites has been presented in the preamble. 

Comment 6.3-141: Commenter 9513 noted that while permanent sequestration may be feasible 

in formations used for EOR, the performance of the oil and gas sector in fracking activities over 

the past few years and the BP Macondo oil well blowout do not provide a basis for a high degree 

of confidence that what may be feasible will actually occur in practice.

Response 6.3-141: As noted in preamble section V.N, the already-adopted, and very rigorous, 

Class VI well requirements in combination with the subpart RR requirements provide secure 

sequestration of captured CO2. 

Comment 6.3-142: Commenter 9772 explained that economists at the University of Wyoming 

employed a method for predicting oil flows for a given reservoir and determined not all fields are 

suitable for EOR. Lithology, area, thickness, porosity and permeability can all affect a 

reservoir’s viability. Higher oil prices and lower CO2 prices can also determine whether or not a 

reservoir will be economically viable for EOR, along with geologic, infrastructure and economic 

factors. Instead of relying on revenue to offset the costs of CO2 capture, EGUs will be required 

to add significant costs for transport and non-EOR permanent storage. Costs could range from $1 

to $10 per ton for transport and $.5 to $10 per ton for permanent storage.

Response 6.3-142: The EPA considers the costs of partial CCS at a level to meet the final 

standard of performance to be reasonable even without considering opportunities to further 

reduce implementation and compliance costs. We did not in the proposal – and we do not here in 

this final action – rely on any cost reduction opportunities to justify the costs of meeting the 

standard as reasonable, but again note the conservative assumptions embodied in our assessment 

of compliance costs.

Comment 6.3-143: Commenter 9472 provided a comment letter from the related rule "Draft 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Guidance on Transitioning Class II Wells to 

Class VI Wells, EPA-816-P-13-004 (Draft Guidance)" and noted that, in light of the CAA 
6-88

stationary source regulatory programs in which CCS is playing a role, if the Draft Guidance does 

not meet the needs of the CO2-EOR industry, it also fails to meet the needs of the electricity

generators that may be required to rely on EOR operators to comply with their CAA obligations. 

Commenter 9472 encourages the EPA to work with the CO2-EOR industry to create a certain 

regulatory framework that ensures its ability to enter into long-term CO2 offtake contracts with 

CAA-regulated EGUs that preserves existing CO2-EOR commercial operations and will provide 

the EPA with the human health and environmental protections that it is seeking. 

Response 6.3-143: See preamble section V.N.6 and the Section 6.3 topic titled Geologic 

Sequestration for a response to this comment. Injection of anthropogenic CO2 into Class II wells 

does not force transition of these wells to Class VI wells – not during the well’s active operation 

and not when EOR operations cease. We recognize the widespread use of EOR and the 

expectation that injected CO2 can remain underground and not endanger USDWs. 

Comment 6.3-144: Commenter 9195 stated that under the law, the advice of scientific experts is 

a pre-requisite, not an afterthought. Specifically, the Environmental Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA) establishes the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) as an independent body charged with providing advice to Congress and the EPA. 

Commenter questions the EPA, How, when, and in what manner has the Agency considered the 

advice of the SAB?

Commenter 9195 further stated familiarity with the communications between the Science 

Advisory Board and the Administrator as well as the meetings held in December 2013 and 

January 2014 addressing CCS. Commenter also stated that the EPA staff who spoke on your 

behalf at the December 4-5, 2013 meeting said that looking at sequestration was outside their 

statutory obligation since other EPA programs would handle the storage or sequestration of the 

C02. Commenter asks following questions to the EPA:

d. How can the Agency both rely on the benefits of EOR sales for making a CCS system less 

expensive, and incorporate new storage requirements in the rule (Subpart RR) while 

simultaneously denying that CCS includes the storage half of the system?

Commenter 9195 asks following questions to the EPA:

a. Would you agree that the ability to do either EOR or geologic sequestration are very site 

specific, and many states and regions will simply not have EOR or sequestration options? b. Do 

you think this rule will put specific states and regions at a competitive disadvantage in terms of 

compliance? 

Commenter 10786 asserted that NSPS is inconsistent with State laws and regulations governing 

EOR generally, Class II primacy, and associated long-term storage via CO2 -EOR. The 

commenter further stated that NSPS purports to preempt these State enactments without reliance 

on or citation to any Federal law or regulation that authorizes such preemption.

Response 6.3-144: When the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and its workgroups raise 

questions, the EPA takes them seriously. We use the SAB’s routine, transparent, and wellestablished processes to better understand the nature of the questions and how we can address 
6-89

them. An SAB workgroup asked for information on the potential adverse impacts of carbon 

capture and sequestration (CCS) in November 2013 and how that issue is addressed in the 

proposed Carbon Pollution Standards. The SAB workgroup also asked about the adequacy of 

peer review of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL) studies, which the EPA relied on to develop cost estimates for carbon capture 

technology in the proposed rule. The SAB’s transparent, deliberative process provided an 

opportunity for us to engage in a dialogue to better understand the workgroup’s concerns and to 

provide a clearer explanation of the scope of the proposed rule. The EPA clarified that we are not 

proposing to set any new requirements related to sequestration in this rule and thus, this rule does 

not include any new analysis related to such requirements. The EPA also provided some 

additional information on the basis of the DOE NETL cost studies that the EPA used in 

developing the proposed rule and the peer review process followed by DOE NETL for that study. 

The DOE’s robust process included outside input from knowledgeable stakeholders including 

industry, academia and government experts in the design of the study and a peer review of the 

final report by a wide range of similar experts. While the EPA did not conduct additional peer 

review of these studies, the different levels of multi-stakeholder technical input and final review 

meet the requirements to support the analyses as defined by the EPA Peer Review Handbook. 

After consideration of the clarifying information and thorough discussion about the issues during 

several meetings of the SAB that were open to the public, the workgroup recommended to the 

full SAB that additional review of the science of sequestration was not necessary in the proposed 

Carbon Pollution Standard. The full SAB agreed with the workgroup’s assessment that the EPA 

relied on existing requirements for sequestration in the Carbon Pollution Standards and that peer 

review of the DOE cost studies was sufficient. In a memo dated January 29, 2014, the SAB 

informed the EPA that it will not undertake further review of the science supporting this action. 

See also response 2.4.2 below dealing with comments regarding the Data Quality Act.

The EPA is reasonably relying on the already-adopted, and very rigorous, Class VI well 

requirements in combination with the subpart RR requirements to provide secure sequestration of 

captured CO2. In developing the Class VI rules, the EPA engaged with the SAB, providing 

detailed information on key issues relating to geologic sequestration—including monitoring 

schemes; methods to predict and verify capacity, injectivity, and effectiveness of subsurface CO2

storage; and characterization and management of risks associated with plume migration and 

pressure increases in the subsurface. See: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/AD09B42B75D9E36D85257704004882CF?Open

Document. In addition, the EPA developed a peer reviewed Vulnerability Evaluation 

Framework, which served as a technical support document for both the Class VI and Subpart RR 

rules. See: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/VEFTechnical_Document_072408.pdf.

Certain regions of the U.S. have more favorable geology for EOR or saline storage of CO2, 

however the EPA notes that DOE and USGS resource assessments have identified 39 states that 

have either saline storage or EOR storage opportunities. Many of the states that do not have 

storage access are unlikely to see new coal fired power plants because there is no need for the 

additional power, or there are other preferred power options that can meet the performance 

standard. The EPA believes that the rule offers a wide range of options that allow states 

considerable flexibility to comply with the rule without creating an economic disadvantage.
6-90

UIC Class II wells are typically, but not exclusively regulated by the states. Nothing in the NSPS 

rule preempts the states’ Underground Injection Control Program primacy in issuing Class II 

permits. Specifically, reporting under subpart RR does not preempt the Class II permit issued by 

the states. See preamble section V.N.5.a.

Comment 6.3-145: Commenter 10029 stated that the proposal reflects the EPA’s assessment 

that it is unlikely any CO2 reuse technology would, in the foreseeable future, be able to 

accommodate all of the CO2 captured by an affected EGU. Commenter further stated that 

whether or not this assessment is correct, it is relevant only to identifying the BSER that is 

available for the purpose of establishing a corresponding performance standard. Commenter 

further stated that once the EPA establishes a performance standard (i.e., an emission limit), it is 

the responsibility of the affected EGU to determine how to achieve it. Commenter also stated 

that nothing in Section 111 of the CAA prohibits an affected EGU from using more than one 

technology to achieve a standard, and an affected EGU should be permitted to incorporate a 

beneficial reuse technology as part of a system designed to meet the CO2 emission limit. 

Commenter stated an example, an affected EGU should be permitted to sell some portion 

captured CO2 for reuse in the creation of an advanced biofuel, while transporting the balance of 

captured CO2 in a pipeline to an oil field for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or disposal 

through geologic sequestration. Commenter stated that the proposal impermissibly forecloses 

this and all other options that are otherwise available to affected EGUs.

Commenter 10029 stated that under the EPA’s proposal, no technology could be used to achieve 

CO2 reductions until it has been individually authorized by the EPA through a rulemaking. 

Commenter further stated that this would have a disastrously chilling effect on the development 

of CO2 reuse technology and set a dangerous precedent for government interference into and 

control over private commercial decisions, not only regarding CO2 controls on affected EGUs, 

but for all air pollutants and all source categories subject to regulation under Section 111. 

Commenter requested that the proposal be revised to comply with the CAA and allow reuse 

technologies to be used by affected EGUs, alone or in combination with other technologies to 

achieve the proposed CO2 emission limit.

Response 6.3-145: The commenter is correct that a BSER determination does not mandate that 

compliance utilize that technology, or indeed, utilize any specific technology. A source must 

achieve the numerical level of the standard of performance. Nor does anything in section 111 of 

the CAA prohibit an affected EGU from using more than one technology to achieve a standard. 

For example, some facilities may choose to use both saline and EOR options, as SaskPower did 

with the Boundary Dam EGU. To address the issue of using multiple technologies to meet the 

standard, the EPA is establishing a mechanism for alternative sequestration technology in this 

final rule. The rule provides for a case-by-case adjudication by the EPA of applications seeking 

to demonstrate to the EPA that a non-geologic sequestration technology would result in 

permanent confinement of captured CO2 from an affected EGU. The EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that the rule will have a “disastrously chilling effect on the development of CO2

reuse”. The availability of new supplies of anthropogenic CO2 in geographically diverse areas 

will enhance the opportunity for EOR and other reuses. 

Comment 6.3-146: Commenters (10662 and 10952) stated that the EPA’s proposal does not 

demonstrate compliance with Section 321 of the CAA, which gives the agency an affirmative 
6-91

duty to perform continuing evaluation of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result 

from the administration or enforcement of the CAA or its regulatory framework. Commenters 

10662 and 10952 stated that the proposed standards will give some states a competitive 

advantage over other states in attracting industry, as the geological features necessary for EOR 

and sequestration are not evenly distributed throughout the country. Commenter also stated that 

the proposed regulation will have significantly disparate geographic impacts. Commenter 10662 

stated that the EPA must also consider increased fuel transportation costs and increased 

electricity transmission costs incurred by locating EGU facilities close to geological formations 

favorable to CCS.

Response 6.3-146: While current locations of EOR are not evenly distributed throughout the 

country, much of the U.S. has access to either existing EOR sites or oil and gas production that is 

amenable to EOR. Analysis of recent DOE storage resource assessments indicate that there are 

39 states for which onshore and offshore deep saline formation storage capacity has been 

identified. EOR operations are currently being conducted in 12 states. An additional 17 states 

have geology that is amenable to EOR operations. There are 10 states with operating CO2

pipelines and 23 states that are within 150 miles of an active EOR location. A few states do not 

have geologic conditions suitable for GS, or may not be located in proximity to these areas. 

However, in some cases, demand in those states can be served by coal-fired power plants located 

in areas suitable for GS, and in other cases, coal-fired power plants are unlikely to be built in 

those areas for other reasons, such as the lack of available coal or state law restrictions. 

Therefore the EPA does not anticipate that proximity to existing EOR operations will represent a 

competitive advantage in attracting new industry. The EPA has conducted the cost analysis in 

accordance with applicable regulations and case law and determined that the cost structure is 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s criteria for determining that costs are reasonable.

Comment 6.3-147: Commenter 10664 stated that the proposal is inconsistent with waste 

management options that the EPA endorses for other air, water and waste regulations by favoring 

disposal of CO2 rather than recycling or reuse. The commenter recommended that the EPA

embrace beneficial reuse as a first resort and choose disposal, or permanent storage, as a last 

resort. 

Commenter 9472 stated that existing power plants face a number of site- and plant-specific 

limitations to participating in a CCS demonstration project, including available surface space on 

site to construct and integrate a carbon capture unit, proximity to existing pipeline infrastructure 

to sell CO2 into an EOR facility, suitable local storage geology if EOR is not available or cost 

effective, the extent of conventional air pollution control and the remaining useful life of the 

plant. 

Commenter 10786 stated that EOR operators are unlikely to purchase or inject CO2 from CCS, 

unlikely to assume infinite climate stewardship responsibilities as it is inconsistent with law and 

business practices. The commenter asserted that operators may demand to be compensated rather 

than paying for the CO2, and that no operator will agree to a complete restructuring of its 

business for what the commenter estimates as a 5 percent increase in CO2 supply. Commenter 

9426 stated that no effort has been made to investigate whether the price of captured CO2 in an 

EOR application would overcome the increased costs associated with transporting the CO2 long 

distances. 
6-92

Response 6.3-147: Today’s rule is not inconsistent with other EPA actions related to waste. 

Although the determination that the BSER is adequately demonstrated and the regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, the EPA also recognizes the 

potential for securely sequestering CO2 via EOR. The EPA recognizes that types of CO2 storage 

technologies other than geologic sequestration are under development (e.g. precipitated calcium 

carbonate) and some are currently in commercial scale operation. The final rule also does not 

foreclose reuse or other recycling options (other than EOR, itself a form of recycling), but rather 

provides for a case-by-case adjudication by the EPA of applications seeking to demonstrate 

storage methodologies of efficacy equal to (or surpassing) geologic sequestration.

The EPA also does not accept the comment that subpart RR reporting will dissuade EOR 

operators from accepting CO2 from an affected source. The cost of compliance with subpart RR 

is not significant enough to offset the potential revenue for the EOR operator from the sale of 

produced oil for CCS projects that are reliant on EOR. First, the costs associated with subpart RR 

are relatively modest, especially in comparison with revenues from an EOR field. In the 

economic impact analysis for subpart RR, the EPA estimated that an EOR project with a Class II 

permit would incur a first year cost of up to $147,030 to develop an MRV plan, and an annual 

cost of $27,787 to maintain the plan; the EPA estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping 

costs at $13,262 per year.25 Monitoring costs are estimated to range from $0.02 per metric ton 

(base case scenario) to approximately $2 per metric ton of CO2 (high scenario). Using a range of 

scenarios (that included high end estimates), these subpart RR costs are approximately three to 

four percent of estimated revenues for an average EOR field, indicating that the costs can readily 

be absorbed. 75 FR 75073.

Furthermore, there is a demand for new CO2 by EOR operators, even beyond current natural 

sources of CO2. For example, in an April 2014 study, DOE concluded that future development of 

EOR will need to rely on captured CO2.

26 Thus, the argument that EOR operators will obtain 

CO2 from other sources without triggering subpart RR responsibilities, which assumes adequate 

supplies of CO2 from other sources, lacks foundation. 

In addition, the Internal Revenue Code section 45Q provides a tax credit for CO2 sequestration 

which is far greater than subpart RR costs.27 Section 45Q(a)(1) allows a credit of $20 per metric 

ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer at a qualified facility, disposed of by the 

taxpayer in secure geological storage, and not used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant. Section 

45Q(a)(2) allows a credit of $10 per metric ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer 

at a qualified facility, used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or 

natural gas recovery project, and disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage. The 

section 45Q credit for calendar year 2015 is $21.85 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under § 

45Q(a)(1) and $10.92 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under section 45Q(a)(2).

In sum, the cost of complying with subpart RR requirements, including the cost of MRV, is not 

significant enough to deter EOR operators from purchasing EGU captured CO2 .

 

25 Subpart RR costs are presented in 2008 US dollars.

26 “Near Term Projections of CO2 Utilization for Enhanced Oil Recovery”. DOE/NETL-2014/1648. April 2014. 

27 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-44_IRB/ar11.html and http://www.irs.gov/irb/2015-26_IRB/ar14.html.
6-93

Comment 6.3-148: Commenters 9201, 9472, 9426, 9683, 9666, 9678, 10098 and 10239 asserted 

that willing operators reporting under Subpart RR could be construed as intent to conduct 

geologic storage, creating a risk that a well operator could become subject to more onerous 

permitting requirements under Class VI of the UIC program. 

Response 6.3-148: An EOR project reporting under Subpart RR may be permitted as UIC Class 

II. Reporting under Subpart RR does not cause an EOR project to be permitted as UIC Class VI.

Comment 6.3-149: Commenter 8032 stated that the issue of what to do with the captured CO2 is 

far from resolved.

Commenter 6962 stated that is it not necessary to capture and permanently store CO2 emissions 

and that is it necessary to capture, fix and manage CO2 emissions. The commenter further states 

that an Air Emission Recycling (AER) system utilizing the Calvin Cycle can accomplish this 

goal. 

Response 6.3-149: See sections V.M and N of the final rule preamble.

Comment 6.3-150: Commenter 4711 stated that compressed air energy storage (CAES) can 

represent a cost-effective grid-level storage technology that is able to be used in many parts of 

the US.

Response 6.3-150: The final rule establishes a case-by-case mechanism whereby the EPA can 

approve alternative storage methods for CO2 that an applicant demonstrates are as effective as 

geologic sequestration.

6.3.5 CO2 Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory Issues

Geologic Sequestration Property Rights

Comment 6.3-151: Commenter 10023 stated that CO2 storage raises numerous permitting and 

regulatory issues, including property rights for subsurface storage. Commenters 9407 and 10952 

stated that the proposal and supporting information in the rulemaking docket lacks information 

that the EPA has considered key legal issues that need resolution, such as property rights. 

Commenter 10952 references the administration's task force report on CCS projects as 

previously identified concerns that should be addressed.

Commenters 9425, 9426, and 9666 stated the legal mechanisms for securing property rights for 

subsurface storage of supercritical CO2 may be unclear or ineffective in many states, leading to 

unforeseen costs and delays. Commenter 9666 stated that subsurface property rights include 

subsurface mineral rights as well as pore space ownership, and although some states have 

enacted laws to clarify pore space ownership, most have not, and without such clarification CCS 

cannot be undertaken. 

Commenter 9683 stated that the proposed rule gives virtually no consideration to property rights 

barriers attendant to CCS and describes the need to obtain subsurface rights as the most complex 

property rights issue facing geologic storage. Similarly, Commenters 9423, 9597, and 10239 
6-94

asserted that CCS is challenged by legal issues such as pore space ownership. Commenters 9423 

and 10239 stated that there are unanswered questions regarding ownership of underground pore 

space. Commenters 10036 and 10618 described various questions related to pore space 

ownership and use as key regulatory and legal barriers that pose very significant barriers to the 

feasibility and adequate demonstration of CCS. 

Commenters 6948 and 9666 stated that in most states the property rights needed for subsurface 

storage of CO2 are not clearly defined and no streamlined procedure for acquiring pore space has 

been developed. Specifically, Commenters 6948 and 9666 stated that 5 states have addressed 

what property rights must be secured for geologic storage of CO2, and only 7 have developed 

any streamlined procedures for acquiring pore space. 

Response 6.3-151: The EPA notes that issues of individual property rights will involve sitespecific resolution if and when they arise in particular proceedings. These issues have not proved 

impediments to the Class VI projects pursuing GS, as illustrated by the cases of Archer Daniels 

Midland and FutureGen. The EPA cost estimates for this rule include costs for acquiring both 

surface land and sub-surface property rights (“pore acquisition”).

Comment 6.3-152: Commenter 9666 stated that many geological formations suitable for CCS 

cross political jurisdictions and may involve multiple cities, counties, and states, each with their 

own requirements. Similarly, Commenter 9425 and 10239 cited concerns over potential 

differences in laws in multiple jurisdictions.

Commenter 10243 recommended that because geologic formations for storage extend beyond 

state lines, a uniform national policy should be adopted, as opposed to a state by state patchwork 

of rules, to help projects move forward once CCS is technologically and economically feasible.

Response 6.3-152: This comment is beyond the scope of this proceeding, but the EPA again 

notes that resolution of cross-boundary issues is not a necessary pre-condition to issuance of 

Class VI permits. The EPA notes that 40 CFR 146.82(b) of the UIC Class VI regulations 

specifies that the UIC Director shall notify any States, Tribes, or Territories within the area of 

review of a Class VI project based on information provided in the permit application and per 

state UIC requirements. These issues have not proved impediments to the Class VI projects 

pursuing GS, as evidenced by the cases of Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen. Furthermore, 

EOR with anthropogenic CO2 likewise has been conducted successfully for decades without such 

issues proving an insurmountable obstacle. In addition, of course, there are compliance 

alternatives to the promulgated standards that do not involve sequestration, so that the standard 

can be satisfied in any case in all areas.

Comment 6.3-153: Commenter 9666 stated that CO2 repositories must be extensive and due to 

their size could infringe on existing mineral, water, and private property rights (both surface and 

subsurface). Similarly, Commenter 9423 raised concern for the private property rights of owners 

of the surface lands above the injected CO2 plume. 

Commenter 9666 asserted that not all states clearly specify surface vs. subsurface property 

rights, which will lead to conflicts of interest and potential litigation. The commenter noted that 

it is not uncommon outside the eastern U.S. for subsurface and surface rights to be separated. 

The commenter stated there is precedent regarding surface vs. subsurface ownership rights for 
6-95

wastewater injection where operators of wastewater wells have been held accountable for 

“trespass” of injected wastes into subsurface properties owned by others, for which rights had 

not been acquired.

Commenter 9666 stated that regional land use controls could be used to ban large-scale CCS 

projects near valuable natural resources, presenting obstacles to implementing projects in 

otherwise viable locations.

Response 6.3-153: The EPA notes that issues of individual property rights will involve sitespecific resolution if and when they arise in particular proceedings. These issues have not proved 

impediments to the Class VI projects pursuing GS, as evidenced by the cases of Archer Daniels 

Midland and FutureGen.

Comment 6.3-154: Commenter 9683 noted that scale-up presents complex issues for the storage 

of CO2. For example, storage of tens of millions of tons of CO2 in a saline or other non-EOR 

formation requires aggregation of property rights across a broad area potentially encompassing 

not only areas to which the CO2 may migrate, but areas into which brines and other materials 

displaced by CO2 injections may reach.

Commenter 9666 stated a critical complication is that subsurface lands with the desired pore 

space can be privately owned, and CO2 injection can impact owners in multiple states. 

Commenter 9666 stated that compulsory unitization laws and eminent domain laws have been 

used to secure access to oil and gas fields from multiple owners, but these laws may be 

inadequate for CO2 injection. According to the commenter, the key to success is the ability to 

predict whether injected CO2 will remain in the subsurface property or migrate laterally to other 

properties and further research is needed to improve the ability to predict and monitor the 

movement of CO2 plumes from injection sites beyond present capabilities.

Response 6.3-154: This comment is beyond the scope of this proceeding, but the EPA again 

notes that these issues have not proved impediments to the Class VI projects pursuing GS, as 

evidenced by the cases of Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen.

The EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that the ability to predict whether injected CO2

will remain in the subsurface is key to the success of CCS. The EPA Class VI regulations require

that, prior to receiving a permit, a Class VI permit applicant develop and submit to the UIC 

Program computational models that predict the plume movement based on results of the 

thorough site characterization process. The Class VI rule also requires regular monitoring of the 

plume and pressure front during the injection period to determine if the behavior is consistent 

with model predictions. If the modeled results do not accurately reflect the actual conditions 

based on operational and monitoring information, the model must be revised. The EPA believes 

that the modeling and monitoring tools currently available provide the necessary level of 

information to ensure the safe and secure long-term storage of CO2. 

Comment 6.3-155: Commenter 10098 and 10239 stated that if sequestration were permitted on 

federal land, it is not clear whether the federal government would charge companies rent for 

storage. According to the commenter, the proposed rule does not attempt to deal with this issue, 

and, even if it did, the EPA’s options are limited. The commenter stated that this issue is one of 

federal land use law, which is outside of the EPA's purview and it is not expected that the 
6-96

concern would be resolved within any reasonable timeframe. Commenter 10239 concluded that 

while these and other critical issues are largely outside of the EPA's jurisdiction and control, it is 

nevertheless arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to simply ignore them when assessing whether 

geologic storage is currently available.

Response 6.3-155: Determining rental rates for use of federal lands is outside of the EPA’s 

authority and beyond the scope of this rule. The EPA has included land and other property 

acquisition costs in its cost estimates for the rule. The EPA notes further that Class VI permits 

have been issued by the EPA, again indicating that land use issues have proved surmountable in

practice.

CO2 Transport Legal and Regulatory Issues

Comment 6.3-156: Commenters 8022, 9382, 9426, 9666, 9780, 10239, and 10098 noted that 

CO2 pipeline siting is subject to the laws of individual states, and that involvement of multiple 

jurisdictions could prevent or delay securing the necessary permits for pipelines to transport 

supercritical CO2. Commenter 10660 stated that siting of CO2 pipelines raises interagency

jurisdictional issues at the regulatory level. Commenter 6984 cited a study that noted that the 

federal Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

safety rules are applicable to CO2 pipelines but that states maintain much of the regulatory 

control over CO2 pipelines. Commenters 9381 and 9780 noted that it is not clear whether 

legislation would be needed to allow FERC, in lieu of the Surface Transportation Board, 

jurisdiction to assure reasonable rates and open access to CO2 pipelines. Commenter 9665 also 

noted the possibility that such legislation would be needed. 

Commenter 9665 stated that there are significant concerns regarding the availability and 

achievability of the sequestration component of the partial CCS standard because it is unclear 

whether the current regulatory structure for CO2 pipelines is adequate in the event that CCS is 

required for all new Subpart Da units, much less natural gas-fired combustion turbines. Statutory

changes could be needed to transfer economic regulation of CO2 pipelines to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) in lieu of the Surface Transportation Board to assure reasonable 

rates and open access. Without such assurance, the EPA would be unable to adequately consider 

the cost of a requirement for partial CCS as required under Clean Air Act Section 111(a). 

Response 6.3-156: This comment seems misplaced. As described in detail in the preamble to the 

final standard, there is a comprehensive and effective regulatory program for CO2 pipelines 

administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. Over 5,000 miles of 

dedicated CO2 pipelines exist under this system, and that capacity is expanding due to increased 

demand. This system is already fully functioning and the commenter asserts but does not explain 

why a transfer of economic regulatory authority to another agency is necessitated (or desirable). 

The system functions well now, and is expanding. The suggestion that capacity will be dwarfed 

by new coal CO2 capture is not well taken, given that so little new capacity is likely to be added 

to the system. Indeed, the robust growth in CO2 pipeline demand is due to the need for CO2 from 

other-than coal sources. See section V.I.5 of the final rule preamble of the NSPS.
6-97

Issues of pipeline siting can be accommodated in the planning and permitting process. New 

sources, in particular, have a good deal of siting flexibility, since they are unconstrained by

existing conditions.

Safety of CO2 pipeline operations falls under the jurisdiction of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration. States also retain significant control over the regulation of intrastate CO2

pipeline operations. The EPA notes that issues associated with the governance and management 

of CO2 pipeline infrastructure are beyond the scope of the final rule. Additionally, there is no 

evidence that current Federal and state laws governing access to and rate regulation of CO2

pipelines has had a significant adverse effect on the development and expansion of CO2

pipelines: in the past several years hundreds of miles of pipelines that carry anthropogenic or 

natural-occurring CO2 have been permitted and constructed under existing state and federal 

regulations.

Comment 6.3-157: Commenters 9381, 9426, 9666, 9780, 10239, and 10098 asserted that much 

of the nation’s law on CO2 pipeline siting is underdeveloped at this time, potentially resulting in 

plant owners having to negotiate rights-of-way with hundreds of private landowners to run a CO2

pipeline if state laws do not allow eminent domain as an option for procuring easements. 

Commenter 9666 suggested that legal issues of siting authority and the prospect of creating a 

mechanism to establish eminent domain to support timely CO2 pipeline construction merited 

Congressional attention. Commenter 10098 stated that the proposed rule provides a significant 

overview of federal regulations pertaining to geologic sequestration and makes only a passing 

reference to rights-of-way as if their successful acquisition was inevitable and just a cost of 

doing business.

Additionally, commenter 10098 noted that state law decisions on eminent domain can lead to 

expensive and time consuming litigation by landowners and non-governmental organizations, 

and that procuring rights-of-way over federal lands can be especially resource intensive and time 

consuming due compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, other federal land use laws, and public notice and comment periods. 

Commenter 10239 stated that siting of CO2 pipelines are subject to state law, and, because of 

this, negotiating rights-of-way for CO2 pipelines will be a complicated and expensive process, 

particularly if a state determines that CO2 pipeline operators are not entitled to employ eminent 

domain to acquire rights-of-way. The commenter stated that rights of way over federal lands 

would be further complicated by NEPA. Commenter 10239 stated that while these critical issues 

are largely outside of the EPA’s jurisdiction and control, it is nevertheless arbitrary and 

capricious for the EPA to simply ignore them when assessing whether geologic storage is 

currently available.

Commenter 9683 noted that State law is less clear and inconsistent on whether eminent domain 

authority is available for construction of CO2 pipelines. Commenter 9683 noted that State law 

may extend eminent domain authority only in cases where the entity building the pipeline is a 

public utility, or only if the pipeline is needed to serve end-use customers in the State. This may

depend on whether the facility generating the CO2 to be sent through the pipeline is within the 

state in which the pipeline would be constructed. Commenter 9683 also noted that at least one 

State requires that the pipeline have a “public use” in order to extend eminent domain authority. 
6-98

Similarly, commenters 10036 and 10618 stated that the EPA has ignored property rights issues 

that are barriers to the adequate demonstration and development of CCS, including jurisdictional 

determinations and how existing programs for eminent domain, unitization, public use, or 

voluntary acquisition translate to CO2 pipeline development. The commenters state that these 

issues must be resolved on the state, interstate and national level in order to efficiently and 

effectively regulate future CCS projects but will take time and resources. 

Response 6.3-157: The EPA recognizes that siting of CO2 pipelines is largely a state-regulated 

activity, and recognizes that state regulations concerning application of eminent domain vary

among the states. The EPA does not consider state-level pipeline siting processes and state-level 

regulatory authority to be barriers to either the development of individual CO2 pipelines or 

development of a broader national CO2 pipeline network, as evidenced by the many new CO2

pipelines permitted and placed in service over the past few years alone. The challenges 

associated with expansion of CO2 pipeline infrastructure are not insurmountable. The legal and 

regulatory issues cited by the commenters, including eminent domain authority, environmental 

impact assessment, and time-frame for siting, permitting, and constructing CO2 pipelines are not 

new issues. For example, land-use issues, acquisition of rights-of-way, and public perception of 

impacts are issues that all types of pipeline development face, and are all issues that have been 

dealt with effectively in the past for siting, permitting, and construction of CO2 pipelines. 

Additionally, although CO2 pipeline infrastructure is currently limited to where active EOR 

production and extraction operations using CO2 are occurring. Several hundred additional miles 

of CO2 pipeline are either under construction, planned, or proposed which will increase the 

accessibility and geographic extent of this infrastructure in the near future. Recently planned, 

proposed, and constructed CO2 pipelines provide evidence that the permitting process does not 

pose insurmountable obstacles to siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines.

Comment 6.3-158: Commenter 9665 noted that it is possible that legislation would be needed to 

have FERC issue certificates of public convenience and necessity, and related eminent domain 

rights, to CO2 pipelines comparable to those granted for natural gas pipelines. Commenters 9665 

and 10662 noted that Federal eminent domain that is available for natural gas pipelines is not 

currently available for CO2 pipelines, and commenter 10662 noted that both the FERC (Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission) and the STB (Surface Transportation Board) have declined to 

take jurisdiction over siting of CO2 pipelines, and as a result siting of CO2 pipelines is relegated 

to the states. Commenter 8925 also cited a study noting that there is no current Federal siting or 

eminent domain regulatory scheme for CO2 pipelines. Commenters 9381 and 9665 conclude the 

current regulatory framework for CO2 pipelines cannot confidently be relied on as a basis for 

development of a much more robust CO2 pipeline network, because CO2 pipeline projects are 

subject to significant timing and cost uncertainties related to right-of-way acquisition.

Response 6.3-158: EPA recognizes that siting and permitting of CO2 pipelines is largely within 

the jurisdiction of the states and that regulations concerning eminent domain applicability to CO2

pipelines differ among the states. The EPA also recognizes that CO2 pipeline siting and 

construction costs will vary by state and by proposed pipeline location. The EPA estimated CO2

pipeline siting and construction costs based on cost studies prepared by the U.S. Department of 

Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) and other sources (see e.g., DOENETL references cited in section V.I.2.a of the preamble). The range of siting and construction 
6-99

costs considered is representative of costs that CO2 pipeline developers would actually incur. The 

EPA does not agree that state-by-state CO2 pipeline siting regulations and the lack of federal 

agency regulatory authority over CO2 pipeline siting represent insurmountable barriers to siting 

and construction of either individual CO2 pipelines or a broader CO2 pipeline network or that 

state-specific cost factors will result in CO2 pipeline developers incurring costs outside the range 

of values considered by the EPA in the cost analysis. 

The EPA does not agree that the current permitting framework for new CO2 pipelines cannot be 

relied upon to enable the siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines. There are several hundred 

additional miles of CO2 pipeline that are either under construction, planned, or proposed. 

Recently planned, proposed, and constructed CO2 pipelines provide evidence that the permitting

process does not pose insurmountable obstacles to siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines.

Comment 6.3-159: Commenter 9780 asserted that legislation would be needed to authorize 

FERC to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity, and related eminent domain 

rights, to CO2 pipelines comparable to those granted for natural gas pipelines. Commenter 9665 

also noted the possibility that such legislation would be needed to grant such authority to FERC. 

Commenter 8032 noted that permitting sequestration locations will likely have serious technical, 

legal and cost issues related to siting and building CO2 pipelines, and cited as an example the 

issue of utilities not having the right of eminent domain. Commenter 9780 stated that building a 

natural gas pipeline can take years, and it will take longer to build CO2 pipelines unless the 

federal government amends the current process to facilitate construction. Commenter 10662 also 

noted that there is currently insufficient development of key legal issues, such as the process by

which to acquire rights-of-way for CO2 pipelines. Commenter 8966 also stated that pipeline 

siting and construction is complicated by geographic constraints based on the terrain of the 

pipeline path, local and state siting requirements, and acquisition of necessary rights-of-way. 

Commenter 9666 stated that the most significant barriers to expansion will be non-technical 

issues – addressing property rights for right-of-way access and multi-state jurisdictions.

Response 6.3-159: Federal and state regulatory requirements for siting and permitting new CO2

pipelines are outside the scope of this rule. However, the EPA does not agree that Federal 

legislation concerning eminent domain and certification of public convenience and necessity for 

CO2 pipelines would be needed to ensure timely development of either individual CO2 pipelines 

or a broader CO2 pipeline network. The EPA agrees that siting and construction of new CO2

pipelines could require several years, however, the EPA does not consider that time frame to be 

inconsistent with the anticipated time frame for siting and construction of new coal-fired EGUs 

expected to be few in number. State and Federal agencies have been permitting CO2 pipelines for 

decades. Moreover, data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show 

that in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO2 pipelines operating in the United States. This 

represents a seven percent increase in CO2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent 

increase in CO2 pipeline miles since 2004. The EPA views the existing CO2 pipeline licensing 

process as adequate for siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines that may be needed to 

provide CO2 transport from new coal-fired EGUs. 

Comment 6.3-160: Commenters 9425, 9666 and 9683 stated that multiple jurisdictions, crossstate issues, and high pressures required for supercritical fluid transport could prevent or delay

securing the necessary permits for pipelines to transport supercritical CO2, and that proposed 
6-100

CO2 pipelines may incur public opposition. Commenter 9666 noted that groups adversarial to 

coal-fired generation can impose significant delays. It has been well demonstrated that some 

organizations have an established track record of contesting projects relating to CO2 by opposing 

permits and legal action. Such delays both slow progress and escalate cost of building any 

sequestration site and associated pipeline. For example, each month of delay in the Kemper 

County construction progress is estimated to add $15-25 million to the final cost.

Commenter 9683 noted that without eminent domain, a project developer would have no 

recourse but to seek permission from each landowner through whose property the project would 

traverse, with a “no” answer requiring a re-routing or scrapping the project entirely. Commenter 

9683 noted that Tenaska’s cancelled Taylorville project included a 450-mile CO2 pipeline to 

connect to an existing CO2 pipeline. Commenter 10239 noted that Illinois EPA identified access 

to CO2 pipelines as a logistical challenge to the Taylorville project. 

Commenters 9596, 9197, and 10618 also stated the absence of eminent domain authority for 

construction of CO2 pipeline could introduce significant and potentially insurmountable barriers 

to the construction of a new CO2 pipeline. Unlike natural gas pipelines, which can secure federal 

eminent domain authority, CO2 pipelines must be built with the consent of every intervening 

landowner. The need to negotiate with and obtain an easement from potentially thousands of 

landowners for each new CO2 pipeline could dramatically lengthen the amount of time between 

planning and construction of a CO2 pipeline while dramatically raising costs. These factors, 

when combined with the time and financial expenditure necessary to obtain state and federal 

regulatory approval for various aspects of each CO2 pipeline renders this option non-viable for 

most EGUs. 

Commenter 9596 noted that studies they and others have undertaken demonstrate that there 

would be significant CO2 pipeline siting issues associated with undertaking CCS in the 

Southeastern United States. 

Response 6.3-160: Commenter 9666 summarized a West Virginia Chamber of Commerce 

(Commenter 6948) survey of the state laws, regulations, and policies which found that states do 

not have adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to support CO2 sequestration. The study by

Commenter 6948 (cited by Commenter 9666 and Commenter 10618) noted that only 12 states 

have provided any streamlined process for the siting or construction of pipelines used to 

transport CO2. Commenter 10243 noted that while some states, including Michigan, have 

enacted legislation or regulation that address siting of CO2 pipelines, without a uniform national 

policy related to right-of-way acquisition for CO2 pipelines, Commenter 10243 expects 

significant timing and cost uncertainties arising as companies attempt to negotiate contracts to 

gain access to land, lay pipeline, restore land, and conduct other pipeline siting and construction 

related activities.CO2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 (Transportation of 

Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source of the CO2 and take into account 

CO2 composition, impurities, and phase behavior. These rules contain (among other provisions) 

detailed requirements related to reporting, pipeline design (temperature, pressure variation both 

internal and external, loads, types of pipes, valves and fittings, connections, closure, and leak 

detection), construction, pressure testing, and corrosion control. CO2-specific provisions require 
6-101

special design for CO2 at low temperatures. 49 CFR section 195.102 (b). These requirements 

have applied for years, successfully, to compressed, supercritical CO2 captured, transported via 

regulated pipeline, and used for EOR. The commenters do not address these requirements, and 

their successful use in the EOR context, in assuming massive opposition to new pipeline (or use 

of existing pipelines) or why eminent domain authority would be necessitated. As noted above, 

issues of pipeline availability and use did not pose obstacles to granting UIC Class VI permits to 

ADM and FutureGen. Denbury recently completed the final section of the 325-mile Green 

Pipeline for transporting CO2 from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to EOR oil fields in Texas, and 

completed construction and commenced operation of the 232-mile Greencore Pipeline in 

Wyoming. Chaparral completed an 8-inch, 68-mile CO2 pipeline from fertilizer plant in 

Coffeyville, Kansas, to an oil field in Oklahoma. These large CO2 pipeline projects demonstrate 

that long CO2 pipelines can be sited effectively under the current regulatory system. Actual 

experience has shown that the commenters’ concerns are surmountable. 

The EPA does not agree that a significant expansion of the current CO2 pipeline network would 

be needed within the foreseeable future for transport of CO2 captured from new EGUs because 

of the expected limited construction of new coal-fired EGUs. The EPA also does not agree that 

the siting and construction of CO2 pipelines needs to be federally regulated concerning rates and 

access, or that states that have not done so would need to establish eminent domain procedures, 

in order for CO2 pipeline transportation to be provided for new coal-fired EGUs. The EPA

expects that new CO2 pipelines needed to transport the CO2 captured from a new coal-fired EGU 

could be sited and constructed within a similar timeframe as would be needed for the planning, 

siting and construction of the new EGU itself.

The commenters do not address whether new sources could site a source advantageously to 

account for pipeline availability. The EPA thus regards these comments as overstated. In any 

case, compliance alternatives exist under the final standard which would not necessitate 

sequestration.

Comment 6.3-161: Commenter 10618 stated that although it is a commonly held belief that CO2

pipelines may be developed to parallel existing electric transmission line rights-of-way, 

transmission line rights-of-way are commonly specific to above ground structures, and would not 

apply to pipeline development. Existing transmission line rights-of-way do not always provide 

access to perform work that is not affiliated with the transmission lines. For example, additional 

right-of-way permissions from landowners may be required to obtain access to conduct baseline 

field studies needed for pipeline siting and construction.

Response 6.3-161: The EPA recognizes that electric transmission rights-of-way and pipeline 

rights-of-way requirements may differ and that there may be restrictions on the use of electric 

transmission line rights-of-way for other purposes. The EPA did not base the analysis of the 

technical and economic feasibility of CO2 pipeline siting and construction on the use of electric 

transmission corridors, and any restrictions on specific rights-of-way do not affect the 

conclusions of the analysis.

Comment 6.3-162: Commenter 10662 stated that the EPA ignores the realities of the lack of 

CO2 pipelines across the country and the legal, regulatory and financial hurdles that exist to 

expand capacity by the orders of magnitude that would be needed to transport EGU CO2
6-102

emissions. Commenter 9734 also noted that more CO2 pipelines will need to be built, which 

would require the acquisition of property rights and compliance with numerous state and federal 

laws and regulations. Commenter 9666 noted that in addition to construction of CO2 pipelines, a 

network of booster compressors could also needed to operate the CO2 pipeline network.

Response 6.3-162: The EPA does not agree that a significant expansion of the current CO2

pipeline network would be needed within the foreseeable future for transport of CO2 captured 

from new EGUs because of the expected limited construction of new coal-fired EGUs. The EPA

also does not agree that the siting and construction of CO2 pipelines needs to be federally 

regulated concerning rates and access, or that states that have not done so would need to 

establish eminent domain procedures, in order for CO2 pipeline transportation to be provided for 

new coal-fired EGUs. The EPA expects that new CO2 pipelines needed to transport the CO2

captured from a new coal-fired EGU could be sited and constructed within a similar timeframe 

as would be needed for the planning, siting and construction of the new EGU itself. The existing 

CO2 pipeline network includes booster compressors and other ancillary equipment, and the EPA

does not consider the need to provide such equipment as a component of new CO2 pipelines to 

be an impediment to siting, construction, or operation of proposed CO2 pipelines.

Comment 6.3-163: Commenters 10029 and 10664 expressed support for the creation of a 

network of new and existing pipelines throughout the United States, from which CO2 may be 

introduced by affected EGUs and distributed and sold at various points in the network. 

Commenters 10664 and 10029 noted that this will distribute the cost to construct and operate the 

network over a wide range of potential users, and facilitate the commercial deployment of CO2

reuse technologies. 

Commenters 10029 and 10664 stated that the narrow approach in the EPA's proposal, which 

prohibits any disposition of captured CO2 except geologic sequestration, suggests the need for 

dedicated CO2 pipelines that are constructed solely to transport the captured CO2 from an 

affected EGU directly to a geologic sequestration site. Commenters 10029 and 10664 suggested 

that this unnecessarily narrow approach would severely restrict access to the CO2 pipeline 

network, prevent the sale or distribution of CO2 as a commodity for reuse, and needlessly 

increase the costs to construct and operate that network. 

Response 6.3-163: A CO2 pipeline network already exists which allows CO2 from any source to 

be piped. The final rule does not establish any restrictions on how the CO2 pipeline network is 

used or the purposes to which CO2 off-taken from the CO2 pipeline network is used.

In addition, the final rule provides an alternative case-by-case compliance mechanism for storage 

of captured CO2 allowing demonstrations that alternative storage technologies are as effective as 

geologic sequestration. In addition, the final standard has alternative compliance pathways that 

do not involve sequestration or other storage of CO2.

The rule generally requires that captured CO2 be either injected on-site for geologic sequestration 

or transferred offsite to facility reporting under 40 CFR subpart RR. As stated in section V.M.4

of the preamble, there are emerging technologies alternative to geologic sequestration that are 

designed to safely sequester or otherwise utilize captured CO2 such that it is not released to the 

atmosphere. These technologies are not sufficiently advanced that the EPA is prepared to 
6-103

unqualifiedly structure this final rule to allow for their use, nor are there plenary systems of 

regulatory control and GHG reporting for these approaches, as there are for geologic 

sequestration. In this final rule, the EPA is establishing a mechanism for a case-by-case 

adjudication by the EPA of applications seeking to demonstrate to the EPA that a non-geologic 

sequestration technology would result in permanent confinement of captured CO2 from an 

affected EGU. 

Comment 6.3-164: Commenter 10036 noted that the EPA stated that that 95 percent of the 500 

largest CO2 point sources are located within 50 miles of a possible geologic sequestration site 

which would lower transportation costs.” Commenter 10036 stated that the EPA’s analysis is 

based solely on the locations of existing sources while the proposed rule applies to only new 

sources, and that future power plants may need to be sited in locations very different from 

existing power plants. Commenter 10036 also noted that even fifty miles of new CO2 pipeline 

would be considerable and might not be possible for a given location. For example, AEP’s 

proposed commercial scale CO2 capture and storage system at Mountaineer Plant included 

approximately 12.5 miles of CO2 pipeline. Within that short 12.5 mile distance, AEP 

encountered more than 250 landowners that would have been impacted by the CO2 pipeline 

crossing their property. Had the project moved forward, AEP would have had to obtain rights-ofway for the CO2 pipeline from all impacted property owners. 

Response 6.3-164: The EPA recognizes that new EGUs may need to be sited in locations 

different from the locations of existing EGUs, and that siting of new EGUs would take into 

consideration a number of factors. However, the EPA does not agree that EPA’s analysis is 

based “solely” on the locations of existing sources while the proposed rule applies to only new 

sources. Potential sequestration sites are located throughout the United States. The EPA also 

recognizes that acquisition of right-of-way is an essential component of the siting and 

construction of pipelines, and included estimated acquisition costs as part of its cost assessment. 

However, the EPA does not consider the need for proponents of proposed CO2 pipelines to 

negotiate with individual landowners to be a substantial impediment, as evidenced, among other 

things, by the Class VI permits issued to Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen.

Comment 6.3-165: Commenter 9683 noted that while it is technologically possible to build CO2

pipelines, the EPA has given no consideration to the expense, legal and regulatory burdens (and 

perhaps in some cases impossibilities), and the length of time required for such construction to 

occur. Commenter 10048 also noted that the advanced CO2 pipeline infrastructure that would 

need to be developed would require a substantial amount of time to site, design, and construct. 

Commenter 9780 noted that the EPA has failed to account for the lengthy, costly, and uncertain 

permitting processes for major pipelines, and has not addressed the fact that the owners of new 

EGUs installing CCS are not likely to be the entities responsible for permitting, building and 

paying for the necessary new CO2 pipelines. Commenter 9780 further states that the EPA has 

made unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims about the ease and cost of building CO2 pipelines.

Response 6.3-165: The EPA recognizes that new EGUs subject to the rule would not necessarily

be the constructor or the owner-operator of CO2 pipelines that would transport the captured CO2

to a sequestration site. The EPA does not consider the fact that the new EGU and new CO2

pipeline may have different owner-operators to be a substantive impediment to siting and 

construction of new CO2 pipelines. Existing CO2 pipelines that have been constructed to 
6-104

transport either captured CO2 or naturally-occurring CO2 to EOR sites are not necessarily owned 

and operated by the same entity that is operating the EOR sites. The owner-operators engage in a 

commercial transaction concerning the transportation of the CO2 supplied to the EOR site; the 

EPA anticipates that new EGU operators may engage in commercial transactions concerning the 

transportation of the CO2 captured from the proposed EGU to a sequestration site. 

With respect to the time frame for siting and constructing CO2 pipelines, the EPA anticipates that 

CO2 pipelines that would transport captured CO2 from new coal-fired EGUs to sequestration 

sites could be sited and constructed within a similar time frame as would be needed for planning, 

siting and construction of the EGU itself, considering the limited construction of new coal-fired 

EGUs that is expected. 

Comment 6.3-166: Commenter 10105 noted that Nevada lacks the appropriate geology for 

sequestration and that as a result captured carbon would have to be transported to other states. 

That would require the availability of significant pipeline infrastructure. In a state like Nevada, 

with large rural areas, the cost of installing pipelines will likely be prohibitively expensive. 

Additionally, Nevada’s rural areas are prime sage grouse habitat and desert tortoise habitat. The 

sage grouse is currently in the process of being listed as threatened or endangered, and the desert 

tortoise is a listed species. The listing of those species and the large size of their habitats would 

make siting a pipeline even more challenging. Commenter 10618 identified permitting related 

challenges to the viability of any CCS project, including that the size of the CCS project alone 

(capture, transport, and storage systems) would require extensive field studies to evaluate 

biological, cultural, and wetland resources to support the preparation of permit applications.

Response 6.3-166: The EPA recognizes that not all states and areas of the U.S. have potential 

sequestration capacity, and acknowledges that CO2 pipelines would need to be constructed to 

transport CO2 captured from proposed EGUs that are not located in the vicinity of sequestration 

capacity. The EPA does not agree that the fact that certain states and areas of the U.S. do not 

have potential sequestration capacity renders CO2 capture, transport, and sequestration 

infeasible. The EPA recognizes that environmental impact review under NEPA would be 

required as a condition of siting and construction of proposed CO2 pipelines that cross Federal 

land. Such review would include an assessment of potential impacts of the proposed pipeline to 

endangered and threatened species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, as well as 

assessment of potential impacts of the proposed pipeline to natural, cultural and biological 

resources. Federal agencies including the BLM have conducted NEPA reviews of proposed 

pipeline projects potentially impacting sage grouse and other threatened and endangered species 

habitat and Federal agencies and have established procedures for conducting assessments of 

potential impacts to natural, cultural, and biological resources. Such environmental impact 

reviews are outside of the jurisdiction of the EPA and would be conducted by the responsible 

Federal agency.

Comment 6.3-167: Commenter 9201 noted that the EPA did not consider or evaluate the 

impacts on land use and other environmental values from the construction of CO2 pipelines to 

transport CO2 to sequestration sites or for enhanced oil recovery as envisioned under the 

proposed rule. Commenter 9195 questioned whether the EPA considered the potential non-air 

environmental impacts of the construction of the national CO2 pipeline network. Commenter 

10086 noted that the majority of the U.S. lacks pipelines to transport the CO2 and that the EPA
6-105

failed to account for the lack of transportation infrastructure and the environmental impact and 

costs of constructing a network of pipelines across the United States. 

Response 6.3-167: Siting and construction of proposed CO2 pipelines is subject to permitting

and environmental reviews conducted by state and/or federal regulatory agencies. Proposed CO2

pipelines crossing Federal (e.g., BLM) land would be subject to environmental reviews 

conducted by the responsible Federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Federal agency’s NEPA implementing regulations. For example, BLM has 

established and implements procedures for environmental reviews of proposed CO2 pipelines 

under NEPA under Federal NEPA regulations and BLM’s implementing regulations. NEPA 

reviews of proposed CO2 pipelines include consideration of non-air quality and other 

environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. Proposed 

intrastate CO2 pipelines and proposed interstate CO2 pipelines that do not cross Federal land are 

subject to permitting and environmental reviews under state regulations and potentially also 

under Federal regulations. Therefore any CO2 pipelines proposed to transport CO2 captured from 

new EGUs that are subject to the proposed rule would be subject to project-specific permitting 

and project-specific environmental reviews including consideration of land use impacts, non-air 

quality impacts and other environmental impacts of proposed pipeline construction and 

operation.

Comment 6.3-168: Commenter 9780 agrees that CO2 has been safely transported via pipelines 

in the U.S. for nearly 40 years—primarily for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery (EOR)—and 

there are few technical hurdles associated with CO2 pipelines, there are various legal and 

regulatory issues that will need to be addressed for any significant expansion of the current, 

limited, 3,600-mile CO2 pipeline system. These include issues of eminent domain for CO2

pipeline siting and issues of reasonable rates and open access for CO2 pipeline network 

operation.

Response 6.3-168: The EPA agrees that CO2 pipeline transport is demonstrated and technically 

feasible. The EPA recognizes that some states have already established eminent domain 

procedures for siting and construction of CO2 pipelines while other states have not done so. The 

EPA does not agree that a significant expansion of the current CO2 pipeline network would be 

needed within the foreseeable future for transport of CO2 captured from new EGUs because of 

the expected limited construction of new coal-fired EGUs. See RIA chapter 4. The EPA also 

does not agree that the siting and construction of CO2 pipelines needs to be federally regulated 

concerning rates and access, or that states that have not done so would need to establish eminent 

domain procedures, in order for CO2 pipeline transportation to be provided for new coal-fired 

EGUs. The EPA expects that new CO2 pipelines needed to transport the CO2 captured from a 

new coal-fired EGU could be sited and constructed within a similar timeframe as would be 

needed for the planning, siting and construction of the new EGU itself.

Comment 6.3-169: Commenter 8925 noted that once permits and rights-of-way were secured, 

construction of a 12.2 mile intrastate CO2 pipeline was completed within 3 months. Commenter 

8925 noted that the applicant needed to consult with eight separate Federal and State agencies as 

part of the pipeline permitting process.
6-106

Response 6.3-169: EPA recognizes that multiple state and federal agencies may need to be 

involved in siting and construction of CO2 pipelines to comply with regulations. The commenter 

illustrates that CO2 pipelines can be and have been successfully licensed, sited, and constructed, 

and that CO2 pipelines can be and have been constructed in a timely manner.

Comment 6.3-170: Commenters 9600, 10097, 10098, and 10239 stated that the EPA has already

determined that CCS is not technically feasible for EGUs and that the EPA has already identified 

the cost of building CO2 pipelines as one factor in this determination. Commenter 10098 

reviewed the EPA GHG Guidance for determination of Best Available Control Technology

(BACT) and asserted that the EPA GHG Guidance expects CCS to be eliminated from further 

consideration under Step 2 or Step 4 of the decision making process. Commenter 10098 stated 

that for purposes of Step 2 of the decision making process, pertaining to technical feasibility, the 

EPA has already acknowledged the significant technical and logistical barriers (including CO2

transport) that hinder CCS. 

Commenter 10618 also noted that the EPA has acknowledged in their guidance document for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSD permitting for GHGs that the scope of design, 

construction, and operation considerations are much different and unique for CCS compared to 

other emission control systems. Commenters 10098 and 10239 cited several project-specific 

analyses that determined that CCS was technically infeasible because of the lack of 

transportation infrastructure. 

Response 6.3-170: Commenter 10098 concludes that although the GHG Guidance urges 

permitting agencies to consider CCS, it left no question that CCS is not ready for widespread 

use; EPA’s own GHG Guidance and decisions based on the Guidance do not consider CCS to be 

technically feasible.Previous facility-specific BACT determinations were not subject to a 

regulatory-established “BACT Floor” because no standards were in place at the time the reviews 

were conducted. 

The definition of BACT in the CAA specifies that “[i]n no event shall application of [BACT] 

result in emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act.” This has historically been 

interpreted to mean that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard of 

performance under the NSPS. See e.g. EPA, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for 

Greenhouse Gases, p. 20-21 (March 2011). Thus, upon completion of an NSPS, the EPA reads 

the CAA to mean that the NSPS establishes a “BACT Floor” for PSD permits issued to affected 

facilities covered by an NSPS. 

It is important to note that a proposed NSPS does not establish the BACT Floor for affected 

facilities seeking a PSD permit, as just noted above. This is explained on page 25 of EPA's PSD 

and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases (March 2011), and is likewise clear from 

the language of CAA section 169 (3). However, although a proposed NSPS is not a controlling 

floor for BACT, the NSPS is an independent requirement that will apply to an NSPS source that 

commences construction after an NSPS is proposed and carries with it a strong presumption as to 

what level of control is achievable. This is not intended to limit available options to only those 

considered in the development of the NSPS.
6-107

Once the NSPS is finalized, then the standard would apply to any new source that meets the 

applicability of the NSPS and has not commenced construction as of the date of the proposed 

NSPS, including any existing facility that adds EGU capacity by adding a new EGU that is an 

affected facility under this NSPS. 

Comment 6.3-171: Commenter 10052 stated that the EPA has not fully considered many 

elements of implementing partial CCS that may render the technology commercially unavailable 

or not technically viable. Commenter 10052 noted that the EPA indicates that CO2 has been 

safely transported via pipelines in the U.S. for nearly 40 years and that 95 percent of the 500 

largest CO2 point sources are within 50 miles of a possible geologic sequestration site, but states 

that this assessment is broadly conclusory and does not account for the geographically diverse 

and distant nature of power plant locations in much of the United States. The commenter stated 

that the EPA has similarly ignored myriad factors that complicate the viability of sequestration 

sites, for example, in the Midwest and Western U.S., significant CO2 pipeline infrastructure is 

likely to be needed for widespread deployment of CCS because the location at which the 

captured carbon may be utilized for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or geologically sequestered is 

remote from the location of the resource. The commenter states that this is likely to render CCS 

prohibitively expensive and potentially infeasible in certain locations of the country, because that 

the infrastructure required to transport the necessary quantities to CO2 to sequestration sites or 

enhanced oil recovery locations would outstrip the size of the existing natural gas pipeline 

infrastructure that exists today and because the ability to obtain the required easements or 

property rights is questionable.

Response 6.3-171: The EPA recognizes that sites for new EGUs may be geographically diverse 

and that some proposed EGU sites may not be located in the vicinity of potential EOR sites. The 

EPA recognizes also that CO2 transport costs for new coal-fired EGUs may vary geographically. 

There are multiple factors that contribute to the cost of CO2 transportation via pipelines including 

but not limited to: availability and acquisition of rights-of-way for new pipelines, capital costs, 

operating costs, length and diameter of pipeline, terrain, flow rate of CO2, and the number of 

sources utilizing the pipeline. Studies and DOE quality guidelines have shown CO2 pipeline 

transport costs in the $1 to $4 dollar per ton of CO2 range. The EPA does not agree that the 

potential geographic variability of potential new EGU sites renders the pipeline transport of CO2

either technically or economically infeasible. Potential sequestration sites, either EOR formation 

or saline formations or other non-EOR formations, are located throughout the United States and 

the EPA anticipates that proposed sites for new EGUs will be located in proximity to potential 

sequestration sites, and provision of electric power generation does not require coal-fired 

facilities to be co-located with the electric power demand they are intended to serve. State and 

Federal agencies have permitted CO2 pipelines for decades, and several proposed CO2 pipelines 

are currently in the state or federal agency permitting process and several others have recently

been permitted. The EPA views the existing licensing process as adequate for any new CO2

pipelines that may be needed to transport CO2 from new coal-fired EGUs. 

Comment 6.3-172: Commenter 10618 listed out examples of permitting related challenges to 

the schedule and budget of any CCS project, including extensive field study requirements for 

permit applications, multiple jurisdictional issues, and lack of experience permitting CCS on 

both the developer and regulator sides. The commenter stated that the permitting process for the 
6-108

pipeline and well aspects of a CCS project alone could take years to resolve before construction 

could even begin. Commenter 9472 also identified the long lead times and capital expenditure as 

issues for siting and construction of CO2 pipelines.

Commenter 10083 noted that the large proportion of federally controlled lands in western states 

also creates its own challenges with respect to the timely permitting and construction of new 

generation resources and any needed pipeline infrastructure.

Response 6.3-172: The EPA recognizes that implementation of the rule may entail siting and 

construction of CO2 pipelines crossing Federal land. Federal agencies have decades of 

experience in reviewing and authorizing proposed CO2 pipeline projects crossing Federal land, 

The Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages approximately 250 million 

acres of land in the western U.S., has well-established procedures for permitting CO2 pipelines 

proposed to cross BLM land, and has issued permits for CO2 pipelines. 

The BLM in 2014 conducted reviews of proposed CO2 pipeline projects under the BLM’s legal 

authority and established NEPA process. 

The EPA recognizes that the review process for siting and construction of CO2 pipelines crossing 

Federal land differs from processes that would be implemented for CO2 pipelines crossing 

privately owned or other non-Federal land, and that the Federal land management process may

have a longer review schedule than for pipelines crossing privately owned or other non-Federal 

land. However, the EPA does not agree that the Federal land management process represents a 

substantial impediment to the timely siting and construction of CO2 pipelines that may be 

needed, as evidenced by the fact that many of the existing CO2 pipelines cross Federal land. 

BLM conducted reviews of proposed CO2 pipelines in 2014 and other pipeline projects were 

proposed for review in 2014. The reviews of proposed CO2 pipeline projects conducted by the 

BLM demonstrates that the Federal agency review process is a manageable process that would 

not impede the siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines.

Comment 6.3-173: Commenter 9735 stated that EOR is only feasible when coal plants are 

located relatively close to a mature oil field. The reality is that coal and oil formations are often 

far apart and CO2 pipelines that would be required do not exist. When EOR is not an option, 

utility companies will need to transport CO2 to appropriate geologic formations, such as saline 

aquifers. Commenters 8032, 9197, and 9735 noted that regardless of storage method, a vast 

pipeline infrastructure for CO2 will need to be built that will have siting, permit, and regulatory

challenges that will add additional time and cost to any CCS project.

Response 6.3-173: The EPA recognizes that some new EGUs may not be located in the vicinity 

of EOR formations and may need to transport captured CO2 to saline aquifer or other non-EOR 

sequestration sites. Potential sequestration sites are located throughout the United States, and 

construction of CO2 pipelines is adequately demonstrated. The EPA has addressed comments on 

storage in the Section 6.3 topic titled Geologic Sequestration. State and federal agencies have 

several decades of experience with CO2 pipeline permits and the EPA anticipates that existing 

processes will continue to support future needs for siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines. 

With respect to the timing of siting and construction of new CO2 pipelines, construction of new 

EGUs is anticipated to be limited for the foreseeable future, and any new EGUs proposed would 
6-109

need to be planned prior to siting and construction, and the EPA anticipates that the CO2

pipelines needed to transport captured CO2 from new EGUs could be planned, sited, and 

constructed within a similar timeframe as the timeframe for planning, siting, and constructing the 

new EGU itself. Therefore the EPA does not anticipate that CO2 pipeline siting and construction 

will represent a substantial barrier for affected EGUs.

Comment 6.3-174: Commenter 9201 cited a study that that the U.S. and Canada will need more 

than 35,000 miles of additional natural gas transmission pipelines (both mainline and laterals) 

through 2035 to serve anticipated growth in natural gas demand, and that about three fourths of 

the incremental growth in demand will arise from the power sector doubling its consumption as a 

result of EPA policies including CO2 NSPS rules for new and existing power plants. Commenter 

9201 noted that the EPA did not consider or evaluate the impacts on land use and other 

environmental values from natural gas pipeline construction to supply increased demand—

including new natural gas power plants.

Response 6.3-174: Siting and construction of proposed interstate natural gas pipelines is subject 

to certification by FERC. FERC has established and implements procedures for environmental 

reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines under Federal NEPA regulations and FERC’s 

implementing regulations. NEPA reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines include 

consideration of land use and other environmental impacts of construction and operation of the 

proposed pipeline. Proposed intrastate natural gas pipelines are subject to permitting and 

environmental reviews under state regulations. Therefore, the land use impacts of any natural gas 

pipelines proposed to support growth in natural gas demand would be subject to project-specific 

environmental reviews including consideration of land use impacts. FERC conducts 

environmental reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines during the course of the natural gas 

pipeline certification process, which takes an average of fourteen to sixteen months. 

Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act

Comment 6.3-175: Commenters 9425 and 9666 stated concerns with monitoring of CO2

geologic sequestration wells. The commenters noted the Class VI program requires extensive 

monitoring and fifty years of post-closure site care as a default which will add significant cost to 

CCS. Commenter 9666 also stated the concern that State program administrators could lengthen 

the site care responsibility indefinitely. Commenter 9426 asserted that a default of 50 years of 

post-closure site care is too long and adds significant additional costs. The commenter further 

stated that program administrators could further lengthen the site care responsibility indefinitely, 

posing a significant potential obstacle to CCS deployment. 

Response 6.3-175: This rule does not change the requirements for site closure of Class VI wells 

that were established in the Class VI Rule. Site closure is defined by regulation (40 CFR 146.81) 

as the time at which the Class VI injection well owner or operator is released from post-injection 

site care responsibilities. Under the Class VI UIC regulations, following cessation of injection, 

the operator must conduct comprehensive post-injection site care to show the position of the CO2

plume and the associated area of elevated pressure to demonstrate that neither poses an 

endangerment to USDWs – also having the practical effect of preventing releases of CO2 to the 

atmosphere. Post-injection site care includes appropriate monitoring and other needed actions 
6-110

(including corrective action). The default duration for the post-injection site care period is 50 

years, with flexibility for demonstrating that an alternative period is appropriate if it ensures nonendangerment of USDWs. For example, following the operational period for its project, Archer 

Daniels Midland plans a post-injection site care period of 10 years.28 Under the Class VI

regulations, the owner or operator of a GS site is released from Class VI related post-injection 

site care responsibilities upon site closure. See generally preamble section V.N.1.

The EPA’s cost estimates account for the requirements of the UIC Class VI program, and 

GHGRP subpart RR, including operational and post-injection site care monitoring, which are 

components of the UIC Class VI requirements, and subpart RR. Based on DOE/NETL studies, 

the EPA estimated that the total CO2 transportation, storage, and monitoring cost associated with 

EGU CCS would comprise less than 5.5 percent of the total cost of electricity in all capture cases 

modeled. The studies also show that post-injection site care, which includes monitoring, 

accounts for between 15 and 22 percent of total storage costs.29 The monitoring costs do not add 

significantly to the overall cost of CCS. 

Comment 6.3-176: Commenters 9423, 9425, 9426, 9666 stated concerns with liability. 

Commenter 9425 acknowledged that the EPA has established new Class VI regulations under the 

UIC Program for geologic sequestration wells that address some of the uncertainties in the 

regulatory framework, including site characterization, design and construction requirements for 

wells, operating and post-injection monitoring, testing of well integrity and financial 

responsibility. However, the commenter stated that the proposal does not address liability which 

remains an impediment to broad deployment of CCS. Commenter 9666 stated that limitation of 

liability would most likely require congressional action and it is unlikely the EPA could have 

addressed this issue effectively by rule without additional authority from Congress. The 

commenter noted this as another indicator that CCS is not an available technology for new 

EGUs. Commenter 10033 stated that from the perspective of CCS technology itself, although 

several projects have been successful, these projects have been too small and few in number to 

provide confidence that carbon sequestration projects will be protective of underground sources 

of drinking water at the large injection volumes and long time frames that would be found at a 

commercial power plant. 

Commenter 9472 stated that the EPA did not address two types of significant challenges 

operating CO2 storage facilities in saline formations face. First, the existing regulations for CO2

injection in saline formations, permitted as Class VI injection wells under the EPA's UIC 

program, pose practical barriers to project development including the 50 year post-injection site 

care monitoring period. Second, the long-term liability framework for injected CO2 remains 

uncertain in many areas of the country and limits the opportunity to store CO2 in saline 

formations in those regions. This period has the potential to exceed the lifetime of organizations 

involved in the original injection program, adding contractual and legal challenges to the 

development of a CO2 injection operation. The commenter also noted that while the full breadth 

 

28 http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/.

29 NETL, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, Volume 1a: 

Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity (July 2015) at 45; NETL, Carbon Dioxide 

and Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies, DOE/NETL-2013/1614 (March 2013) at 27.
6-111

of considerations will vary by site and project, they impact the feasibility of integrating CCS at a 

power plant, and must be sorted out prior to the beginning of CCS operations because subsurface 

storage must be operational at all times for a CCS project.

Response 6.3-176: The EPA has addressed comments regarding liability in the Section 6.3 topic 

titled Liability and post-injection site care monitoring elsewhere in this topic titled Safe Drinking 

Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. Limitation of liability is not a significant impediment to this rule. The EPA has 

issued Class VI permits for six wells under two projects. Both permit applicants addressed siting 

and operational aspects of GS (including issues relating to volumes of the CO2 and nature of the 

CO2 injectate), and included monitoring that helps provide assurance that CO2 will not migrate to 

shallower formations. The permits were based on findings that regional and local features at the 

site allow the site to receive injected CO2 in specified amounts without buildup of pressure 

which would create faults or fractures, and further, that monitoring provides early warning of any 

changes to groundwater or CO2 leakage. The permitting of these projects illustrates that permit 

applicants were able to address perceived challenges, including liability. These permits 

demonstrate the EPA’s view that these projects are capable of safely and securely sequestering 

large volumes of CO2 -- including from steam generating units -- for long-term storage since the 

EPA would not otherwise have issued the permits. Furthermore, as shown in preamble section 

V.M, monitoring studies conducted at EOR and saline sites in the U.S. and internationally have 

demonstrated that large injection volumes can be safely injected. 

Comment 6.3-177: Commenter 10033 stated that while EPA’s Class VI rules on carbon 

sequestration promulgated under the UIC program address many of the potential causes of 

drinking water contamination, the commenter continues to be concerned with some of the rule’s 

provisions that were included over the strong objections of the drinking water community. For 

example, commenter noted that the “injection depth waiver” process allowed by the Class VI 

rule has many limitations that could result in degradation of USDW (underground sources of 

drinking water). According to the commenter, repeated requests to clarify and limit injection 

depth waivers to protect USDW have so far gone unanswered and several expected guidance 

documents, such as the guidance on injection depth waivers, have not yet been publicly released. 

The commenter and commenter 10786 stated that to their knowledge, there has never been a 

single Class VI UIC permit issued anywhere, and only a few applications have been submitted. 

The commenter concluded that although the foundation for a regulatory system exists, it is not 

yet a mature process and should not be relied upon at a large scale before it has been fully 

proven.

Response 6.3-177: Comments regarding the final Class VI rule requirements related to injection 

depth waivers are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rule does not change the existing 

injection depth waiver process, which was established by the Class VI rule. See 75 FR 77254 

(December 10, 2010).

In the time since the commenter submitted comments, the EPA has issued six Class VI permits 

for two projects: an Archer Daniels Midland ethanol facility in Decatur Illinois and the 

FutureGen Industrial Alliance project. It would not have done so, and under the regulations could 

not have done so, without demonstrations that CO2 would be securely confined.
6-112

Comment 6.3-178: Commenter 9596 stated that although the recent promulgation of rules under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) for underground CO2 injection wells may remove a certain amount of regulatory

uncertainty, it has created new concerns in the oil and gas exploration industry over the 

regulatory impact of accepting CO2 from EGUs in EOR operations.

With respect to the RCRA conditional exclusion rule, EPA made clear that that rule was not 

intended to affect the RCRA regulatory status of CO2 streams that are injected into wells other 

than UIC Class VI wells, including UIC Class II wells used for EOR. See 79 CFR 355 (Jan. 3, 

2014).

Response 6.3-178: In response to inquiries and concerns, similar to those of Commenter 9596, 

directed to EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program, on April 23, 2015, the EPA’s 

Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water issued a memorandum to its 

regional UIC Program Directors reflecting the principle that injection of anthropogenic CO2 for 

enhanced recovery through Class II wells does not force transition of these wells to Class VI

wells – not during the well’s active operation and not when EOR operations cease. See section 

V.N.5.a of the preamble for a summary of the memorandum.

Comment 6.3-179: Commenter 10786 stated that the NSPS is not in accord with SDWA’s 

provisions for delegated State Class II programs, including with respect to the increased risk 

analysis under section 144.19. Unless taking place within the context of an existing Class II 

permit (presumably issued by a State agency), none of these collateral inquiries regarding 

existing CO2-EOR operations is envisioned by or authorized under SDWA and its governing 

regulations. In a State with primacy over its Class II program, all relevant assessments and 

decisions under 40 C.F.R. Section 144.19 are in the exclusive domain of the relevant State Class 

II regulator. Indeed, the Transition Guidance later seems to concede as much, noting that 

relevant considerations will have to be addressed in specific Class II permits. Transition 

Guidance, p. 6.

Response 6.3-179: The EPA encourages Class II and Class VI UIC Program Directors to work 

together to address the potential need for transition from Class II to Class VI permits. 

Additionally, the EPA believes that the best implementation approach is for states to administer 

both the Class II and the Class VI UIC programs. Nothing in this final rule changes the 

provisions of SDWA or the authority of the states to administer Class II permits.

Comment 6.3-180: Commenter 10786 stated that the Section 144.19 confirms that NSPS is not 

a “logical outgrowth” of the originally proposed rule. The commenter noted that the EPA’s 

interpretation of 40 C.F.R. Section 144.19 advanced in the Transition Guidance and implicitly

adopted by the NSPS provides post-hoc confirmation that this final regulatory provision is not a 

“logical outgrowth” of EPA’s original proposal. It was not until the EPA released the Transition 

Guidance, as implicitly incorporated thereafter by the NSPS, that industry was made aware that 

the Agency is now reading section 144.19 as authorizing forced conversions to Class VI (and 

perhaps at the Class VI Director’s discretion). The positions in the NSPS are in direct conflict 

with both section 144.19 and the Agency’s prior statements regarding how EOR was to be 

treated on these matters.
6-113

Response 6.3-180: The commenter is mistaken. EOR wells across the United States are 

currently permitted as UIC Class II wells. CO2 storage associated with Class II wells is a 

common occurrence, and where injected through Class II-permitted wells for the purpose of oil 

or gas-related recovery CO2 storage can occur in a manner protective of underground sources of 

drinking water. See also previous response.

Comment 6.3-181: Commenter 9423 stated the disincentives created by EPA for use of captured 

CO2 in EOR activities is further exacerbated by EPA’s recent Draft UIC Program Guidance on 

Transitioning Class II Wells to Class VI wells that gives broad discretion to the EPA to 

determine when an existing Class II EOR well should be regulated and permitted as a Class VI

geosequestration well. According to the commenter, the uncertainty of whether a Class II EOR 

well would be required to meet Class VI geosequestration well requirements as well as the cost, 

time, and long-term liability to transition a well from Class II to Class VI will be an additional 

significant disincentive for EOR well operators to accept utility- produced CO2. Commenter 

9423 stated that the Class VI UIC regulations as adopted require a determination as to whether or 

not the primary purpose of the injection of CO2 is enhanced recovery. If the answer is yes, the 

well remains a Class II well. If the answer is no, then a determination must be made as to 

whether risks to underground drinking water sources have increased. 

Commenters 9731 and 10786 stated that if CO2 is to be a viable commercial product for use in 

EOR, the EPA must be mindful of the consequences of other significant regulations. For 

example, the UIC Class VI rule will mandate a conversion from the Class II wells currently used 

for CO2 injection, which will create additional costs with a number of regulatory and legal 

uncertainties and challenges.

Commenter 10786 stated that long-term storage with EOR will require an understanding of state 

legal and regulatory frameworks and how businesses can conduct operations under Class VI that 

is not present in the NSPS. 

Several commenters (9197, 9596, 9780) stated that the need to transition from Class II injection 

wells to Class VI wells under draft EPA guidance could further discourage EOR operators from 

accepting CO2 from EGUs for GS.

Response 6.3-181: On April 23, 2015, the EPA issued a memorandum from the Director of the 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water to regional UIC Program Directors in its regional 

offices, and summarized in section V.N.5.a of the preamble, that makes clear that the 

commenters’ concerns are misplaced. The EPA recognizes the widespread use of EOR and the 

expectation that injected CO2 can remain underground. The memorandum reflected these 

principles:30

 Geologic storage of CO2 can continue to be permitted under the UIC Class II program. 

 

30 “Key Principles in EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program Class VI Rule Related to 

Transition of Class II Enhanced Oil Recovery or Gas Recovery Wells to Class VI”, April 23, 

2015. Available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/class2eorclass6memo.pdf
6-114

 Use of anthropogenic CO2 in EOR operations does not necessitate a Class VI permit. 

 Class VI site closure requirements are not required for Class II CO2 injection operations. 

 EOR operations that are focused on oil or gas production will be managed under the 

Class II program. If oil or gas recovery is no longer a significant aspect of a Class II 

permitted EOR operation, the key factor in determining the potential need to transition a 

EOR operation from Class II to Class VI is increased risk to USDWs related to 

significant storage of CO2 in the reservoir, where the regulatory tools of the Class II 

program cannot successfully manage the risk.

Either Class VI or Class II wells may be used for the purpose of complying with this rule. This 

rule does not require Class II wells to transition to Class VI.

Comment 6.3-182: Commenters 9472 and 10098 stated that changing well class is a major 

business decision carrying many long-term financial and regulatory obligations and would likely

require an EOR operator to obtain additional property or other legal rights, all of which create 

significant uncertainty and materially impact an EOR-to-geologic storage operator's business 

model. The commenters further asserted that if the source of CO2 can contribute to an Agency

decision that a Class II well needs to be re-permitted as a Class VI well, then EPA's Class II to 

VI Guidance has created a disincentive to using CO2 from a new coal-fired EGU. Taken with the 

RCRA conditional exemption, the Class II to VI Guidance and the proposed NSPS requirement 

for an EOR operator to comply with Subpart RR reporting requirements create a strong set of 

disincentives for accepting a CO2 stream from an EGU subject to the NSPS when other CO2

sources are available.

Commenter 10786 discussed the permitting delays and regulatory risks associated with forcing 

the operation to convert to Class VI, which may preclude timely access to oil.

Response 6.3-182: These comments are misplaced. No change in well class would result from 

the standards of performance adopted pursuant to section 111(b). On April 23, 2015, the EPA’s 

Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water issued a memorandum to its 

regional UIC Program Directors reflecting the principle that geologic storage can continue to be 

permitted under the UIC Class II Program and the of anthropogenic CO2 in EOR operations does 

not necessitate a Class VI permit. See section V.N.5.a of the preamble for a summary of the 

memorandum. The memorandum is available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/class2eorclass6memo.pdf. With respect 

to the RCRA conditional exclusion, see previous response.

Comment 6.3-183: Commenter 10786 stated that the underlying but unstated premise of the 

NSPS is that approved State-based Class II programs are somehow ineffective at preventing 

injections that endanger USDWs; however, all approved State-based Class II programs already

have been determined by the Agency to be effective at meeting that goal.

Response 6.3-183: The commenter is mistaken that the premise of the NSPS is that Class II 

programs are ineffective at protecting USDWs. Geologic storage of CO2 can continue to be 

permitted under the UIC Class II program. EOR wells across the United States are currently

permitted as UIC Class II wells. CO2 storage associated with Class II wells is a common 

occurrence, and where injected through Class II-permitted wells for the purpose of oil or gas-
6-115

related recovery CO2 storage can occur in a manner protective of underground sources of 

drinking water.

Comment 6.3-184: Commenters 8974, 10033 and 10393 stated that CCS should continue to be 

considered an experimental technology at this time because CCS could pose significant risks to 

drinking water sources if rushed prematurely to commercial scale. Commenter 10033 stated that

it is quite possible that rushing CCS to commercial scale without adequate research and 

safeguards could make large amounts of US drinking water permanently unsuitable for use as 

community water supplies through altering the aquifer’s chemistry. Commenter 10393 noted that 

their combined municipal utility has an obligation to protect existing and future drinking water 

resources located in deep saline aquifers, in addition to providing reliable, affordable and 

environmentally responsible electricity.

Response 6.3-184: The EPA appreciates that drinking water resources must be protected. The 

EPA’s UIC Program requirements –for well Classes I through VI (inclusive of Class II enhanced 

recovery injection wells) – are designed to ensure that USDWs are protected regardless of 

formation type. See Preamble at Section V.N.1. In short, the UIC Class VI rule was developed to 

facilitate GS and ensure protection of USDWs from the particular risks that may be posed by

large scale CO2 injection for purposes of long-term GS. The Class VI rule established technical 

requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, area of review (i.e., the project 

area) and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, 

monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, site closure, and financial responsibility for 

the purpose of protecting USDWs. UIC Class II regulations issued under section 1421 of SDWA 

provide minimum federal requirements for site characterization, area of review, well 

construction (e.g., casing and cementing), well operation (e.g., injection pressure), injectate 

sampling, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and abandonment, financial responsibility, and 

reporting. Class II wells must undergo periodic mechanical integrity testing which will detect 

well construction and operational conditions that could lead to loss of injectate and migration 

into USDWs. Section 1425 of SDWA allows states to demonstrate that their Class II program is 

effective in preventing endangerment of USDWs. These programs must include permitting, 

inspection, monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting components.

The comment that these injection technologies are not available at commercial scale is 

misplaced. See Preamble sections V.M and V.N. The EPA has issued six Class VI injection well 

permits under the Class VI requirements, including for injection of anthropogenic CO2 from a 

coal-burning steam electric facility.

Comment 6.3-185: Commenter 6948 stated that for a CCS survey of the 50 states no state has 

yet received delegation of the Class VI UIC, although one state has an application pending for 

delegation of the program.

Response 6.3-185: The EPA encourages states to apply for primacy for all well classes, 

including Class VI. The EPA is in the process of reviewing North Dakota’s application for 

primacy and believes that the best implementation approach is for states to administer both the 

Class II and Class VI UIC programs. The process of approving primacy for a state to implement 

the regulations for specific classes of injection wells is not a delegation, rather it is an approval 
6-116

by a rule-making process required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and outlined in the UIC 

regulations.

Comment 6.3-186: Commenter 8032 noted that Class VI injection wells will have to be used 

since there are not sufficient Enhanced Oil Recovery sites for all of the power generation 

facilities that will have carbon capture systems. These sites also may not be close to the power 

generation facilities making them infeasible. Class VI injection wells will have to be carefully 

designed or there could still be a release of CO2 in to the atmosphere which will be 

counterproductive, costly and dangerous. Class VI wells must be designed to handle the unique 

nature of CO2 including the relative buoyancy of CO2, its mobility in the subsurface, its 

corrosive nature in the presence of water, and the large injection volumes anticipated at these 

sites.

Response 6.3-186: The EPA agrees that it is important to ensure that CO2 is safely stored, does 

not impact USDWs and is not released to the atmosphere. Under SDWA and its Underground 

Injection Control Program, the EPA established minimum Federal requirements to ensure that 

geologic sequestration (Class VI) wells are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, 

and closed to ensure protection of drinking water. The UIC Class VI regulations contain 

monitoring requirements to protect underground sources of drinking water, including a 

requirement that Class VI owners or operators develop, implement and maintain a 

comprehensive testing and monitoring plan, which includes testing of the mechanical integrity of 

the injection well, ground water monitoring, and tracking of the location of the injected CO2, 

using direct and indirect methods. Permittees are also required to perform post-injection 

monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected CO2 and monitor subsurface 

pressures in relation to USDWs. 

Comment 6.3-187: Commenters 9666, 9780, 10098, 10239 and 10660 asserted that the EPA has 

ignored significant legal and logistical barriers to geologic sequestration by focusing solely on 

federal regulations under the UIC program, GHG Reporting Rule, and RCRA. Commenter 8966 

stated that geologic sequestration is subject to state and local laws that are likely to confound 

operators unless national legislation is available to address property rights and other legal 

constraints.

Commenters 9666 and 10098 stated that the proposed rule assumes there is a full infrastructure 

and regulatory framework in place even though it may take years to put into place. 

Commenter 10098 then stated that the analysis of the legal issues surrounding geologic 

sequestration, consisting of Class VI well permits, reporting requirements, and RCRA 

exemptions, is myopic. The commenters then discussed the potential barriers to obtaining 

contracts for offsite land acquisition, funding, timing of available transportation infrastructure, 

and developing a site for secure long term storage without state or federal eminent domain as 

natural gas pipelines have. 

Commenters 10098 and 10239 provided examples of permitting decisions rejecting CCS in part 

because it was not clear that the applicant could obtain the necessary rights of way in part due to 

the lack of proven geology favorable for long-term storage and other uncertainties.
6-117

Commenter 10137 stated that there are uncertainties surrounding whether subpart RR would 

constitute waste disposal. The commenter further stated that it appears that subpart RR is 

inconsistent with typical oil and gas leases if subpart RR converts a hydrocarbon recovery

operation into a waste disposal site, because typical leases come to an end and the property 

reverts to the owner following oil and gas completion. Commenters 10137 and 10786 also noted 

that the underlying mineral leases pursuant to which EOR operators are authorized to conduct oil 

recovery operations are granted for the purpose of hydrocarbon recovery and do not authorize the 

lessee to convert the owners’ property into a waste disposal site. Commenter 10786 stated 

that declaring some CO2 streams to be a “solid waste” under RCRA will make that CO2 stream 

unsuitable for injection and associated long-term storage in Class II mineral recovery operations, 

which the NSPS fails to acknowledge.

Two commenters (9731, 9666) stated that compliance with subpart RR will transform an EOR 

operation from a resource recovery operation/maximization into a waste disposal operation.

Response 6.3-187: The EPA has addressed the issues related to state and local laws in the 

Section 6.3 topic titled Other CO2 Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory

Issues. With respect to injection-related permitting, in the time since the commenter submitted 

comments Class VI permits have been issued to two applicants by the EPA. Both applicants, 

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and FutureGen Alliance, addressed siting and operational 

aspects of GS (including issues relating to the perceived barriers mentioned by the commenter) 

in their permit applications. The fact that these applicants pursued permits indicates that they

regarded any potential property rights issues as resolvable. Analyses of other (non-injection 

related) permitting decisions with respect to application of CO2 capture and transport were 

conducted on a site-specific basis and considered site-specific factors in the analysis and were 

conducted under a different set of criteria than required under the CAA. Eminent domain issues 

are addressed in the Section 6.3 topic titled Geologic Sequestration Property Rights.

Reporting under subpart RR does not cause an activity to become a waste management activity. 

In the preamble for the Final Rule for RCRA Conditional Exclusion of CO2 as a Hazardous 

Waste in January 2014, the EPA stated that sending CO2 streams to Class VI wells for purposes 

of GS does constitute solid waste disposal. The EPA also noted that should CO2 be used for its 

intended purpose as it is injected into UIC Class II wells for the purpose of EOR/EGR, it is 

EPA’s expectation that such an injection process would not generally be a waste management 

activity, and that in any case, the rulemaking did not alter the regulatory status quo of 

anthropogenic CO2 injected for EOR (which has been done for decades without RCRA 

obligations being considered to impact or impede those operations). 

Comment 6.3-188: Commenter 9683 asserted that the proposed rule does not recognize the legal 

and regulatory structure needed for CCS, therefore impeding CCS's availability.

Response 6.3-188: The EPA believes that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) will provide the necessary

regulatory framework while ensuring environmental protection and the permanence of CO2

storage. The specific protections offered under these regulations are addressed elsewhere in this 

section and in preamble section V.N.
6-118

Comment 6.3-189: Commenter 9666 summarized West Virginia Chamber of Commerce survey

of the state laws, regulations, and CO2 which found that states do not have adequate regulatory

mechanisms in place to support CO2 sequestration. The survey found that no state has yet 

received delegation of the Class VI Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program related to 

underground CO2 injection; only 5 states have addressed what property rights must be secured 

for the geologic storage of CO2 in pore space; only 7 states have developed any streamlined 

procedures for acquiring pore space; only 4 states have developed programs addressing the 

mitigation of the long-term post-closure liabilities that are associated with facilities that store 

CO2 in geologic formations; and only 12 states have provided any streamlined process for the 

siting or construction of pipelines used to transport CO2.

Commenters 10033 and 10618 stated that to date, the EPA has not issued a single final Class VI 

permit and only a handful of states are pursuing primacy. The commenter further discussed if a 

permit is obtainable given the area required to accommodate the CO2 storage volume associated 

with a coal-based generation unit. With regard to the permit process, the commenter discussed 

the time required to prepare an application as well as process and issue a permit. Commenter 

10618 cites an example of a 2011 permit application still under technical review to support the 

statement that the regulatory process is likely to be prohibitive. Commenter 10033 also asserted 

that at a minimum, there should be several years of successful administration of Class VI permits 

and associated commercial demonstration-scale projects before the EPA or any other agency

considers requiring the implementation of CCS technology on a wider scale.

Commenter 10618 states that with regard to the EPA Class VI injection well monitoring and care 

requirements, a number of uncertainties during and beyond a 50 years post-injection period must 

be addressed including transfer of liability after closure, financial responsibility requirements and 

duration, and post-closure monitoring requirements and duration.

Response 6.3-189: Commenter 9666 is correct that no state has yet received primary

enforcement authority (primacy) for the Class VI UIC program. However, the EPA is in the 

process of reviewing North Dakota’s application for primacy and believes that the best 

implementation approach is for states to administer both the Class II and Class VI UIC programs. 

The EPA encourages states to apply for primacy for all classes, including Class VI. 

In the time since the commenter submitted comments, the EPA has issued six final UIC Class VI 

injection well permits for two projects. The fact that these applicants pursued and received 

permits indicates that they were able to resolve any issues related to the project area or “Area of 

Review” (referred to by the commenter as “the area required to accommodate the CO2 storage 

volume”). The EPA believes that the regulatory framework currently in place, and the experience 

gained from the recent permit application reviews, permitting, and demonstration Under the 

Class VI regulations, the owner or operator of a GS site is released from Class VI related postinjection site care responsibilities upon site closure. 

Comment 6.3-190: Commenter 9426 stated that specific implementation regarding the 

permitting of Class VI CO2 storage wells is also uncertain and unquantified, as regulatory 

agencies are just now beginning to address specific requirements regarding how these permits 

can be issued.
6-119

Response 6.3-190: The EPA has issued six final UIC Class VI injection well permits for two 

projects and has developed a series of technical guidance documents and tools to provide 

information and possible approaches for addressing various aspects of permitting, constructing,

operating, monitoring and closing a Class VI injection well.

Comment 6.3-191: Commenter 10618 stated that uncertainties regarding the extent of EOR 

exemption from RCRA, such as RCRA applicability when the EOR process ends or if the 

process becomes solely a geologic storage operation, could actually discourage the use of 

anthropogenic CO2 for EOR operations.

Response 6.3-191: In January 2014 the EPA issued the Final Rule for RCRA Conditional 

Exclusion of CO2 as a Hazardous Waste in order to facilitate the deployment of geologic 

sequestration. The rule establishes a set of conditions under which CO2 streams injected into UIC 

Class VI wells are excluded from the RCRA subtitle C regulations’ definition of hazardous 

waste. In the preamble to the rule, the EPA explained that sending CO2 streams to Class VI wells 

for purposes of GS is considered solid waste disposal, since the CO2 stream is being “discarded” 

(see RCRA section 1004 (27)). However, that rule also creates a regulatory exclusion from 

classification as a hazardous waste, so no RCRA subtitle C regulatory obligations are triggered 

when the CO2 stream is managed in accordance with the conditions. With respect to beneficial 

use (rather than disposal in Class VI wells) of captured CO2, the RCRA conditional exclusion 

rule does not alter the regulatory status quo. The EPA also stated in the preamble that should 

CO2 be used for its intended purpose as it is injected into UIC Class II wells for the purpose of 

EOR/EGR, it is EPA’s expectation that such an injection process would “not generally be a 

waste management activity.” 

Comment 6.3-192: Commenter 10098 discussed EPA’s determination that conditionally

exempted captured CO2 streams that are injected into Class VI wells, not those injected into 

Class II wells are a RCRA solid waste. The commenter suggested that CO2 injected into a Class 

II well for EOR could, in some situations, be considered a waste management activity and 

creates uncertainty and a significant disincentive for operators utilizing CCS-derived CO2 for 

EOR purposes. Commenter 9734 also stated that there is regulatory uncertainty surrounding the 

underground sequestration of CO2 due to EPA’s determination that sequestered carbon is a solid 

waste.

Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the informal “safe harbor” for traditional EOR may

only apply to the practice of injecting natural CO2, not captured CO2 streams. Therefore, if an oil 

and gas operator wants to use a CO2 stream from a new coal-fired EGU for EOR operations and 

avoid RCRA rules, the commenter stated that it may need to persuade the permitting agency that 

its EOR operations are not waste management activities or perform RCRA hazardous waste 

analyses on all accepted CO2 streams. The commenter stated that no standardized analyses exist 

for this material, so an EOR operator would need to develop them. The commenter also asserted 

that if a CO2 stream tests hazardous, the EOR operator needs contractual rights to reject and 

return the non-conforming CO2 stream.

Response 6.3-192: As just stated, these concerns are not borne out by actual experience. The 

RCRA subtitle C regulations have not been an historic impediment to use of anthropogenic CO2

for EOR, and nothing the EPA has said in this rulemaking or the RCRA rulemaking 
6-120

conditionally excluding CO2 sequestered in Class VI injection wells alters the present status quo. 

The EPA stated in the preamble of the Final Rule for RCRA Exclusion that should CO2 be used 

for its intended purpose as it is injected into UIC Class II wells for the purpose of EOR/EGR, it 

is EPA’s expectation that such an injection process would not generally be regarded as a waste 

management activity.

Comment 6.3-193: Commenters 10098 and 10239 asserted that if geologic storage is a form of 

waste management, as the EPA contends it is, then even incidental leakage of this CO2 stream 

could form the basis for RCRA liability and result in citizen suits. The commenter stated that the 

operator would not be covered by the RCRA conditional exemption if the CO2 stream was 

injected into a Class II well.

Response 6.3-193: The status of captured CO2 used for EOR in Class II is unaltered as a result 

of the conditional exclusion for CO2 disposed in Class VI wells, and likewise unchanged by 

anything in the standards adopted pursuant to section 111 (b). Class II wells have been injecting 

anthropogenic CO2 for decades under this existing regulatory structure without RCRA 

obligations being considered to impact or impede those operations.

Comment 6.3-194: Commenter 10618 stated that uncertainties regarding the extent of EOR 

exemption from RCRA, such as RCRA applicability when the EOR process ends or if the 

process becomes solely a geologic storage operation, could actually discourage the use of 

anthropogenic CO2 for EOR operations.

Response 6.3-194: The EPA’s recent RCRA conditional exclusion rule applies only to CO2

streams that are injected into UIC Class VI wells (among other conditions). In the final rule 

preamble, the EPA discussed its view that supercritical CO2 streams injected into UIC Class VI 

wells for purposes of geologic sequestration are RCRA “solid waste.” 79 FR 354-55 (Jan. 3, 

2014). However, that rule was not intended to, and does not affect the regulatory status of CO2

streams that are injected into other well classes, including UIC Class II wells. Id. at 355. The 

EPA stated that, should CO2 be used for its intended purpose as it is injected into UIC Class II 

wells for the purpose of EOR/EGR, it is EPA’s expectation that such an injection process would 

not generally be a waste management activity, and that interested persons should consult with the 

relevant regulatory authority. Id. Use of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR is long-standing and has 

flourished in all of the years that EPA’s subtitle C regulations (which among other things, define 

what a solid waste is for purposes of those regulations) have been in place. The subtitle C 

regulatory program consequently has not been any impediment to use of anthropogenic CO2 for 

EOR. Thus, the EPA views the commenter’s concerns as exaggerated, and not supported by 

experience. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Comment 6.3-195: Commenter 9664 stated that they do not agree with EOR operators that have 

asserted that requiring compliance with the reporting and monitoring, reporting, and verification 

(MRV) plan requirements of subpart RR would result in operators avoiding the purchase of 

captured CO2. The commenter stated their belief that it is not inconsequential that available 

sources of naturally mined CO2 are declining, and that there is significant demand for 

anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, it is unlikely that existing operators would prefer to go out of 
6-121

business rather than access the market for anthropogenic CO2, simply because of the need for 

better reporting of the amounts of CO2 managed in EOR activity. The costs of opting into 

subpart RR by an existing EOR operator with a Class II permit are simply not significant, 

particularly when compared to the potential revenue from the sale of the produced oil, as 

provided by EPA calculations in the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for subpart RR 

rules.

Response 6.3-195: The BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies 

on GS in deep saline formations.31 However, the EPA also recognizes the potential for 

sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option.

The EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that subpart RR requirements will not result in 

EOR operators avoiding the purchase of CO2 from affected EGUs. The cost of compliance with 

subpart RR is not significant enough to offset the potential revenue for the EOR operator from 

the sale of produced oil for CCS projects that are reliant on EOR. First, the costs associated with 

subpart RR are relatively modest, especially in comparison with revenues from an EOR field. In 

the economic impact analysis for subpart RR, the EPA estimated that an EOR project with a 

Class II permit would incur a first year cost of up to $147,030 to develop an MRV plan, and an 

annual cost of $27,787 to maintain the plan; the EPA estimated annual reporting and 

recordkeeping costs at $13,262 per year.32 Monitoring costs are estimated to range from $0.02 

per metric ton (base case scenario) to approximately $2 per metric ton of CO2 (high scenario). 

Using a range of scenarios (that included high end estimates), these subpart RR costs are 

approximately three to four percent of estimated revenues for an average EOR field, indicating 

that the costs can readily be absorbed. 75 FR 75073.

Furthermore, there is a demand for new CO2 by EOR operators, even beyond current natural 

sources of CO2. For example, in an April 2014 study, DOE concluded that future development of 

EOR will need to rely on captured CO2.

33 Thus, the argument that EOR operators will obtain 

CO2 from other sources without triggering subpart RR responsibilities, which assumes adequate 

supplies of CO2 from other sources, lacks foundation. 

In addition, the Internal Revenue Code section 45Q provides a tax credit for CO2 sequestration 

which is far greater than subpart RR costs.34 Section 45Q(a)(1) allows a credit of $20 per metric 

ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer at a qualified facility, disposed of by the 

taxpayer in secure geological storage, and not used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant. Section 

45Q(a)(2) allows a credit of $10 per metric ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer 

at a qualified facility, used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or 

natural gas recovery project, and disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage. The 

section 45Q credit for calendar year 2015 is $21.85 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under 

section 45Q(a)(1) and $10.92 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under section 45Q(a)(2).

 

31 The EPA anticipates EOR projects may be early GS projects because these formations have been previously well 

characterized for hydrocarbon recovery, likely already have suitable infrastructure (e.g., wells, pipelines, etc.), and 

have an associated economic benefit of oil production.

32 Subpart RR costs are presented in 2008 US dollars.

33 “Near Term Projections of CO2 Utilization for Enhanced Oil Recovery”. DOE/NETL-2014/1648. April 2014. 

34 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-44_IRB/ar11.html and http://www.irs.gov/irb/2015-26_IRB/ar14.html. 
6-122

Comment 6.3-196: . Commenters 9664 and 9514 stated that as proposed, EPA’s rule text does 

not impose any additional requirements on the affected facility to demonstrate that the CO2 has 

in fact been transferred to a facility that is compliant with subpart RR, that would be 

incorporated for example into its PSD and Title V permits for the facility. The requirement that 

the emitting EGU assure that captured CO2 is managed at an entity subject to subpart RR of the 

GHG reporting rules is exclusively an element of enforcement of the EGU standard.

Commenters 9514 and 9664 requested revisions to 40 CFR 60.46Da(h) &(i) (concerning 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements). The commenters recommended amending 40 C.F.R. 

section 60.46Da(h)(5) in order to clearly establish an enforceable requirement that owners and 

operators of projects injecting CO2 underground that are permitted under UIC Class II and that 

receive CO2 captured from EGUs to meet the proposed performance standard will also be 

required to submit and receive approval of a subpart RR MRV plan and report under subpart RR. 

The commenters interpreted that the EPA means, by using the term “GS” in the regulatory text, 

to refer to any kind of sequestration, whether by injection into a Class VI permitted well or by

injection for enhanced oil recovery via a Class II permitted well. However, the commenters 

noted the term “GS” is a defined term in the Safe Drinking Water Act UIC program context that 

is limited to CO2 injection for the primary purpose of long-term containment from the 

atmosphere, and does not encompass CO2 injection for the primary purpose of enhanced oil 

recovery, even where incidental long-term containment of the injected CO2 occurs as a result of 

that EOR activity. As a result, the commenters provided the following suggested revisions: “If 

your affected unit captures CO2 to meet the applicable emissions limit, your affected unit must 

use either (i) onsite or offsite GS, pursuant to a permit issued under Class VI of the Safe 

Drinking Water Underground Injection Program, and that reports in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 98, subpart RR, or (ii) send the captured CO2 for use in enhanced 

recovery of oil or natural gas, through injection permitted under Class II of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act Underground Injection Program for that purpose and that reports in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 98, subpart RR.”

Additionally, the commenters stated that it is a necessary part of the documentation of the 

achievement of the emissions standards that such reporting must become a condition of the Title

V permit for the facility.

Response 6.3-196: The final rule requires that any affected EGU unit that captures CO2 to meet 

the applicable emissions limit must transfer the captured CO2 to a facility that reports under 

GHGRP subpart RR, where sequestration is part of the compliance path. In order to provide 

clarity on the requirement, the EPA reworded the proposed language under §60.5555(f) to use 

the phrase “If your affected unit captures CO2” in place of the phrase “If your affected unit 

employs geologic sequestration”. This revision is not a change from the EPA’s initial intent.

The EPA disagrees that the rule does not provide enforceable reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements related to the amount of CO2 that is being sent by an EGU to a facility that is 

compliant with subpart RR. The revisions being finalized at § 98.427(d) specifically provide that 

EGUs that are capturing CO2 and sending the CO2 to a facility that is subject to subpart RR 

“must retain records of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each subpart RR facility”.
6-123

See preamble section XII. Implications for PSD and Title V Programs of the preamble for further 

discussion on PSD and Title V permits.

Comment 6.3-197: Commenters 9664 and 9514 asserted that the EPA must add provisions to 

require any EGU meeting the standard through long-term containment in a subsurface geological 

formation (either through GS or in enhanced oil recovery), to provide documentation showing 

that the volume of captured CO2 necessary to achieve the standard has been injected onsite to a 

facility permitted under the UIC program and reporting under subpart RR, or transferred to a 

facility that is permitted under the UIC program and reports under subpart RR. 

Commenters 9664 and 9514 suggested the following amendments to Subpart PP reporting 

requirements at 40 CFR 98.426 to reflect EPA’s intent that captured CO2 will be permanently 

sequestered:

“Section 98.426 Data reporting requirements.

* * * *

(h) If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of 

this part you must transfer the captured CO2 to a facility or facilities subject to subpart RR of this 

part, and you must:

(1) Report the facility identification number associated with the annual GHG report for the 

subpart D facility,

(2) Report each facility identification number associated with the annual GHG reports for each 

facility to which CO2 is transferred, and

(3) Report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each facility.”

Response 6.3-197: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggested changes to 40 CFR Part 

98 subpart PP. The suggested change would require all EGUs who capture CO2 – new, modified, 

and existing – to send all of the captured CO2 to a facility subject to 40 CFR Part 98 subpart RR 

(Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). The EPA believes that the current language in 40 

CFR Part 98 is appropriate because the GHGRP covers not only EGUs that are subject to the 

NSPS, but also existing EGUs. It also allows EGUs to send some captured CO2 to other end 

uses.

Comment 6.3-198: Commenter 9766 stated the EPA has ample authority to establish monitoring 

and reporting requirements under Section 111 and therefore is not restricted only to the existing 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to ensure proper monitoring and reporting of the disposition 

or fate of CO2 once transferred from an affected EGU.

Response 6.3-198: The EPA agrees that it has the authority to establish reporting requirements 

under Section 111 for EGUs. However, the EPA believes that the existing UIC and GHGRP 

requirements help ensure that sequestered CO2 will remain in place, and provide the monitoring 

mechanisms to identify and address potential leakage using SDWA and CAA authorities. 
6-124

Comment 6.3-199: Commenter 1637 stated that there are only requirements that the source 

report under the GHG reporting rule 40 CFR 98 subpart RR if it is disposed onsite or subpart PP 

if disposed offsite. This reporting provision only requires a report of where it goes. It could all go 

to a facility that simply releases it to the atmosphere without any penalty to anyone. A 

requirement to dispose of it only to a facility that is injecting the CO2 and reporting under 

subpart RR should be plainly stated.

Response 6.3-199: The EPA does not agree with the commenter’s interpretation of the 

requirements in the rule but does agree generally with the commenter’s conclusion that the final 

rule requires all affected units to send captured CO2 to a facility that is compliant with subpart 

RR of the GHGRP. 

Comment 6.3-200: Commenter 9664 found EPA’s intention to require any new fossil fuel-fired 

boilers or IGCC employing CCS to meet the standard to send captured CO2 only to a facility that 

reports under subpart RR is reasonable and stated that the EPA properly relies on the subpart RR 

MRV plan to verify that the CO2 captured from an affected unit is injected underground for longterm containment. 

The commenter stated that for long-term containment occurring incidental to or in addition to 

EOR operations, a UIC Class II permit and the CAA subpart RR rules establish a similar 

framework and that since in the near term it is highly likely that EOR will be used to isolate 

captured anthropogenic CO2 from atmospheric release. It is therefore important for the EGU 

operator subject to this rule, be able to demonstrate that captured CO2 is sent either to a Class VI 

GS facility or to a Class II EOR facility reporting under subpart RR.

The commenter further stated that EOR using mined natural CO2 presents the same risks of CO2

to atmospheric release, as does the use of captured CO2 from a power plant, and for that reason, 

and because there are no significant economic or technical impediments to requiring all EOR 

activity to report using subpart RR, the commenter urges the EPA to revisit the UU v. RR 

distinction, in the context of its reporting rules, and require RR reporting for all enhanced oil 

recovery activity permitted under UIC Class II. 

Response 6.3-200: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s shared view that relying on subpart 

RR to verify that the CO2 captured from an affected unit is injected underground for long-term 

containment is reasonable. The EPA agrees, and the final rule requires, that regardless of the 

class of well, Class II or Class VI, any facility receiving CO2 from an EGU that is capturing CO2

to meet the standards of this rule must comply with subpart RR requirements. The EPA does not 

agree with the commenter’s suggestion to require all EOR facilities to report under subpart RR, 

and the comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking in any case. Should the EPA be deemed 

to be required to answer the comment, the EPA maintains that the current subpart UU and 

subpart RR monitoring and reporting requirements are appropriate. 

Comment 6.3-201: Commenter 10618 stated that reporting tools upon which the EPA is relying 

have never been used. According to the commenter (10618), for calendar year 2012, only two 

facilities submitted any information to EPA’s GHGRP for carbon injection activities. Both of 

these facilities have been granted research and development exemptions for GHG reporting, and 

both of them reported only the volume of GHGs received at the facility under subpart UU, not 
6-125

the detailed information required by subpart RR. The commenter (10618) continued that there 

were no estimates of the amounts of GHGs actually successfully sequestered, and neither facility 

has developed the kind of monitoring protocols required under subpart RR. Similarly, 

commenter 10095 stated the EPA cannot ignore that no injection site, of any size to date, has 

demonstrated the injection, storage, and monitoring of CO2 under subpart RR requirements. 

According to the commenter (10618), the remaining facilities listed in EPA’s reporting tool are 

only subject to subpart UU, and are only required to report volumes of “new” CO2 received at 

the facility, not the amounts that are used in, recovered, and recycled through EOR or other 

operations, nor any amounts that may be emitted from those operations. As a result, the 

commenter stated that no useful information about the actual amounts of CO2 in recovered oil 

and gas, or emitted to the surface in connection with an EOR operation, has ever been submitted 

to the EPA. Based on this information, the commenter (10618) concluded that the EPA has no 

basis for its assumptions regarding the ability of EOR operators to successfully design a 

monitoring program that would meet the requirements of subpart RR.

One commenter (9666) stated that none of the 1,000 million metric tons of CO2 injected to date 

have been subject to subpart RR. About 120 million have been reported to the EPA since the 

reporting rules took effect beginning in 2011, all of which has been reported under subpart UU 

and not a single ton has come under the subpart RR rules. There are no approved MRV plans for 

CO2 injection in EOR operations for reporting under subpart RR. Hence, rather than being 

“adequately demonstrated”, the subpart RR rules and procedures are unused, uncertain and 

unworkable for EOR operations.

Response 6.3-201: The EPA disagrees that subpart RR is unworkable. First, subpart RR is built 

upon an understanding of the mechanisms by which CO2 is retained in geologic formations, 

which are well understood and proven. See Preamble section V.N.3. Second, international 

experience with large scale commercial GS projects has demonstrated through extensive 

monitoring programs that large volumes of CO2 can be safely injected and securely sequestered 

for long periods of time at volumes and rates consistent with those expected under this rule. This 

experience has also demonstrated the value and efficacy of monitoring programs to determine 

the location of CO2 in the subsurface and detect potential leakage through the presence of CO2 in 

the shallow subsurface, near surface and air. These projects have demonstrated that 

comprehensive monitoring can be accomplished at saline and EOR sites. With respect to EOR, 

and as discussed in Preamble section V.N.3, CO2 from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in North 

Dakota has been injected into the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan Canada since 2000. Over 

that time period the project has injected more than 16 million metric tons of CO2, with extensive 

monitoring by U,S. and international partners which has demonstrated that no leakage has 

occurred. The EPA also notes that the DOE has created a network of seven Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) to deploy large-scale field projects in different geologic 

settings across the country to demonstrate that GS can be achieved safely, permanently, and 

economically at large scales. In April 2015, DOE announced that CCS projects supported by the 

department have safely and permanently stored 10 million metric tons of CO2.

35

 

35 http://energy.gov/articles/milestone-energy-department-projects-safely-and-permanently-store10-million-metric-tons
6-126

Comment 6.3-202: One commenter (10095) noted that the EPA references the geologic storage 

opportunities in Canada and Dakota Gasification synthetic natural gas plant’s utilization of EOR 

in the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada. According to the commenter, if the EPA

intends to require any reporting, much less subpart RR, the EPA must elaborate on how it intends 

to enforce reporting requirements in other countries or eliminate these potential storage 

opportunities and plants from the Agency’s analysis.

Response 6.3-202: The commenter appears to misunderstand the discussion of the Great Plains 

Synfuels plant in North Dakota and Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada, which provides 

an example of how geologic sequestration has been demonstrated. CO2 from Dakota Gasification 

has been injected into the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan Canada since 2000. Over that time 

period the project has injected more than 16 million metric tons of CO2. It is anticipated that 

approximately 40 million metric tons of CO2 will be permanently sequestered over the lifespan 

of the project. Extensive monitoring by U.S. and international partners has demonstrated that no 

leakage has occurred. 

Comment 6.3-203: One commenter (10618) stated that it appears that 85 facilities listed as 

being subject to subpart UU required no “new” CO2 (i.e., not the amounts that are used in, 

recovered, and recycled through EOR or other operations, nor any amounts that may be emitted 

from those operations) for their operations during the entire year, leading one to question the 

availability of EOR opportunities for the large amounts of CO2 that would be captured at even a 

single, partially controlled coal-fired steam generating unit. Based on this information, the 

commenter (10618) concluded that the EPA has no basis for its assumptions regarding the 

availability of sequestration at EOR operations.

Response 6.3-203: 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart UU requires the reporting of the amount of CO2

received for injection. The data element referenced by the commenter was previously determined 

to be confidential business information (CBI) at the facility level. 77 FR 48072 (August 13, 

2012) Therefore the data is not made available on a facility-by-facility basis. The amounts 

reported by facilities are CBI and not zero. According to data reported to the GHGRP, 

approximately 60 million metric tons of CO2 were supplied to EOR in the United States in 

2013.36

Comment 6.3-204: Commenter 9196 stated that the proposed rule relies heavily on the potential 

for power plants to sell CO2 to EOR operators as a means of defraying the tremendous costs of 

CCS, however, EOR operators are signaling that the subpart RR requirements in the proposed 

rule may be prohibitive. Broad coalition of groups, from EOR operators to electric power 

providers, has raised concerns about EPA’s plans. The commenter requested that the EPA

address the following concerns:

a. Please explain in detail the new requirements for EOR operators that would accept CO2

from power plants?

 

36 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, data reported as of August 18, 2014.
6-127

b. Have you spoken with any groups potentially impacted by the new subpart RR reporting 

requirements? How have you taken their concerns into consideration?

c. Would reporting under subpart RR potentially trigger the transition of an EOR well from 

Class II to Class VI under the UIC program-as EPA draft guidance suggests?

d. A significant part of EPA's economic justification for the proposed rule relies on the 

assumption that the CO2 from power plants will be a valued commodity used in EOR 

operations. How do the economics of the proposed rule change if this is no longer an 

option?

e. Can you commit that EPA will not use reporting under subpart RR to push any EOR 

operations into Class VI.

Response 6.3-204: The EPA does not agree with the commenter’s statement that the proposed 

rule relies heavily on the potential for power plants to sell CO2 to EOR operators. EOR facilities 

may facilitate early mover projects, but the proposal and final rule rely on CO2 being sent to deep 

saline formations, as indicated by the discussion in the preamble and the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. 

The EPA also offers the following responses to the commenter’s questions.

a. Under the rule, any facility receiving CO2 from an EGU that is capturing CO2 to meet the 

standards of this rule must comply with the existing requirements of subpart RR.

b. Subpart RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is not new. Rather, the regulations 

promulgating Subpart RR were finalized in 2010. The EPA reviewed and responded to 

public comments as part of the rulemaking that promulgated the Subpart RR 

requirements. As part of the notice-and-comment process of this rule, the EPA has 

reviewed and considered public comment on the proposal. 

c. Reporting under subpart RR does not trigger the transition of a Class II well to a Class VI

well. See preamble section V.N.5.a.

d. Facilities using carbon capture are doing different things with the captured CO2, ranging 

from EOR to storage to using it for food products. While it is true that selling captured 

CO2 for EOR can generate revenue and help offset the costs of capturing carbon, this 

does not mean plants can only build in areas near EOR. In estimating costs for the 

proposed rule, the EPA considered various scenarios. See the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for more discussion on the scenarios which the EPA considered and their estimate 

impacts. In estimating impacts, and in assessing costs for purposes of determining if 

partial CCS is BSER adequately demonstrated, the EPA relied conservatively on the case 

where CO2 would be sent to a deep saline GS formation. Therefore, the commenter is 

simply incorrect in stating that EPA’s economic justification for the rule relies on the 

assumption that the CO2 from power plants will be used in EOR operations.

e. An EOR project may be permitted as UIC Class II and report under Subpart RR. The 

regulatory provisions regarding transitioning from UIC Class II to UIC Class VI are set 
6-128

forth at 40 CFR 144.19. Reporting under Subpart RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program is not one of the factors specified in 40 CFR 144.19(b).

Comment 6.3-205: One commenter (10034) stated that the information collected through the 

GHGRP can be used to measure some of the agency's anticipated outcomes.

Response 6.3-205: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the information collected through 

the GHGRP can help measure and track some of the EPA’s anticipated outcomes. The EPA is 

finalizing changes to the reporting requirements of subpart PP of the GHGRP to help track these 

outcomes. 

Comment 6.3-206: Commenter (4733) stated that the EPA issued subpart RR to complement the 

UIC Class VI Rule. Compliance with subpart RR will allow GS operators to provide proof of 

sequestration, eliminating another barrier to CCS.

Similarly, commenter 9035 stated that the EPA has provided a pathway for demonstrating the 

geologic storage of CO2 utilized in EOR by meeting certain requirements of the Underground 

Injection Control Program and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

Response 6.3-206: The EPA agrees that subpart RR complements the UIC Class VI regulations. 

The EPA also agrees that subpart RR will provides a mechanism for demonstrating the efficacy 

of GS, including in conjunction with EOR.

Comment 6.3-207: Commenter 9666 stated the reporting obligations under subpart RR are 

poorly defined, and may discourage CO2 injection facilities from accepting CO2 generated by 

sources subject to the proposed NSPS, particularly EOR facilities, which are not currently

required to report under subpart RR. According to the commenter, because no entity has reported 

data to the EPA under subpart RR, there is lingering uncertainty as to what would be required 

from a subpart RR monitoring, reporting, and verification plan. Other commenters (9201, 9683, 

10036, 10098, 10137, 9731, 10095) also expressed concerns with the potential uncertainty and 

risks compliance with subpart RR creates for EOR operators. 

One commenter (10098) opined that requirements to comply with subpart RR opined that this is 

problematic because there are no standards governing what may constitute an incomplete or 

otherwise unacceptable MRV plan, nor any timeline for approval, creating a completely openended and undefined regulatory framework. 

Response 6.3-207: The EPA does not agree that the reporting obligations under subpart RR are 

poorly defined. There are clearly defined reporting requirements outlined in 40 CFR Part 98.446. 

As part of these requirements, the EPA has provided flexibility to reporters in regards to annual 

monitoring reports (40 CFR 98.446(a)(12)); the EPA views this as a way to balance the burden 

in reporters as each sequestration site is unique as opposed to a uncertain requirement.

There are also clearly defined requirements for what must be included in a complete and 

acceptable subpart RR MRV Plan. The EPA identified all required components in a subpart RR 

MRV Plan in 40 CFR Part 98.448(a). In outlining these requirements, EPA’s approach allows for 

site-specific flexibility for MRV plans and does not prescribe particular monitoring technologies. 

The approach also allows the owner or operator to leverage the site characterization, risk 
6-129

assessment, and/or monitoring required by other authorities as the foundation for demonstrating 

compliance with the MRV plan requirements of 40 CFR Part 98, subpart RR. 

The evaluation criteria and what would result in approval for a subpart RR MRV Plan are highly

flexible. While the EPA recognizes that this may be mistaken as uncertainty, the geology and 

other conditions among facilities conducting GS vary. To provide more clarity for reporters, the 

EPA provided information in the General TSD of the Subpart RR final rule (Docket ID EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0926) on the technical evaluation of MRV plans, including illustrative examples 

describing the types of information that may be included in the MRV plan to fulfill the 

regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 98.448.

In regards to the comment that asserted that there is not a timeline for approvals MRV plans, the 

EPA does not agree. 40 CFR 98.448(b) outlines a clear timeline for MRV Plan submissions, 

reviews, and iterations between the EPA and reporters (e.g., specifying the number of days 

allowed for each step in the process). 

All of these components of subpart RR results in a clearly defined regulatory framework for

accounting for GS. 

Comment 6.3-208: Commenter 10137 noted all decisions (about subpart RR MRV plans) are 

open to litigation by any “interested person” under Part 78 litigation procedures, and hence, prior 

to closing financing to allow construction to begin, the developer of a new power plant seeking 

to implement carbon capture and storage as the compliance tool for meeting the new standards is 

unlikely to be able to obtain a commitment from an EOR operator to become subject to 

undefined and open-ended requirements that may extend decades into the future.

Response 6.3-208: The commenter is correct that subpart RR MRV Plan final decisions may be 

appealed to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board by an interested person per the requirements 

under Part 78. However, the EPA does not agree that this process prevents EGUs from obtaining 

a commitment from EOR operators. Without the administrative appeals process, the reporters’ 

and interested person’s only option becomes litigation, which the EPA believes would be more 

disruptive and costly, and delay implementation of MRV plans further. Additionally, while the 

EPA anticipates that many early geologic sequestration projects may be sited with EOR projects, 

this rule relies on CO2 being sent to deep saline formations. Therefore, the EPA does not foresee 

the commenter’s assertion as a potential deterrent to the overall compliance with this rule.

Comment 6.3-209: One commenter 10098 stated that once approved, the MRV plan must be 

maintained under the rule for a duration determined by the EPA, and not the EOR operator. 

Further, the commenter noted that subpart RR provides that operational changes - even the 

drilling of a new injection well that had not previously been identified- can start the whole MRV 

approval process over again.

Response 6.3-209: Under subpart RR, the EPA has provided clear requirements regarding the 

length of time for which a GS facility must report and maintain an MRV plan under subpart RR. 

Under subpart RR facilities may discontinue reporting when they can demonstrate through 

monitoring and modeling that the injected CO2 is not expected to migrate in the future in a 

manner likely to result in surface leakage or when the facility has closed pursuant to its Class VI
6-130

permit, which is sufficient evidence to ensure to the EPA that there is no risk of CO2 leakage to 

the surface. In setting these requirements, the EPA can ensure it has access to accurate and 

complete data that represents the amount of CO2 sequestered at a GS site.

An MRV plan may require revision and resubmittal if a material change was made to monitoring 

and/or operational parameters that was not anticipated in the original plan, if there has been a 

change in the permit class of the reporter’s UIC permit, if the reporter is notified by the EPA of 

errors in their MRV plan or annual monitoring report, or if the reporter chooses to revise their 

MRV plan for any other reason. The EPA anticipates that MRV plan resubmissions will be a 

result of isolated changes to the MRV plan, hence the review and approval process and 

timeframe will be reflective of that.

Comment 6.3-210: Commenter 10095 questioned how the EPA would deal with instances of 

non-compliance if CO2 complying with subpart RR is comingled in a pipeline with CO2 that is 

not complying with subpart RR, given that NSPS requires CO2 from an EGU to comply with 

subpart RR of the mandatory GHGRP. 

Response 6.3-210: If injection occurs offsite, the rule requires captured CO2 to be transferred to 

a facility that reports in accordance with GHGRP Subpart RR. The hypothetical raised by the 

commenter (CO2 being transferred in a common pipeline) would not in itself cause noncompliance with the NSPS. 

Liability

Comment 6.3-211: Commenters 9381, 9425, and 9666 stated that, to date, the insurance 

industry has provided only short-term policies that cover a few years of CCS operations with 

limited options for renewal, potentially making financing of full-scale CCS projects very

difficult. According to the commenters, at this time there is no guarantee that there will be 

sufficient insurance coverage available to manage risks associated with long-term storage of 

CO2. Commenter 9683 asserted that, although insurance may be available during the operation 

and post-injection site care phase, commercial risk management instruments are not available for 

post-closure liabilities. Similarly, Commenters 9780 and 10239 stated that there are unanswered 

questions regarding long-term-liability and insurance.

Response 6.3-211: In general, the risks associated with geologic sequestration of CO2 are 

expected to be highest during the operational phase of the project, when the commenter notes 

that insurance or other financial mechanisms for risk management would likely be available. The 

risks are then expected to decrease over time. The 2010 Report of the Interagency Task Force on 

Carbon Capture and Storage discusses how scientific research has concluded that there is 

substantial evidence that CO2 will remain in place for extended periods if the injection site is 

chosen properly, injection operations are conducted according to regulations, the site is 

monitored adequately, and post-injection and closure operations are conducted appropriately.

37

The EPA’s existing regulations for geologic sequestration provide a framework to assure the 

safety and efficacy of GS, which can help assure lenders considering financing sequestration 

 

37 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (August 2010), page 72.
6-131

facilities. Although the commenters focus on the use of insurance to cover long-term liabilities, 

there are other financial mechanisms that could cover post-closure liabilities. Furthermore, first 

mover projects are in operation and have been able to obtain needed financing. 

Comment 6.3-212: Commenters 9407 and 10052 stated that legal and financial liability

associated with geologic sequestration is uncertain, increasing the level of risk associated with 

implementation of CCS.

Commenter 9666 stated that the current federal and state regulatory framework continues to 

create significant uncertainties as to how risks to human health or private property in the event of 

leakage will be managed, and how liability will be allocated in the event of a leak. Commenters 

9197 and 9596 noted that experts and stakeholders have raised significant questions about the 

long-term feasibility of sequestering large amounts of CO2 underground and who will be liable 

for upsets or adverse changes to the reservoir of stored CO2. Commenter 10086 stated that many

liability issues need to be resolved before CCS can be deemed adequately demonstrated, 

including (1) who is liable for the captured CO2, (2) when does ownership of and liability for 

CO2 transfer during the capture, transport, and storage process, and (3) what are the ramifications 

if the transportation and storage components fail.

Commenter 9666 also stated that repositories located across state lines will introduce 

jurisdictional questions - particularly as CO2 plumes migrate. According to Commenter 9666, 

legal precedent addressing such complex subsurface issues does not exist. CO2 -derived 

liabilities are not fully defined and there is little basis for resolving disputes. The commenter 

noted that the legal framework which exists has evolved from oil and gas rights and application 

of EOR may not apply to larger CO2 disposal rates and the timeframe for monitoring CO2 from 

sequestration covered under the proposal.

Response 6.3-212: The 2010 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and 

Storage discusses how present scientific research has concluded that there is substantial evidence 

that CO2 will remain in place for extended periods if the injection site is chosen properly, 

injection operations are conducted according to regulations, the site is monitored adequately, and 

post-injection and closure operations are conducted appropriately. 

At the Federal level, the EPA developed the UIC Program to regulate the underground injection 

of fluids in a manner that ensures protection of USDWs. Although the regulations for Class VI 

and Class II injection wells are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment, the 

practical effect of these complementary technical requirements is that they also prevent releases 

of CO2 to the atmosphere. These requirements decrease the likelihood of the events of concern 

raised by the commenters, including leakages, upsets, adverse changes to the reservoir, and 

plume migration. Furthermore, EPA’s regulations provide required actions for remediation in the 

event of a leak, ensuring minimal impact on human health and the environment in the 

surrounding area. The EPA has concluded that the UIC requirements will protect human health 

and the environment from potential risks associated with CO2 streams and prevent migration of 

sequestered CO2 both to underground sources of drinking water and to the atmosphere over the 

long-term.
6-132

Comment 6.3-213: Commenter 9666 stated CCS presents a unique problem because the 

underground storage of CO2 might affect the flow and location of groundwater and the disruption 

of on-site groundwater wells, especially those used by public water systems, might expose the 

owner of the CCS operations to liability. Commenter 10023 stated that CO2 storage raises 

numerous permitting and regulatory issues, including liability related to groundwater effects. 

Response 6.3-213: The EPA does not believe that this presents a unique problem or an 

insurmountable challenge. Similar to other commercial operations that create risks to human 

health or the environment, geologic sequestration of CO2 will need to be performed in a manner 

that does not endanger USDWs. The EPA’s UIC program, promulgated under the authority of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, establishes a risk management framework to protect underground 

sources of drinking water through requirements ensuring that geologic sequestration wells are 

appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, and closed. The EPA has concluded that the 

UIC requirements will protect human health and the environment from potential risks associated 

with CO2 streams. 

Comment 6.3-214: Commenter 8966 stated the realm of liability is particularly broad due to 

recognition among experts that much more investigation is necessary to understand the effects of 

carbon sequestration on health and groundwater quality. Yet, the commenter stated, the proposed 

rule provides no indemnification or transfer-of-title safeguards, nor makes any effort to clarify

the bounds of potential liability. The commenter noted that this liability may be a barrier to CCS 

development. The commenter also stated because of this uncertainty, new facilities 

implementing CCS would likely be required to install multiple monitoring wells to ensure the 

integrity of the reservoir. The commenter referenced the AEP Mountaineer Plant, noting that for 

a commercial-scale CCS system, monitoring costs are likely to be great, corresponding to the 

greater potential liability associated with storage of millions of tons of CO2 underground. 

Response 6.3-214: Defining the scope of liability or limiting liability through indemnification or 

transfer-of-title at sequestration facilities is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA does 

not believe that lack of a liability limit is a major impediment to near-term deployment of CCS, 

as stated in the 2010 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. With 

respect to AEP’s experience with the Mountaineer demonstration project, notwithstanding 

difficulties, the company was able to successfully dig wells, and safely inject captured CO2. 

Moreover, the company indicated it fully expected to be able to do so at full scale and explained 

how.38 The EPA notes further that a monitoring program and its associated infrastructure (e.g., 

monitoring wells) and costs will be dependent on site-specific characteristics, such as CO2

injection rate and volume, geology, the presence of artificial penetrations, among other factors. It

is thus not appropriate to generalize from AEP’s experience (especially given that the site was a 

retrofit to an existing source, not initially sited with sequestration in mind), and assume that other 

sites will require the same number of wells for site characterization or injection. In this regard, 

 

38 See AEP FEED Study at pp. 36-43. The company likewise explained the monitoring regime it would utilize to 

verify containment, and the well construction it would utilize to guarantee secure sequestration. Id. at pp. 44-54.
6-133

we note that the ADM and FutureGen permits for Class VI wells involved far fewer injection 

wells than AEP references.39

Comment 6.3-215: Commenter 9666 stated that assigning responsibility for seismic disruption 

damages caused by carbon injection may be difficult because of scientific uncertainty and lack of 

legal precedent. The commenter noted that in the case of natural seismic action leading to future 

CO2 leakages, assigning liability based on fault may be impossible and lead to difficulty in 

handling any resulting damages.

Response 6.3-215: EPA’s UIC regulations help ensure that CO2 injection activities will not 

result in significant seismic activity. The permitting process identifies risks and eliminates 

unacceptable sites prior to injection. The regulations specify criteria for site selection and 

monitoring that must be met before a site can be considered suitable for CO2 injection. See 

Preamble section V.N.1.

Comment 6.3-216: Commenters 9423, 9426, 10036, and 10618 stated that among the legal and 

regulatory issues that must be overcome before CCS technology for EGUs can move forward is 

the current lack of clarity surrounding long-term stewardship and liability for stored CO2. 

Commenters 9407 and 10952 stated that the proposal and supporting information in the 

rulemaking docket lacks information that the EPA has considered key legal issues that need 

resolution, such as long term liability. The commenter references the administration's task force 

report on CCS projects as previously identified concerns that should be addressed. Similarly, 

Commenter 10043 stated that the EPA does not know the long-term effects or the risks of storing 

large amounts of CO2 underground and asserted that the uncertainty associated with this longterm liability creates an immeasurable risk. 

Commenter 9683 cited a 2011 National Coal Council report to the Secretary of Energy that 

stated that “The management of long-term liability risks is a critical consideration for CCS 

projects. In terms of supporting the broad deployment of CCS across the coal based generation 

fleet, uncertainty regarding long-term liability remains a challenge.” Commenter 9396 cited a 

2013 Congressional Research Service analysis of the status of CCS, noting “liability, ownership, 

and long-term stewardship for CO2 sequestered underground are issues that would need to be 

resolved before CCS is deployed commercially.” The commenter also stated that a key issue in 

the siting of the FutureGen post combustion capture and storage demonstration project was the 

extension of liability coverage by the State of Illinois for claims associated with underground 

storage, however, such liability extensions by state governments appear to be a thing of the past, 

leaving private entities uncertain as to how to resolve future legal liability. Similarly, Commenter 

9597 stated that CCS is challenged by long-term storage concerns regarding indemnification of 

potential releases of stored materials. 

 

39 The FutureGen UIC Class VI injection well permits (four in total) require nine monitoring wells. 

http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/futuregen/. The Archer Daniels Midland UIC Class VI injection well permit issued 

in September 2014 (CCS2) requires five monitoring wells and the Archer Daniels Midland UIC Class VI injection 

well permit issued in December 2014 (CCS1) was permitted with two monitoring wells. 

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/.
6-134

Commenter 8349 stated U.S. Congress has not yet considered or taken any action on the long 

term liability issues associated with long term storage of CO2. Commenter 9666 asserted that 

only four States have developed any additional programs to address long-term care.

Response 6.3-216: The EPA notes that liability issues have not proved impediments to issuing 

of Class VI permits to date, as illustrated by the various permits issued to Archer Daniels 

Midland and FutureGen. EOR with anthropogenic CO2 likewise has been conducted successfully

for decades without such issues proving an insurmountable obstacle. See also responses 

immediately above. In addition, there are compliance alternatives to the promulgated standards 

that do not involve sequestration, so that the standard can be satisfied in any case.

Comment 6.3-217: Commenter 10618 stated that the Class VI UIC regulation should not be 

misconstrued as having addressed all barriers to the geologic sequestration of CO2. The 

commenter cited a 2014 Congressional Research Service report discussing EPA's authority to 

protect underground sources of drinking water but not other major issues such as the long-term 

liability for injected CO2, regulation of potential emissions to the atmosphere, and legal issues if 

the CO2 plume migrates underground across state boundaries.

Response 6.3-217: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the Class VI UIC regulations did 

not address all barriers to commercial deployment of geologic sequestration of CO2. For 

example, to address other barriers, the EPA promulgated GHG Reporting Program Subpart RR 

and the conditional exclusion from RCRA Subtitle C of CO2 streams that are sequestered in a 

Class VI well. Specific responses to the three example barriers raised by the commenter are 

discussed in detail in other responses within this section. 

Comment 6.3-218: Commenter 9683 asserted that a key concern for power generators is the 

applicability of CERCLA to the CO2 generated at their facility and transferred to a third party. 

Commenter 9683 stated that generators were particularly concerned because CERCLA applies a 

joint, strict, and several liability scheme. Furthermore, the Commenter noted that in the UIC 

Class VI proposed rule the presence of materials other than CO2 in CO2 injectate could cause the 

material to be considered a “hazardous substance,” the term, according to the commenter, that 

triggers liability under CERCLA. 

Response 6.3-218: The EPA acknowledges that although CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous 

substance under CERCLA, the CO2 stream injected into a geologic sequestration well could 

contain a listed hazardous substance or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could 

react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances. Whether such substances may

result in CERCLA liability from a GS facility depends entirely on the composition of the specific 

CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). 

However, CERCLA exempts from liability under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain 

“Federally permitted releases” as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601 (10), which would 

include the permitted injectate stream as long as it is injected and behaved in accordance with the 

permit requirements. 
6-135

Other CO2 Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory Issues

Comment 6.3-219: Commenters 6948, 9426, and 10137 stated that legal and regulatory barriers 

must be addressed to complete the development of CCS and allow for it to be commercially

viable. Focusing on the long-term storage aspect of CCS, Commenters 10024 and 10088 stated 

that many legal and regulatory impediments exist. Commenters 9426 and 10243 asserted that site 

specific non-technical issues including permitting, public acceptance, property rights of pore 

space, pipeline siting and construction, interstate transport and safety, liability, and long-term 

closure issues must all be addressed by the EPA before CCS can be deployed. Commenter 10095 

listed several legal issues, including pore-space ownership and long-term storage liability as 

discussed by the Interagency Task Force on CCS, and provided an example highlighting the 

gaps, uncertainties, and inconsistencies that may be problematic for projects in states without 

such laws and for projects that would span multiple states. Commenter 10618 asserted that 

undeveloped regulatory and legal considerations may alone prohibit the development and 

adequate demonstration of CCS projects, citing several assessments that recognize 

developmental challenges related to legal and regulatory issues, and a survey of all 50 states and 

their readiness to regulate CCS.

Response 6.3-219: Legal and regulatory barriers described by the commenters were thoroughly 

discussed by the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, which concluded that 

such challenges were surmountable. The EPA notes that issues of individual property rights and 

liabilities will involve site-specific resolution if and when they arise in particular proceedings. 

These issues have not proved impediments to the Class VI projects pursuing GS, as illustrated by 

the cases of Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen. The EPA has responded specifically to each 

of the legal or regulatory issues raised by the commenters elsewhere in this Section 6.3; see the 

topics titled Geologic Sequestration Property Rights, CO2 Transport Legal and Regulatory

Issues, Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Liability, and Other CO2

Transport and Geologic Sequestration Legal and Regulatory Issues.

Comment 6.3-220: Commenter 9780 supports EPA’s determination that EGU responsibility for 

captured CO2 ends once the EGU has ensured that the storage or EOR project operator reports 

under subpart RR, because EGUs should only be responsible for emissions over which they have 

control.

Response 6.3-220: This rulemaking includes a numeric emissions standard and a requirement 

that the emitting EGU assure that captured CO2 is managed at an entity subject to the GHG 

reporting rules. 

Comment 6.3-221: Commenter 8022 stated that the proposed rule is flawed because it requires 

CO2 capture only and does not mandate or regulate sequestration, which the commenter 

characterized as the only component of CCS that might reduce CO2 emissions generated by a 

new source. 

Response 6.3-221: As already noted, this rulemaking includes a numeric emissions standard and 

a requirement that the emitting EGU assure that captured CO2 is managed at an entity subject to 

the GHG reporting rules. See also preamble section V.N. 
6-136

Comment 6.3-222: Commenter 10083 stated that there is no precedent for regulating activity

beyond the facility generating CO2, nor are the facilities at which sequestration is likely to occur 

subject to this rule. The commenter noted that it is significant that parties (e.g., CO2

sequestration facility operators), who are responsible for handling the CO2 after it has been 

turned over by the CO2 generator, are not subject to the rule because it is not practical or 

practicable for the generator to account for the CO2 after the generator has turned it over to a 

third party.

Response 6.3-222: The final standard of performance requires the EGU to transfer the captured 

CO2 to an entity reporting under subpart RR where sequestration is part of the compliance path.

Comment 6.3-223: Commenters 9407, 9600 and 10097 asserted that although the proposal does 

not seek to regulate or address offsite facilities where transport and storage would take place, 

these components are required to augment the BSER or otherwise captured CO2 could be 

subsequently emitted offsite. 

Similarly, Commenter 9201 stated that the EPA failed to properly account for the entirety of the 

system by focusing on carbon capture and omitting an account of the transportation and storage 

components of CCS. Therefore, the commenter asserted that EPA’s proposed NSPS is 

incomplete and cannot be considered BSER. Unless the EPA considers transportation and 

storage, the commenter stated that the NSPS is an arbitrary and capricious application of CAA 

section 111(b).

Response 6.3-223: As already noted, this rulemaking includes a numeric emissions standard and 

a requirement that the emitting EGU assure that captured CO2 is managed at an entity subject to 

the GHG reporting rules. See also preamble section V.N.

Comment 6.3-224: Commenter 9683 stated that the proposed rule makes possible the 

circumstance that a coal-fired power plant that must run for an area to maintain compliance with 

electric reliability requirements, which are binding and enforceable by FERC under the Federal 

Power Act, could be forced to violate the proposed rule if it was unable to sequester CO2 due to a 

leak at the only available geologic sequestration facility. Commenter 9683 notes that the House 

Committee on Energy & Commerce is considering legislation that could address this issue, but 

the Commenter notes that the legislation under consideration leaves the generating facilities at 

risk. The commenter stated that the proposed rule would not encourage CCS unless other laws 

and regulations are concurrently amended to resolve this potential situation. 

Commenter 10095 stated that if third parties are willing to accept CO2 from CCS operations at 

EGUs, power generators will need to enter into a contract with a third party that would receive 

the CO2 and take responsibility for ensuring continuous storage, and under such arrangements, 

the EGU would be dependent on a third party for both operations and compliance. The 

commenter added that if the third party cannot or will not accept the CO2, the EGU would likely 

be forced to shut down, and thus, the risk of contract breach could jeopardize the ability of the 

EGU to meet electricity demand. According to the commenter the lack of an established 

mechanism for these types of legal issues is further evidence of the complexities of relying on 

CCS when electricity production is at stake.
6-137

Commenter 9197 stated the proposed rule does not adequately consider the potential for 

downstream outages to impact EGUs’ ability to consistently meet the proposed NSPS-an issue 

that would not affect the demonstration projects or industrial facilities on which the EPA relies 

because these facilities can simply shut down when sequestration is not available. According to 

the commenter, the EPA has not addressed the possibility that a CO2 pipeline, EOR operator, or 

geologic sequestration well operator could experience technical or other difficulties that would 

prevent these third parties from taking a regulated EGU’s CO2.

Commenter 10095 described the Final Determination of Compliance for HECA's proposed 

polygen facility, which specifies HECA’s proposed GHG BACT analysis for its CO2 Recovery 

and Vent System that includes the ability to vent captured CO2 during periods when 

compression, transportation, or the delivery system is unavailable due to cold gasification block 

startup, CO2 compressor or pipeline unplanned outages, or third party CO2 off-take issues. The 

commenter urged EPA to consider how these types of risks can impact compliance with the 

proposed rule. 

Response 6.3-224: The EPA believes that the rule provides sufficient flexibility to avoid the 

compliance issues described by the commenters. In the event that there is a malfunction 

condition, the EGU would not be immediately required to shut down or be required to shut down 

within a certain specified period of time. EGUs that are unable to export their captured CO2

emissions could continue to operate without capturing their CO2 emissions in accordance with 

the terms of their operating permits and in accordance with numerical CO2 emissions limit to 

which the facility is subject. 

Comment 6.3-225: Commenter 10083 discussed the difficulties associated with deploying CCS 

in the West, such as complexity and time to obtain permits, complexity and costs of assessing 

storage suitability, and costs of covering liability risks related to transport and injection.

Response 6.3-225: The EPA has responded to the issue of permits in the Section 6.3 topic titled

Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, geologic sequestration assessment in the Section 6.3 topic titled

Geologic Sequestration, and liability in the Section 6.3 topic titled Liability. The EPA notes that 

issues of liability will involve site-specific resolution if and when they arise in particular 

proceedings. 

Comment 6.3-226: Commenter 9731 stated that the commenter opposes any efforts that would 

make CO2-EOR more costly or burdened by an unworkable regulatory framework.

Response 6.3-226: The EPA believes that the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI 

rule and Subpart RR of the GHG reporting rules do not place an excessive burden on EOR

operators. The existing framework offers an integrated and complementary set of regulations that 

ensure an appropriate level of verification and accounting of CO2. 

Comment 6.3-227: Citing a Congressional Research Service report, Commenter 9423 stated that 

legal and regulatory uncertainties may make broad community acceptance of CCS a challenge.
6-138

According to commenter 9666, public opposition to permitting CO2 storage sites due to safety 

related concerns has occurred recently in Europe. The commenter concluded that public 

acceptance can be a major issue at any proposed site. 

Response 6.3-227: Public awareness and support have been widely recognized as critical 

components in the development of new energy infrastructure, including CCS deployment. 

Efforts have been made to design strategies for successful outreach to the public. For example, 

under the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, DOE has been engaging with local 

communities to educate and inform them about planned pilot and demonstration projects in their 

areas. DOE’s Best Practices for Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects

presents lessons learned through the planning and implementation of CCS projects, as well as 

best practices for community engagement. 

Comment 6.3-228: Commenter 9426 stated that without a strong price signal for CO2, only

public funding will possibly advance CCS and funding is highly uncertain.

Response 6.3-228: As discussed in the proposal, the 2010 Interagency Task Force on CCS 

report recognized that, as an alternative to a strong price signal for CO2, a regulatory framework 

that promoted CCS was a mechanism for encouraging the commercial deployment of CCS (79 

FR 1480). This rule is an important component in developing that framework, which could, even 

in the absence of a strong price signal for CO2, advance CCS. 

Comment 6.3-229: Commenter 8949 stated that an environmental and cost impact assessment 

of the development and implementation of a CCS regulatory structure, either at the federal or 

state level, should be included in the agency’s decision making process.

Response 6.3-229: In its regulatory impact analysis, the EPA determined that identifying partial 

CCS as the BSER for coal-fired power plants would not have adverse impacts on the power 

sector, national electricity prices, or the energy sector. Furthermore, this rule relies on existing 

regulatory frameworks under the UIC Program and GHG Reporting Program. 

Comment 6.3-230: Commenter 10618 asserted that the EPA should have listed a new source 

category that includes all of the affected facilities necessary to effectively control CO2 emissions 

rather than relying on the existing source category described under Subpart Da. The commenter 

stated that EPA’s assertion that it is regulating the same source categories currently regulated 

under Subpart Da is inaccurate because those sources do not include the CO2 transport and 

sequestration or end use processes necessary to segregate the captured CO2 emissions from the 

atmosphere. 

Furthermore, Commenter 10618 disagreed with EPA’s reliance on the GHG Reporting Program 

to track the captured CO2 that is geologically sequestered as a means of avoiding redefining the 

source category. The Commenter stated that without an effective method to establish an 

enforceable standard for sequestration, such as requirements for successful sequestration and a 

better reporting tool, EPA’s proposal to require capture and reporting of CO2 emissions is 

ineffective and arbitrary.
6-139

Response 6.3-230: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that it is not regulating 

the same source categories currently regulated under subpart Da because those sources do not 

include the CO2 transport and sequestration or end use processes necessary to segregate the 

captured CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. The subpart Da requirements for criteria pollutants 

similarly do not include requirements for transportation and storage of particulate matter, SO2

scrubber residuals. We have described separate requirements for transportation and storage of 

captured CO2 in the preamble section V.N. and elsewhere in this response to comments 

document. The EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that there is no effective 

method to establish an enforceable standard for sequestration. Separate regulatory requirements 

exist under SDWA’s UIC program that regulate the entities involved in geologic sequestration of 

carbon dioxide. And the current rule requires that the emitting EGU assure that captured CO2 is 

managed by an entity subject to the GHG reporting rules. The primary intent of the requirement 

that the emitting EGU make this assurance is to account for captured CO2 that is geologically 

sequestered. See the Section 6.3 topic titled Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and preamble 

section V.N.2 for discussion related to the GHG Reporting Program.

Comment 6.3-231: Commenter 9407 stated that there are geographic locations where 

insufficient EOR and deep well sequestration infrastructure prohibits NSPS compliance, but 

where coal-fired plants are required to satisfy local needs. The commenter asserted that the 

proposal is unlawful because the requirements prohibit source locations where CCS 

infrastructure is unavailable, despite the location’s need for a reliable grid source or economic 

development.

Response 6.3-231: A few states do not have geologic conditions suitable for GS, or may not be 

located in proximity to these areas. Where GS capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in 

those areas can be served by coal-fired power plants built in neighboring areas with GS. For 

other of those areas, coal-fired power plants are either not being built due to state law 

restrictions, or other available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power 

plant meeting the promulgated NSPS to be sited. The EPA has also noted compliance 

alternatives that will allow affected new facilities to meet the final standard without the use of 

CCS technologies – notably by using natural gas co-firing.

Comment 6.3-232: Commenter 8743 argued that EPA’s description of legal precedent regarding 

the absence of a requirement under CAA section 111 that a New Source Performance Standard 

be able to be met by every new source in the source category misconstrues legislative intent. 

Commenter 8743 states that the legal precedent that the EPA relies on, which relates to attaining 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to justify this assertion is misplaced and cannot be 

properly applied to the emissions standards for CO2 for which no ambient air quality standard or 

distinct air quality related value exists. Commenter 8743 concludes that the EPA has overstepped 

by disadvantaging large geographical areas that are technically and economically precluded from 

CCS, which the commenter believes the EPA acknowledges by trying to argue that there is no 

requirement that a New Source Performance Standard be able to be met by every new source in 

the source category.

Response 6.3-232: The EPA believes that a new steam generating affected source could meet 

the promulgated standard and be located anywhere in the country. There is available 

sequestration capacity in most areas of the country, and there are alternative ways a new EGU 
6-140

could meet the standard, not involving sequestration, should a new source decide to locate in an 

area where these sequestration opportunities are unavailable. See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 

665 F. 3d 177, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2011), holding that the EPA could adopt section 111 standards of 

performance based on the performance of a kiln type that kilns of older design would have great 

difficulty satisfying, since among other things, there were alternative methods of compliance 

available should a new kiln of this older design be built. The court also noted that it was highly 

unlikely that such a new kiln would ever be constructed and that the EPA could consider this in 

adopting a standard of performance reflecting a different type of kiln design. Similarly here, 

there is significant doubt that a new steam generating unit would be sited in one of the few areas 

without ready access to sequestration or EOR opportunities (and commenters have supplied no 

information indicating that such a possibility actually exists). Finally, the promulgated standard 

of performance can be met without capturing CO2 or sequestering it, using alternative means of 

control which have no associated geographical constraints. 

6.3.6 CCS Is/Is Not BSER

Comment 6.3-233: Commenters 7977, 8032, 8501, 8949, 8973, 9194, 9197, 9318 9422, 9505, 

9590, 9596, 9600, 9678, 9683, 10033, 10036, 10050, 10051, 10087, 10618 disagreed with the 

choice of partial CCS as BSER. 

Commenters 8973 and 9318 strongly objected to EPA's consideration of "partial CCS" as BSER 

for new coal plants and new integrated coal gasification/combined cycle (IGCC) plants, as the 

same technological immaturity, accessibility, and transportation arguments (used for full CCS) 

can certainly be made for these units. In addition, the commenter stated that the costeffectiveness of partial CCS--particularly if involving permanent geologic sequestration and not 

temporary enhanced oil recovery (EOR)--is entirely unproven and not commercially available, 

regardless of type.

Commenters 7977, 8501, 9197, 9683, 9677, 10033, 10050 10137, noted that CCS was not 

adequately demonstrated, citing feasibility and costs as additional problems. Commenter 9678 

recommended that the EPA adopt standards that are achievable using state-of-the-art 

technologies. Commenter 10134 stated that the EPA did not properly evaluate the two options of 

highly efficient generation technologies and efficiency measures in comparison to CCS. 

Commenter 9194 noted the need for vendor performance guarantees. Commenter 10134 stated 

that the EPA did not properly evaluate the two options of highly efficient generation 

technologies and efficiency measures in comparison to CCS. Commenters 9422, 9596, 10051 

recommended that the EPA reconsider CCS as BSER, and issue a new proposed rule.

Commenter 7977 stated that the selection of CCS as BSER for coal-fired EGUs is arbitrary and 

capricious.

Commenter 10089 provided general support for the proposed rule as a step in the right direction 

to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the electric power sector, suggested that CCS may not 

be BSER, given the cost impacts. 
6-141

Response 6.3-233: First, partial post-combustion CCS is demonstrated at commercial scale, and 

has been operated successfully at the Boundary Dam facility since October 2014. Permanent 

sequestration in Class VI deepwells is likewise demonstrated. See preamble section V.N. 

Vendors are providing guarantees for CCS. See preamble section V.F. The EPA carefully 

considered the issue of compliance costs, and based its cost estimates on updated costs reflecting 

recent vendor quotes and performance information and application of the Shell Cansolv amine 

scrubbing process that is currently being used at the Boundary Dam Unit #3 project. Based on 

this most up-to-date information, the EPA adjusted the final standard of performance to 1,400 lb 

CO2/MWh from the 1,100 lb CO2/MWh proposed. The EPA’s analysis of why the cost of this 

standard are reasonable under section 111 (a) is found in sections V.H and I. of the preamble to 

the final rule.

Comment 6.3-234: Commenters 4814, 7977, 9426, 9590, 10043, 10047, 10135, 10466, 10929 

stated that CCS is developing but is not is not technologically or economically viable at this 

time, and thus should not be a basis for a standard. 

Commenter 4814 summarized work developing CCS technologies. The commenter noted that 

these projects are bringing CCS closer to economic and commercial viability over the next 

decade. 

Response 6.3-234: These comments were unduly negative. CCS is clearly technically viable as 

it is being implemented now. For example, the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility is operating 

successfully at full scale. The EPA has also determined that a new unit can utilize partial CCS to 

meet the final standard of performance at reasonable cost. The EPA has also issued six Class VI

permits for underground injection. See generally preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-235: Commenter 9678 stated concern that EPA's determination that partial CCS 

is BSER for coal and IGCC units is flawed and will not survive judicial review. According to the 

commenter, EPA has not shown that CCS for coal units is adequately demonstrated and relies on 

arbitrary presumptions in reaching its conclusion and these inadequacies in EPA's analysis may

make the proposed standard vulnerable to remand on judicial review, which would delay the 

promulgation of the rule and the associated benefits of having a final rule in place. To ensure that 

the rule is legally defensible, the commenter recommended that EPA establish a standard for coal 

and IGCC units that is not based on CCS, but is instead based on other adequately demonstrated 

emissions control technologies. 

Response 6.3-235: According to commenter 9505, the agency's BSER determination will not 

survive judicial review, as it is contrary to the statutory text and a wealth of evidence, and is not 

supported by reasoned decision-making. The commenter stated section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

does not permit EPA to force an experimental technology through an NSPS, although this is 

precisely what the proposal attempts to do. Accordingly, the commenter recommended EPA 

reverse its determination that CCS is the BSER for the proposed NSPS.

Partial CCS is an adequately demonstrated control technology. See preamble section V.D. The 

EPA does not believe that basing a standard on performance of “capture and CO2 compression 

technologies [that] have commercial operating experience with demonstrated ability for high 

reliability” is arbitrary and capricious. See NETL (2015) at p. 36. See also statement of Alstom 
6-142

senior Vice President for Power and Environment Policies Joan MacNaughton (August 4, 2011): 

“The technology works.” See:

www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing

_FINAL.pdf

Comment 6.3-236: Commenters 9725, 10050 stated that the EPA has used estimates from 

hypothetical IGCC and SCPC units with CCS, not actual operating experience. The commenters 

stated that the EPA's approach is unprecedented, unlawful and a stunning departure from over 40 

years of regulatory history that relies upon actual emission data from representative units 

operating with adequately demonstrated technology. 

Commenter 10039 stated that the EPA cannot attribute all new coal fired generation as 

unequivocally base load for purposes of justifying CCS as technically feasible for this source, 

and not include intermediate (load following) and peaking units. 

Partial CCS is demonstrated at commercial scale in this industry (Boundary Dam, in particular), 

and (for pre-combustion, should this be pursued) in a related, transferrable context (Dakota 

Gasification). These are not hypothetical facilities. EPA’s cost estimates reflect the most up-todate information available: recent vendor quotes and performance information and application of 

the Shell Cansolv amine scrubbing process that is currently being used at the Boundary Dam 

Unit #3 project. The EPA does not unequivocally attribute all new coal-fired generation 

unequivocally as base load units for the purpose of justifying CCS as technically feasible. The 

EPA does believe, given current and projected market conditions, that a project developer would 

be most likely to build a new unit for the purposes of providing high capacity factor, base load 

generation. Still, the EPA has shown that the promulgated standard is achievable for an affected 

EGU using the BSER under a range of operating conditions and that the 12-month average is 

indicative of, and accommodating for, variable operations (and excursions). In confirmation, as 

shown in the Technical Support Document, actual 12-month averages of two recent highly 

efficient SCPC are close to those projected here. 

Response 6.3-236: . See preamble section V.J and New Steam Achievability Technical 

Memorandum (July 2015).

Comment 6.3-237: Commenter 10618 stated that EPA's position on the feasibility and adequate 

demonstration of CCS in the proposed rule are in many ways contradictory to its assessment of 

the technology in the PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases document. 

The commenter provided numerous excerpts from the document in which EPA suggests that 

CCS be considered in a BACT analysis and that CCS will likely not apply because it is not 

technically feasible and/or because it is not cost-effective - both reasons also support the 

conclusion that CCS has not been adequately demonstrated. The commenter concluded if the 

level of development is insufficient to generally apply CCS as BACT, it is also insufficient to 

support the determination that CCS is the BSER.

Response 6.3-237: With regard to the commenters who stated that a BSER for EGUs that is 

based on partial CCS would be inconsistent with BACT determinations in previous GHG PSD 

permits, it is important to recognize that a BACT determination is a case-by-case analysis and 

that technological capabilities and costs evolve over time. Thus, language from an historic 
6-143

guidance document, providing context for case-by-case application rather than for national 

rulemaking, hardly has determinative effect here. Moreover, the commenters quote selectively

from that guidance. In fact, the 2011 GHG Permitting Guidance states that “although CCS is not 

in widespread use at this time, EPA generally considers CCS to be an ‘available’ add-on 

pollution control technology for facilities emitting CO2 in large amounts and industrial facilities 

with high-purity CO2 streams.” GHG Permitting Guidance at 35. The Guidance goes on to note 

that CCS may not be available at modified sources, or in other specific circumstances. Id. at 36 

(“While CCS is a promising technology, EPA does not believe that at this time CCS will be a 

technically feasible BACT option in certain cases....EPA recognizes the significant logistical 

hurdles that the installation and operation of a CCS system presents and that sets it apart from 

other add-on control that are typically used ... Logistical hurdles for CCS may include obtaining 

contracts for offsite land acquisition ..., the need for funding..., timing of available 

transportation infrastructure, and developing a site for secure long term storage. Not every source 

has the resources to overcome the offsite logistical barriers necessary to apply CCS technology

to its operations, and smaller sources will likely be more constrained in this regard”); id. at 42-3 

(noting that CCS may be expensive in individual instances and thus eliminated as a control 

option for that reason under step 4 of the BACT analysis, noting further that revenues from EOR 

may offset other costs). See also UARG v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2448 (2014) (noting that 

EPA’s GHG Permitting Guidance states that carbon capture is reasonably comparable to more 

traditional, end-of-stack BACT technologies, and that petitioners do not dispute that). See 

generally, preamble section XII.C.

As explained at preamble section V.I.5, in determining that partial CCS is BSER for new 

fossil fuel steam electric plants, EPA has carefully considered the issue of logistics 

(including cost estimates for land acquisition, transportation, and sequestration) and costs 

generally. Nor would new plants face the same types of constraints as modified or 

reconstructed sources in a BACT determination, since a new source has more leeway in 

choosing where to site. Moreover, the GHG Permitting Guidance considered BACT 

determinations for all types of sources, not just those for which EPA has determined in 

this rule that partial CCS is the best system of emission reduction, and the concerns voiced 

in the Guidance thus must be considered in that broader context.

Comment 6.3-238: Commenter 10618 stated that EPA's evaluation of each of the four factors in 

the BSER determination is flawed due to: 

 a series of premature, inaccurate conclusions on the development, demonstration, and 

performance of advanced generation and CCS technologies;

Response: The EPA disagrees. See preamble sections V.D and E. See also NETL

(2015) p. 36 characterizing CCS as a technology with “commercial operating experience 

with demonstrated ability for high reliability”.

 minimal consideration and an abrupt dismissal of widely-acknowledged barriers to CCS 

becoming a technically feasible and adequately demonstrated control option;

Response: See previous response.
6-144

 an inadequate consideration of the lessons learned from actual projects and the 

conclusions reached by major public and private assessments of CCS development;

Response: The “major public and private assessments” that were mentioned largely 

referred to full, rather than partial CCS (see preamble section V.F). The EPA has 

carefully considered lessons learned. It is for this reason that the agency sought out and 

utilized the most recent cost information on post-combustion CCS, basing its cost 

estimates on those from vendors supplying the technology in commercial use at the 

Boundary Dam #3 facility. See also preamble section V.I.2. indicating consistency of 

NETL cost estimates with those of other leading experts in the field, as well as with those 

of recent industry cost estimates. 

 an inconsistent use of criteria to perform the BSER analyses and to inform the 

Administrator's judgment within this proposal and compared to other rulemakings;

Response: See Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d at 389 (NSPS are judged on 

their own merits, not by comparison with NSPS established by EPA for other source 

categories).

 an inadequate evaluation of the impacts to all sources within the source category; and use 

of underlying energy policy goals that do not allow for an objective evaluation of BSER 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

Response: the commenter is mistaken. The NSPS is justified, and may only be justified, 

by the statutory criteria set out in section 111 (a).

Comment 6.3-239: Commenter 9664 stated EPA correctly bases the level of the proposed 

standard for new subpart Da fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCCs on the application of partial 

carbon capture and sequestration as the Best System of Emission Reduction. According to the 

commenter, EPA's careful consideration of the cost, energy, and non-air quality, environmental 

impacts of CCS satisfy the statutory requirements for the Agency to balance these required 

statutory factors in designating a CAA section 111 BSER.

Commenter 101008 stated that EPA has given sufficient consideration to the statutory factors in 

making its BSER determination. The commenter referenced several court decisions to support 

their argument. The commenter noted that in determining that partial CCS is BSER for coal-fired 

power plants, EPA appropriately weighed the efficacy of achieving emission reductions as its 

prime consideration. The commenter added that in its BSER analysis, EPA ruled out highly 

efficient coal-fired generation without CCS in part because that technology alone would not 

result in significant reductions of CO2. According to the commenter, CCS is by far the most 

effective process available for reducing carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants, and 

this factor thus weighs highly in favor of EPA's BSER determination. 

Commenter 9514 stated EPA is justified in setting CCS as the BSER for new fossil fuel-fired 

boilers and IGCCs. According to the commenter, CCS provides significant emissions reductions 

and co-benefits, CCS systems are available for fossil fuel boilers and IGCCs and the 
6-145

technologies have been utilized in industrial applications for decades, and the costs are 

reasonable and can be accommodated by industry. 

Commenters 8020, 8939, and 8967 stated that using partial CCS strikes a good balance between 

economics and the environment, and that the technology will help to prevent significant amounts 

of C02 from being emitted into the atmosphere.

Response 6.3-239: The EPA largely agrees with these comments, although the final standard of 

performance strikes a somewhat different balance than struck in the proposal, albeit using the 

same methodology.

Comment 6.3-240: Commenters 8501, 9194, 9201, 9426, 9671, 10618 disagreed with the 

difference in the way that CCS was or was not determined to be BSER for subpart Da and 

subpart KKKK units. 

Commenters 9194, 9201, 9426, 9671, 10618, stated that CCS is currently inappropriate as BSER 

for both gas-fired and coal-fired EGUs.

Commenters 8995, 9194, 9201, 9426, 9671, 10039, 10618, 10876 stated that many of the reasons 

the EPA cites for rejecting full or partial CCS technology as BSER for natural gas-fired 

stationary combustion turbines are equally applicable to IGCC and fossil fuel-fired boilers, yet 

the Agency reaches a different conclusion for the two sources. Commenter 10039 noted that the 

EPA errs by saying CCS is feasible at coal fired units regardless of dispatch order despite its 

acknowledgement that load following may (and likely will) adversely affect the efficiency and 

reliability of a unit with carbon capture systems.

Commenter 8501 stated that there is little evidence to support a distinction between coal-based 

generation to NGCT for the technical challenges and costs for CCS, and stated that the EPA fails 

to distinguish why CCS is not BSER for a natural gas-fired plant.

Commenter 10618 discussed the differences in discussions of CCS as applied to subpart Da and 

subpart KKKK units, noting that there was very limited discussion about broader industrial CCS 

experience in the BSER analysis for NGCTs, but there was for coal-based generation. The 

commenter stated that the literature review was unevenly applied to the two source categories. 

The commenter stated that large-scale demonstration projects have not yet occurred for either of 

the two source categories.

Commenter 10618 stated that although the Econamine capture system that has been used by 

NGCC processes has yet to be demonstrated on a single coal-based generating unit, EPA 

assumes in its cost analysis for the BSER that new pulverized coal units with CCS will be 

equipped with the Econamine system.

Commenter 9201stated that the way the EPA has weighed the factors to determine that CCS is 

BSER is unreasoned and an abuse of discretion.
6-146

Commenter 10017 stated that there is a significant difference in the reductions required in CO2

emissions between subparts Da and KKKK.

Response 6.3-240: A discussion of the EPA’s final rationale regarding CCS as a component of 

BSER for combustion turbines is provided in the final preamble at section IX.C.4.

Comment 6.3-241: Commenter 9600 stated that the EPA has not documented its extrapolation 

of technology performance in other industries to that for coal-based generation. The commenter 

stated that as a result, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that carbon capture is technically 

available at a reasonable cost for use as BSER in the immediate future and perhaps not available 

as a BSER for many years to come.

Response 6.3-241: First, post-combustion CCS is demonstrated at commercial scale at a source 

(Boundary Dam) that is a full-scale, fully integrated coal-fired EGU. No inter-industry transfer 

of technology is at issue. Pre-combustion CCS (should a source consider that alternative 

compliance pathway) is likewise demonstrated at full commercial scale. See preamble section 

V.E.2.a for why this same technology and performance is transferable to an IGCC generating 

electricity. 

Comment 6.3-242: Commenter 10618 stated that the EPA's consideration of emission 

reductions is flawed because the agency uses ambiguous criteria to determine emission 

reductions. The commenter stated that the EPA fails to fully consider the magnitude of emission 

reductions that may be achieved from highly efficient processes alone, and utilizes loose, 

qualitative statements on CCS related emission reductions. The commenter stated that the EPA 

provides no information on the baseline used to assess emission reductions and provides no 

information on the types of criteria considered in determining "significant" and "meaningful."

Response 6.3-242: See preamble section V.K quantifying the difference between a highly 

efficient SCPC and a highly efficient SCPC meeting the standard of performance based on the 

BSER. See also RIA chapter 5 quantifying the benefits of that difference in performance and 

showing that those benefits exceed regulatory costs under a range of assumptions.

Comment 6.3-243: Commenter 4710 stated that the EPA has chosen to disregard DOE and 

OMB statements and documents that do not support CCS readiness, economics or feasibility.

Response 6.3-243: Those statements referred to full CCS, not partial CCS. DOE’s latest 

statement regarding CCS reliability (“demonstrated ability for high reliability”) is found at p. 36 

of its July 2015 NETL study.

Comment 6.3-244: Commenters 9195, 9201, 10036, 10239, 10395 noted that the EPA has 

changed BSER in this proposal from the determination of BSER in the 2012 proposal. 

Commenters 10239, 10395 stated that the EPA has provided no rational explanation for the 

change.

Commenter 9195 asked for the basis for the change.
6-147

Commenter 10239 stated that nothing has changed since 2012 to make CCS BSER, and noted 

that the EPA does not cite any new information or new projects in this rulemaking that were not 

available to it in the 2012 proposed rule. The commenter stated that there is no rational basis for 

the EPA to reverse course and conclude that CCS is adequately demonstrated and is BSER for 

coal-fired EGUs without some new data or evidence of changed conditions. The commenter 

stated that such a conclusion is fundamentally at odds with the most basic principle of 

administrative law that, when an agency changes its position, it must supply a reasoned analysis 

for doing so.

Response 6.3-244: The EPA indicated in its 2012 proposal that CCS was a feasible technology 

option for new power plants in the original proposal, so much of this comment rests on a 

mistaken premise. See 77 FR at 22414-417. The agency withdrew the 2012 proposal largely in 

response to industry comment that future new fossil-fuel fired steam electric capacity (i.e. coalfired) was possible and therefore that separate standards for utility boilers and IGCC, on the one 

hand, and NGCC units on the other, was warranted. 79 FR at 1432. The EPA did not find that 

CCS was the BSER in that 2012 proposal because the proposed standards were for a combined 

category that included both NGCC units and steam generating units. In the current action, the 

EPA proposed and is finalizing separate standards of performance for both stationary combustion 

turbines and steam generating units, with separate BSERs for each. With respect to CCS, among 

the developments that have occurred since the 2012 proposal are the successful operation at 

commercial scale of post-combustion CCS and issuance of six permits for deep well injection of 

captured CO2, as well as more recent cost information reflecting operating experience. The EPA 

has fully articulated its basis for the final standard reflecting an adequately demonstrated BSER, 

and this extended discussion amply indicates why EPA is adopting a different assessment than 

found in the 2012 proposal. See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-245: Commenters 9001, 9428, 9595, 9601, 10238, 10358, 10387, 10501 stated 

that although CCS holds promise for the future, the technology for electric generation today

remains both costly and unproven.

Response 6.3-245: See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-246: Commenters 10083, 10606 asked that regional impediments to CCS be 

considered, particularly the lack of good CO2 sequestration sites.

Response 6.3-246: See preamble section V.M.

Cost

Comment 6.3-247: Commenter 9666 stated that EPA's attempt to calculate the cost of CCS is 

inadequate, as there are no commercial units operating to provide experience from which to 

validate designs that were developed for small-scale. The commenter noted that although no 

commercial-scale CCS project has been completed at a coal-fired or IGCC unit, and thus no 

reliable indicator of the full cost of CCS at this scale exists, some cost information is available 

for the Kemper County IGCC unit, which is scheduled for completion in 2015. According to the 

commenter, during the course of Kemper County's construction, the project's costs have 

escalated from an estimated $2.4 billion in 2010 to $5.5 billion at the latest estimate in 2014, 
6-148

representing several successive cost increases. The commenter recommended a more robust 

approach for determining casts would be to solicit price quotes for power generation equipment 

in the present economic and fuel price environment; employing several sources of such data 

(e.g., not a single proprietary database); and conducting a rigorous peer review.

Commenter 9666 also stated that due in part to a lack of relevant operating experience, CCS 

remains exorbitantly costly to install and operate. The stated the uncertainty surrounding the 

actual cost of any IGCC project incorporating CCS presents another hurdle to financing and 

constructing these units. According to the commenter, developers will find it difficult to obtain 

financing due to their inability to predict the actual cost of any IGCC project involving CCS. The 

commenter stated that the costs of CCS are so high and uncertain that the proposed IGCC 

standard will effectively prohibit the construction of any new Subpart Da IGCC unit. The 

commenter also stated in addition, at all of the commercial-scale projects that have been 

proposed, the CCS system is justified in the fundamental business case for the project because 

the separated CO2 stream will be used directly by another industrial process, such as enhanced 

oil and gas recovery. According to the commenter, such opportunities are limited and only a few 

early projects would be able to take advantage of these opportunities.

Commenter 9033 also stated that it is unaware that any supplier of this technology is ready or 

able to offer commercial guarantees for such full-scale systems of carbon capture. The 

commenter noted that all utility generators require extensive performance guarantees and 

warranties which cannot be offered without proper demonstration at scale. According to the 

commenter, all the projects that form a basis for the EPA rule would require extensive revenue 

sources from niche market opportunities like EOR and chemicals and large federal subsidies, 

none would stand alone on a common commercial basis which would in turn mean that no new 

coal burning plant could be permitted or financed. Hence the commenter noted it is unlikely that 

such systems will be available prior to the EPA obligatory eight-year review of this proposed 

NSPS.

Commenter 9486 stated they are not certain that an accurate costing estimate can be performed at 

this time given the state of CCS technology and lack of full scale implementation at a coal-fired 

power plant. The commenter also expressed concerns with U.S. EPA's reasoning that the costs 

for CCS will decrease as the technology advances. As U.S. EPA stated, the current economics 

dictate that very few coal-fired power plants will be constructed even without the requirement to 

add CCS. According to the commenter, if there is no market for CCS technologies at coal power 

plants, the cost will remain high for CCS technologies. The commenter concluded that the 

unproven full scale costing of CCS makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accurately

evaluate and determine the cost impacts of this rule.

Commenter 8966 stated the costs of CCS technology are difficult to quantify, in part because 

there are no examples of currently operating commercial-scale coal-fired power plants equipped 

with CCS. The commenter stated however, AEP's experience with installation of a validationscale chilled ammonia-based CCS system at its Mountaineer Plant is particularly valuable in 

gaining insight into the potentially massive costs of a commercial-scale CCS system.
6-149

Commenter 10100 stated there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, 

transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon 

sequestration. The commenter also stated that commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects are 

nascent, and of the five CCS projects that DOE has supported with significant financial 

incentives, only one appears to be moving forward. Commenter 10391 stated that although no 

full-scale operational CCS system at a coal-fueled power plant exists in the U.S., EPA 

conveniently excluded "first of its kind" costs from its rulemaking consideration. According to 

the commenter, when evaluating increased costs and risks, pilot CCS and experimental projects 

are largely irrelevant because these projects have been government subsidized. Similarly, EPA 

likely undervalues regulatory hurdles and risks and overvalues potential revenues from CO2

waste stream sales for possible use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) fields.

Commenter 9427 stated that instead of focusing on comparative costs for levels of emissions 

limitations within the Subpart Da source category for justifying a standard level, EPA 

inappropriately focused on comparing the cost of coal-fired steam generating units using "partial 

CCS" with costs for another source category or with costs for electricity generation with 

technologies that are not even regulated under Section 111 to show that coal with partial CCS is 

"competitive" with other technologies. According to the commenter, because the construction is 

not complete and operation has not yet begun on actual projects employing CCS cited by EPA in 

its proposal, the actual costs of projects are completely unknown at this time. Commenter 9505 

stated none of the pilot projects described in the proposal actively capture CO2 from plant 

exhausts or store CO2 in the ground, and because CCS is not operational at these pilot projects, 

there is no data about continuous operations, commercial scalability, or costs. Hence, the 

commenter stated, these experimental projects cannot form the basis for a finding that the 

technology is available.

Commenter 9666 also stated the cost of CCS at smaller demonstration facilities cannot be 

reliably scaled up to inform predictions about the cost of CCS at commercial units. Indeed, all 

that is known about the cost of CCS is that it is exorbitantly high. The commenter also 

stated EPA's estimate of the baseline cost of coal fired power generation is incorrect, which also 

skews its assessment of the proposed standard's relative cost.

Commenter 10043 stated that because CCS is neither commercially available nor proven at the 

appropriate scale or size needed by the four pilot projects, the EPA's cost analysis, upon which 

the EPA based its conclusion that CCS technology has been adequately demonstrated, is highly 

questionable. The commenter also noted that EPA is contradictory in foretelling reductions in the 

capital costs of CCS because of research, development and implementation of the technology

while also estimating that no new coal-fired power plants will be constructed

Response 6.3-247: Commenter 9666 refers to the cost overruns at the Kemper facility. The 

Kemper site undoubtedly experienced massive cost overruns, but did so for reasons that are not 

generally applicable, and which cannot legitimately be used as a basis for assessing costs for 

other facilities. For example, as documented in detail in the April 15, 2014 Independent 

Monitor’s Prudency Evaluation Report (“Independent Monitor’s Prudency Evaluation Report for 

the Kemper County IGCC Project”, prepared by Burns and Roe Enterprises for Mississippi 

Public Utility Commission staff), at least partly in an effort to obtain an annual tax credit, the 
6-150

project team chose to adopt “a compressed schedule which led to a just-in-time approach to 

engineering, design, procurement and construction...”. Report, p. 14. In essence, basic 

engineering decisions were not made in advance of construction: “By committing to this 

approach, engineering and design changes which are a normal result of detailed engineering and 

design were occurring at the same time as, rather than ahead of, construction activities.” Id. p. 6. 

In BREI’s opinion, “several areas were not adequately addressed, executed or implemented in a 

reasonable manner.” These areas include: project planning/scheduling. The development of a 

risk management program with sufficient detail and look ahead time horizon, the late 

development of the original integrated EPC schedule with adequate resource loading, commodity

cost estimating and monitoring (which controlled the project estimated cost to the certification 

estimate of $2.4 billion until the original low contingency was depleted), and the implementation 

of SCS’s and MPCo’s internal procedures and policies (or failure to implement certain policies 

and procedures), and other areas discussed in this report. All of the areas listed above which 

were not addressed, executed or implemented in a reasonable manner raise serious doubt to 

BREI as to the appropriateness and reasonableness of those actions taken by MPCo in 

implementing this Protect.” Report, pp. 14-15. Moreover, the Report indicates all issues with 

cost related to the gasification unit, not to carbon capture and sequestration. 

Commenter 9666 also urges that costs reflect CCS used at full commercial scale, and that costs 

should not be extrapolated from small scale designs. Commenters 10391, 10043 and 9505 made 

a similar comment. The EPA has carefully considered comments that costs should be assessed 

reflecting technologies being used at full commercial scale. For the final standard, the EPA 

made particular use of the most recent NETL cost estimates for post-combustion CCS, which 

reflect up-to-date vendor quotes and incorporate the post-combustion capture technology – the 

Shell Cansolv amine-based process – that is being utilized at the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility.

The same commenter indicates the substantial uncertainty for IGCC projects incorporating CCS. 

The BSER for the final rule is a highly efficient SCPC using partial CCS, not IGCC. See 

preamble section V.H. for EPA’s cost analysis of the BSER.

Regarding the issue of vendor guarantees (commenter 9033), see preamble section V.F.

A number of commenters (e.g. 9486, 10043) posed a purported chicken-egg type of issue: how 

can there be learning by doing when new coal-fired plants aren’t being constructed. EPA 

addresses this issue in preamble section V.I.4.

Commenter 9666 and others maintain that because CCS is such an uncertain technology, there 

will be hurdles to financing. Although the EPA does not accept the commenters’ 

characterization of the technology (see e.g preamble section V.F. (vendor guarantees)), but has 

based estimates of financing costs on “high-risk financial assumptions”. NETL (2015) at p. 18. 

The EPA has carefully studied both AEP’s comments, its reports on the Mountaineer effort, and 

the FEED study it prepared (commenter 8966). AEP especially singled out its difficulties in 

siting monitoring wells and otherwise siting a sequestration site. As explained in preamble 

section V.I.5, this site-specific experience reflects an individual siting challenge which may not 
6-151

be generally applicable. For example, none of the Class VI permits issued to date by EPA 

required the number of monitoring wells as at the Mountaineer site.

Commenter 9427 questions the use of the LCOE metric. This issue is addressed in preamble 

section V.I.1. The commenter also stated EPA's estimate of the baseline cost of coal fired power 

generation is incorrect, which also skews its assessment of the proposed standard's relative cost.

The EPA used DOE/NETL estimates for the baseline cost of coal fired power generation and 

believes that they are reasonable estimates of the cost of a new coal-fired power plant. 

DOE/NETL stated “[T]he cost estimates for plant designs that only contain fully mature 

technologies, which have been widely deployed at commercial scale (e.g., PC and NGCC power 

plants without CO2 capture), reflect nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) on the technology commercialization 

maturity spectrum.” Further, the final BSER is a highly efficient supercritical PC unit 

implementing partial CCS to meet a standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g. The AEP John W. Turk 

facility is an example of a highly efficient supercritical PC. In comments of AEP (p. 76), AEP 

represented the cost of the Turk facility as $2,885/kW. The DOE/NETL estimates for such a 

facility is $2,842/kW (NETL, 2015 – for a plant using bituminous coal). This close agreement is 

another validation of the NETL cost methodology.

Comment 6.3-248: Commenter 9033 suggested that in setting economic criteria for technology, 

EPA consider the "typical commercial power plant" which will not have federal subsidies and 

will likely not have access to chemical or EOR revenue. According to the commenter, EPA 

needs to recognize that both chemicals and EOR are niche opportunities and not available to 

most power plants. The commenter added that even in the most optimistic cases, people forecast 

EOR has consuming perhaps 100 million tons of CO2 (including current natural CO2) and 

chemicals are in the low millions of tons when compared with the billions of tons required to be 

reduced.

Commenter 10095 stated EPA cannot rely on revenues from EOR activities, government 

subsidies, or regulatory programs to defray the cost of partial CCS and that EPA fails to 

acknowledge that these activities and policies are not widely available, impermanent, not 

guaranteed, and subject to significant political uncertainties

Response 6.3-248: The EPA is not relying on EOR revenues in its cost analysis. This is a 

conservative approach to assessing costs, given that new coal plants are being sited to take 

advantage of such opportunities. See preamble section V.H.8. 

Comment 6.3-249: Commenters 10098 and 10239 stated that EPA has pointed to no evidence 

that any CCS-enabled power plant has been fully funded by a private entity, undercutting EPA's 

conclusion that CCS actually "can be accommodated by the industry." According to commenter 

10098, every CCS project identified in the proposed rule is receiving significant government 

grants, loan guarantees, and other subsidies, a point that EPA concedes but states that it does "not 

consider such government subsidies to mean that the costs of CCS would otherwise be 

unreasonable. Commenters 10098 and 10239 also noted that CCS cannot be accommodated by 

the industry as evidenced by many examples of the rejection of CCS as BACT on cost grounds 

and the failure of CCS projects for various economic reasons. 
6-152

Commenter 10952 also stated that there is no basis to conclude that industry is "accommodating" 

the costs or can accommodate the costs as only three projects are planned or under construction. 

The commenter also noted that since none are operational, it is impossible to conclude that their 

technical configurations are capable of meeting the duty cycle demands placed on base-load 

EGUs. The commenter referenced EPA's first proposal in which a ten year timeline and the need 

for ten up and running demonstration projects, noting that this timeline was lacking from the 

current proposal. According to the commenter, absent any explanation accompanying the 

proposal, and there is none, here EPA is making nothing short of a guess, a guess that is in clear 

conflict with its earlier determinations and conclusion, the hallmark of arbitrary rulemaking. The 

commenter also stated that the proposal fails to address how CCS projects would be financially 

viable without such federal funding, specifically EPA must address what alternative financing 

means outside federal grant monies are available to support an EGU CCS project where CCS is 

inordinately costly and an unproven commercial technology.

Commenter 10098 stated that EPA's assertion that the costs of CCS can be accommodated by the 

industry lacks any factual basis, as EPA relies solely on facilities that have received significant 

government subsidies for construction and there is no guarantee that such subsidies will be 

available in the future. The commenter also stated that the proposed rule not only fails to 

acknowledge EPA's current position against counting such subsidies, as discussed in EPA's NSR 

Manual, it provides no explanation of why a change in position is warranted. According to the 

commenter, EPA must provide a reasoned analysis as to why it is now abandoning its current, 

well-established position that tax credits or other government subsidies for a pollution control 

should not be included in cost analyses.

Commenter 10029 also stated that the Clean Air Act does not permit the EPA to offset costs by

relying on general subsidies available to an industry. The commenter referenced 42 CAA Section 

111(a)(1), and stated that under that section , the EPA must tak[e] into account the costs of 

achieving such reduction (i.e. the standard of performance), not the net costs (after accounting 

for subsidies) of constructing and operating the stationary source.

Commenter 7977 stated that EPA's conclusion that "a section of the industry is already

accommodating the costs" of CCS is based on demonstration projects that receive DOE financial 

assistance. According to the commenter, that financial assistance was available due to legislation 

that was passed to stimulate the economy during a recession by increasing spending in a specific 

time period, and it is unreasonable to conclude that the costs of CCS are not exorbitant under 

circumstances when such funds are limited and will not be available indefinitely.

Response 6.3-249: It is not surprising that most CCS projects that have been identified are 

receiving or have received government support of some form. Prior to this final action, there was 

no requirement that any EGUs reduce GHG emissions. In a 2011 press release40, Alstom Senior 

Vice President for Power and Environment Policies Joan MacNaughton was quoted as saying, 

“The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 90% of the 

carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant’s emissions. The technology works. But without clear 

policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hard-pressed to invest 

 

40 www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf
6-153

in its continued refinement.” Similarly, AEP Chairman and CEO Michael Morris was quoted in 

an AEP press release41 on the Mountaineer Project being put on hold – “But as a regulated 

utility, it is impossible to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for 

validating and deploying the technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions already in place.” The EPA did not consider potential cost reduction from 

government subsidies when evaluating the reasonableness of costs for the final standard of 

performance.

Comment 6.3-250: Commenter 9514 stated that EPA properly determined that the costs of 

partial CCS can be accommodated by industry. According to the commenter, EPA's conclusion 

is supported by the broadly-maintained prediction that, due to current and predicted economic 

conditions, very few new coal-fired power plants will be built in the future, if any. The 

commenter stated that the costs of the partial CCS standard - approximately a 20 percent increase 

- on a few new coal-fired plants can easily be accommodated by industry. The commenter stated 

that the proposal will have little impact on consumer electric prices and given that so few plants 

will be built, from an industry-wide perspective the costs of meeting the standard based on full 

CCS are not exorbitant.

Commenter 10106 stated that while there may be some additional incremental costs for 

Wisconsin relative to some other states as a result of a requirement to implement CCS, these 

costs are also not at a level which would prohibit an operator from constructing a new power 

plant. According to the commenter, since electrical generation and service provision are highly

regulated in the State of Wisconsin - including the presence of regulated monopolies for energy

utility companies - no competitive advantage or disadvantage will be incurred for regulated 

entities within the state as a result of such a requirement. Furthermore, the commenter stated, 

interstate cost differences induced as a result of the proposed NSPS are not qualitatively different 

than those corresponding to other rules - for example the recently upheld Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule.

Response 6.3-250: The EPA largely agrees with these comments.

Comment 6.3-251: Commenter 9774 stated that EPA's NSPS analysis of CCS does not account 

for the cost and issues related to transporting CO2 to proven carbon sequestration sites. The 

commenter referenced the EPA estimate that the equipment costs necessary for removing CO2 at 

a 550MW supercritical coal generating unit is approximately $267 million, whereas a recent 

BACT analysis by the Wisconsin DNR yielded costs of approximately $405 million for 

construction of a CO2 pipeline to the closest potential sequestration site. The commenter 

provided additional information that CO2 sequestration costs for Wisconsin utilities resulted in 

an estimate of $550 million to $1 billion capital cost for a pipeline network that would be 

required to serve Wisconsin coal-fired generation. The commenter noted that these presented 

costs do not include the additional costs associated with operating CO2 pipelines, and EPA must 

also address the difficulties, logistics and significant additional expense of placing pipelines and 

facilities in urban areas.

 

41 https://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704
6-154

Commenter 10095 stated that in the CCS cost estimates that incorporate EOR opportunities, EPA 

assumes that an EGU is only responsible for the costs of transmitting the captured CO2 to the 

facility's fence line where the point of sale occurs and the EGU will avoid CO2 transmission, 

storage, and monitoring costs. The commenter disagreed and provides the example that the 

Kemper County Energy Facility, which is uniquely situated in close proximity to EOR 

opportunities, constructed a 61 mile CO2 pipeline to transact with third party CO2 off-takers and 

reduce third party-related risks. The point of transaction occurs at two locations along the 61 

mile pipeline-Pachuta and Heidelburg, Mississippi. The cost incurred by Mississippi Power to 

construct this pipeline was $108 million. Considering the Kemper County Energy Facility's 

proximity to EOR opportunities and the ability to transact with two CO2 off-takers along a single 

pipeline, the commenter stated that the cost incurred by future projects will almost certainly be 

higher. According to the commenter, EPA needs to reevaluate its cost estimates with 

consideration of pipeline construction costs incurred by the EGU even when engaging in 

relatively close EOR opportunities.

Commenter 7977 noted that the NETL costs exclude transportation costs of CO2, which could 

significantly increase the cost estimate for new sources implementing CCS technology. 

According to the commenter, Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA requires that EPA account for the 

"costs of achieving such reductions" and since EPA is proposing that CCS is the BSER for coalfired EGUs, EPA must account for the cost of transporting CO2. The commenter also stated the 

proposed regulation relies on the expected typical pipeline distance to be 50 miles to possible 

geologic sequestration sites, however, according to the commenter, this distance underestimates 

the actual distances that may be necessary for the transmission of CO2. The commenter 

continued that EPA is required to comprehensively evaluate the impact of all associated 

transportation costs via pipelines, including availability and acquisitions of right-of-way for new 

pipelines, capital and operating costs, and actual length of transmission pipelines. Additionally, 

the commenter stated other costs, including the performance of expensive seismic studies, must 

be accounted for prior to a regulated entity being able to store CO2 long-term.

Commenter 9773 stated EPA's analysis of CCS is problematic in that it does not account for the 

cost to transport CO2 from utility plants to proven sequestration sites located more than 50 miles 

away. According to the commenter, since Wisconsin does not have even a single proven 

sequestration site, transporting CO2 out-of-state for sequestration is the only option. And the cost 

of such transport would be substantial. The commenter referenced an analysis by Wisconsin 

using DOE cost methods which determined that a pipeline network from Wisconsin to the 

Illinois Basin (the nearest potential sequestration site) would cost between $550 million to $1 

billion. The commenter stated that such an investment would be cost-prohibitive and have a real 

and detrimental effect on Wisconsin ratepayers. The commenter suggested that to address this 

issue, when setting the NSPS, EPA must first fully consider and quantify the costs of 

transporting CO2 from where existing coal-fired generating units are currently operating to 

proven sequestration sites.

Response 6.3-251: See preamble section V.I.5. The EPA’s cost estimates do in fact include 

costs associated with transportation and storage of CO2. For transport, costs reflect pipeline 

capital costs, related capital expenditures, and O&M costs. Sequestration cost estimates reflect 

the cost of site screening and evaluation, the cost of injection wells, the cost of injection 
6-155

equipment, operation and maintenance costs, pore volume acquisition expense, and long term 

liability protection. These sequestration costs reflect the regulatory requirements of the 

Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP subpart RR for geologic 

sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations. We expect that when CO2 is sold for EOR 

applications, the buyer rather than the EGU operator will likely bear those costs. However, for 

the purposes of the cost analysis, the transportation, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs are 

included for both EOR and non-EOR applications, recognizing that this likely slightly overstates 

the cost to the operator in circumstances where CO2 is sold for EOR. The EPA’s cost estimates 

for transportation and sequestration thus cover all aspects commenters claimed the EPA 

disregarded.

Potential GS formations are widely available in the United States. The EPA recognizes that 

geologic conditions to support CO2 storage may not exist in all regions of the country. Where 

such capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in those areas can be served by coal-fired power 

plants built in neighboring areas with geologic availability with generated electricity being 

supplied via transmission line, see Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability, or the CO2 can be 

transported to available GS sites via pipeline. For other of those areas, coal-fired power plants 

are either not being built due to state law prohibition s against building such units, or other 

available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power plant meeting the 

promulgated NSPS to be sited. There are alternative means of complying with the final standards 

of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting difficulties based on 

lack of a CO2 repository would be obviated.

Comment 6.3-252: Commenter 9472 stated that EPA ignores the technical and permitting 

challenges of CO2 storage and therefore fails to assess fully the costs of CCS. The commenter 

discussed technical concerns with EOR and saline storage and stated that EPA failed to consider 

several aspects of CO2 storage that limit the feasibility of utilizing CCS at a coal-fueled power 

plant.

Response 6.3-252: See preamble section V.I.5.

Comment 6.3-253: Commenter 9666 discussed several concerns with the use of costs associated 

with the resale of captured CO2 for use in EOR. The commenter stated EPA cannot rely on the 

potential resale of captured CO2 for use in EOR to reduce the expected cost of its CCS mandate 

given the uncertainties facing EOR operators. According to the commenter, EOR operators are 

concerned that the proposed rule's requirement for EOR operators that purchase CO2 from EGUs 

to have to report emissions under the more stringent requirements of Subpart RR of 40 C.F.R. 

part 98, rather than Subpart UU with which they currently comply, "will create regulatory 

uncertainty and risk that will result in EOR operators avoiding the purchase of CO2 that is 

subject to those rules." The commenter also stated that instead of benefiting financially from 

capturing CO2 emissions, EGUs would likely have to pay EOR operators to take the CO2, which 

removes any cost justification that EPA ascribes to CCS based on EOR. Furthermore, the 

commenter stated that EPA admits that resale for EOR is "non-economical" or unavailable for 

some locations in which new Subpart Da units may be built, therefore the cost of CCS with 

resale for EOR does not represent the cost of installing CCS on new units throughout the 

country, and should not be considered in determining the proposed NSPS. 
6-156

Commenter 9426 stated that the EPA has only estimated the cost of IGCC units with partial CCS 

associated with EOR, and this is insufficient for setting a standard to apply to PC units or to any

unit that is not using EOR, or for any unit seeking to store CO2 in saline geological formations.

Commenter 9197 disagreed with EPA assumptions that EOR is widely available and that EOR 

operators will pay significant premiums for CO2 from regulated EGUs. According to the 

commenter, EOR sites are not available in many parts of the country, while in others there may

be significant infrastructure barriers (in particular, the need to construct new pipelines) that will 

substantially raise the costs of using this system of emission reduction. The commenter also 

stated there is a real possibility that EOR operators will not accept CO2 from EGUs due to the 

uncertainty and risk of reporting under Subpart RR related to MRV plans, and the burdens 

inherent in transitioning from a Class II well to a Class VI well under EPA's proposed 

Underground Injection Control Program policy.

Response 6.3-253: See preamble section V.I.5. The BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes 

the potential for sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option.

The EPA disagrees that GHGRP subpart RR requirements will result in EOR operators avoiding 

the purchase of CO2 from affected EGUs. 

The cost of compliance with subpart RR is not significant enough to offset the potential revenue 

for the EOR operator from the sale of produced oil for CCS projects that are reliant on EOR. 

First, the costs associated with subpart RR are relatively modest, especially in comparison with 

revenues from an EOR field. In the economic impact analysis for subpart RR, the EPA estimated 

that an EOR project with a Class II permit would incur a first year cost of up to $147,030 to 

develop an MRV plan, and an annual cost of $27,787 to maintain the plan; the EPA estimated 

annual reporting and recordkeeping costs at $13,262 per year.42 Monitoring costs are estimated 

to range from $0.02 per metric ton (base case scenario) to approximately $2 per metric ton of 

CO2 (high scenario). Using a range of scenarios (that included high end estimates), these subpart

RR costs are approximately three to four percent of estimated revenues for an average EOR field, 

indicating that the costs can readily be absorbed. 75 FR 75073.

Furthermore, there is a demand for new CO2 by EOR operators, even beyond current natural 

sources of CO2. For example, in an April 2014 study, DOE concluded that future development of 

EOR will need to rely on captured CO2.

43 Thus, the argument that EOR operators will obtain 

CO2 from other sources without triggering subpart RR responsibilities, which assumes adequate 

supplies of CO2 from other sources, lacks foundation. 

In addition, the Internal Revenue Code section 45Q provides a tax credit for CO2 sequestration 

which is far greater than subpart RR costs.44 Section 45Q(a)(1) allows a credit of $20 per metric 

ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer at a qualified facility, disposed of by the 

 

42 Subpart RR costs are presented in 2008 US dollars.

43 “Near Term Projections of CO2 Utilization for Enhanced Oil Recovery”. DOE/NETL-2014/1648. April 2014. 

44 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-44_IRB/ar11.html and http://www.irs.gov/irb/2015-26_IRB/ar14.html. 
6-157

taxpayer in secure geological storage, and not used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant. Section 

45Q(a)(2) allows a credit of $10 per metric ton of qualified CO2 that is captured by the taxpayer 

at a qualified facility, used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or 

natural gas recovery project, and disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage. The 

section 45Q credit for calendar year 2015 is $21.85 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under section

45Q(a)(1) and $10.92 per metric ton of qualified CO2 under section 45Q(a)(2).

Comment 6.3-254: Commenter 7893 stated that it is critical to understand that the option to sell 

captured CO2 to EOR operations does not exist for Interior coal-fired plants because there is no 

nearby oil or gas production. According to the commenter, the extremely high costs of partial 

CCS for new coal-fired facilities would not be offset by EOR.

Commenter 495 stated the EPA has not demonstrated the availability or feasibility of CCS in 

areas that will be most affected by the Proposed Rule, as the Midwest and other areas of the 

country have limited access to EOR sites, which directly impacts the cost of implementing CCS. 

The commenter also noted that EPA assumes the market for EOR will not become oversaturated 

if the Proposed Rule moves forward as there are a limited number of EOR sites and all of them 

are congregated in small portions of the county. The commenter noted that EPA estimates that 

transporting CO2 will cost in the range of $1 to $4 per ton, however, according to the commenter, 

pipelines are not inexpensive or easy to construct, and it is unclear whether the EPA's estimate 

includes the costs of right-of-ways, pipeline construction, permitting delays, and length of 

transportation, among others.

Commenter 840 stated the pipelines and storage needed to support safe sequestration of CO2

does not exist in many areas of the country and require substantial public planning and 

investment. According to the commenter, electric customers cannot shoulder this burden alone 

and CCS fails to satisfy the Clean Air Act's requirement for being achievable at a reasonable 

cost.

Commenter 10667 stated the proposed rule indicates, that the sale of captured CO2 for Enhanced 

Oil Recovery (EOR) offers the opportunity to defray a portion of the CCS costs, however, 

unfortunately, this option does not even exist for interior coal-fired plants due to the lack of 

nearby oil or gas production activities. The commenter provided areas of Alaska where EOR 

operations exist, noting that the captured CO2 would have to be shipped to one of those areas 

since there is no pipeline (also, the closest is 500 miles away). Thus, the commenter stated that 

leaves high costs of partial CCS for new coal fired facilities economically and logistically 

impractical and without any benefit from EOR.

Commenter 9427 stated EOR, the single geologic storage option that is potentially realistic at 

present, is only accessible to a limited geography and faces significant regulatory hurdles and 

risks. According to the commenter, EPA's cost estimates significantly underestimate costs, 

including because they unreasonably exclude "first of its kind" costs and overestimate any costmitigating effect of EOR.

Response 6.3-254: The EPA reiterates that the BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes 

the potential for sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option. 
6-158

In estimating impacts of the rule, the EPA relied on NETL studies referenced in Section V.I.2 of 

the preamble, which base transport costs on a generic 100 km (62 mi) pipeline and a generic 80 

kilometer pipeline. For transport, costs reflect pipeline capital costs, related capital expenditures, 

and O&M costs. See preamble section V.I.5. Pipeline capital costs include materials, direct 

labor, right-of-way acquisition, surveying, engineering, supervision, contingencies, allowances 

for funds used during construction, administration and overheads, and regulatory filing fees.45

See preamble section V.M.5 regarding the availability of CO2 pipelines and elsewhere in this 

Chapter 6 regarding feasibility of GS in Alaska.

Comment 6.3-255: Commenter 10098 stated that EPA has no basis to assume that all CO2

captured can be sold to a willing buyer. The commenter stated that EPA has provided no analysis 

of the market for CO2, including where EOR is being used, whether supplies of CO2 are actually

in demand, or a comparison of the cost of drawing from a natural CO2 reservoir versus 

purchasing captured CO2. The commenter also indicated that there is a contradiction between the 

proposed rule and EPA's assumptions for purposes of PSD permitting in which EPA has 

repeatedly rejected the assumption that the owner or operator of a coal-fired power plant can sell 

captured CO2 for EOR and that those speculative sales should be included in CCS cost estimates.

Commenter 10239 also stated concern with the deduction of a portion of CCS costs based on the 

assumption that EGUs employing CCS technology will sell their captured CO2 for EOR. 

According to the commenter, this is factually incorrect and inconsistent with the EPA's position 

in PSD BACT determinations and the GHG Guidance that a facility could not count on the 

availability of EOR when assessing the feasibility of CCS technology. The EPA offers no 

rational basis for reversing the Agency's prior position that there is no guarantee at the time of 

planning or even construction that EOR will be available to offset a portion of the costs of CCS 

technology.

Response 6.3-255: The EPA reiterates that the BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes 

the potential for sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option. 

The EPA is assessing costs conservatively by not including any revenues from EOR, even 

though new plants may well avail themselves of EOR opportunities (e.g. Boundary Dam and 

Kemper).

Comment 6.3-256: Commenter 9664 stated that revenue generated by the sale of captured CO2

for use in EOR further reduces costs associated with the standard. The commenter references 

analysis performed by CATF in support of the Agency's 2012 proposal that showed that revenue 

from the sale of captured CO2 for EOR lowers by 12 percent the LCOE of applying a standard 

roughly equivalent to that currently proposed. According to the commenter, EPA may take into 

account byproduct revenue associated with a system of emissions reduction, in considering the 

costs associated with a standard reflecting that system. The commenter stated that while the 

D.C. Circuit has yet to address directly whether EPA may take byproduct revenue associated 

with the choice of BSER into account in evaluating the costs of a performance standard, the 

court has held that the agency retains broad authority to weigh all of the statutory factors in a 

 

45 Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage costs in NETL Studies (DOE-NETL-2013/1614), p. 11.
6-159

BSER determination, noting that questions of costs and benefits must be addressed taking a longterm perspective. The commenter then referenced the 2012 cost analysis for the new fuel 

economy standards for light-duty vehicles providing additional discussion, and concluded that it 

is well reasoned - wholly logical and appropriate - for EPA to consider revenue streams from the 

co-production of CO2 (from the sale by the regulated power plant of captured CO2 to an EOR 

operator for use and long-term containment in depleted oil or gas fields, e.g.) in evaluating the 

costs of a standard for which the underlying BSER includes carbon capture technology. The 

commenter also states that although EOR sales are not now available everywhere, it is expected 

that any new coal fired subpart Da unit would locate so as to take advantage of such revenue 

offsets to the cost of applying control technology to meet the standard. According to the 

commenter, EOR operations in the U.S. can accommodate and provide long-term containment 

for substantial volumes of CO2 as well as the cost-offsetting revenue attendant to the sale of the 

anthropogenic CO2 by the EGU operator.

Commenter 9035 stated it is crucial that power companies are enabled to sell captured carbon to 

CO2-EOR operators and that EPA continue to recognize a pathway for demonstrating the 

geologic storage of CO2 through EOR projects.

Commenter 9514 stated that while they do not intend their comments to endorse the practice of

EOR, section 111 allows a broad consideration of costs, including the sale of byproducts, and 

EPA may properly take the possibility of EOR sales into account when evaluating the costs of 

the proposed performance standard. The commenter cited See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 

330. ("[S]ection 111 . . . gives EPA authority when determining the best technological system to 

weigh cost, energy, and environmental impacts in the broadest sense over time.").

Commenter 10108 stated EPA has considered revenues from compliance measures when 

conducting cost analyses in past rulemakings, and referenced the 2012 rulemaking revising the 

NSPS for oil and gas facilities, in which EPA considered revenues from increased recovery of 

natural gas when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce VOC emissions and in 

a 2012 regional haze FIP in which the Agency adjusted its proposed cost calculations to take into 

account fly ash sales that could be continued through more-efficient technology. As a result, the 

commenter stated that EPA's discussion of costs reasonably includes the potential EOR revenues 

from CCS even though it does not rely on EOR revenues in arriving at the $110/MWh cost 

figure it deems reasonable. According to the commenter, the cost of CCS with coal is reasonable 

even without EOR and the availability of non-EOR carbon sequestration sites is widespread in 

the United States, noting that almost all existing large sources of CO2 are located within 50 miles 

of a possible sequestration site.

Response 6.3-256: Revenues from by-product sales can be relevant in assessing costs under 

section 111 (a). See New York v. Reilly, 969 F. 2d 1147, 1150-52 (D.C. Cir. 1992). However, the 

EPA is (conservatively) not considering such potential revenues here in its assessment of costs. 

See preamble section V.E.8.

Comment 6.3-257: Commenter 9772 stated the viability of using CO2 for EOR is "site and 

situation-specific" and depends on a number of factors: location, geologic characteristics of the 

location, state of development and depletion of the target field, the amount of CO2 required and a 

number of infrastructure investments, including pipeline construction. The commenter 
6-160

referenced a study from the Global CCS Institute which noted, "total CO2 costs (both purchase 

price and recycle costs) can amount to 25% to 50% of the cost per barrel of oil produced. As 

such, operators have historically strived to optimize and reduce the cost of its purchase and 

injection wherever possible."

Commenter 9486 questioned, in the context of using captured CO2 for EOR, what the net 

reduction of CO2 would actually be given the proposal, and what the net cost would be for that 

reduction. The commenter stated that this rule, as it is currently structured, shifts the cost of CO2

emissions from one fossil fuel sector to another and the net decrease in CO2 emissions would not 

be cost effective under the BSER requirements.

Response 6.3-257: The EPA is not basing its cost assessment on utilization of EOR.

Comment 6.3-258: Commenter 9678 stated that EPA has also not adequately addressed the 

regulations and guidelines that are applicable to EOR. Specifically, the commenter noted that 

EPA's Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Guidance on Transitioning Class II 

Wells to Class VI Wells could have a substantial impact on EPA's determination of BSER by

affecting both the availability of CCS and the relative cost of CCS. The commenter discussed 

that if the guidance serves to decrease the availability of EOR for sequestration of EGUproduced CO2, then this could have a substantial impact on EPA's assessment of the availability 

and cost of partial CCS. The commenter also discussed that EPA has failed to note in the 

Proposed Rule that there are significant differences in the regulatory requirements that apply to 

Class II versus Class VI wells, including different levels of financial responsibility (for 

corrective action, post-injection site care and remedial response), reporting requirements, and 

post-injection site care and site closure. The commenter concluded that EPA must more fully

assess the multiple barriers that still exist to long-term geological storage of CO2 and the impact 

of these barriers on the projected availability of partial CCS and the costs of the Proposed Rule, 

before it may determine the level of a NSPS based on the use of CCS technology. 

Commenter 9425 stated EPA should not rely on the potential resale of captured CO2 for use in 

EOR to reduce the expected cost of its proposed CCS mandate. According to the commenter, 

many EOR operators are concerned that the proposed rule's requirement for EOR operators that 

purchase CO2 from EGUs to have to report emissions under the more stringent requirements of 

Subpart RR of 40 CPR Part 98, rather than Subpart UU with which they currently comply, will 

create regulatory uncertainty and risk. The commenter stated that EGUs may have to pay EOR 

operators to take the CO2 which would remove any cost justification that EPA ascribes to CCS 

based on EOR. The commenter also stated that EPA admits that resale for EOR is "noneconomical" or unavailable for some locations in which new coal units may be built (79 FR 

1478), and therefore, the cost of CCS with resale for EOR does not represent the cost of 

installing CCS on new units throughout the country, and should not be considered in determining 

the proposed NSPS.

Commenter 9596 stated that EOR sites are not available in many parts of the country, while in 

others there may be significant infrastructure barriers (in particular, the need to construct new 

pipelines) that will substantially raise the costs of using this system of emission reduction. The 

commenter also stated there is a real possibility that EOR operators will not accept CO2 from 

EGUs due to the uncertainty and risk of reporting under Subpart RR (in particular, complying 
6-161

with Subpart RR's requirement to prepare and comply with a MRV plan for geologic 

sequestration of CO2) and the burdens inherent in transitioning from a Class II well to a Class VI 

well under EPA's proposed Underground Injection Control Program policy.

Commenter 9197 stated that even where EOR is available and operators are willing to accept 

CO2 from regulated power plants, the added risks to well operators from EPA's policies could 

significantly reduce the amount that these operators will pay for captured CO2. Therefore, 

according to the commenter, it is likely that the costs of implementing the NSPS will be 

significantly higher than those cited by EPA in the proposed rule-especially for EGUs that are 

located far from viable EOR sites.

Commenter 9486 stated that it is common understanding that EOR can use no more than 20% of 

the CO2 expected to be captured by the full implementation of CCS, and as such, an EOR market 

with an overabundance of CO2 available will not generate the same revenue for EGUs from the 

sale of CO2 as U.S. EPA estimates. According to the commenter, without the monetary

compensation associated with the sale of CO2 to oil companies, the cost for CCS becomes even 

more prohibitive.

Response 6.3-258: Commenter 9678 questions whether Class II wells may automatically

convert to Class VI by virtue of reporting under GHGRP subpart RR. Reporting under subpart 

RR does not trigger the transition of a Class II well to a Class VI well. See preamble section 

V.N.5.a. Furthermore, on April 23, 2015, the EPA issued a memorandum from the Director of 

the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water to regional UIC Program Directors in its 

regional offices, and summarized in section V.N.5.a of the preamble, that makes clear that the 

commenter’s concerns with respect to the guidance are misplaced. The EPA is aware that the 

regulatory requirements differ for Class II and Class VI wells. The compliance cost estimates for 

the final rule are based on the more expensive costs for Class VI geologic sequestration. See 

preamble section V.I.5 and N.1.

Commenter 9425 and 9596 stated that EPA should not rely on the potential resale of captured 

CO2 for use in EOR to reduce the expected cost of its proposed CCS mandate, and EPA in fact is 

not doing so, as noted in other comment responses. However, as explained in preamble section 

V.N.5 and elsewhere in this chapter, there are sound, objective reasons to believe that EOR 

operators will continue to pay for anthropogenic CO2.

Comment 6.3-259: Commenter 1591 stated that EPA is justifying the costs of CCS on NOAK 

costs when in fact there is not even a single FOAK plant of commercial scale in operation. 

According to the commenter, further compounding this error, EPA then improperly assumes that 

the other plants EPA cites as "under development" (more accurately characterized as "under 

consideration") will use the same technology as the FOAK plants.

Commenter 9666 stated EPA incorrectly assumes that any future Subpart Da unit equipped with 

CCS would face lower "next-of-a-kind" costs rather than the unreasonably high "first-of-a-kind" 

costs incurred by CCS units currently in development. According to the commenter, the units 

under development, however, each contain unique CO2 capture processes and other design 

elements. The commenter concluded that for these reasons, and other uncertainties that must be 
6-162

resolved (property rights, water, etc.), EPA cannot assume that "next-of-a-kind" costs for CCS 

will necessarily be lower than "first-of-a-kind."

Commenter 10098 stated that using NOAK cost assumptions is arbitrary and capricious. 

According to the commenter, the proposed rule's cost estimates in Table 6 are not those that 

would actually be incurred by a commercial-scale coal-fired power plant constructing and 

operating an experimental, demonstration-scale CCS unit, as would be required to comply with 

the proposed rule's emission limitation. Instead, the commenter suggested they are the costs for 

mature CCS technology that do "not include the unique cost premiums associated with FOAK 

plants that must demonstrate emerging technologies and iteratively improve upon initial plant 

designs." The commenter explained that the LCOE costs relied upon EPA are not the actual costs 

of complying with the proposed NSPS emission limitation but the conjectural, estimated costs of 

constructing and operating CCS at some time in the unspecified future, assuming that there is 

widespread adoption, and further assuming that there are several successful research and 

development projects.

Commenter 9472 discussed how EPA ignores the limitations of the CCS cost estimates in the 

NETL analysis, stating that the substantial uncertainty and potential for significant variations in 

CO2 storage costs limit the usefulness of the NETL study in evaluating the cost basis for CCS in 

NSPS. The commenter also suggested that EPA recognize the limited opportunities for learning 

to date and use higher FOAK cost estimates while appropriately noting the uncertainty and 

limitations of those estimates.

Commenter 10618 stated that the use by EPA of CCS costs that are premised on the conjecture 

of NOAK projects does not remotely provide reliable, accurate estimates, is irrelevant for use in 

preforming any objective analysis of new generation options, and has the appearance of being 

nothing more than weak attempt to justify a preconceived BSER outcome that could not 

otherwise be validated through the use of more reasonable and accurate information. The 

commenter stated that EPA's cost analysis fails to demonstrate that CCS is the BSER and cites 

the following reasons:

 an incorrect assessment of the development status of CCS, which results in using cost 

estimates for yet-to-be realized more mature nth-of-a-kind ("NOAK") type technologies, 

rather than initial first-of-a-kind ("FOAK") technologies;

 a narrow reliance on two reports that are based on dated vendor supplied conceptual 

designs for CCS and IGCC technologies that have never been constructed or proven;

 a failure to consider any of the costs and lessons learned from actual CCS related projects 

that have been constructed or that are actively being developed; and

 a failure to consider more recent and relevant studies of the cost of advanced coal-based 

generation and CCS technologies.

Commenter 10618 also stated that EPA's cost analysis is flawed due to an incorrect assumption 

that CCS development has advanced beyond FOAK technologies. The commenter noted that 

reliable demonstrated FOAK costs for CCS and advanced coal generation technologies, such as 

IGCC, are not available. According to the commenter, the current state of CCS development has 

been widely recognized to be at the FOAK deployment phase, including by the Interagency Task 
6-163

Force on CCS. According to the commenter, in regards to IGCC, any cost estimates for future 

projects are speculative at best due to the early stage of development. The two IGCC projects 

under active construction and commissioning in the U.S. are both FOAK processes and have 

both experienced significant cost escalations throughout their development. The 

commenter agreed that certain highly efficient generating technologies are cost effective as 

evidenced by the number of projects that are being successfully completed worldwide.

Commenter 10618 stated that reliable baseline costs, performance information, and lessons 

learned from FOAK CCS projects are required before the true scope of cost implications can be 

understood; however, because CCS development issues are far from being one-sized-fits-all, the 

completion of multiple commercial-scale projects on coal-based generating units is critical for 

informing for any meaningful cost estimate of future NOAK CCS processes. The commenter 

stated that EPA does not take into account the cost, performance, and other lessons learned from 

the AEP Mountaineer Plant CCS Validation Project in its reliance on the NETL report. The 

commenter stated that the recent experience of CCS and advanced coal-based generation projects 

underscores the difficulty of developing reliable costs FOAK technologies, yet alone the 

significant uncertainty and challenge of being able to assess the cost of future FOAK and 

especially NOAK projects with any degree of accuracy. According to the commenter, this 

difficulty is highlighted by the projects that EPA relies upon in the proposed rule where there is a 

wide disparity in costs and where each project is experiencing significant cost escalations.

Commenter 10618 stated a number of recent assessments have concluded that CCS for fossil 

fuel-fired electric generation currently is and will remain at the FOAK level of development for 

many years. According to the commenter, these conclusions do not support EPA's use of cost 

estimates that the agency presumes represent technologies that have matured beyond FOAK 

projects. The commenter referenced the 2010 DOE/NETL CCS Roadmap which noted that the 

DOE RD&D effort "involves pursuing advanced CCS technology...so that full-scale 

demonstrations can begin by 2020" in order to "enable broader commercial deployment of CCS 

to begin by 2030." The commenter also referenced the DOE/NETL "Carbon Capture" website 

discusses the following in the very first paragraph: "first-generation CO2 capture technologies 

are currently being used in various industrial applications. However, in their current state of 

development, these technologies are not ready for implementation on coal-based power 

plants because they have not been demonstrated at appropriate scale, require approximately 

one-third of the plant's steam and power to operate, and are cost prohibitive." The commenter 

referenced another separate NETL report that notes "the definition of the NOAK plant is 

somewhat arbitrary as well, although it is often taken as the fifth or higher plant." According to 

the commenter, the minimal commercial-scale CCS projects that are actively being developed 

may be sufficiently unique as to limit the overall progress of the technology beyond FOAK 

applications. The commenter also stated that the DOE CCS Roadmap also estimates that 

commercial-scale CCS will add 80% to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal unit and 

35% to the cost of a new IGCC unit and highlights the infancy of the technology as a potential 

emissions control option for coal-based generation, and therefore it is clear from this information 

that cost estimates for future CCS projects are far from being able to accurately represent NOAK 

processes.
6-164

Commenter 10618 stated that for any individual project, the cost estimate will change throughout 

the phases of development: (i) conceptual design; (ii) front-end engineering & design (FEED); 

(iii) detailed design; (iv) construction; (v) startup & commission; (vi) operational. According to 

the commenter, as technologies mature, the cost differential between conceptual design and 

operational cost will become less, and this cost differential for an individual project can vary

significantly across the development cycle, as well as from project to project that employ FOAK 

technologies. The commenter provided tables that summarize costs of actual CCS projects that 

have been or that currently are being developed to demonstrate this variability and to highlight 

the fact that CCS technology is far from advancing beyond a FOAK level of development.

Commenter 9780 stated that the following important factors appear to be ignored in the NOAK 

cost projections: (1) CCS projects currently under construction have experienced significant cost 

overruns, which are not accounted for in the NETL FOAK cost analysis that is the baseline for 

projecting the nth of a kind costs EPA relies upon; and (2) the analysis does not reflect the cost 

premiums associated with early plant deployments, which carry significantly higher cost and 

engineering procurement and construction premiums not reflected in the cost analysis. The 

commenter provides analysis of the NETL report, noting that EPA has adopted the cost estimates 

while omitting several important cost considerations. The commenter also stated that EPA has 

not justified its assumption that the costs of CCS will decrease more quickly than other costs, 

and provided additional discussion that there is no reason to believe that substantial new 

assistance-driven demonstration projects will be undertaken to drive down costs of CCS on 

EGUs.

Commenter 10239 stated the EPA seeks to reduce the LCOE for partial CCS by using projected 

NOAK costs when there is currently no FOAK example of a commercial-scale coal-fired EGU 

applying any form of CCS. The commenter stated that in the absence of an established 

technology, it is arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to ignore the unique cost premiums 

associated with FOAK plants that must demonstrate emerging technologies and iteratively 

improve upon initial plant designs.

Commenter 10952 noted that that EPA uses a few demonstration CCS projects as FOAK projects 

to then conclude that next projects can be evaluated at "next commercial offering costs," 

although it fails to use actual cost data associated with these first project costs.

Commenter 10952 stated that EPA cannot reasonably rely on Table 6 LCOE data that are based 

the theory that as technology matures with the construction of successive plants, the cost 

decreases. According to the commenter, for either full or partial carbon capture, technology

adjustments, increasing material and labor costs, and unforeseen intervening factors can 

significantly inflate what the proposal describes as LCOE for a next commercial offering or a 

NOAK facility. The commenter stated that the docket contains no information on the 

methodology utilized to arrive at the conclusion that "next commercial offering" cost would even 

approximate the LCOE data in Table 6, and why in fact the next commercial offering would not 

exceed even a FOAK facility. The commenter discussed each of the projects in the EPA analysis, 

noting that no facilities cited as FOAK are completed and most are years away from it, with no 

operational data available to gauge facility eventual costs, reliability and availability. The 

commenter presented a table to show capital costs associated with the facilities that EPA cites as 

FOAK, in addition to the Edwardsport IGCC project, and stated that the cost differentials 
6-165

between EPA's presumed NOAK and FOAK and Edwardsport costs are enormous. According to 

the commenter, based on actual FOAK costs data, EPA methodology presumes the next-of-akind unit LCOE would be between 53 to 58 percent of the FOAK unit LCOE, and for the 

Edwardsport facility, one that EPA describes as a successive IGCC technology application, the 

next-of-a kind unit LCOE would be 67 percent of the Edwardsport facility LCOE. Based on this 

analysis, the commenter stated that learning by doing cannot provide significant step changes in 

cost and performance to make carbon capture more economically viable.

Commenter 10029 stated that several billion dollars have been invested into research and 

demonstration of CCS and yet it has not been commercially introduced for its intended purpose 

of mitigating GHG emissions from fossil fuel powered electric generating units (EGU). The 

commenter cited a Harvard Belfer Center discussion paper (2009) "Realistic Costs of Carbon 

Capture" which offers a general range for FOAK plants of $110/t CO2 avoided (with a range of 

$90- 135/t CO2 avoided) and for NOAK plants costs are expected to be $25-50/t CO2 avoided. 

According to the commenter, considering that we are likely several decades away from NOAK 

economies of scale it is prudent to focus on FOAK avoided carbon costs for near term analysis of 

EGU carbon mitigation.

Commenter 9780 also stated that EPA must correct significant flaws with the LCOE analysis, the 

largest of which is the use of something less than FOAK costs for a technology that has not been 

widely developed. The commenter stated that the costs are unreasonable when technology is not 

yet demonstrated and commercially deployed. According to the commenter, the following 

important factors appear to be ignored in the NOAK cost projections: (1) CCS projects currently 

under construction have experienced significant cost overruns, which are not accounted for in the 

NETL FOAK cost analysis that is the baseline for projecting the nth of a kind costs EPA relies 

upon; and (2) the analysis does not reflect the cost premiums associated with early plant 

deployments, which carry significantly higher cost and engineering procurement and 

construction premiums not reflected in the cost analysis. The commenter discussed additional 

concerns with the NETL LCOE analysis, such as the exclusion of capital cost contingencies. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that EPA has not justified why the departure from FOAK 

costs is warranted at this early state of CCS development. The commenter also noted that there is 

no reason to believe that substantial new assistance-driven demonstration projects will be 

undertaken to drive down costs of CCS on EGUs

Commenter 9734 stated EPA's reliance upon levelized cost does not provide an accurate estimate 

of actual plant costs. According to the commenter, although levelized costs are a convenient 

summary measure of the overall competitiveness of different generating technologies, actual 

plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics 

of a project, which involve numerous other considerations not taken into account when 

projecting levelized costs. The commenter stated that EPA has chosen to ignore the unique cost 

premiums associated with FOAK plants that must demonstrate emerging technologies and 

iteratively improve upon plant designs. The commenter then stated that EPA ignores the fact that 

because the Kemper and Boundary Dam projects are still being developed, it is premature to 

classify all subsequent plants as NOAK. The commenter provided information on the delays and 

cost overruns associated with the Kemper project and the AEP Mountaineer Station project. The 

commenter concluded that when the true cost of these projects including these cost overruns is 
6-166

taken into account (under a FOAK plant approach), it is clear that IGCC/partial CCS is 

exorbitantly expensive and thus cannot meet the definition of a "standard of performance.

Response 6.3-259: Commenters maintained that the next plants with CCS would be First-of-aKind (FOAK), and that costs should be assessed on this basis. They thus challenged any 

assumption that costs would be n

th

-of-a-kind (NOAK). However, the EPA notes here (and 

elsewhere) that, both in the proposal and in the final, the costs for new sources implementing any 

level of CCS are assumed to represent the “next-of-a-kind” or “next commercial offering”, rather 

than n

th

-of-a-kind (NOAK). For the final cost estimates, the EPA relied on very recent updates to 

DOE/NETL studies (NETL, June 2015 and July 2015). Those studies stated: “[I]n all cases, the 

report intends to represent the next commercial offering and relies on vendor cost estimates for 

component technologies (emphasis added, June 2015, p. 20). Importantly, the most recently 

updated reports relied on vendor quotes from Shell Cansolv – the technology that is currently 

being used in the Boundary Dam project in Canada. The DOE/NETL studies also “applies 

process contingencies at the appropriate subsystem levels in an attempt to account for expected 

but undefined costs, which can be a challenge for emerging technologies.” (Ibid, p. 20)

The EPA understands that actual costs of new generation projects can deviate from the cost 

estimates provided in the final preamble. However, many of the factors that can lead to cost 

deviations for new EGUs utilizing partial CCS would also affect the costs for a new EGU that is 

not including the equipment needed to implement partial CCS. Local labor rates, quality and 

availability of local water, local seismic conditions, financing arrangements, weather delays, 

availability and cost of construction materials such as steel and cement, among many other 

factors, would affect the construction schedule and costs for a new EGU – with or without CCS. 

This is the case for any large construction project – or even home construction. The EPA does 

not suggest that the next constructed IGCC unit would definitely not suffer from the same nonCCS related issues that contributed to the cost overruns and schedule delays at Kemper and 

Edwardsport. However, the EPA does note that IGCC is not a component of the BSER for the 

final standard for new steam generating EGUs. The final BSER is a highly efficient supercritical 

PC unit implementing partial CCS to meet a standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g. The AEP John 

W. Turk facility is an example of a highly efficient supercritical PC. In comments of AEP (p. 

76), AEP represented the cost of the Turk facility as $2,885/kW. The DOE/NETL estimates for 

such a facility is $2,842/kW (NETL, 2015 p. 17 – for a plant using bituminous coal). This close 

agreement in cost estimates is another indication of the reliability of the NETL cost projections.

Regarding the comment that billions of dollars have been invested into research and 

demonstration of CCS and yet it has not been commercially introduced for its intended purpose 

of mitigating GHG emissions from fossil fuel powered electric generating units (EGU). We note 

that there are several technology providers that offer “commercially available” carbon capture 

technology. The companies have brochures (see brochures of MHI, Shell Cansolv, Linde, etc. in 

the docket), they have websites that promote their products, they sponsor vendor booths at major 

power sector conferences, etc. As discussed in the preamble, it is often regulatory requirements 

that promote deployment and advancement of control technologies. The first commercial 

installations of flue gas desulfurization technology on boilers larger than 100 MW in 1968. The 

first NSPS for SO2 was promulgated in 1971. By the time of the promulgation of the SO2 NSPS 

in 1971, only three commercial scrubber units were operating on power plants in the United 

States. In 1971, only one scrubber vendor was in the utility FGD market. By the end of the 
6-167

1970s, sixteen U.S. firms supplied FGD systems to utilities. There was also a large step increase 

in patent activity in SO2 control technology patents following the 1971 SO2 NSPS. (See the 

TSD on “History of Flue Gas Desulfurization Use in United States: 1970-1976” available in the 

rulemaking docket.).

Certain commenters (9472, 1591) maintained that because there are no operating plants at 

commercial scale with CCS, by definition, the next plant would have to be FOAK. Boundary

Dam Unit #3 is a full-scale commercial SCPC utilizing full post-combustion CCS. Other plants 

operating, or soon-to-be operated likewise provide substantial operating experience or other 

experience which forms a basis for next plants to draw upon. See preamble section V.D. The 

commenters also ignore the substantial public- and private-sector research which will have a 

positive impact on reducing cost and improving performance of the next CCS plants to be built. 

See generally preamble section V.I.2.

Other commenters (9666, 10618, 9472) maintained that every new plant will be unique, 

especially with respect to sequestration and also to some extent in choice of capture and 

compression technology, so that almost by definition, these plants will be FOAK. EPA’s cost 

estimates for sequestration reasonably rely on the very extensive rulemaking record developed 

for the Class VI regulation, and this robust record provides cost estimates which are reasonably 

representative. See preamble section V.I.5 and N. Certain sites may be more challenging, and 

both AEP and other commenters referred to the AEP Mountaineer demonstration project as an 

example, where siting of a sequestration site proved feasible but expensive due particularly to the 

number of monitoring wells needed. This project involved a retrofit to an existing facility (see 

preamble section V.D.3.b), whereas a new source could making siting decisions which pose less 

of a challenge. The Class VI permits issued to date, for example, required many fewer 

monitoring wells than AEP found to be needed. There are also compliance pathways to meet 

the final standard of performance which do not involve sequestration if a source is determined to 

site at a location which is unsuitable for sequestration. In addition, the EPA does not accept that 

each compression and capture technology is so unique as to be a new first-of-a-kind decision 

with each deployment. Both post- and pre-combustion carbon capture are well established 

technologies based on recognized processes which are actively marketed. See preamble section 

V.F. For example, Southern Company’s Mississippi Power has stated that, because the 

SelexolTM process has been used in industry for decades, the technical risk of its use at the 

Kemper IGCC facility is minimized noting that “The carbon capture equipment and processes 

proposed in this project have been in commercial use in the chemical industry for decades and 

pose little technology risk.”46

Commenter 10618 criticized EPA for basing decisions on what it characterized as dated vendor 

reports. The EPA does not accept the characterization, but has made every effort to obtain the 

most up-to-date information on cost, in part in response to this and similar comments. In

particular, cost estimates for post-combustion CCS reflect cost information from recent vendor 

quotes of the Shell Cansolv post-combustion capture process – the process that is currently being 

 

46 Mississippi Power Company, Kemper County IGCC Certificate Filing, Updated Design, Description and Cost of 

Kemper IGCC Project, Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) DOCKET NO. 2009-UA-0014, filed 

December 7, 2009. 
6-168

utilized at the Boundary Dam #3 facility. The EPA has also carefully monitored the most recent 

marketing materials and estimates, which, as explained in preamble section V.I.2.c, are

corroborative of the NETL cost estimates.

A number of commenters (e.g. 9780, 9374) stressed that actual projects have had huge cost 

overruns, and that these plants should form the basis for cost estimates, not projected, 

hypothetical plants as reflected in the NETL estimates. Some commenters (e.g. 9666) maintained 

that IGCC costs were especially speculative. The EPA has carefully considered this issue. 

Kemper, an oft-cited example in the comments, had cost-overruns not related to CCS (per the 

report to the Mississippi Public Utility Commission cited in an earlier comment response in this 

unit). AEP involved a retrofit to an existing facility, which occasioned costs (especially related 

to siting of monitoring wells) that a new source could avoid at the outset. Boundary Dam 

ultimately came in on budget for the capture portion of the project, and has predicted publically 

that costs of a next plant would be 30% less. See also preamble section V.I.3.

Commenter 10952 states that there is no information in the record supporting an assumption that 

next plants to be built would have NOAK costs. This is mistaken. SaskPower Executive Michael 

Monea has stated publically that the next post-combustion CCS plant using Shell Cansolv 

compression and capture process can expect to see at least a 30% reduction in cost, as just noted. 

EPA’s cost estimates for post-combustion partial CCS are based on recent vendor quotes for this 

Cansolv process. More generally, these comments assume that learning by doing, with 

consequent reduction in costs, simply does not apply here. The EPA disagrees. The NETL 

assumption of NOAK is not unique. Technology vendors are currently providing cost estimates 

in the marketplace which not only have the same premise – that costs for next plants will be less 

than those of the FOAK plants – but are lower than the NETL estimates. See preamble section 

V.I.2.c. The NETL estimates are also consistent with techno-economic models of other 

established entities, meaning, again, that these other entities likewise are using NOAK cost 

estimates. See id. section V.I.2.b.

Commenters 9780 and 9666 state that the NETL estimates do not account for capital cost 

contingencies, which are typical for FOAK plants. The commenter is mistaken. The NETL 

estimates used for the final rule use high-risk financial assumptions for all CCS cost estimates. 

NETL 2015 at p. 18.

Finally, a number of commenters cite to statements of various non-industry entities for the 

proposition that CCS will be unavailable until such dates as 2020. These quotations had a 

different context, referring to full CCS, or to CCS retrofits. See generally preamble section 

V.G.3.

Comment 6.3-260: Commenter 10108 stated that EPA's determination that the costs of CCS are 

reasonable is supported by current experience as well as expected future costs. The commenter 

stated that the CCS component of SaskPower's Boundary Dam project, scheduled to come online 

later this year, is actually 6% under budget. The commenter also stated that SaskPower recently

stated that by 2016 other units at the Boundary Dam facility could be repowered with CCS 

without government subsidy, and it estimates that the cost of its next carbon capture project will 

be 20-30% lower than Boundary Dam. According to the commenter, this leading case study 

offers a promising perspective on the present and future costs of CCS, and corroborates EPA's 
6-169

conclusion that "next-of-a-kind" CCS facilities, like many other emission control and energy

technologies in the past, will experience reductions in cost over time.

Response 6.3-260: The EPA agrees that the Boundary Dam experience is indicative that cost of 

next plants will reflect present operating experience and be substantially less as a result. The 

EPA’s information, obtained from the project developer, likewise is that the CCS portion of the 

project came in at budget. Boundary Dam Unit 3 (BD3) was recently awarded POWER 

Magazine’s “Plant of the Year” award. (http://www.powermag.com/saskpowers-boundary-damcarbon-capture-project-wins-powers-highest-award/). In recognizing the Boundary Dam Unit 3 

plant, POWER noted that “the SaskPower team has taken what actually constitutes a giant leap 

for the coal-fired power industry”. In the article47 SaskPower notes that this first-of-its-kind 

carbon capture plant was finished on budget; challenges associated with the existing power plant 

were the cause of cost overruns. They also noted that the performance far exceeds the 

expectations at the project’s inception.

Comment 6.3-261: Commenter 10098 stated that the proposed rule's levelized cost of electricity 

(LCOE) figures are arbitrary and capricious. According to the commenter, EPA's estimates 

incorporate a number of errors, including a lack of foundation for its CCS cost estimates, a lack 

of real-world construction and operations data and improper assumptions that artificially reduced 

EPA's cost estimates and ignore the higher costs associated with a first-of-a-kind technology. 

The commenter referenced the source relied upon by EPA in their claim that "partial" CCS, with 

an emission rate of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh, will only add $18 to the cost of electricity for a 

pulverized coal boiler and noted that the only study relied upon by EPA that even speaks to the 

costs of "partial" CCS shows that cost of electricity will increase by twice as much as the 

proposed rule's estimate. Therefore the commenter stated that EPA's $18/MWh cost estimate is 

arbitrary and capricious because it not only lacks support, but is clearly contradicted by the 

administrative record.

Commenter 10039 stated that US EPA's reliance on US DOE/NETL "Cost and Performance" 

reports as a basis to justify partial CCS costs as reasonable is misplaced and 

inappropriate. According to the commenter, US DOE estimates of levelized costs of electricity 

(LCOE) which are used to establish the reasonableness of CCS technology costs make several 

assumptions for the purposes of their calculations which skew the analysis by identifying the low 

end of the costs of CCS. The commenter stated that US DOE estimates of LCOE are not 

universally applicable as they are not derived based on national averages or even realistic 

scenarios, and they also do not address realistic costs for permitting, insurance, construction, and 

easement costs of CO2 pipelines and storage areas because it makes assumptions about locally

available storage areas and the sharing of that storage capacity that unrealistically result in 

significant underestimation of the cost of a CO2 storage site on a $/tonne of CO2 stored 

perspective. The commenter stated that the US DOE report utilizes the least cost storage location 

option of the four to assess LCOE estimates despite the fact that two of the four locations have 

significantly higher costs. According to the commenter, picking the lowest cost location is 

 

47 “SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project Wins POWER’s Highest Award”, POWER Magazine, 

(8/1/2015), Available at: http://www.powermag.com/saskpowers-boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project-winspowers-highest-award/
6-170

arbitrary and capricious as it has no basis in actual EGU siting criteria and does not represent a 

national average. Therefore the commenter suggested US EPA abandon the US DOE CCS cost 

analyses as they are arbitrary and biased estimates of the cost of CCS.

Commenter 10952 stated concern with the use of DOE funded demonstration projects in 

determining the LCOE estimates to reach its BSER conclusion, and questions EPA's focus on 

NOAK costs provided in Table 6 of the proposal. The commenter stated that according to the 

DOE studies of which EPA relies, the margin of error of the derived LCOE data ranges from -15 

to +30 percent, and this wide margin of error makes any chosen LCOE costs within this wide 

range arbitrary. The commenter noted that for Table 6 costs, EPA has chosen the midpoint from 

the data extrapolated from these studies for its LCOE predictions, but even at that midpoint level 

the LCOE for SCPC EGU with partial carbon capture is 20 percent above a SCPC EGU without 

carbon capture, and this increase is well above any level determined to be judicially permissible, 

as EPA recognizes in Portland Cement 486 F.2d. 387, where only a 12 percent capital cost 

increase was a level considered permissible. The commenter also noted that if the actual LCOE

for SCPC with partial capture is 30 percent above the LCOE midrange prediction, again a LCOE 

within the stated margin of error, the resulting partial carbon capture cost would increase the 

SCPC facility by 24 percent. The commenter also noted that the Table 6 LCOE data, and the 

proposal overall, do not factor in CO2 transport and sequestration costs where EOR is not 

available. 

Commenter 10952 references a study which concludes that EPA misused the DOE studies to 

derive CCS cost estimates, and that the DOE studies were intended to be used to derive 

preliminary estimates of feasibility and costs and were never meant to determine actual costs to 

be used as a basis in a national rulemaking that will dictate the nation's future energy policy. The 

commenter also stated the DOE reports upon which EPA relies were not peer reviewed and 

underlying assumptions were not made available for comment in connection with this 

rulemaking. According to the commenter, these DOE studies were intended to be used to derive 

preliminary estimates of feasibility and costs and were never meant to determine actual costs to 

be used as a basis in a national rulemaking that will dictate the nation's future energy policy.

Commenter 9678 stated that they do not agree with EPA's reliance on LCOE estimates in 

evaluating the cost-effectiveness of its proposed emission limits and BSER determinations. 

According to the commenter, LCOE provides a useful metric in many contexts, but not for 

purposes of determining BSER. The commenter stated LCOE is an economic tool designed not 

to discern the costs of various alternative levels of BSER, but rather to evaluate the 

competitiveness of a technology in the broadest possible terms. The commenter stated that the 

use of LCOE in this rulemaking also departs from past Agency practice, as in previous CAA 

section 111 rulemakings, EPA considered both the overall costs involved per year and the costeffectiveness of a CAA section 111 standard in terms of cost-per-ton of air pollutant removed.

Commenter 9666 stated that the problem with the use of the LCOE metric is that it averages the 

cost of generation over the lifespan of the generating unit and fails to account properly for 

significant differences in upfront capital and related financing costs, which are typically much 

higher for coal-fired units, especially with the integration of CCS, than for NGCC facilities. 

According to the commenter, because corporate decisions on generating technologies will be 
6-171

driven in large part not only by a LCOE metric but by upfront financing and capital constraints, 

EPA erred by not factoring these considerations into its cost analysis.

Commenter 9197 stated that based on DOE estimates, the projected cost of electricity from new 

coal-fired facilities with CCS is likely to be far higher than that of most other alternative 

baseload technologies. According to the commenter, the need to overbuild/oversize systems in 

order to comply with the NSPS in the context of a 24-hour duty cycle and the need to rely on 

third party CO2 pipeline and sequestration service providers will increase cost estimates. The 

commenter referenced EPA LCOE estimates and DOE EIA estimates for LCOE.

Commenter 7977 referenced a 2013 State of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet analysis 

which concluded the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) with CCS technology is higher than the 

LCOE without CCS. According to the analysis, estimates indicate that the addition of CCS to 

either an IGCC or USCPC facility would increase cost per kWh by 40 percent to 58 percent 

respectively.

Commenter 10095 stated that NETL document used as the source for CCS cost assumptions 

highlights the changing landscape of CCS costs and the need for multiple cost reference points. 

The commenter stated that EPA did not analyze the full range of the cost estimate in setting a 

nationwide BSER and performance standard applicable to all new coal-fired generation, noting 

the -15 to +30 percent accuracy of the NETL report. The commenter stated that while EPA 

estimates the capital cost would increase by 35 percent for SCPC to incorporate partial CCS, no 

previous EPA NSPS proposal has increased the cost of constructing a new affected facility by 35 

percent. The commenter presented their own analysis, in which they conclude that EPA 

potentially underestimated the average costs of partial CCS by 23 percent for SCPC. The 

commenter stated that EPA's LCOE analysis is flawed as it is based on one source and does not 

consider the full range of cost estimates. Using the upper range of NETL cost estimates, the 

commenter argued that generation technologies with partial CCS may be costlier than other new 

non-fossil, low emitting baseload generation technologies such as nuclear.

Commenter 10239 stated the EPA's attempt to justify the proposed standard by comparing the 

levelized cost of electricity from new coal-fired power plants with and without CCS is arbitrary, 

capricious, and unlawful. According to the commenter, because of the serious defects in the 

EPA's levelized cost analysis, the Agency has no basis for using the analysis to justify the 

proposed rule. The commenter provided cost information from the 2011 NETL study in which 

partial capture would increase costs by 43.3% and stated that the only evidence from NETL 

suggests that the costs of partial CCS would be more than twice as high as the EPA's estimate of 

$18/MWh. In the absence of any supporting evidence to contradict the NETL study, the 

commenter stated that EPA's cost estimate for partial CCS is arbitrary and capricious. 

Commenter 10239 also stated the EPA lacks any real-world data on which to base its cost 

estimates as there are no commercial-scale coal-fired EGUs employing CCS anywhere in the 

world. As a result, the commenter argued EPA has no factual basis for projecting levelized cost 

of electricity estimates. According to the commenter, it would be arbitrary and capricious to rely 

on estimates generated from facilities currently under construction because of the welldocumented cost overruns occurring at virtually all of those facilities. According to the 

commenter, EPA's decision to propose partial CCS creates even more cost-estimate challenges, 
6-172

as the facilities under construction intend to capture higher proportions of CO2. The commenter 

also stated the EPA offers no rational basis for reversing its prior conclusions in the GHG 

Guidance and in comments on PSD permitting decisions that CCS is prohibitively expensive, 

citing "At present CCS is an expensive technology, largely because of the costs associated with 

CO2 capture and compression, and these costs will generally make the price of electricity from 

power plants with CCS uncompetitive compared to electricity from plants with other GHG 

controls."

Response 6.3-261: Commenters challenged EPA’s use of both the LCOE metric at all, and 

certain of the data used to generate the LCOE estimates. Many of these comments are addressed 

in preamble section V.I.1. In response to comments indicating that capital costs are of special 

import for SCPC, and more so than for other types of units (e.g. 9666), EPA has in fact evaluated 

capital costs associated with the final standard as a separate metric, found them to be comparable 

to those experienced (successfully) by this industry for other NSPS, and reasonable. See 

preamble section V.H.4.

With regard to use of NETL studies to generate data used in the LCOE comparison, commenter 

10095 said mistakenly that these estimates do not include transport and sequestration costs for a 

non-EOR case. The commenter’s error is explained in preamble section V.I.5.

The EPA also carefully reviewed the assumptions on which the transport and storage cost 

estimates are based and continues to find them reasonable. The RIA presents an illustrative 

analysis using NETL estimates as demonstrative of the range of costs which, as the commenter 

points out, may vary by region. For transport, costs reflect pipeline capital costs, related capital 

expenditures, and O&M costs. Pipeline costs used in the NETL studies upon which the EPA 

analysis was based were comparable to costs quoted by industry experts. See Carbon Dioxide 

Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies (DOE/NETL-2013/1614), p. 16. Sequestration 

cost estimates reflect the cost of site screening and evaluation, the cost of injection wells, the cost 

of injection equipment, operation and maintenance costs, pore volume acquisition expense, and 

long term liability protection. These sequestration costs reflect the regulatory requirements of the 

Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP subpart RR for geologic 

sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations. In the cost estimates, each formation in each 

basin has a maximum theoretical capacity to store CO2 and this capacity significantly exceeds 

the mass of CO2 being stored by a single project. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that 

multiple storage projects could be implemented in a formation. In fact, the sequestration costs 

conservatively assume storage in a formation until the total mass of CO2 injected from all 

projects approaches 40 percent of the theoretical storage capacity. See Carbon Dioxide Transport 

ant Storage Costs in NETL Studies, p. 19. The transport and storage costs provide a conservative 

estimate of storage costs and are consistent with cases modeled in the NETL report. 

Another erroneous comment (10952) maintained that the NETL studies are not peer reviewed. 

The initial NETL study “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1: 

Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity” (2006) was subject to peer review by industry

experts, academia, and government research and regulatory agencies. Subsequent iterations of 

the study were not further peer reviewed because the modeling procedures used in the cost 

estimation were not revised. The SAB determined here that this peer review was adequate under 
6-173

both DOE and EPA peer review guidance. See chapter 2 RTC dealing with comments 

referencing the Information Quality Act.

Other commenters noted that the NETL studies present costs as a range, and urged the EPA not 

to use point estimates for these figures. EPA agrees with these comments, and is using the range 

of cost estimates presented in its assessment of costs. See, e.g., Table 8 to the preamble to the 

final rule. In this regard, the EPA notes that costs for nuclear power are also presented as a 

range. This approach is consistent with expert advice to EPA from the EIA, and with the 

methodology used by leading techno-economic modelers in the field, notably Lazard Global 

Power and the Global CCS Institute.48 The nuclear LCOE estimates of these various entities are 

likewise relatively consistent. See preamble sections V.H.5 and I.2.b.

Commenter 10095 stated that, at the least, NETL should not be used as the exclusive basis for 

generating cost information for LCOE comparisons. The EPA has, in fact, looked to other 

techno-economic models and current vendor marketing and cost information, and finds these 

other sources of information to be corroborative of NETL estimates (and, in notable instances, to 

provide lower cost estimates than those of the NETL studies – although the EPA LCOE 

estimates continue to be based on the NETL results). See preamble section V.I.2.and 3.

Commenters 10098 and 10239 referenced the source relied upon by EPA in their claim that 

"partial" CCS, with an emission rate of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh, will only add $18 to the cost of 

electricity for a pulverized coal boiler and noted that the only study relied upon by EPA that even 

speaks to the costs of "partial" CCS shows that cost of electricity will increase by twice as much 

as the proposed rule's estimate. However, the EPA notes that the commenter calculated the 

change in LCOE to meet an emission rate of 1,055 lb CO2/MWh on a net basis ... not for an 

emission rate of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh on a gross basis as proposed by the EPA (and adopted as the 

form of the final standard of performance). In any case, for the final rule, the EPA relied on 

updated cost estimates by the DOE/NETL that were based on recent, up-to-date vendor quotes. 

This new information predicts that the final standard will result in an increase of the levelized 

cost of electricity (LCOE) at the compliant plant of $16.8/MWh.

Commenter 10239 states that no real world operating experience is reflected in the NETL

estimates making their use arbitrary. The same commenter indicates that estimates should not be 

based on units under construction. The cost estimates used by the EPA for post-combustion 

partial CCS reflect the most recent vendor quotes for the CanSolv process that is in current 

operating use at the commercial-scale full CCS Boundary Dam #3 facility.

Commenter 7977 referenced a 2013 State of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet analysis 

which concluded the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) with CCS technology is higher than the 

LCOE without CCS. The EPA agrees with that conclusion (see Table 8 in the final rule 

preamble). The commenter references a report49 that concludes that “the addition of CCS to 

either an IGCC or USCPC facility would increase cost per kWh by 40 percent to 58 percent 

 

48 Global CCS Institute, “The Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon technologies 2015 Update” (July 2015) 

(compiling estimates of Lazard, EIA 2014, IPCC 2014, Brookings 2014, EPRI 2013, IEA 2012, and NREL 2015).

49 http://eec.ky.gov/Documents/Appendix%20C%20Electric%20Generating%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
6-174

respectively”. The EPA notes that those studies assume “full CCS” (i.e., capture and storage of 

90% or more of the CO2 from the facility). The EPA did not find “full CCS” to be a component 

of the BSER as the projected costs exceed the projected costs of other non-NGCC, base load 

generating options.

Comment 6.3-262: Commenter 10098 stated that as there are no existing commercial-scale coalfired EGUs utilizing CCS, the actual construction and operating costs of CCS for a commercialscale power plant will not be understood until coal-fired EGUs actually finish construction and 

operate. According to the commenter, by failing to present a range of potential costs that include 

the cost overruns that can be expected with a first-of-a-kind technology, EPA provides an 

illusion of artificial certainty in its $18/MWh estimate. The commenter stated that the accuracy

of this number cannot be defended, for lack of any real-world data, and EPA should 

acknowledge this. 

Commenter 9666 stated that the problem with using the LCOE metric is that it averages the cost 

of generation over the lifespan of a generating unit and fails to account properly for significant 

differences in upfront capital and related financing costs, which are typically much higher for 

coal-fired units, especially with the integration of CCS, than for NGCC facilities. According to 

the commenter, because corporate decisions on generating technologies will be driven in large 

part not only by a LCOE metric but by upfront financing and capital constraints, EPA erred by

not factoring these considerations into its cost analysis. For these reasons, the commenter noted 

that EPA's cost analysis is in error and inadequate.

Response 6.3-262: Boundary Dam #3 is a commercial operating facility utilizing full CCS. The 

cost estimates used for the LCOE analysis for post-combustion CCS is based on recent vendor 

quotes of the Shell Cansolv post-combustion capture process – the process that is currently being 

utilized at the Boundary Dam #3 facility. The EPA has also carefully monitored the most recent 

marketing materials and estimates, which, as explained in preamble section V.I.2.c, is 

corroborative of the NETL cost estimates. 

EPA regards the LCOE metric as a highly reasonable, and widely utilized metric that takes into 

account all costs to construct and operate a new power plant over an assumed time period and an 

assumed capacity factor. Levelized costs are often used to compare the cost of different potential 

generating sources. However, in response to this comment (from commenter 9666) and similar 

comments, EPA also explicitly considered capital costs alone. See preamble section V.H.4 

explaining why the EPA finds potential capital cost increases reasonable on a per-plant basis.

Comment 6.3-263: Commenter 9664 stated that EPA's standard does not produce unreasonable 

levelized cost of electricity impacts. While the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for new coalfired generation that includes partial CCS is more than constructing coal plants without CCS, or 

new natural gas-fired generation, the commenter noted that it is competitive with new 

construction of other low-carbon electricity generating power plants, including nuclear, the 

principal other option considered for baseload electricity generation. The commenter cited 

several court decisions that the impact of a standard on the LCOE is a factor that EPA can 

consider in evaluating a standard's cost, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's precedent.

Response 6.3-263: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.
6-175

Comment 6.3-264: Commenter 9321 stated that for coal refuse designed EGUs with CFB 

boilers, it is not economically feasible to incorporate identified efficiency technologies. 

According to the commenter, it is not practical to establish an aggressive greenhouse gas 

emission rate for coal refuse designed EGU's as the economics will inhibit the development of 

these projects and this same economic issue will also surface if the application of efficiency

improvements to existing coal refuse fired EGUs is required. The commenter stated that the 

required use of CCS would also be cost prohibitive and would discourage the development of 

plants to remove the coal refuse piles and this same economic issue will also surface if the 

application of CCS to existing coal refuse fired EGUs are required.

Response 6.3-264: See preamble section III.E.

Comment 6.3-265: Commenter 9664 stated that EPA's standard meets the D.C. Circuit's test -

they are not "exorbitant" when evaluated in terms of the resulting cost of electricity, or as 

compared with the social cost of carbon.

Commenter 9514 EPA stated that properly considered the costs of partial CCS in light of the 

benefits that will accrue from considering the social cost of carbon and the co-benefits from 

reduced emissions of other harmful pollutants, including SO2, NOx, and PM2.5. According to 

the commenter, while Section 111 does not require strict cost-benefit balancing, it allows EPA to 

consider costs broadly, including consideration of the pollution reductions described above, as 

well as the social cost of carbon and co-benefits. The commenter stated that these considerations 

provide further support for the conclusion that a partial CCS standard will not impose exorbitant 

cost, in satisfaction of section 111's standards

Response 6.3-265: The EPA largely agrees with these comments.

Comment 6.3-266: Commenters 10098 and 10239 disagreed with the use of social cost of 

carbon to reduce the cost of "partial" CCS by 5% per the Social Cost of Carbon document 

developed by OMB. Commenter 10098 stated that any reliance on this deeply flawed policy is 

arbitrary and capricious, as the document is completely unreviewable for reasonableness or 

accuracy due to OMB's "black box" approach. The commenter provided additional information 

on social cost of carbon estimates. Commenter 10239 also stated that the social cost of carbon 

analysis has numerous flaws and should not be utilized in projecting the LCOE.

Response 6.3-266: First, the chief metrics used to show that costs of the rule are reasonable are 

projected LCOE and projected capital cost increases. The Social Cost of Carbon (SC-CO2) does 

not enter into any of these comparisons. Second, the (SC-CO2) is not a policy, it is an estimate of 

the net economic damages resulting from CO2 emissions, and therefore is used to estimate the 

benefit of reducing those emissions. Third, EPA strongly disagrees that the (SC-CO2) technical 

support documentation (“SC-CO2 TSDs) is “unreviewable for reasonableness or accuracy.” To 

the contrary, the SC-CO2 TSDs are comprehensive and technically rigorous in explaining the 

sources of data, the assumptions employed, the analytic methods applied, and the statistical 

assumptions employed. Terming this a ‘black-box’ process is a significant mischaracterization. 

Indeed, to ensure that the results are reproducible, EPA has provided technical assistance and 

modeling results to external stakeholders upon request. EPA also notes that opportunities for 

public comment have been provided on all aspects of the SC-CO2 estimates, including prior 
6-176

rulemakings dating back to 2009 that made use of the estimates. As a general practice, EPA 

requests comments on all aspects of the regulatory impact analysis, thereby providing ample 

opportunity for the public to comment on SC-CO2 estimates used in these analyses. In addition, 

OMB provided a stand-alone comment period on the 2013 estimates. For additional responses to 

comments regarding the transparency of the SC-CO2 estimates and their consistency with federal 

guidance, such as OMB Circular A-4, see Response to Comments Section 4, Comment 4.5-5

Comment 6.3-267: Commenter 10098 stated that in the RIA, EPA improperly reduced the cost 

of "partial" CCS by 38% through a series of assumptions that are not only unsupported but 

contradicted by EPA's own GHG BACT determinations regarding CCS. The commenter cited 

the EPA estimate of $29/MWh for the cost of partial CCS, noting that the origin of this estimate 

is not explained in the RIA, making the entire exercise arbitrary and capricious.

Response 6.3-267: The EPA’s estimates for the cost of partial post-combustion CCS reflect cost 

information from recent vendor quotes of the Shell Cansolv post-combustion capture process –

the process that is currently being utilized at the Boundary Dam #3 facility. The EPA has also 

carefully monitored the most recent marketing materials and estimates, which, as explained in 

preamble section V.I.2.c, is corroborative of the NETL cost estimates. The EPA does not believe 

that utilizing this recent, well-documented, and corroborated information on cost to be arbitrary

and capricious.

Comment 6.3-268: Commenters 10098 and 10239 stated that EPA's cost estimates are arbitrary 

and capricious because EPA deducts 3% of the costs based on flawed assumptions that "partial" 

CCS will reduce emissions of other pollutants as a co-benefit without further explanation of this 

claim. The commenters countered that CCS would actually increase emissions of conventional 

pollutants, referencing a 2011 NETL study and PSD permit determinations.

Response 6.3-268: As shown in Chapter 5 of the RIA, under assumptions where new noncompliant coal capacity is added, use of partial CCS results in significant reductions of criteria 

pollutants, in particular, SO2.

Comment 6.3-269: Commenter 8954 and 9472 discussed high costs associated with CCS. 

Commenter 8954 noted the EIA cost estimates to build a new IGCC coal plant with CCS of 

$6,599 per kilowatt is more than six times the price of a new NGCC unit without CCD and more 

expensive than hydro, solar, onshore wind and nuclear options. As a result, the commenter 

concluded that the proposed standard for coal is far too expensive for anyone to consider 

building a new coal plant. Commenter 9472 stated CCS is exorbitantly costly and EPA has 

significantly underestimated the cost of CCS by misinterpreting DOE cost estimates and has 

failed to recognize the first-of-a-kind nature of CCS costs. The commenter estimated the addition 

of CCS to a single new coal-fueled electric generating unit costs in the range of $1 billion.

Commenter 9401 referenced EIA data that adding CCS to a new power plant can cost up to $1 

billion and increase its capital cost by 60 percent. The commenter also stated that the 

Administration's CCS task force reported that CCS would add $400 million (IGCC) to $900 

million (pulverized coal) to the cost of a typical coal plant, increasing the capital cost of the plant 

by 25 percent and 80 percent, respectively.
6-177

Commenter 10243 stated costs to install CCS on a new coal-fired power plant are prohibitively

high, and CCS projects in the U.S. are viable only as a result of government assistance.

Commenter 9780 stated the costs of partial CCS are not reasonable and partial CCS is too 

expensive to be BSER. Commenter 10050 also stated CCS costs are exorbitant and 

unreasonable.

Commenter 10043 noted deficiencies with the exorbitant costs of CCS and the insufficient cost 

analysis conducted by the EPA regarding the effects of the Proposed Rule.

Commenter 9194 stated, as demonstrated in the NETL studies employed by EPA, CCS 

technology is resource intensive and overly expensive for use with utility-size EGUs.

Commenter 1959 stated costs should be considered, and the additional costs associated with CO2

capture are very large unacceptable and would roughly double the cost vs. a PC plant without 

CCS.

Commenter 8966 stated Implementation of partial CCS is exorbitantly costly in both economic 

and environmental ways. 1. Pre-CCS planning and design costs are significant even before 

factoring CCS system expenses. 2. In addition to special planning and design costs, the cost of a 

CCS system itself is immense. 3. CCS implementation raises a host of safety, liability, and other 

practical issues that EPA failed to take into account. According to the commenter, these are 

issues that must be resolved as a prerequisite to wide deployment and use of the technology. 

Their importance cannot be marginalized by EPA.

Commenter 10662 stated EPA's proposal constitutes a significant energy action with great 

adverse effects and fails to consider the increase in construction, operation, and energy penalty 

costs associated with CCS technology. The commenter noted the potential for increased 

electricity costs, the reliance on subsidies, the need for additional research, the lack of 

commercial scale applications, and the parasitic load.

A number of commenters (e.g. 8954, 9401) stated that adding CCS to coal-fired plants is 

exorbitantly costly and can add costs of up to $1 billion. Commenter 9401 cites in support that 

Administration’s CCS Task Force. The Task Force report addressed full CCS, not partial CCS. 

Response 6.3-269: The EPA is not selecting full CCS as BSER for reasons of cost. See 

preamble section V.P. However, as shown in preamble Table 8 and discussion underlying that 

table, cost of partial post-combustion CCS compares reasonably to that of other non-NGCC 

baseload dispatchable technologies. See also Global CCS Institute, “The Costs of CCS and 

Other Low-Carbon Technologies” (2015) stating that “CCS is a cost competitive power sector 

emissions reduction tool when considered among the range of available low and zero emissions 

technologies” (p.1); statement of Alstom Vice President Macnaughton endorsing “findings 

from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and 
6-178

natural gas plants equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon 

energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear”.

50

In response to commenter 1959 and 9401, the EPA has carefully considered capital costs as part 

of its consideration of cost. See preamble section V.H.4. The commenters, again, are basing 

their figures on the capital costs associated with full CCS, and therefore are much higher than 

those associated with the standard in the final rule, which the EPA has evaluated and found to be 

reasonable, in particular because they are in the same range as capital costs for this industry in 

earlier NSPS, which costs were found to be reasonable both by EPA and by reviewing courts.

Comments that the EPA is ignoring (unspecified) issues of safety and liability associated with 

partial CCS are misplaced. Costs reflect a carefully documented item-by-item assessment of 

equipment and construction needs. Issues of liability of sequestration sites are addressed, to the 

extent of EPA authority, in the Class VI well standards, in particular the closure and post-closure 

provisions. See preamble section V.N.

The EPA has also carefully considered the issue of parasitic load (termed ‘energy penalty’ by 

commenter 10062) and found those impacts to be reasonable. See preamble section V.O.3. See 

also the following response.

Comment 6.3-270: Commenters 7433, 9593 and10017 stated that EPA also overlooks the 

substantial energy penalty that CCS systems would impose on the generating capacity of an 

individual facility. Commenter 7433 stated when CO2 capture and storage is compared to other 

technical options for reducing CO2 emissions, 10-40% more energy is needed for producing the 

same amount of electricity; therefore, it is expected that CCS would raise the cost of producing 

electricity by about 20 to 50%.

Response 6.3-270: The EPA has carefully analyzed the issue of parasitic load. The actual 

figures are considerably less than the commenters posit, and EPA has found the energy

requirements of the rule, including consideration of energy requirements related to parasitic load, 

are reasonable. See preamble section V.O.3.

Comment 6.3-271: Commenter 9381 stated CCS as EPA envisions it for use at power plants has 

not been adequately demonstrated and its current costs are wholly disproportionate to the costs of 

a conventional power plant and are currently prohibitive. The commenter stated that electricity

generated from coal with CCS is almost 50 percent more expensive than energy generated from 

conventional coal. According to the commenter, it is estimated that CCS technology would add 

between approximately $800 million to $1 billion to the cost of a coal-fired EGU and would use 

as much as 30 percent of the electricity generated from the plant for CCS operation as parasitic 

load. With costs of this magnitude, the commenter noted it is highly doubtful that any merchant 

power companies or regulated electric utilities will invest in a new coal-fired power plant with 

CCS, nor will they be able to obtain financing. This could impact reliability and prevent states 

from diversifying their energy portfolios. Moreover, the commenter stated, CCS technology will 

not be deployed, refined or improved so as to make it technologically or economically viable.

 

50 See

http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf
6-179

Response 6.3-271: The commenter (Nextera Energy) cites in support a 2012 article titled The 

Twilight of Coal-Fired Power (May 1, 2012). Comment p. 3 n.2. That article was addressing the 

now-withdrawn 2012 proposal of EPA, and the costs cited again appear to reflect full CCS (and 

certainly do not reflect the costs of the standard based on performance of partial-CCS adopted in 

this final rule). See The Twilight of Coal-Fired Power at p. 11 and Fig. 7.

Comment 6.3-272: Commenters 8179, 8200, 8206, 8231, 8242, 9190, 9590, 9725. 10050, 

10552, and 10680 disagreed with EPA's assumption that the costs for CCS will decrease with the 

next plants constructed, as the commenters stated that actual experience in development of 

control technologies shows that second generation technologies will cost more as new risks are 

identified in performance and reliability. The commenters referenced comments by the Duke 

Power CEO that CCS is "too expensive" to consider adding to its recently commissioned 

Edwardsport IGCC plant, and noted that the Kemper County Energy Facility has experienced 

cost overruns of over 100 percent since 2010 and remains uncompleted.

Commenter 9666 stated that because CCS has never been applied as an integrated system at 

EGUs on a commercial scale, experience from the first generation of CCS systems at units like 

Kemper County and Boundary Dam is likely to reveal performance and reliability issues that 

may require costly additional measures to address. 

Commenter 10952 stated that because the projects, Kemper, TCEP, and HECA, of which EPA 

relies, are not in operation, the ultimate costs of employing carbon capture on an EGU are 

unknown. The commenter stated that EPA has not and cannot explain this dramatic departure 

from its earlier rulemaking, or from the technology development timelines and milestones 

developed by this administration and described in the Task Force report, especially with input 

from DOE whose knowledge and expertise in these areas of technology development dwarfs 

EPA's, to conclude carbon capture is adequately demonstrated.

Commenter 9396 stated that due to the excessive cost-increase of CCS demonstration projects, 

particularly the Kemper project, EPA should use a very substantial cost uncertainty when 

evaluating project costs that include CCS. The commenter also stated that the cost estimates for 

the Kemper facility are outdated and understate the cost of the facility. 

Commenters 9666 and 10395 stated that because the projects that EPA relies on (Kemper, TCEP, 

HECA) are not in operation, the ultimate costs of employing carbon capture on an EGU are 

unknown.

Commenter 2471 stated that EPA references the Kemper, Boundary Dam, TCEP and HECA 

projects, however each of these projects are oil and gas recovery projects and EPA does not 

consider the risks and costs to inject CO2 in locations with little or no oil and gas recovery 

opportunities.

Commenter 7977 referenced the Edwardsport and Kemper projects, noting that the actual costs 

accrued were much higher than the original cost estimates.
6-180

Commenter 8925 stated that FOAK costs have been significantly underestimated and provided 

additional background information on the Kemper and Boundary Dam projects. For the Kemper 

project, the commenter stated that based on the current estimate, it will cost $9,922/kW which 

is considerably more than those estimated in the DOE/NETL "baseline" studies cited in the 

EPA proposal. The commenter referenced the DOE/NETL 2011 report titled "Cost and 

Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture" which cites an 

IGCC with 60% CO2 capture having a "total overnight cost" of $3,024/kW. Total overnight costs 

do not include so called "owner's costs" or costs outside of the plant boundary limits such as 

transmission lines and fuel delivery systems. According to the commenter, if those costs are 

removed from the Kemper estimate, and the $245.3 million DOE subsidy is also removed, the 

equivalent "total overnight cost" of the Kemper would be $3.768 billion or $7,190/kW -- over 

twice the DOE/NETL baseline estimate. 

Commenter 8925 provided background information on the SaskPower Boundary Dam project. 

According to the commenter, the anticipated total cost of the Boundary Dam project was $1.24 

billion (CDN). SaskPower has received a $240 million (CDN) subsidy from the Canadian 

federal government to support the project. According to the commenter, project overruns were 

reported in October 2013 and the total projected cost now stands at $1.36 billion (CDN) for the 

110 MW unit.

Commenter 9497 stated that in approving the Kemper project, the Mississippi Public Service 

Commission (MPSC) explicitly recognized and guarded against the cost escalation being 

experienced at Kemper. As a result of the construction cost cap imposed by the MPSC, the 

company has written off over $1.5 billion. According to the commenter, this protective shifting 

of risk is unlikely to appeal to a broad range of utilities or be practical for the broader 

implementation of partial CCS technology in its current state. 

Commenter 9497 noted that the actual cost of the Kemper facility is greater than the cost 

assumed in EPA's RIA for an IGCC with CCS. The commenter calculated that the $4.6 billion 

plant cost translates to $7,846 per kW, more than double the cost assumed by EPA for an IGCC 

with partial CCS, noting that the calculated cost per kW for Kemper is conservative because it 

excludes the CO2 pipeline cost, which is likely to be a necessary component of any IGCC with 

CCS. The commenter stated that EPA's use of a cost assumption for IGCC with CCS that is at 

odds with both EIA's cost estimates and the actual cost of Kemper deems the RIA unreliable.

Commenter 9497 stated that the MPSC experience with the Kemper project demonstrates that 

the projected cost of a project with CCS technology can drastically change during deployment. 

The commenter suggested that in four years, the costs of this technology will be more knowable 

and the capture efficiency will be better understood. 

Commenter 9497 provided additional information on the Kemper project, including a discussion 

on the imposition of a cap on construction costs, beyond which incurred costs could not be 

recovered from ratepayers. The commenter stated that MPSC imposed performance standards 

and expectations on Kemper that shift risk to the utility. The commenter stated their belief that 

most other state commissions would likely insist on similar protections and that these 
6-181

requirements are unlikely to promote broader implementation of partial CCS technology across a 

wider range of utilities.

Commenter 9723 stated since the CCS projects, including Kemper, Boundary Dam and HECA, 

have required funding through governmental programs, it is clear there is more time needed to 

develop economic CCS technologies before it would be considered BSER.

Commenter 9773 stated that the four facilities that EPA references are under construction, or 

proposing to construct, are receiving government financial assistance to be viable and are not 

using commercially available CCS technology. The commenter provides information on the 

subsidies for Boundary Dam, Kemper, TCEP and HECA. According to the commenter, this 

required level of public funding to support these named projects does not support EPA's position 

that partial capture CCS meets the cost criteria to be BSER. The commenter also stated that 

incentivizing developers to install CCS via public grants and tax incentives of this magnitude is 

not sustainable when applied on the national scale required to power the nation's future 

industrial, commercial and residential demand.Commenter 10095 referenced the Kemper, TECP, 

and HECA projects, noting that since all of these projected receive federal funding, none can be 

said to be independently accommodating the cost of CCS. The commenter also stated that two 

of these projects do not have power purchase agreements. 

Commenter 9666 stated that EPA's assumption that a control technology's costs necessarily 

decrease with implementation experience is fundamentally flawed. In practice, experience with 

developing control technologies often reveals new risks that increase costs or compromise the 

system's performance. The commenter referenced EPA's suggestion that Kemper and Boundary

Dam are FOAK projects and that future NOAK projects will have lower costs. 

Commenter 9780 referenced the cancellation of AEP Mountaineer pilot project due to cost 

estimates increasing drastically. The commenter stated that the existence of plans that will never 

be put into action provides no additional support to the CCS BSER determination.

Commenter 8024 stated the recent cancellation of the Wolverine Power 600 MW coal-based 

power plant provides another example of the uneconomic nature of CCS applied to a 

conventional power project. The commenter provides extensive information regarding the BACT 

analysis for the permit application, noting that the subsequent engineering cost analysis of the 

application of CCS to the project concluded that CCS was not economic, and should not be 

pursued even with government support. According to the commenter, there are similar cases of 

BACT reviews evaluating and rejecting CCS on economic grounds, such as the proposed 

Taylorsville coal gasification facility in Illinois. The commenter noted that project - subsequently

cancelled - offered the opportunity to capture a pure stream of CO2 from the gasification process, 

without the need for costly post-combustion capture technologies, and Illinois EPA rejected the 

application of CCS on economic grounds.

Commenter 10618 stated each example of a potential commercial-scale CCS on a coal-based 

generating unit has experienced a significant escalation in costs. According to the commenter, 

the wide disparity in the cost estimates of current efforts is indicative that CCS is not a one-sizefits-all technology, that project-specific cost drivers are significant, that reliable estimates of 
6-182

CCS costs are evolving, and that future CCS costs are highly speculative.Commenter 8966 stated 

that in close consultation with Alstom, a manufacturer of the chilled ammonia-based CCS 

system, AEP commissioned a front-end engineering and design (FEED) study to develop a 

commercial-scale CCS system at the plant, capturing carbon from approximately 20% of the flue 

gas output. A single installation of the system was estimated to cost over $1 billion, and even 

despite installation, the facility would likely exceed the 1,100 lb/MWh standard, even assuming 

100% carbon capture efficiency. In light of these astronomical costs, AEP decided to cancel the 

commercial-scale project. To achieve a level of carbon capture that would suffice under the rule, 

a multi-billion dollar investment would likely be necessary for a single new large-scale coal 

power plant, which is several times greater the cost of the plant itself. AEP's sudden reversal of 

plans is a strong indicator that other prospective operators will similarly turn away from coalfired plants when they experience the "sticker-shock" associated with the massive costs of a 

commercial-scale CCS system.

Response 6.3-272: Commenters 9666 and 10952 maintained that the EPA should not base cost 

estimates on plants not in operation. A number of commenters (e.g. 2471) indicated more 

generally that the EPA should not base its cost considerations on plants engaged, or planning to 

engage in, EOR. As noted in other responses, EPA has sought the most up-to-date information 

on costs, and the cost estimates for post-combustion CCS are for the CanSolv compression and 

capture system which is the system in place and operating at Boundary Dam. The EPA is not 

considering EOR revenues in its assessment of costs.

Commenter 9666 anticipated reliability concerns when Boundary Dam commences operation. In 

fact, the company has reported, with considerable enthusiasm, that the plant is operating even 

better than anticipated. See preamble section V.D.2.a.

Commenter 8925 referred to cost overruns at the Boundary Dam project as an instance of the 

EPA underestimating costs associated with CCS. In fact, the EPA has documented that all cost 

overruns related to the boiler, not to the carbon capture system. Any cost overruns assigned to 

the capture side were financing costs that were due to delays caused by the boiler side. The 

installation of the capture equipment came in on schedule and on budget. See Memorandum to 

Docket re Conversation between Dr. Nick Hutson (EPA) and Mike Monea (SaskPower). 

Commenter 8925 stated that the plant received government funding, which is correct but not 

pertinent to the question of total cost. The Boundary Dam facility is a FOAK plant, built with 

multiple redundancies, and its costs are reflective of FOAK. Boundary Dam facility personnel 

have stated publically that they expect at least a 30% cost on the next CCS plant.

A number of commenters referred to Kemper as the prime example of CCS costs being 

exorbitant (e.g. 9497, 8925). As noted in other responses, cost overruns at Kemper reflected a 

series of idiosyncratic decisions that essentially resulted in construction commencing before 

proper planning had occurred, resulting in improper sequencing of construction efforts and 

enormous resulting excess costs. The motivation for this cart-before-the-horse approach51 was to 

 

51 “[T]he ‘just-in-time’ approach to engineering and procurement (meaning that the engineering was often completed 

shortly before material procurement and construction activities) resulted in a greater number of construction workarounds, congestion of construction craft labor in the field, inefficiencies and additional steps that became necessary 
6-183

obtain the IRC 48g tax credit for a particular calendar year. The EPA believes that these cost 

increases are avoidable by following normal practice rather than just-in-time sequencing, and 

therefore that the cost overruns at Kemper are not predictive of what next plants would 

experience. Moreover, the Independent Monitor’s Prudency Evaluation report identifies cost 

issues associated with IGCC (idiosyncratic, as noted) but not with the CCS system. Kemper cost 

information consequently is not a good predictor of cost overruns for CCS systems for this 

reason as well.

Commenters 8966 and 9780 indicated that AEP terminated the Mountaineer project based on 

projected cost overruns. AEP’s public statements at the time were that the CCS technology was 

reliable, but that the company was withdrawing at least in part because of regulatory uncertainty. 

Preamble section V.D.3.b. The EPA also notes the positive statements from AEP executives 

regarding the project and CCS generally: “AEP still believes the advancement of CCS is critical 

for the sustainability of coal-fired generation.”52. Alstom’s contemporaneous remarks were 

equally positive: See also statement of Alstom senior Vice President for Power and Environment 

Policies Joan Macnaughton’s statement (August 4, 2011): “AEP’s decision to put Mountaineer II 

on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain climate policy. The 

Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 90% of the carbon 

dioxide from a stream of the plant’s emissions. The technology works.” The press release 

further states that Vice President Macnaughton “presented findings from a recently-conducted 

cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants 

equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, 

such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear.”53 In its public comments here, AEP cited 

high costs associated with siting monitoring wells and other cost issues associated with 

developing a suitable sequestration site. The Mountaineer project involved a retrofit of an 

existing facility (id.), and issues relating to siting of a sequestration repository can be avoided. 

In addition, none of the Class VI permits issued to date by the EPA required the number of 

monitoring wells need for the Mountaineer site, again indicating that the monitoring and 

sequestration experiences at that site are site-specific.

Commenter 8024 refers to the State of Michigan’s determination that CCS was not part of BACT 

for the Wolverine facility. This issue is addressed in preamble section XII.C.

Comment 6.3-273: Commenter 9231 stated the proposed rule should take into consideration the 

type of electricity markets that exist in the various states/regions of the country. The commenter 

explained that typically, in regulated markets (rate based markets); the cost of compliance to the 

greenhouse regulations is passed through to the ratepayer through the state public utility/service 

commission (PUC) rate mechanisms. While the PUC would compare the cost of various 

technologies and/or fuel sources, the PUC would also take into account the need for energy

 

during construction to cope with this just-in-time engineering, procurement and construction approach”. 

Independent Monitor’s Prudency Evaluation Report (April 15, 2014) p. 6. 

52 CCS LESSONS LEARNED REPORT American Electric Power Mountaineer CCS II Project Phase 1, Prepared 

for The Global CCS Institute Project # PRO 004, January 23, 2012, page 2. See also AEP FEED Study at pp. 4, 63 

(same).

53 See

http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf.
6-184

diversity for security, price stability, and reliability reasons. The commenter also stated that in 

the case of deregulated markets (market based rates), the investor would have to bear the cost 

and risk associated with compliance which could put that particular state or region at risk in 

terms of energy diversity. According to the commenter, if not done properly, the proposed rule 

could determine winners and losers for not just EGU's but general industry competiveness 

between states and regions relative to that areas energy mix.

Response 6.3-273: See response RTC 3.3-3.The NSPS is a nationwide standard that is 

applicable and achievable in all parts of the U.S. Responses to comments regarding differences 

between regulated and deregulated markets are provided elsewhere in this RTC.

Comment 6.3-274: Commenters 9190, 9725, 10050, 10552, 10667 and 10680 stated that 

capturing and compressing CO2 consumes a substantial fraction of the plant's electrical 

generation output so a plant with CCS will have to be substantially larger than one without CCS 

and will require more fuel to power it. The commenter stated that the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Energy for Clean Coal recently testified before Congress that CCS technology would increase 

the cost of producing electricity from a coal base load plant by 70-80 percent.

Commenter 9593 also stated EPA also overlooks the substantial energy penalty that CCS 

systems would impose on the generating capacity of an individual facility.

Commenter 10043 stated that another major cost of CCS is the "parasitic load" that ranges from 

20 percent to 30 percent of a power plant's output to energize the associated emission control 

technologies. The commenter noted that future research and development may bring this cost 

down, but the reductions will not be significant enough to offset the major financial burden 

created by power lost to operate the CCS technology. The commenter provided the example that 

for an 800MW supercritical coal unit, its average energy costs would increase from 

approximately $42/MWh to $54/MWh (a 29% rate increase) assuming parasitic consumption for 

carbon capture at the low end estimate of 20% and $2/ton for transportation of 50% of the unit's 

CO2 emissions. The commenter stated that the result is the loss of 1.1 million megawatt-hours 

per year an impact much too large for the EPA to simply disregard under the CAA-and that does 

not include costs for the sequestration and storage itself. The commenter concluded that beyond 

the direct costs of installation and operation, CCS will have an exorbitantly costly impact on the 

electric generation industry and ultimately the nation's ratepayers as the country will no longer 

utilize electricity generated using reliable and stable coal resources.

Commenter 9590 stated capturing and compressing CO2 consumes a substantial fraction of the 

plant's electrical generation output, so a plant with CCS will have to be substantially larger than 

one without CCS and will require more fuel to power it. The commenter also stated that the cost 

of deploying CCS technology is exorbitant and unreasonable, and tis factor alone disqualifies 

CCS as BSER for coal base load power plants.

Commenter 10870 stated the Boundary Dam Unit 3 will produce 160 MWe gross and only 110 

MWe net, a 31% parasitic load with most of it consumed by the CCS system. According to the 

commenter, this is well above the normal 7-12% parasitic load expected of a plant without CCS. 

The commenter also stated that without experience on full-scale CCS systems, any estimate of 
6-185

capital costs and operation and maintenance costs is suspect. The commenter also stated concern 

with the exorbitant cost of operation and maintenance of CCS.

Response 6.3-274: These comments are addressed in preamble section V.O.3. As shown there, 

the results in preamble Table 14 show that a new SCPC unit without CCS can expect a parasitic 

power demand of about 5.2 percent. A new SCPC unit meeting the final standard of performance 

by implementing 16 percent partial CCS will see a parasitic power demand of about 6.3 percent, 

which is not a significant increase in energy requirement. Of course, new SCPC EGUs that 

implement higher levels of CCS will expect higher amounts of parasitic power demand. As 

shown in Table 14, a new SCPC EGU implementing full CCS would expect to utilize over 14 

percent of its gross power output to operate the facility and the carbon capture system. But, the 

EPA does not find that a new SCPC implementing full CCS is the BSER for new fossil-fired 

steam generating units. The EPA notes in addition that the DOE testimony referred to by 

commenters was with regard to full CCS, not the degree of partial CCS identified as part of 

BSER in this action. 

Comment 6.3-275: Commenter 10618 stated their concern that EPA's cost evaluation relies only

on the two NETL reports become even more pronounced when considering the large difference 

of the estimated costs projected by EPA in the proposed rule and the actual costs that active CCS 

projects are incurring. The commenter provides a table to summarize their comparison. The 

commenter stated that EPA's cost analysis is flawed due to a narrow review of available 

information and a failure to consider the cost of actual projects. The commenter stated that EPA's 

cost analysis relies on only two DOE/NETL reports that are based on conceptual designs for 

technologies that, at least in the case IGCC and CCS, have never been constructed. According to 

the commenter, much of the cost analysis language contained in the preamble is verbatim from 

these reports, albeit without appropriate references. The commenter then provides a list of flaws 

in the EPA's cost analysis as well as review points of the EPA's references that the commenter 

considers to have either been ignored or misinterpreted by the EPA. Then the commenter cites a 

couple references/reports showing that development costs may increase as new information is 

discovered, urging the EPA to consider that in their analysis.

Commenter 9425 stated EPA relies on a 2011 cost and performance report by the DOE NETL 

that is merely modeling predictions that estimate the performance of various CCS configurations 

and is not based on information gathered from actual operating experience. According to the 

commenter, the cost of CCS at smaller demonstration facilities cannot be reliably scaled up to 

inform predictions about the cost of CCS at commercial units.

Commenter 10087 stated EPA arbitrarily considers CCS costs from NETL for coal, but does not 

consider that according to NETL, electricity generated from natural gas CCS plants is less 

expensive than coal. The commenter also stated EPA arbitrarily omits the fact that according to 

this DOE/NETL study, natural gas with CCS produces less expensive electricity than coal with 

CCS.

Commenter 10095 stated in trying to specifically justify not using EIA’s CCS cost estimates, 

EPA claims, no estimates were provided by EIA for IGCC with partial or full CCS, and that the 

DOE NETL reports provided detailed cost estimates for a range of CO2 capture levels for both 

new SCPC and IGCC facilities. According to the commenter, both of these rationales are flawed. 
6-186

The commenter noted that EIA did provide cost estimates for IGCC with full CCS, and that EPA 

did not directly use DOE NETL's partial CCS cost estimates. Instead, the commenter explained, 

to estimate partial CCS cost, EPA linearly scaled DOE NETL's no and full capture CCS cost 

estimates. According to the commenter, this exact analysis (i.e. linearly scaling) could have 

easily been performed using EIA's cost estimates.

Commenter 9666 stated the series of NETL reports, perhaps valid for use in a technology

screening study, are not adequate upon which to base a national energy strategy. According to 

the commenter, none of the NETL reports appear to have been subjected to an authentic peer 

review, and a legitimate peer review would address how (a) capital costs were derived, and 

escalated or revised to reflect changing market conditions, and (b) input data from vendors or 

suppliers was used, changed, or adjusted to conform with the study scope. The commenter also 

stated that the DOE/NETL cost reports that EPA cites as the basis for its CCS cost estimates are 

merely modeling predictions and do not reflect actual experience implementing CCS.

Commenter 9423 stated cost estimates provided by EPA related to CCS D0E/NETL studies from 

May 2010 through August 2012 do not include cost overruns that have been publicized for some 

of the projects EPA cites as currently under construction or under development. According to the 

commenter, if EPA were to update the cost estimates to include cost overruns, and given the 

accuracy range of estimates of -15 to +30 percent from the center point cost in Table 6 on p. 

1476 of the January 8, 2014 notice of proposed rulemaking, the actual cost could be beyond the 

cost criteria of BSER

Response 6.3-275: Commenter 9425 states that the NETL study used at proposal costs a system 

which has never been implemented in practice and therefore is too uncertain. Partly in response 

to this and similar comments, and also in order to use the most up-to-date information, EPA’s 

final cost estimates reflect the latest iteration of the NETL studies which are based on recent 

vendor quotes of the Shell Cansolv post-combustion capture process – the process that is 

currently being utilized at the Boundary Dam #3 facility.

Commenter 9666 states that the NETL cost studies are not peer reviewed and therefore 

unreliable. The commenter is mistaken. The EPA Science Advisory Board Work Group 

considering the adequacy of the peer review noted EPA staff’s statement that “the NETL studies 

were all peer reviewed under DOE peer review protocols”, further noted EPA staff’s statement 

that “the different levels of review of these DOE documents met the requirements to support the 

analyses as defined by the EPA Peer Review Handbook,” and concluded that “peer review on the 

DOE documents” was conducted “at a level required by agency guidance.”54

 

54 Letter from James Mihelcic, Chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the 

Underlying Science to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons (page 3, Jan. 24, 2014). 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F43D89070E89893485257C5A007AF573/$File/SAB+work+grp+memo

+w+attach+20140107.pdf. 
6-187

Commenter 9423 urged the EPA to use the full range of the NETL cost estimates. The EPA has 

done so in its LCOE analysis. See preamble at Table 8. Likewise, the EPA uses the full range of 

cost estimates for nuclear and other low carbon technologies.

Commenter 10087 states that the EPA ignored NETL estimates that electricity generated from 

natural gas is cheaper than that generated from coal. This is true whether or not CCS is utilized, 

as the EPA noted repeatedly at both proposal and in this final rule. See e.g. RIA chapter 4.

Comment 6.3-276: Commenter 9678 stated the costs of CCS technology particularly as applied 

to NGCC units demonstrate that CCS is not BSER for natural gas-fired units. According to the 

commenter, given the efficiency and low-emitting nature of NGCC units, application of CCS 

would result in an excessive cost per ton of CO2 avoided, which means that CCS is not BSER for 

NGCC or other natural gas-fired units at the present time and may not be reasonable on a cost 

basis for a long time, if ever.

Response 6.3-276: The EPA agrees that partial CCS is not BSER for new natural gas-fired units. 

Comment 6.3-277: Commenter 10618 discussed how the costs required to comply with the 

requirements of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit increased costs of the CCS 

project by 30%. The commenter encouraged the EPA to review three reports that AEP submitted 

to the Global CCS Institute and included citations of how to access each

Commenter 9423 stated EPA has failed to include other costs associated with CCS, such as 

seismic studies, right-of-way costs, permitting, pore space ownership, liability, and water 

resources.

Commenter 10083 stated CCS comes at a high cost to both the utility and the electric customers 

that the utility serves. The commenter noted at a minimum, these costs include completing all 

necessary environmental assessments, permitting to complete the project, designing the plant to 

accommodate CO2 capture, routing the captured CO2 to the injection site, preparing the injection 

site, and then the actual injection of CO2 into the storage area. The commenter provided 

additional information on the situational and locational differences in the western states for siting 

and using CCS technology required by EPA's GHG NSPS to permit and build a coal-fired EGU.

Response 6.3-277: The commenter is mistaken. The EPA’s cost estimates do in fact include 

costs associated with transport and geologic sequestration. For transport, costs reflect pipeline 

capital costs, related capital expenditures, and O&M costs. Sequestration cost estimates reflect 

the cost of site screening and evaluation, the cost of injection wells, the cost of injection 

equipment, operation and maintenance costs, pore volume acquisition expense, and long term 

liability protection. These sequestration costs reflect the regulatory requirements of the 

Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP subpart RR for geologic 

sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations. See preamble section V.I.5.

Comment 6.3-278: Several commenters discussed financing concerns for CCS projects. 

Commenter 9597 stated no company, or consortium of companies for that matter, can undertake 

a $5 billion project without financing., and acquiring financial backing for a project reliant on 

CCS is going to be extremely difficult and definitely not on good terms. Commenter 10500 
6-188

stated the costs of CCS are unreasonable and cooperative like AECC cannot receive Rural Utility

Service ("RUS") funding for new coal-unit projects. According to the commenter, this high cost 

prohibits entities from investing in and developing CCS and, therefore, it does not incentivize 

money lenders approving loans to construct the technology. Commenter 10086 stated that 

without adequate demonstration of the control, developers, and hence, financiers will have no 

assurance of future compliance for coal-fired projects and therefore, in addition to the technical 

concerns regarding CCS, any new generation projects will not be able to obtain capital financing. 

Commenter 10238 also stated that it would be very difficult to obtain non-governmental 

financing on a project that has yet to be commercially available and adequately demonstrated.

Response 6.3-278: The EPA has carefully evaluated the issue of financing, and is utilizing cost 

estimates which reflect “high-risk” financial assumptions rather than conventional financing

which are used for cost estimates for non-CCS technologies. See NETL (July 2015) at p. 18. 

Comment 6.3-279: According to commenter 8966, CCS systems require significantly more 

space than traditional emission controls and the footprint of CCS equipment may exceed that of 

the EGU itself. The commenter stated that this characteristic can pose particular implementation 

difficulties for facilities planned on sites surrounded by land unsuitable for construction or 

otherwise occupied. Further, the commenter explained, new projects must incur the additional 

land or right-of-way (ROW) acquisition costs to house the CCS equipment, as well as additional 

legal costs associated with obtaining zoning or other siting permits that may be unnecessary if no 

CCS system were installed, and these land acquisition requirements may be significantly higher 

for or on-site storage of captured CO2.

Response 6.3-279: The EPA’s cost estimates include costs associated with transport and 

geologic sequestration. For transport, costs reflect pipeline capital costs, related capital 

expenditures, and O&M costs. See preamble section V.I.5. Pipeline capital costs include 

materials, direct labor, right-of-way acquisition, and miscellaneous costs.

55 Sequestration cost 

estimates include pore volume acquisition expense, and also reflect the regulatory requirements 

of the Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP subpart RR for geologic 

sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations.

Comment 6.3-280: Commenter 9194 stated CCS is excessively costly to the consumer, which 

EPA has attempted to disguise by inappropriately comparing coal with CCS to nuclear and 

biomass generation instead of comparing coal with CCS to the newest, cleanest coal plants 

without CCS.

Commenter 10036 stated that the nuclear power sector is not a useful benchmark for cost 

viability. According to the commenter, EPA used dissimilar techniques in comparing the cost of 

nuclear power to the cost of coal-fueled power and if the two sectors are compared on a 

consistent basis, the cost of coal systems with partial CCS fails EPA's own test of 

reasonableness. Commenter 9677 stated that a unit built with CCS is just too expensive (that is, 

unreasonable cost.). The commenter stated that EPA evaluates cost for the proposed rule by

comparing a unit with CCS to other non-natural gas power generation processes. The commenter 

 

55 Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage costs in NETL Studies (DOE-NETL-2013/1614), p. 11.
6-189

equated that approach with comparing apples to oranges. The commenter suggested costs be 

considered on an incremental basis; the cost of a fossil fuel fired unit vs cost of the same unit 

with CCS.

Response 6.3-280: The EPA disagrees; the comparison with nuclear – the other main 

dispatchable baseload non-NGCC electricity-generating unit, is reasonable. See preamble 

section V.I.1. The EPA has also compared capital cost increases for SCPC with and without 

partial CCS, and found that increase to be reasonable. See preamble section V.H.4.

Comment 6.3-281: Commenters 9407, 9600 and 10952 stated all real identifiable costs 

associated with the proposed partial carbon capture as applied to coal-fired EGUs show cost 

increases from 50 to 100 percent above generation costs without carbon capture. According to 

the commenter, this proposal has failed to demonstrate that CCS is available at all much less at a 

reasonable cost.

Commenter 9407 and 10097 stated the proposal including information contained in the 

rulemaking docket presents no information that could lead to a rational conclusion that full or 

partial carbon capture can be deployed as part of a BSER immediately and, at a reasonable 

cost. According to the commenters, EPA has failed to provide any explanation in this 

rulemaking's docket to document what carbon capture technologies in other industries it is 

utilizing and how it is technically appropriate to extrapolate those technology applications to 

coal-fired steam electric generation that must operate under required and specific duty cycles that 

do not mimic those required in other industries. Thus, the commenter stated, there is an 

insurmountable problem with the proposal since the information provided in this rulemaking 

docket includes no reasonable basis to conclude that carbon capture is technically available at a 

reasonable cost for use as BSER in the immediate future and perhaps not available as a BSER for 

many years to come.

Commenter 10046 stated even if CCS were technologically feasible, which it is not, the 

Proposed Rule imposes astronomical costs, which makes new coal-fired power plants 

economically nonviable. According to the commenter, EPA's own cost numbers demonstrate that 

partial CCS costs are unreasonable.

Commenters 9590 and 10050 stated the cost of deploying CCS technology is exorbitant and 

unreasonable, and this factor alone disqualifies CCS as BSER for coal base load power plants.

Commenter 9596 urged EPA to reconsider its decision to designate partial CCS as BSER until 

the costs of implementing this system of emission reduction come down to more reasonable 

levels.

Commenter 9423 stated the proposed BSER standard is economically unreasonable and EPA's 

analysis does not appropriately consider the cost of ancillary factors such as pipelines, 

transportation of CO2, and storage. The full cost of the proposed standards could substantially

affect competition. BSER is applied to a particular source and not the entire industry. Had EPA 

fully evaluated the costs of BSER, the proposed BSER standard based upon IGCC and CCS 

would have been rejected as economically unreasonable on its face without looking further at the 

effects on the industry. By itself, CCS is 30 to 50 percent of the total capital cost of a project, and 
6-190

the 30 percent parasitic loss resulting from CCS corresponds to a large annual operating cost. 

However, the proposed BSER is the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back" when 

considering the total cost of the proposed BSER along with other costs of controls in this source 

category. If one were to follow EPA's rationale for not having to consider a pollutant-specific 

endangerment finding, because the justification and analysis is based upon source category, then 

one should also apply that rationale to evaluating total costs necessary to meet BSER for all 

pollutants, not just the newly added pollutants. CCS and other pollution controls for a PC unit 

would easily account for up to 80 percent of the total cost of a project. In terms of operating cost, 

CCS and other pollution control equipment combined can account for over 50 percent of the 

overall annual operating costs. Total costs, both capital and operating, of complying with BSER 

for all pollutants regulated in the subpart, including CCS controls and other existing required 

controls, are not economically reasonable.

Response 6.3-281: A number of commenters (e.g. 9407) claimed that the proposed rule would 

lead to exorbitant cost increases, comparing an SCPC with and without CCS. Several 

commenters projected capital cost increases on the order of 50%.56 Commenter NRECA (10952 

p. 38) projected an increase of 24% which is roughly the rate of increase projected by EPA for 

the final rule, albeit for a less stringent standard than proposed (so capital costs would 

presumably be somewhat less than NRECA projects under its methodology). EPA explains in 

preamble section V.H.4 why these cost increases are reasonable – in particular, that the industry

has absorbed such costs for other NSPS. The same commenter notes that a 12 % capital cost 

increase was found reasonable in the first Portland Cement case. The commenter is correct as to 

the result of the case, but the EPA does not accept the innuendo that 12% is an upper bound of 

what level of capital cost increase could be considered reasonable under section 111 (a). The 

EPA believes the more germane comparison is with capital cost increases in prior NSPS for this 

industry, which (like the standard in Portland Cement) were also upheld upon judicial review. 

Commenters 9423 and 10952 also maintain that EPA simply failed to consider certain costs. 

Commenter 9423 maintains that the NSPS are the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’ and that 

EPA failed to also consider the costs of other pollution control standards for this industry. This 

is incorrect. In assessing costs, the EPA relied on the NETL studies which assume a coalburning steam generating unit in compliance with applicable environmental standards, including 

MATS for hazardous air pollution emissions, and the most recent NSPS for criteria pollutant 

emissions. NETL (July 2015) at p. 29. Commenter 10952 mistakenly stated (Comment p. 38) 

that EPA had failed to consider transportation and storage costs for captured CO2. The EPA’s 

cost estimates do in fact include costs associated with transportation and storage of CO2. See 

preamble section V.I.5. 

Comment 6.3-282: Commenter 9514 stated EPA correctly concluded that the costs of installing 

and operating partial CCS for any new coal plants that may be constructed as a result of the 

proposed standards are reasonable, and clearly not exorbitant or too high for the industry to bear. 

The commenter noted EPA has concluded that few, if any, new coal plants would be built in the 

coming years even in the absence of the proposed NSPS due to the changing economics of the 

 

56 Comenter 9423 (Comment p. 5) provides no basis for its statement that CCS would increase facility capital costs 

by 30%-50% and it is possible the commenter is referring to full, rather than partial CCS. 
6-191

utility sector. According to the commenter, requiring installation and operation of partial CCS at 

only a few plants would therefore incur costs that the industry as a whole could easily absorb and 

for this reason, EPA's proposed NSPS would not entail exorbitant costs, and fully satisfy section 

111 in this regard. The commenter also stated from an industry-wide perspective, the incremental 

costs of partial CCS on few new coal-fired plants spread over a region would be inconsequential 

and thus the costs of EPA's partial CCS standard easily meet the standard under Section 111.

Commenter 9035 stated that a CCS requirement for new power plants, coupled with federal 

support, could aid in the development and deployment of this critical technology. According to 

the commenter, the approximately 18 percent cost difference between coal plants without and 

with CCS (assuming no EOR price) found by EPA is roughly in line with estimates made by 

other experts. The commenter referenced a 2013 report by ICF International for the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Eastern Interconnection States 

Planning Council in which ICF reported that the inclusion of CCS technology on an IGCC coal 

plant would add to the levelized cost of electricity by roughly 18 to 30 percent. According to the 

commenter, since this estimate assumes no return from EOR, net CCS costs should be lower.

Commenter 10525 stated it may be easier for EGU owners and operators to absorb financially

the cost of incorporating partial CCS versus full CCS. The commenter also noted that depending 

on the location of EGUs, owners and operators will have an opportunity to use or sell their 

captured CO2 for EOR.

Response 6.3-282: The EPA largely agrees with these comments. The EPA agrees that costs of 

the rule are absorbable by the industry on a national basis. Preamble section V.H.6. The EPA 

has also assessed costs on a per-plant basis and found them to be reasonable. The EPA agrees 

that EOR opportunities may be used to further reduce costs, but is not premising its cost analysis 

on availability of EOR opportunities.

Comment 6.3-283: Commenter 9592 noted EPA also cited the greater cost to employ CCS for 

gas-fired EGUs when compared to coal-fired. The commenter noted that, however, the 2013 

update of the NETL Report concluded: "When today's technology for CO2 capture and 

sequestration (CCS) is integrated into these new power plants, the resultant COE, including the 

cost of CO2 TS&M, is: 86 mills/kWh for NGCC; 108 mills/kWh (average) for PC; and 112 

mills/kWh (average) for IGCC. While the commenter agreed that the estimated cost of CCS for 

gas-fired EGUs is too great for the technology to be considered BSER, they noted that the NETL 

concludes that the cost for coal-fired EGUs is even higher. The commenter stated that it does not 

seem reasonable that if the gas-fired CCS cost is too high to be considered BSER, then the more 

expensive CCS for coal-fired EGUs could be BSER.

Commenter 9201 stated the following:

"According to the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture cited by EPA, DOE analyses 

indicate that post-combustion CO2 capture on a 550 MWe net output NGCC plant would 

increase the capital cost of that plant by 80 percent---about the same increase that would result 

from employing post-combustion capture on an SCPC plant. The incremental cost increases of 

electricity for NGCC with CCS is significantly lower (33%) than for a SCPC plant (60%) given 
6-192

fuel cost estimates, lower capital costs for NGCC units, and other factors. DOE's analyses also 

show that for CCS:

 NGCC has the lowest total overnight cost (TOC) at $1,842/kw as compared to SCPC 

($4,391/kw) or IGCC ($4,086/kw);

 NGCC has the lowest cost of electricity (COE) at $90.43 MWh as compared to SCPC 

($147.27/MWh) or IGCC ($141.27/MWh); and

 The increase in the COE for NGCC would be about 45 percent as compared to 70 percent

for SCPC.<FOOTNOTE 170>

As a general matter, NGCC with CCS looks more favorable than coal-fired EGU with CCS 

considering that (1) the capital costs of NGCC turbines are roughly one-third the cost of those for 

SCPC units; (2) there is less CO2 to capture, compress and store for a NGCC unit; and (3) lower 

natural gas prices forecasted by EPA will lower the overall TOC and COE for gas as compared 

to coal, even with CCS on those units."

Response 6.3-283: A number of commenters maintained that if CCS is not BSER for NGCC for 

reasons of cost, then it should not be BSER for coal-fired power plants, since the costs are even 

higher. The EPA is not identifying CCS as BSER for NGCC, but it is on grounds of technical 

uncertainty. See preamble section IX.C.4.a. Commenter 9201 also bases its analysis on the 

interagency Task Force Report, which was addressing full CCS, so the costs quoted are much 

higher than those for the actual standard of performance adopted by EPA in this rule.

Comment 6.3-284: Commenter 10095 stated that EPA's cost analysis is incomplete and 

potentially mischaracterizes the cost of pre- or post-combustion CCS technologies to support its 

proposal. The commenter noted EPA's methodology and reliance on the DOE NETL for partial 

CCS cost estimates for SCPC and IGCC generation technologies. According to the commenter, it 

is necessary for EPA to provide the most accurate cost estimates as possible when establishing 

such critical performance standards, and for an emerging technology like CCS, for which cost 

estimates are changing, it is imperative that EPA use multiple sources and the most up-to-date 

costs from ongoing projects to develop the most accurate estimates. The commenter also stated 

that contrary to EPA's assertions, the proposal, in fact, intermingles DOE NETL-based and EIAbased technology cost estimates in some instances. The commenter noted that the two sources 

use dissimilar methodologies as described in the Coal Utilization Research Council's (CURC) 

comments. The commenter stated that EPA needs to address these inconsistencies to allow for 

more comparable results.

Response 6.3-284: In response to this and similar comments, and also consistent with the EPA’s 

attempt to utilize the most up-to-date information, cost estimates for post-combustion CCS 

reflect recent vendor quotes for the Cansolv process – the process currently in full-scale 

commercial use at the Boundary Dam facility. In response to comments maintaining that the 

LCOE values are derived from different sources which do not use identical methodologies, the 

EPA notes that the latest publication of the Global CCS Institute “examines the costs and 

emissions intensities of low emission technologies in power generation. It uses cost data for the 

US from a variety of published sources and applies these in a common methodological 
6-193

framework based on the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) that allows comparison between 

different technologies in terms of emission reductions.”57 The estimates for full CCS (the study

does not estimate partial CCS costs) are in the same range as NETL and other techno-economic 

expert cost estimates. See preamble Table 10. Nuclear estimates are likewise within the same 

range of other techno-economic expert estimates.58

Comment 6.3-285: Commenter 2471 stated USEPA has falsely made assumptions to support the 

CCS technology, such as in its cost consideration to society-at-large, rather than the costs at 

individual units, and utilization of an unreasonable future timeframe to justify its cost-benefit 

analyses.

Response 6.3-285: The EPA has analyzed costs at both the per-plant and national level. See 

preamble section V.H.

Comment 6.3-286: Commenter 9034 stated that even assuming CCS technology could be 

successfully implemented at commercial coal-fired EGUs, it still would not be the BSER for coal 

plants, because implementing this technology would be cost prohibitive. The commenter noted 

that Section 111 of the CAA requires EPA to take costs into account when determining the 

BSER for new sources, and the D.C. Circuit has explained that EPA's BSER determination will 

not be sustained when the costs of using the technology are "exorbitant" or "excessive."

Commenters 7977, 9197, 9201, 9600, and 10880 stated that partial CCS is not BSER when costs 

are considered. Commenter 10880 referenced the recent rejection of CCS at Edwardsport due to 

costs and noted that several engineering studies concluded that the costs for a coal EGU with 

90% capture will increase costs by 70-79% over a plant without CCS. Commenter 9201 stated 

that technology experts and utilizes agree that CCS is not adequately demonstrated, providing the 

discontinuation of the Mountaineer project as evidence, along with citing testimonies from DOE 

and Duke Power on the high costs of CCS. The commenter also provided reasons why a new 

coal plant with CCS would cost substantially more than one without CCS including equipment 

costs and the energy penalty. 

Commenter 9596 stated EPA's assertion that CCS is adequately demonstrated notwithstanding 

the exorbitant costs represents a departure from EPA's previous practice in setting performing 

standards. 

Commenter 10618 stated that EPA's rationale for eliminating full capture CCS as the BSER 

based on costs is equally applicable to partial capture CCS. The commenter provided additional 

reasons that full or partial CCS is not the BSER, including technical, financial, regulatory and 

practical considerations. According to the commenter, the experience of recent projects and 

findings of major studies demonstrate that EPA's cost analysis is flawed and that CCS is not the 

BSER. For example, the commenter stated that EPA's range of a 12 to 60% cost increase for 

 

57 Global CCS Institute, “The Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies – 2015 Update” (July 2015) p.2.. 

The sources utilized, and evaluated under a common methodology, are Lazard 2014, EIA 2014, IPCC 2014, 

Brookings 2014, EPRI 2013, IEA 2012, and NREL 2015. App.A.

58 EIA 2014, $87-115; Lazard 2014, $92-132; Global CCS Institute, $86-102 (p. 9).
6-194

CCS is far below the estimates of DOE and others that approach 80% or more. The commenter 

concluded that If the 40-60% increase was sufficient to eliminate full capture, then the 80+% 

increase experienced by active projects and estimated by DOE and others is more than sufficient

to also eliminate partial capture as the BSER. 

Commenter 8966 stated under Section 111 of the CAA, technology constituting a BSER cannot 

impose an exorbitant cost to achieve a performance standard; however partial CCS is 

exorbitantly costly. According to the commenter, enactment of the proposed rule would make it 

virtually impossible for any new coal power plants to be constructed and remain viable. The 

commenter continued that as the existing fleet of aging coal power plants is retired and not 

replaced by new coal-fired plants, the costs imposed by the proposed standard would indeed be 

greater than the industry could bear and survive, which violates the Section 111 cost provision.

Commenter 10952 stated that while EPA's conclusion that carbon capture is BSER is not 

supported by the rulemaking docket and is otherwise arbitrary, EPA's sole rationale for 

concluding such is based on exclusive reliance on information gleaned from projects that EPA is 

prevented from considering. According to the commenter, for these DOE funded projects, EPA 

has not and cannot point to any full scale project that utilizes the technology identified as BSER, 

nor can it point to any project with an operating history that can yield real costs associated with 

actually employing carbon capture at an EGU that would allow appropriate and needed analysis 

regarding operational costs and viability so to justify its BSER determination.

Response 6.3-286: A number of commenters pointed to costs incurred at the Edwardsport and 

Mountaineer projects as evidence that a CCS-based BSER is exorbitantly costly. The 

commenter acknowledges that its cost estimates for Edwardsport reflect full CCS, which is not 

the basis for the BSER determination in the final standard. Nor is BSER based on IGCC, and the 

EPA notes that at both Edwardsport and Kemper, it was cost overruns on IGCC (rather than 

CCS) that were the source of cost overruns. Indeed, Edwardsport is IGCC only at present, so 

cost overruns obviously have nothing to do with CCS. Mountaineer was a retrofit, not a new 

source, and incurred high costs for reasons one might expect relating, at least in part (and as 

stressed in its public comments), to sequestration siting difficulties after already locating at a site 

selected without consideration of sequestration opportunities.

Commenter 10628 (AEP) maintained that partial CCS is exorbitantly costly by EPA’s own logic. 

The commenter maintains that the EPA rejected full CCS as BSER yet the cost of partial CCS is 

within this same range, properly analyzed and considering the upper end of the NETL range of 

cost estimates. The EPA has adopted a somewhat less stringent standard of performance than 

proposed in large part due to considerations of cost. The final standard of performance is 

comparable to nuclear, including at the upper range of potential cost estimates. See preamble at 

Table 8. Moreover, the comment is somewhat misleading. The EPA indicated not that a certain 

cost was too great, but rather that the cost was too great in relation to the cost of other nonNGCC low-carbon technologies with which it would be competing. As it happens, the cost of 

the final standard of performance (normalized to LCOE) is far lower than the values cited in the 

comment, even though this is not the proper metric to evaluate.

Commenter 10952 indicates that the proposed standard of performance rests on EPAct facilities 

which EPA cannot properly consider. In fact, EPA at proposal noted that Boundary Dam was 
6-195

due to commence operations, and it has in fact done so. The commenter’s claim is therefore 

incorrect for post-combustion CCS, and is also incorrect with respect to pre-combustion CCS. 

See preamble section V.D and E.

Commenter 8966 stated that that as the existing fleet of aging coal power plants is retired and not 

replaced by new coal-fired plants, the costs imposed by the proposed standard would indeed be 

greater than the industry could bear and survive. However, coal is already significantly less 

economic than new NGCC capacity and is projected to remain so for the foreseeable future. RIA 

chapter 4. Thus, if new coal is added, it will be because developers believe it prudent to pay a 

cost premium. An additional cost premium associated with partial CCS still leaves coal cost 

competitive with nuclear, the baseload dispatchable non-NGCC technology which might also be 

added for the same reason. See preamble at Table 8. The EPA further notes that in a lowercarbon future, CCS may prove to be the technology that allows new coal to continue to be 

constructed. This appeared to be the view of commenter AEP: “AEP still believes the 

advancement of CCS is critical for the sustainability of coal-fired generation.”59

Comment 6.3-287: Commenter 9664 provided information to support EPA's cost analysis and 

BSER determination for CCS. The commenter stated that when evaluating a performance 

standard's projected costs, EPA may take into account the standard's long-term impacts on both a 

plant-wide and nationwide basis, including effects on the national economy and the legislative 

history affirms that the term "best technology" encompasses considerations of long-term growth, 

long-term cost savings, and financial incentives for improved technology. The commenter also 

stated EPA appropriately recognizes that the construction and operating costs associated with 

CCS technologies will decrease as further experience with them is gained in response to the 

standard, referencing the setting of mobile source air emission limits as a previous example. The 

commenter also stated the statute and case law authorize EPA not only to evaluate the costs of 

achieving the standard, but also any offsetting revenue streams, and to weigh the severity of the 

pollution problem to be addressed, in selecting missions control options comprising the "best" 

system of emission reduction.

The commenter also stated Section 111(a)(1) directs EPA to "take into account" the cost of 

achieving reductions and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements when selecting the BSER and setting performance standards. The commenter 

provided additional discussion on several D.C. Circuit court cases to support their argument. The 

commenter also stated that as EPA correctly observes in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 

D.C. Circuit has never invalidated an NSPS as too costly, providing information on several court 

cases.

Response 6.3-287: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-288: Commenter 8966 stated coal-fired plants depend on fundamentally distinct 

processes. CO2 emissions from coal plants are greater than other sources due to the intrinsic 

 

59 CCS LESSONS LEARNED REPORT American Electric Power Mountaineer CCS II Project Phase 1, Prepared 

for The Global CCS Institute Project # PRO 004, January 23, 2012, page 2. See also AEP FEED Study at pp. 4, 63 

(same).
6-196

properties of coal during combustion. As a result, the magnitude of CO2 capture is greater and 

will cost significantly more than for other industries. The commenter provided additional 

concern with EOR re-use and future expectations of reduced CCS costs, noting the costs of CCS 

implementation are heavily amplified for prospective coal power plant operators, marking a 

particularly exorbitant cost that distinctly hits the coal industry.

Response 6.3-288: See preamble section V.H.8.

Comment 6.3-289: Commenter 9407 disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the proposal, if 

finalized, will have no cost, stating that this proposal's cost to the nation in terms of a flawed 

energy policy and resulting costs to the nation's electric consumers would be substantial. 

According to the commenter, these are compelling reason to rethink this NSPS proposal.

Commenter 2470 stated EPA should avoid one-size-fits-all mandates that would unnecessarily

increase utility costs.

Commenter 9592 stated not only is CCS technology not ready for commercial deployment, it 

will be excessively costly to the consumer. 

Commenters 8024, 8966, 9505, 9592, 9780, 10662, 10667, 10880, cited U.S. DOE statements 

that CCS technology would increase the cost of producing electricity by as much as 80 percent.

Commenter 8918 stated CCS costs are not reasonable, as Great River Energy's mission calls for 

"affordable rates" to our member cooperatives. According to the commenter, approximately 83% 

of their member cooperatives' energy sales are residential. The commenter noted that as 

discussed in NRECA's comments, relying on a reasonable cost criterion being less than the cost 

where "industry could not bear and survive" ignores the majority of the people to whom we and 

our member cooperatives supply electricity.

Commenter 9780 stated that the level of cost increase resulting from the proposal to require 

partial CCS for coal plants would likely be a "death knell" for any projects aimed at increasing 

fuel diversity in the electric generating fleet, as no customer would be willing to pay such a 

premium. According to the commenter, it is highly unlikely that any state public utility

commission would approve its construction, and that certainly no competitive wholesale 

electricity market would bear such costs. According to the commenter, customers and retail rate 

regulators demand reliable electricity, but they also demand that it be provided at a reasonable 

price; however, the costs and parasitic load impacts of CCS technologies significantly increase 

the projected cost of building a coal plant which is why CCS is routinely rejected in GHG BACT 

analyses for new or modified plants. The commenter noted that the Power4Georgians plant that 

EPA cites as an example of one that customers would be willing to pay a premium for was 

designed as a conventional coal plant without CCS in order to compete with natural gas. 

Commenter 9196 stated that the proposed rule will limit fuel options and cause increases in 

electricity costs. According to the commenter, removing coal from our country's energy mix in 

the future raises additional concerns due to the volatility that exists in the other energy markets. 

The commenter cited testimony from David Wright regarding the need for a diverse resource 

portfolio to protect ratepayers against price increases that one fuel may experience. The 
6-197

commenter also stated that increases in electricity costs harm the economy, public health, and the 

environment. According to the commenter, affordable, reliable energy is one of the main drivers 

of economic growth, and increasing the cost of energy and thereby forcing U.S. industries 

oversees is something we cannot risk as our country continues down the path of economic 

recovery. The commenter noted that higher electricity prices will disproportionately impact 

vulnerable individuals. The commenter also noted the proposed rule is likely to adversely affect 

public health in three ways: by increasing the cost of medical care and treatment; by imposing 

real threats on human health by suppressing economic growth and the improved health it brings; 

and by focusing on expensive rulemakings with little incremental benefits when those resources, 

if more sensibly deployed, could save many times more lives. Furthermore, the commenter 

suggested that the higher electricity prices will be largely borne by companies in energyintensive manufacturing, where higher prices will make it more difficult to expand operations 

and increase employment, and provided information on the link between unemployment and 

public health. The commenter also provided information on energy costs for hospitals and the 

implications for their budgets.

Commenter 9770 stated EPA would need to evaluate the energy and costs, including the cost of 

electricity to communities of partial CCS in order to determine that CCS is an "adequately 

demonstrated" system of emission reduction.

Commenter 9505 stated that the proposal fails to address the significant financial barriers that 

will simply result in higher costs for ratepayers, and ultimately, the taxpayers of the States.

Commenter 9107 stated industry concerns that CCS is not proven and it will increase costs of 

coal use and resulting into higher costs to the public. According to the commenter, high cost of 

this otherwise most economical coal fuel will take away the competitive advantage of the 

manufactured goods by the US industries compare to the countries who continue to allow their 

industries to operate without such mandates. The commenter suggested alternate solutions are 

needed which will allow the use of abundant resources of coal in USA while mitigating 

environmental and climate control concerns as you are seeking per these EPA mandates without 

increasing costs.

Commenter 4162 stated that EPA should avoid one-size-fits-all mandates that would 

unnecessarily increase utility costs.

Commenter 9423 stated disagreement with EPA's conclusion that the cost of BSER "could be 

passed on without substantially affecting competition." TCEQ, PUC, and RRC noted that costs 

can be passed on more gradually and over a longer period of time in a regulated electric market 

than in a competitive electric market like Texas' Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

According to the commenter, companies in a competitive electric market are more sensitive to 

additional costs, and are more likely to transfer those increased costs to electric consumers in the 

short term. Consequently, the commenter stated that the ability to pass on the cost of BSER is 

likely to affect competition.

Response 6.3-289: A number of commenters maintained that consumers would pay the cost of 

increased electricity prices associated with a standard of performance reflecting performance of 
6-198

partial CCS (e.g. commenters 8918, 9780). Commenter 9196 projected significant costs in 

reduced manufacturing output and general economic non-competitiveness. These comments 

appear to assume that new non-compliant coal capacity will be constructed, yet all evidence is to 

the contrary, and for reasons unrelated to the standard of performance adopted here. See RIA 

chapter 4. Even in Kentucky, the very heart of coal country, new capacity is NGCC.60 EPA 

explored scenarios using alternative assumptions with considerably higher future electric demand 

and higher natural gas prices, and no scenario resulted in new conventional coal by 2020. 

Independent analysis and projections from EIA confirm this trend. EPA does not project any 

change in energy prices as a result of this rule, and as such does not expect negative impacts on 

the affordability or reliability of electricity. Thus, EPA’s conclusion that there is likely to be no 

new non-compliant capacity built during the section 111 (b) review period is well founded. Nor 

does the EPA believe there is compelling evidence that new coal capacity would be competitive 

but for the cost increment associated with partial CCS. See preamble section V.I.4.

Commenters 2470 and 4162 urged the EPA not to adopt a ‘one size fits all’ standard. In fact, 

there are alternative compliance pathways available to meeting the final standard of performance 

while using coal as the fuel.

In response to Commenter 9423’s statement regarding cost recovery in competitive energy

markets, the EPA notes that competitive electricity markets were designed to send price signals 

to incentivize the development of cost-effective generation, allowing for cost recovery for those 

units through different market mechanisms depending upon the design of the specific 

competitive market. Through security constrained economic dispatch (SCED), the system 

operator determines which resources will be dispatched to meet system load, utilizing available 

resources to serve load as inexpensively as possible. Competitive markets have mechanisms that 

allow the recovery of environmental compliance costs, similar to how other generator costs are 

recovered. The system operator will dispatch those units that are needed to reliably serve load, 

with dispatched units receiving the market price.

Comment 6.3-290: Commenter 9684 stated the recycled Carbon Rule is still a fuel-switching 

mandate, although not as overtly so. The commenter stated in the first go-round, EPA decided 

that CCS was not an "adequately demonstrated" system of emission reduction. The commenter 

noted that the levelized cost of new coal power plants already exceeded that of new NGCC 

plants, and according to EPA's 2012 proposal, today's CCS technologies would add around 80% 

to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal (PC) plant, and around 35% to the cost of 

electricity for a new advanced gasification-based (IGCC) plant. The commenter noted EPA has 

since changed its tune, arguing that during the period between the original and revised proposals, 

several utility-scale CCS projects have made significant progress towards completion, so the 

technology now qualifies as adequately demonstrated. The commenter provided information on 

the increased costs associated with the Kemper project noting that unless a utility intending to 

build a new coal power plant wants to go bankrupt, it's only real choice is to fuel-switch and 

build an NGCC plant instead.

 

60 See, e.g. Washington Post, “Outrage Over EPA Emissions Regulations Fades” p. A-1 (July 23, 2015); 

Washington Post, “The Demise of Coal-Fired Plants” (Nov. 23, 2012) (both available in the administrative record 

for this rule).
6-199

Commenter 9486 stated concern that compliance for new coal-fired power plants relies on CCS 

control technologies that are new and unproven when applied to the coal power industry as a 

combined system for control and are cost prohibitive to implement at this time. According to the 

commenter, the cost of CSS control technologies could be so high that U.S. EPA will be 

inadvertently eliminating a much needed piece of the nation's complex future energy supply 

puzzle which includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar as well as other renewable 

resources.

Commenter 9197 stated the extremely high cost of producing electricity from coal with partial 

CCS, combined with the need to account to both regulators and shareholders for their investment 

decisions, will likely preclude most-if not all-utilities from investing in new coal-fired 

generation. For most of these utilities, the costs of implementing partial CCS-in relation to 

natural gas combined cycle (''NGCC"), which is the only other truly viable option for new 

baseload power-will be so excessive as to make investment in new partial CCS-capable facilities 

unreasonable. Thus, as existing coal-units retire, the proposed NSPS will effectively preclude the 

supply of new coal-fired electricity to future electricity markets. For all of these reasons, we do 

not agree with EPA that CCS is adequately demonstrated when considering cost.

Response 6.3-290: See preamble sections V.H and I. Costs of new coal are already not 

competitive with new NGCC, and the final standard of performance preserves the possibility of 

coal for fuel diversity reasons by adopting a standard with an LCOE within the same range as 

new nuclear technology, the other baseload dispatchable non-NGCC option. Nor does it 

mandate a single manner of compliance, given that there are various potential compliance paths 

available to achieve the final standard of performance.

Comment 6.3-291: Commenter 10239 (pp. 17-18) referenced two Iowa DNR PSD permit 

decisions which concluded that CCS was too costly. The commenter noted that in one of the 

decisions, the Iowa agency highlighted transport costs to suitable GS sites as a key impediment 

to CCS. The commenter stated that EPA reviewed each permit and did not comment or question 

Iowa DNR's conclusions on CCS. The commenter also cited to the State of Michigan’s action in 

rejecting CCS as BACT for the Wolverine facility.

Response 6.3-291: The commenter refers to actions taken by state agencies in rejecting CCS on 

cost grounds when making individual BACT determinations. First, these agencies were 

evaluating full CCS, not partial CCS. Second, the agencies all evidently found that CCS (even 

full CCS) was technically feasible (since determinations were not made at step 1 of the BACT 

analysis), but rejected on grounds of cost, especially (in the case of the Iowa determinations) cost 

of transport and sequestration. The final standard of performance has alternative pathways not 

involving sequestration, in the event a new source chooses to site in a location without ready

access to sequestration (and this is a very limited area – see preamble section V.M and 

Availability TSD). Third, these are state determinations, not determinations of EPA. As 

explained in preamble section XII.C, state agencies that have their own approved state 

implementation plan, the state has primacy over their permitting actions and discretion to 

interpret their approved rules and to apply the applicable federal and state regulatory

requirements that are in place at the time for the facility in question. The EPA’s role is to provide 

oversight to ensure that the state operates their PSD program in accordance with the CAA and 
6-200

applicable rules. If the EPA does not adversely comment on a certain permit or BACT 

determination, it does not imply EPA endorsement of the proposed permit or determination.

Comment 6.3-292: Commenter 9677 stated EPA relies on data that shows CCS increases capital 

costs for a supercritical pulverized coal unit by 34.6%, fixed O&M costs by 28.5%, and variable 

O&M costs by 36.4%. The commenter noted that in the Portland Cement case, which is referred 

to in the Proposal's cost discussion, it was determined that the cost of technologies that a new 

facility would need to install to meet the standard was around 12 percent of the capital cost for 

the entire facility with annual operating costs increasing by 5-7 percent. It was also determined 

that these costs could be recovered "without substantially affecting competition." By contrast, 

the commenter concluded, the CCS incremental capital cost and operating cost increases, 

mentioned above, are much higher than those which were discussed in the Portland Cement case 

as being acceptable.

Response 6.3-292: The commenter is correct that the capital cost increases here are higher than 

those found acceptable in the first Portland Cement I case, although that case did not say that the 

costs were at the upper range of acceptability. As shown in preamble section V.H. 4, the capital 

cost increases here are within a range found acceptable for this industry in prior NSPS. The 

increases associated with the final standard of performance also are less than those cited by the 

commenter, given the reduced stringency of the final standard of performance compared to the 

proposed standard. See RIA at Table 4-4, showing capital cost increase (in the bituminous coal 

case) of 21.3%, FOM increasing 19.75%, and VOM increasing 11%.

Comment 6.3-293: Commenter 7422 stated concern that the level of funding available from 

government assistance programs in the future may be less than the EPA asserts and that the costs 

of CCS may decline less than forecasted. The commenter also stated that in a restructured 

market, the impact on market-based investment decisions is even more dramatically impacted by

reliance on government funding availability as merchant generators do not have customers from 

whom they can recover costs like traditional, vertically-integrated utilities. This distinction is 

critical and should be an important consideration in this rulemaking. The commenter stated that 

this is all the more reason to allow for state and regional consideration and flexibility. According 

to the commenter, the cost of installing CCS on a new coal boiler is sufficiently high to make it 

extremely unlikely for a regulated utility or merchant generator to consider construction of coalfired generation when constructing new generation resources.

Commenter 10243 stated costs to install CCS on a new coal-fired power plant are prohibitively

high, and CCS projects in the U.S. are viable only as a result of government assistance.

Response 6.3-293: The EPA has reasonably determined that costs of partial CCS, at the level of 

capture reflected in the final standard of performance, are not exorbitant and are reasonable. See 

preamble sections V.H and I.

Comment 6.3-294: Commenter 9318 stated the agency's assumptions in the new unit rule about 

the availability of CCS are unreasonable and unproven. According to the commenter, if these 

positions are repeated or incorporated into the existing source rule, impacted units will likely not 

be able to comply with any existing source rule in a cost-effective way. The commenter stated 

CCS is at best an unproven and expensive experimental technology that should not be used as the 
6-201

basis for emissions standards in the existing source rule. The commenter urged EPA to decline to 

adopt these assumptions in the existing unit rule in light of the agency's assertion that it is 

seeking cost-effective and flexible solutions. 

Response 6.3-294: BSER under the guidelines for existing sources does not include CCS.

Comment 6.3-295: Commenter 9666 stated the methodology to project SCPC and NG/CC cost 

for a 30-year time period should be improved. The commenter suggested the methodology

should consider the following:

Varied Capital Cost Sources. Additional cost sources should be sought. The six studies cited in 

this report invoke three sources of data - two proprietary databases and the EIA - and results 

show capital cost estimates depend on the data source. A key variable is how escalation is 

handled.

Role of Suppliers and Vendors. The inputs provided by vendors or suppliers, and how they are 

used, should be evaluated. As discussed in the critique in Appendix A, (of the commenter's 

attachment) costs submitted by vendors in some cases should be adjusted for scope, fuel type, or 

other variables.

A more robust approach soliciting budgetary quotes for this material and reviewing in the 

context of more than one in-house database, constructed from recent cost data, and using a more 

realistic sensitivity analysis that reflects the actual variations in capital cost incurred and 

anticipated is advised.

According to the commenter, the cost estimates cited by EPA used to dismiss SCPC as a viable 

power generating option over the next three decades appear based on data from one engineering 

firm, the bulk of which appears gathered during the time period of 2005-2007. How these costs 

were adjusted for market conditions and price escalation is not clear from the reports. Discussion 

is presented in two reports suggesting that rather than escalating 2005-2007 costs to latter years, 

a separate procurement document was prepared and issued to revise estimate. This approach 

appears limited to certain categories of ancillary equipment. For the cost estimate published in 

September 2013 that is used by EPA, it is not possible to tell if the cost is determined using (a) 

data from 2004-2007 that is escalated using a cost index, versus (b) recent commercial bids in 

response to a procurement.

The commenter also stated that NETL estimates for the capital cost for SCPC and NG/CC 

equipment are compromised by several factors: the escalation of capital equipment prices due to 

strong global demand; the drop in natural gas price and improved cost viability of NG/CC 

equipment; and the overnight drop in SCPC equipment demand. These factors should be 

considered in estimating equipment costs going forward for 30 years.

Response 6.3-295: Commenter 9666 (UARG) suggests a variety of means of assessing costs of 

SCPC and NGCC technologies for the next 30 years. Before answering the specifics, the EPA 

notes that the 30-year time frame suggested by the commenter is not compelled by statute 

(section 111 (a) does not specify a time frame for consideration of costs), nor any compelled 
6-202

factual justification. The time frame generally considered in the RIA – through 2022, the year of 

the next review cycle for NSPS under section 111 – is reasonable. 

The commenter’s specific suggestions also are somewhat misplaced. The commenter requests 

the EPA to evaluate other sources for capital cost estimates than used at proposal. EPA has 

made every effort to use the latest figures. The NETL (July 2015) cost figures reflect recent 

vendor quotes for the Shell Cansolv process, the process in (successful) full scale commercial 

use at Boundary Dam. The NETL methodology for financing involves assuming “high-risk 

financial costs” (p. 18).

The commenter’s request regarding use of vendor quotes is answered immediately above.

The EPA has also evaluated the NETL estimates against those of other techno-economic 

estimates and marketplace quotes from suppliers and found them to be consistent. See e.g. 

preamble at Tables 8-11. 

The commenter also questions the reliability of the NETL cost estimates vis-à-vis SCPC 

technology. The AEP John W. Turk facility is an example of a highly efficient supercritical PC. 

In comments of AEP (p. 76), AEP represented the cost of the Turk facility as $2,885/kW. The 

DOE/NETL estimates for such a facility is $2,842/kW (NETL, 2015 – for a plant using 

bituminous coal). This close agreement is another validation of the NETL cost methodology 

generally, and for SCPC specifically.

Comment 6.3-296: Commenter 10119 provided the following discussion:

"Nonetheless, EPA states it may decide to exempt the plant because there might be "opportunity

costs"---specifically market opportunities that could be realized only by beginning construction 

immediately---associated with complying with the standard. Of course, because it has formed 

"no view" as to the facility's construction status or market opportunities, EPA has no idea 

whether these opportunity costs even exist, much less whether compliance with the performance 

standard would impose opportunity costs. Incredibly, EPA declines to determine whether the 

statute even authorizes it to consider "opportunity costs," claiming it is unnecessary to do so in 

light of EPA's own uncertainty as to whether there are any "opportunity costs" to consider. EPA 

cannot justify an exemption from plain statutory requirements on the basis of facts it declines to 

find and legal analysis it declines to undertake. The requisite process of notice and comment is 

fatally undermined when a proposed rulemaking omits the factual basis, the legal rationale, and 

even aspects of the rule itself, leaving the public to guess at what action the agency might take 

and why the agency chose to take it. A final rule announcing a decision based on such an entirely 

inadequate notice and comment process would be invalid for this reason alone.

In any event, reliance on "opportunity costs" to exempt a project that has not yet commenced 

construction is just as impermissible as consideration of "sunk costs" (we do appreciate, 

however, EPA's withdrawal of "sunk costs" as a possible reason for exempting sources from 

NSPS). Though nebulous, EPA's concept of "opportunity costs" seems, in essence, to amount to 

no more than ordinary but unverifiable and highly fluid commercial expectations of profits. 

Thus, EPA characterizes opportunity costs as those involved in forgoing the ability "to meet a 

valuable near-term resource need or market opportunity." But meeting such needs and market 
6-203

opportunities is precisely why all industrial plants are conceived and pushed forward, and why

pre-construction costs are incurred in the first place: these opportunities and needs, and the 

profits expected from capturing them, must be anticipated to be sufficiently large and near-term 

to justify the planning and pre-construction costs in every case. The promulgation of new NSPS 

standards and their concomitant additional expenses and potential construction delays will 

always affect these market opportunities, and each specific source will be affected differently 

depending on a myriad of individually applicable factors. Those factors and their evaluation are 

far outside the agency's ken, and include the specific and shifting business, financial, strategic 

and contingency plans of each facility, its owners, investors or lenders, as well as the 

characteristics of the market opportunities themselves---information which often consists of 

highly valuable, confidential business information closely guarded against disclosure by all the 

market participants. In other words, the promulgation of new standards will always affect the 

often confidential business opportunities and profitability projections of projects anywhere along 

the pre-construction stage, and will do so in ways unique to each project and shifting over time. 

Congress clearly recognized this problem, and thus set an unambiguous cut-off point that 

determines when a project will have to comply, and its market opportunities will therefore be 

affected: that cut-off point is whether construction has or has not commenced at the time a 

standard is proposed. The statutory language is clear, and EPA has longstanding regulations 

enforcing it. EPA may not override Congress' express judgment on this point."

Response 6.3-296: EPA’s position on sources under development are set out in preamble 

section III.J. EPA notes further that it has ample discretion under section 111 to create 

subcategories, and can reasonably do so under the circumstances set out in preamble section 

III.J.

Comment 6.3-297: Commenter 10667 stated coal and lignite are vital to Texas' continued 

economic success and electricity security and any impacts to these industries place the entire 

Texas economy at risk.

Response 6.3-297: The EPA is of course sympathetic to these and related comments. As shown 

in chapter 4 of the RIA, however, new non-compliant coal technology is very unlikely to be 

constructed anywhere in the country for reasons unrelated to the new standard of performance.

Comment 6.3-298: Commenter 10869 stated for CCS to play a major role in reducing CO2

emissions, new infrastructure must be constructed to capture, process, and transport large 

quantities of CO2. Support for commercial-scale, fully integrated CCS demonstration projects at 

coal-fired power plants should be a part of our energy strategy, alongside investments in R&D on 

other low carbon energy resources. Careful selection and monitoring of geologic storage (or 

"sequestration") sites, and the development of regulatory standards and mechanisms to guide this 

process, will be needed to minimize the environmental risks associated with CO2 leakage 

(including groundwater contamination). 

As more CCS projects are undertaken, learning opportunities and economies of scale could help 

drive down costs and improve performance of this technology. The ultimate costs of complying 

with regulations for limiting other pollutants, including SO2 and NOx, have turned out to be 

much lower than either the EPA projected or industry warned. EPA's carbon standard for new 

power plants provides an incentive to industry to undertake investments in CCS. Projections 
6-204

from EIA, MIT and IEA show that CCS costs could come down over time as the technology is 

more widely deployed. For example, in AEO 2013, EIA projects coal PC with CCS capital costs 

to fall 9 percent by 2025, 14 percent by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040 compared to 2015 costs. 

Studies by the Department of Energy (DOE) also project cost declines for advanced PC and 

IGCC power plants with carbon capture, of 27 percent and 31 percent, respectively, relative to 

current costs.41 EPA carbon standards could be an important driver for these cost reductions.

Response 6.3-298: The EPA agrees with the tone of this broad policy-oriented comment, 

although the existing CO2 transportation infrastructure is more extensive than the commenter 

appears to envision. See preamble section V. M.

Adequate Demonstration

Comment 6.3-299: Commenters 2525, 7433, 8349, 8501, 8971, 8974, 9001, 9192, 9194, 9396, 

9407, 9425, 9428, 9595, 9596, 9725, 9735, 9770, 10024, 10028, 10036, 10086, 10087, 

10096, 10098, 10105, 10238, 10242, 10387, 10392, 10393, and 10501 stated that CCS is not 

adequately demonstrated. Similarly, Commenters 0840, 7977, 8971, 9034, 

9194, 9382, 9601, 9648, 9773, 10044, 10083, 10103, 10242, 10391, 10395 and 10097 stated that 

EPA has not demonstrated that carbon capture meets NSPS statutory requirements for adequate 

demonstration because no full scale power plants currently operate with CCS. Commenter 9472 

also proposed that EPA's determination that CCS is adequately demonstrated conflicts with its 

own permitting decisions. Commenter 9596 commenter that the performance standard itself is 

also invalid as a matter of law because CCS has not been adequately demonstrated. Commenter 

10098 stated that EPA's conclusion that CCS is adequately demonstrated is based on a series of 

misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of existing data. 

Commenter 10392 cited technological immaturity, accessibility and transportation issues as 

arguments against adequate demonstration. Commenters 9773, 10028 and 10030 cited feasibility

and cost as reasons why they disagree with the BSER determination. Commenters 9407 

and 9194 cited the lack of transportation, storage and monitoring infrastructure as reasons why 

CCS cannot be BSER. Commenter 9396 stated that EPA has not addressed pipelines, 

monitoring, sequestration, or impacts related to non-air quality health, environmental, costs, or 

electricity reliability as required to demonstrate achievability. Commenter 9770 stated that EPA 

has ignored cost, land use and feasibility issues, such as the cost and time needed to build and 

permit pipelines and find suitable sequestration sites. Commenter 7433 cited cost, transport and 

safety concerns as reasons adding to the uncertainty of the technological feasibility. Commenter 

0775 noted that while there are some active CCS projects, they have diminished since last year 

and few of the active projects demonstrate the feasibility of using CCS. Commenter 10062 also 

cited IPCCs concerns about the operational safety and long-term integrity of CO2 storage. 

Commenters 0588, 8966, 9381, 9396, 9423, 9648, 9666, 10046 and 10619 also added that 

technical feasibility is not the same as adequate demonstration and CCS is not adequately 

demonstrated. Commenter 9382 stated that not even IGCC is adequately 

demonstrated. Similarly, Commenter 8501 states that 'projected to be available' is not the same 

as 'adequate demonstration'.
6-205

Commenter 9497 recommended that EPA reexamine the rule in four years to determine if CCS is 

then adequately demonstrated and Commenter 10046 recommended that EPA wait a year or two 

to gather the necessary operating data. Commenter 9317 recommended that EPA not consider 

CCS until an 8 year technology review has been conducted to ensure concerns have been 

addressed. Commenters 2470, 10062 and 10880 recommended that EPA must wait to determine 

if CCS is adequately demonstrated until reliable data at commercial scale EGUs is available. 

Commenter 9683 encouraged EPA to re-propose the rule so as to not discourage the continued 

development of CCS, and Commenter 10518 encouraged EPA to re-propose the rule using 

optimized heat rate efficiencies. Commenter 8949 stated that EPA should be prepared to revise 

or revoke the proposed rule should the reference facilities fail to meet the anticipated emissions 

reductions. Commenters 9190, 9666, 9678, 9725, 10083, and 10680 stated that the CAA does not 

allow for unproven technologies to be considered and therefore, EPA should adopt a BSER 

standard that does not rely on CCS. Commenters 2470 and 9648 encouraged EPA not to require 

CCS until the technology has been adequately demonstrated on more than one type and size of 

coal plant.

Commenter 9396 asserted that the rule's interpretation of the CAA only serves to promote 

uncertainty and instability. 

Response 6.3-299: Most of these comments are fully addressed in the preamble to the final rule. 

See, e.g. preamble sections V.D and V.E (post- and pre-combustion partial CCS are 

demonstrated technologies); V.H., V.I and V.O (efficient SCPC and partial CCS are adequately 

demonstrated considering issues of cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements). Issues relating to pipeline and sequestration (commenter 9396) are 

addressed in preamble section V.I.5 and V.N. Comments maintaining that individual BACT 

determinations (none of them involving EPA determinations regarding fossil-fuel fired EGUs, as 

it happens) are addressed in preamble section XII.C. and other comment responses. 

Commenters’ undocumented claims of safety issues and reliability issues associated with CCS 

(e.g. comment 10062) are lacking in basis. Boundary Dam is operating highly effectively. 

Dakota Gasification has been operating full CCS effectively for decades. See NETL (2015) at p. 

36: “The capture and CO2 compression technologies have commercial operating experience with 

demonstrated ability for high reliability.”

Comment 6.3-300: Commenter 1959 remarked that CO2 storage has not been demonstrated 

sufficiently to win public acceptance and that public opposition to storage may preclude CCS at 

some locations.

Response 6.3-300: Public awareness and support have been widely recognized as critical 

components in the development of new energy infrastructure, including CCS deployment. 

Efforts have been made to design strategies for successful outreach to the public. For example, 

under the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, DOE has been engaging with local 

communities to educate and inform them about planned pilot and demonstration projects in their 

areas. DOE’s Best Practices for Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects

presents lessons learned through the planning and implementation of CCS projects, as well as 

best practices for community engagement. 
6-206

Comment 6.3-301: Commenters 9035 and 10869 cited several projects that indicate that broad 

experience with CCS although it has not been deployed at the commercial scale. Commenter 

9035 also noted that all commercial scale projects rely on EOR and that EPA has provided a 

pathway for demonstrating geologic storage through EOR by meeting requirements for UICP 

and GGRP.

Response 6.3-301: The EPA agrees that geologic sequestration is adequately demonstrated and 

that the regulatory requirements and safeguards of the Underground Injection Control Program 

and complementary monitoring and reporting requirements of the GHGRP, together ensure that

sequestered CO2 will remain secure and provide the monitoring to identify and address potential 

leakage.

Comment 6.3-302: Commenters 1902, 1959, 2470, 4217, 6871, 8952, 8954, 9190, 9201, 9202, 

9382, 9426, 9472, 9487, 9497, 9505, 9597, 9657, 9666, 9678, 9683, 9725, 9780, 10023, 10033, 

10036, 10098, 10137, 10239, 10243, 10393, 10396, 10466, 10660, 10662, 10680, 10974 and 

10975 stated that CCS is not adequately demonstrated because coal EGU (including pulverized 

coal and simple cycle units) has ever used CCS in commercial operations or achieved the 

proposed emission limit. Commenter 10023 added that EPA cannot rely on estimates of 

performance.

Commenters 9201 and 10662 remarked that EPA dismisses SCPC and IGCC technology as 

BSER without assessing the recent improvements and analyzing industry investment patterns. 

Similarly, Commenter 4814 proposed that a more practical option would be to base the standard 

on the latest coal technologies such as the CFBC or ultra SCPC. Commenter 9201 also discussed 

EPA's assertion that all new coal builds are designed with CCS in mind, stating that the majority 

seeking permits have since failed or switched to natural gas.

Commenters 10974 and 10975 stated that in contrast, CO2 emissions will increase due to the 

parasitic load associated with CCS.

Response 6.3-302: Post-combustion CCS is demonstrated in full commercial scale at Boundary

Dam #3. In response to comments urging that supercritical PC alone be BSER (e.g. comment 

9201), see preamble section V.P.1. EPA notes as well that it is fully aware of, and has 

considered the latest performance for supercritical and ultra-supercritical boiler performance. Id. 

This technology forms part of the basis for the BSER determination. In addition, highly efficient 

SCPC with natural gas co-firing is an alternative compliance pathway to achieve the standard of 

performance. The EPA has also carefully evaluated the issue of individual plant energy

requirements due to parasitic load, and found them to be reasonable. See preamble section 

V.O.3.

Comment 6.3-303: Commenters 1959, 2864, 6870, 7433, 9194, 9317, 9320, 9396, 9422, 

9425, 9678, 10082, 10083 and 10086 stated that CCS cannot be implemented in all parts of the 

country, particularly due to the availability of storage sites. For example, Commenter 10083 

discussed the large distances between western power plants and suitable geological formations, 

and the potential for interconnectivity issues, environmental impacts, siting difficulties and 

project costs with increased distance. 
6-207

Commenter 10083 also stated that while saline formations may be suitable, they are not located 

near potential power plant locations and have not been characterized extensively. Commenter 

8971 states that CCS selects winners and losers among states and areas. Commenter 9320 stated 

that EPA has failed to adequately consider the unique circumstances faced by sources in Florida 

with respect to the proposed standards for combined-cycle combustion turbines. Similarly, 

Commenter 2864 stated that only five to eight states have the means to capture and use CO2. 

Commenter 9422 asserted that an EPA regulation should not disallow the construction of power 

plants in large sections of the country simply due to the geological makeup of those areas.

Commenter 9396 provided an example of a DOE research project that assessed the ability store 

carbon in an aquifer and determined that the site was unsuitable and would have cost 1 million 

dollars per each of the 100 wells needed to secure the site.

Similarly, Commenters 1902, 6870 and 9194 discussed the misalignment of the majority of 

power plants with EOR opportunities. Commenters 6870 and 10082 further noted that 

transporting large quantities of CO2 is not easily addressed financially, technically or legally. 

Commenter 10086 stated that EPA failed to account for the lack of transportation infrastructure 

and the environmental impact associated with developing a network of pipelines.

Commenter 10393 noted the legal and regulatory challenges to long-term sequestration. 

Commenter 10083 states that there are no planned projects in western states except for the HEC 

project in California. 

Commenter 10395 asserted that CCS will not be developed, even in areas with EOR and 

sequestration opportunities, until additional research dollars are invested to evaluate whether it is 

an available, effective, and commercially viable technology. 

Response 6.3-303: See Section V.M. of the preamble with respect to geologic and geographic 

availability, and V.N. of the preamble with respect to the legal and regulatory framework of GS. 

Potential GS formations are widely available in the United States. The EPA recognizes that 

geologic conditions to support CO2 storage may not exist in all regions of the country. Where 

such capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in those areas can be served by coal-fired power 

plants built in neighboring areas with geologic availability with generated electricity being 

supplied via transmission line, see Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability, or the CO2 can be 

transported to available GS sites via pipeline. The design, construction, operation, and safety 

requirements for CO2 pipelines have been proven. For other of those areas, coal-fired power 

plants are either not being built due to state law prohibitions against building such units, or other 

available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power plant meeting the 

promulgated NSPS to be sited. There are alternative means of complying with the final standards 

of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting difficulties based on 

lack of a CO2 repository would be obviated.

Comment 6.3-304: Commenters 8966, 9597, and 10043 stated that the performance statistics of 

EPA-cited facilities indicates that CCS was installed on an extremely small scale, and that the 

technology itself is not effective at capturing carbon to levels necessary to comply with the 

proposed standard. Commenter 8966 then discussed NETL data on Warrior Run, indicating that 

CCS only resulted in a 7 percent reduction and was still in excess of the proposed emission limit. 

Commenter 8966 also discussed Shady Point and Barry Plant's excess emissions even after 
6-208

capture and the small scale of Mountaineer Plant's CCS, all of which indicate that CCS has not 

been demonstrated show adequate effectiveness and reliability to support a BSER determination. 

Response 6.3-304: See preamble sections V.D and V.E. Preamble section V. G.3 also explains 

why pilot scale performance of CCS can be scaled up, and further supports the EPA’s 

determination that CCS is a demonstrated technology.

Comment 6.3-305: Similarly, Commenter 9666 stated that none of the material cited by EPA, 

most of which have utilized only portions of CCS technology, demonstrate that the emission 

levels can be met.

Response 6.3-305: See preamble sections V.D and E. as well as preamble sections V.G.1 and 2.

Comment 6.3-306: Commenter 9326 stated that the data that EPA relies upon is an insufficient 

sample size. The commenter also stated that EPA presumes all new coal fired EGUs will be

IGCC and recommended that EPA use CCS performance data on PC fired units as opposed to 

IGCC.

Response 6.3-306: The final BSER determination in fact is based on SCPC utilizing partial 

CCS.

Comment 6.3-307: Commenter 9472 provided a list of reasons and references why CCS is not 

adequately demonstrated by discussing how EPA's cited projects do not demonstrate integration 

of all CCS components and are not economically viable, and by citing references listing the costs 

per kilowatt hour and overall cost increase of CCS. The commenter further added that without 

second generation CCS, the technology is unlikely to be economically viable or commercially

available.

Similarly, Commenter 9194 stated that the pilot projects do not demonstrate that CCS is widely

useable nor technically and economically feasible for all 50 states.

Similarly, Commenter 8024 discussed the cost and energy penalties associated with the first 

generation captured technology, as reflected in the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 2013 

Roadmap. Commenter 8027 stated that high purity CO2 capture may not be available for 5 to 10 

years and have not been adopted and validated.

Response 6.3-307: See preamble sections V.D and V.E. Energy penalty issues are addressed in 

preamble section V.O.3. Although the EPA is not relying principally on pilot scale performance 

to show that CCS is a demonstrated technology (comment 9194), that information is nonetheless 

probative and corroborative of the EPA’s determination. See preamble sections just cited. 

Commenter 8027 is completely mistaken that high purity CO2 capture is not presently available. 

Food-grade CO2 has been recovered and utilized for over a decade. See preamble section 

V.D.2.b (at the 320 MW Shady Point Plant, a plant that burns a blend of bituminous and 

subbituminous coals, CO2 from an approximate 5 percent slip-stream (about 66,000 metric tons 
6-209

of CO2 per year) has been captured since 2001. The captured CO2 from the Shady Point Plant is 

also sold for use in the food processing industry.

61)

Comment 6.3-308: Commenters (2470, 2864, 3107, 3176, 3236, 4710, 4814, 8024, 8906, 8971, 

9196, 9396, 9397, 9401, 9472, 9661, 9683, 9767, 9780, 10046, 10082, 10086, 10098, 10294, 

10391, 10518, 10618, 10952, 11051 and 11052) stated that CCS has not been adequately 

demonstrated in EGUs and is cost-prohibitive. Commenter 10391 further stated that "even if it 

were an adequately demonstrated technology, CCS is not remotely feasible and sustainable for 

coal-fueled power plants in most of the states".

Commenters (1899, 9396, 9661, 9683, 9780, 10086, 10098, 10618, 10662 and 10952) also 

stated is underdeveloped with respect to legal and logistical aspects of capture, shipping, and 

storing CO2. Commenters 9683, 9666 and 10096 also provided several quotes stating that CCS is 

not adequately demonstrated. 

Commenters 3107, 8906, 9196, 9320, 9396, 9497, 9661, 10096, 10952, 11051 and 11052 

asserted that the proposed rule is effectively a ban on new coal. Commenter 10046 stated that 

compulsory CCS will not work, and cited a 2012 UKERC report stating that mandating CCS 

now will likely shift investment to less risky power generation technologies, and that it will not 

be easy to identify when the time is right to mandate CCS. The report also states that "CCS 

should arguably apply to existing plants too as climate change targets begin to bite".

Commenter 9320 discussed Sierra Club v. Costle, which indicates that EPA may not establish 

standards that preclude the construction of new coal. 

Response 6.3-308: Recent assessments are at odds with these commenters’ assertions. See, e.g. 

Global CCS Institute, “The Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies 2015 Update” 

(July 2015)62 at p. 1: “CCS is a cost competitive power sector emissions reduction tool when 

considered among the range of available low and zero emissions technologies ....Significant cost 

reduction are also expected for CCS technologies with increased deployment”. This conclusion 

reflects studies of Lazard (2014); EIA 2014; IPCC 2014; Brookings 2014; EPRI 2013; IEA 

2012; and NREL 2015.

Comment 6.3-309: Commenters 8923, 9780, 10095 and 10103 discussed the differences 

between the Synthetic Natural Gas commercial-scale Production Plant and an EGU (e.g., heating 

step, the catalysts and stream compositions). Commenters 9780 and 10095 stated that EPA has 

 

61 Dooley, J. J., et al. (2009). “An Assessment of the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide Capture and 

Storage Technologies as of June 2009”. U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, under Contract DEAC05-76RL01830.

62 Available at http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/195008/costsccs-other-low-carbon-technologies-2015-update.pdf. A copy of the report is docketed as part 

of the administrative record as well.
6-210

provided no data to indicate the facility could continuously achieve the proposed standards. 

Furthermore, Commenter 10095 asserted that EPA must ensure that the CO2 is subpart RR 

compliant. Commenter 10395 further noted that a Synfuels plant does not demonstrate the 

viability or cost effectiveness of IGCC.

Response 6.3-309: See preamble section V.E.2.a. High purity CO2 has been captured 

successfully using CCS. See, e.g. preamble section V.D.2.b.

Comment 6.3-310: Commenter 9666 stated that EPA relies on a 2011 cost and performance 

report by NETL that merely assumes the performance of various CCS configurations and is not 

supported by any technical or statistical analysis of emissions data from units implementing CCS 

because no such data exist.

Response 6.3-310: Costs for post-combustion CCS reflect the most recent available vendor 

quotes for the Shell Cansolv compression and capture process – the process in use at the 

Boundary Dam facility. 

Comment 6.3-311: Commenter 10665 cited the 2011 NETL Carbon Sequestration Program Plan 

stating that CCS will not be commercially viable until 2020. The commenter then stated that that 

if CCS is not commercially viable it cannot be considered for BACT.

Response 6.3-311: This comment refers to a study evaluating full CCS, which is not BSER. 

Comment 6.3-312: Commenters 0588, 1902, 2864, 7977, 8024, 8925, 8949, 8966, 9033, 

9034, 9191, 9197, 9326, 9381, 9382, 9425, 9426, 9596, 9602, 9666, 9648, 9683, 9734, 9780, 

10036, 10043, 10046, 10050, 10083, 10085, 10087, 10098, 10100, 10137, 10239, 10618, 10660 

and 10880 also discussed how the plants and projects assessed by EPA (e.g., TCEP, HECA, 

Kemper, NRG's project) are not operational yet or do not have operational data at the 

commercial scale for adequate demonstration. Commenter 8501 stated that the experimental and 

development projects underway do not support an adequate demonstration finding. However, 

Commenter 8925 stated that the individual processes of CCS have been demonstrated, some of 

which for significant time periods.

Commenter 10618 discussed CCPI's initiative to accelerate development and minimize the cost 

of CCS and noted that none of the CCPI projects have been completed, indicating that CCS is 

not yet adequately demonstrated. Commenter 9780 also discussed CCPI and concluded that if 

and when operational, these projects might demonstrate the technical feasibility of CCS, but 

would not address the commercial viability of the technology given the significant funding that 

they have received as a result of their participation in the CCPI program. Similarly, Commenter 

8024 stated that the few U.S. energy facilities that EPA uses to support its finding that CCS is 

adequately demonstrated are all in various stages of construction, and all rely on government 

financial support. The commenter further stated that even the projects with federal aid are 

encountering difficulties with project financing and power sales. Commenter 10043 stated that 

EPA's cited projects are unique with respect to location and financial situation and do not 

demonstrate representativeness. 
6-211

Commenter 9427 stated that none of the four projects cited by EPA in the preamble as a basis for 

BSER for a coal-fired electric utility steam generating unit (Kemper County Energy Facility, 

Sask Power Boundary Dam Project, Texas Clean Energy Project, and Hydrogen Energy

California) has produced any electricity, captured any carbon dioxide, or sequestered any carbon 

dioxide, therefore, none of the four projects has "adequately demonstrated" the ability to meet 

any lb CO2/MWh emissions standard such as proposed and cannot serve as a basis for 

BSER. According to Commenter 9425, even if these units eventually become operational, 

several years of operating experience would be required to support any conclusions about CCS, 

and projections by several organizations and agencies do not expect CCS to be commercially 

available until about 2020. Commenters 8348, 9666, 9734, 9780 and 10137 also stated that years 

of operation and research will be required before technologies can be fairly evaluated on a 

technical and economic basis with regard to uncertainty, representativeness and risk. Commenter 

9201 stated that evaluating the feasibility of CCS for applicability to the array of fuels and sites 

that typify dedicated power generation facilities in the U.S. will require at a minimum, operating 

data over several years from at least eight utility-scale projects, similar to the process in which 

FGD and SCR systems were developed over numerous years and demonstration projects. 

Commenters 8348, 8949, 8966, 9034, 9381, 9382, 9648, 9666, 9734, 9780, 10046, 10098, 

10239, 10618 and 10662 also stated that the proposed rule provides no information as to how 

pilot-scale projects advanced the reliability, efficiency, cost, and commercialization of CCS and 

further, EPA has not taken the economic setbacks, cancellations or delays encountered by the 

projects into account. Similarly, Commenters 8971 and 9596 disagreed with extrapolating from 

pilot scale data to commercial scale regarding the use of CCS to a nationwide-applicable CO2

NSPS. Commenter 8024 cited CPS energy's press release on their decision to allow the TCEP 

power purchase agreement to expire as support for the economic realities of CCS.

Commenter 10662 stated that all of the projects in the Global CCS Institute's database cited by 

EPA have some element which eliminates it from consideration in the context of the proposed 

rule and discussed reasons for several of the projects. Commenter 9780 also added that many of 

EPA's cited projects separate CO2 from other gases as part of normal operations which decreases 

the implementation cost and technical difficulty.

Commenter 10033 stated that while they do not believe the technology is not well understood at 

the scale required for commercial power plant implementation, the commenter does not wish to 

suggest that CCS cannot or should not go forward in an appropriate manner or that the process 

cannot be done safely.

Commenters and 9596 and 9602 further added that no power plant currently utilizes geologic 

sequestration. Commenter 9596 stated that facilities which are not utility scale EGUs do not 

demonstrate CCS with geological sequestration.

Commenter 9033 remarked that CCS has yet to reach demonstration stages to reduce the cost 

and reduce the risk of scaling these technologies from pilot or validation scale to full scale. The 

commenter presents several integration issues that have not been assessed at full scale, such as 

how the capture process turns down with generation load, how compression is affected by 

reduced load, what the management practice for water and flue gas byproducts will be, and risk 
6-212

of shut down. Commenter 9033 further asserted that without full scale demonstration, the 

industry is not in a position to make proper commercial warranties and guarantees as required. 

Response 6.3-312: For discussion of why partial CCS is a demonstrated technology, see 

preamble sections V.D. and E. Commenter 10618 noted that many of these plants receive, or 

have received government subsidies. The need for subsidies to support emerging energy systems 

and new control technologies is not unusual. Each of the major types of energy used to generate 

electricity has been or is currently being supported by some type of government subsidy such as 

tax benefits, loan guarantees, low-cost leases, or direct expenditures for some aspect of 

development and utilization, ranging from exploration to control installation. This is true for 

fossil fuel-fired, as well as nuclear-, geothermal-, wind-, and solar-generated electricity. 

Moreover, this issue does not relate to whether the technology is technically feasible and 

demonstrated. We further note that this same commenter publically stated that CCS represents a 

path forward to an energy future where coal continues to be a utilized fossil fuel (“AEP still 

believes the advancement of CCS is critical for the sustainability of coal-fired generation.”63). 

Issues relating to pilot plant performance are addressed in sections V.D. and V.E as well as 

V.G.3.

Commenter 9596 is mistaken that there has been no geologic sequestration of CO2 captured from 

an EGU. Boundary Dam sequesters CO2 it fails to sell for EOR, and the EPA has issued permits 

for Class VI wells for the FutureGen EGU facility, premised on findings that the facility’s CO2

emissions can be successfully captured, transported, and sequestered for geologic time frames.

Regarding commercial guarantees for CCS, see preamble section V.F.

Commenter 10662 states that international experience with CCS does not show that the 

technology is demonstrated. The comment is mistaken both factually and legally. Section 111 

(a) does not restrict EPA to data from domestic facilities only. 

Boundary Dam, a full scale commercial facility operating full CCS successfully, thus is an 

appropriate facility to look to as showing that CCS is a demonstrated technology. See Sierra 

Club v. Costle, 657 F. 2d at 364 (support for achievability of section 111 standard of 

performance comes, in part, from operation of Japanese sources using the BSER); Lignite Energy

Council v. EPA, 198 F. 3d at 394 n. 3 (section 111 (b) standard of performance justified in part 

based on data from “foreign boilers burning lignite”). Additional international facilities 

discussed in preamble section V.E.2.b provide corroborative information with respect to precombustion CCS (not the BSER but a potential alternative compliance pathway), and further 

indicate world-wide interest in the technology, and willingness to invest in it.

Comment 6.3-313: Commenter 9666 remarked that EPA has failed to identify and assess the 

impacts of conditions that could affect a unit's CO2 emissions, such as differences in types of fuel 

combusted and load duty. 

 

63 CCS LESSONS LEARNED REPORT American Electric Power Mountaineer CCS II Project Phase 1, Prepared 

for The Global CCS Institute Project # PRO 004, January 23, 2012, page 2. See also AEP FEED Study at pp. 4, 63 

(same).
6-213

Response 6.3-313: The EPA has carefully assessed both the performance of fossil-fired EGUs 

using different types of coal, and the cost and energy implications when different coal types are 

used. See preamble section V.J.

Comment 6.3-314: Commenter 9201 asserted that the lack of actual data from facilities in 

commercial operation has caused EPA not to adopt numerical standards.

Response 6.3-314: The final standard of performance is a numerical level, as was the proposed 

standard of performance. 

Comment 6.3-315: Commenters 9472, 9592 and 10952 asserted that the proposed BSER does 

not address the lack of available infrastructure needed to transport, sequester and monitor the 

CO2 captured by coal-fired EGUs, such as CO2 pipelines and deep well sequestration or EOR 

fields, and therefore CCS cannot be considered a best "system" of emission reduction. Similarly, 

Commenter 9596 stated that EPA has not adequately demonstrated the transportation and 

sequestration components of CCS.

Commenters 10952 and 10097 stated that it is unclear whether carbon sequestration or EOR is 

included as part of the system that defines BSER or whether carbon capture fully comprehends 

the system in BSER.

Response 6.3-315: The transportation and storage of CO2 is adequately demonstrated. See 

preamble section V.M., which discusses the existing processes, technologies, and geologic 

conditions that enable successful geologic sequestration and section V.N., which discusses the 

comprehensive, in-place regulatory structure that is currently available to oversee GS projects 

and assure their safety and effectiveness. The BSER determination and regulatory impact 

analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations. However, the EPA also recognizes 

the potential for sequestering CO2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option.

Comment 6.3-316: Commenter 8957 discussed the Boundary Dam project a FutureGen 2.0 and 

concluded that additional experience across a range of geologic formations and other sitespecific conditions as well as additional information on cost is necessary to make a determination 

that CCS has been adequately demonstrated. Similarly, Commenter 10395 stated that Boundary

Dam is not an IGCC project and does not support EPA's contention that IGCC with partial 

carbon capture is BSER for coal-fired units.

Response 6.3-316: In the United States, the EPA has issued Class VI UIC permits for six wells 

for two projects. EPA considered, among other information, information on the regional geology

and local geologic features at each site as part of its permitting process to determine that the 

wells were appropriately sited and met the Class VI requirements. Additionally, there are several 

large scale CO2 sequestration projects including the Illinois Basin Decatur Project and the 

Cranfield (Tuscaloosa) Project that demonstrate that storage of large amounts of CO2 can be 

achieved. In April 2015, DOE announced that CCS projects supported by the department have 

safely and permanently stored 10 million metric tons of CO2, which is the same order of 

magnitude expected for an EGU. Furthermore, existing commercial CCS facilities in other 

countries demonstrate the commercial storage of CO2, and the ability to inject large quantities 

over long period of time. The CO2 streams from these facilities have physical and chemical 
6-214

characteristics similar to pipeline grade CO2 that would be expected from an EGU so the source 

of the CO2 is not a factor in assessing the feasibility of long term secure storage. Commenters 

9190, 9201, 9425, 9381, 9426, 9497, 9590, 9648, 9666, 9725, 9780, 10036, 10046, 10085, 

10095, 10036, 10500, 10552 and 10680 stated that to adequately demonstrate the national 

feasibility of CCS technology, all components of EGUs with CCS must be demonstrated to work 

together at the commercial scale due to the complexity and scope of the processes. 

Comment 6.3-317: Commenter 9683 stated that CCS is not a BSER as there is not nearly 

enough experience with carbon capture at an appropriate scale and under the variety of 

circumstances necessary to reasonably determine that capture technology is adequately 

demonstrated. Similarly, Commenters 8966, 9190, 9197, 9201, 9426, 9590, 9648, 9666, 9725, 

9735, 9780, 10036, 10095 and 10036 stated that data from multiple integrated technology

demonstrations using different conditions and configurations at commercial scale are needed 

(e.g., using different power systems, ranks of coal, different separation systems, locations and 

CO2 storage in a range of geologic formations). 

Commenters 10036, 10095 and 10500 further asserted that no projects referenced by the Agency

are simultaneously producing electricity, capturing, cleaning, compressing, transporting, and 

storing large volumes of CO2 on a continuous basis, which is essential to the effective operations 

of a commercial plant and adequate demonstration. 

Commenters 1899, 8024, 8966, 9320, 9381, 9596, 9666, 9780, 10032, 10500 and 10082 also 

stated that EPA has not considered the unique technical issues or reliability obligations of EGUs 

when assessing the technical feasibility of CCS. For example, Commenter 9596 stated that nonEGU's are able to vent CO2 when it is not needed or accepted by EOR and are not subject to load 

shift response requirements or continuous operations. Commenter 9317 stated their concern that 

the rule will impede states' energy diversity and reliability.

Commenter 9190, 10032, 10552, and 10680 further stated that the proposed standard is not based 

on actual data and does not demonstrate that the proposed standard is consistently achievable.

Response 6.3-317: See preamble sections V.D. and V.E. We repeat here the NETL (July 2015) 

recent assessment of the technology (p. 36): “The capture and CO2 compression technologies 

have commercial operating experience with demonstrated ability for high reliability.”

Comment 6.3-318: Commenter 9666 further asserted that EPA has failed to engage in the 

necessary analysis to support a finding that a standard of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh is achievable for 

the industry as a whole under the full range of relevant conditions.

Response 6.3-318: Preamble section V.J. discusses why the standard is achievable under a 

range of variable operating conditions.

Comment 6.3-319: Commenter 10098 stated that the natural gas industry's experience with CO2

capture provides no basis for EPA's proposed conclusion in this rulemaking that partial CCS is 

BSER.
6-215

Response 6.3-319: The EPA’s finding that partial CCS is part of the BSER (along with a highly

efficient SCPC boiler) is based on operating experience involving combustion of coal, not 

NGCC.

Comment 6.3-320: Similarly, Commenters 9381, 9397, 9497, 9505, 10088, 10239, 10500 

and 10662 stated that the unique characteristics that make Kemper the right choice for 

Mississippi cannot be consistently replicated on a national level and should not serve as a 

primary basis for new emissions standards impacting all new coal-fired power plants. For 

example, Commenter 9497 noted that the gasifier technology used at Kemper does not work well 

for higher grade coals.

Commenter 1959 noted that another reason Kemper is not BSER because Kemper is only 

commercially viable because of a suite of financial incentives and public subsidies that are not 

available for new projects, including revenues from sales of CO2 at the plant for enhanced oil 

recovery which is not nationally available. 

Commenters 1959, 8349, 9381, 9382, 9396, 9505, 9734, 10239 and 10662 also discussed the 

cost increases, delays and regulatory issues that have affected Kemper, as well as EPA's other 

cited facilities in construction or planning phase, such as Boundary Dam, FutureGen and TCEP. 

Commenter 8949 discussed the similarities between process units in Kemper and Pinon Pine, 

which shut down in 2000 due to technical problems. The commenter hypothesized that similar 

challenges may occur with Kemper because it is FOAK.

Commenter 10662 stated that questions remain regarding long term storage, venting CO2, and 

the source of the 65 percent capture target at Kemper.

Commenters 9381 and 9396 also cited public statements from Alstom declaring that it does not 

consider CCS to be technically feasible at a commercial scale. Commenter 9396 also cited public 

statements from Mississippi Sierra Club opposing the Kemper plant.

Commenter 9382 also noted a mistake in the 2015 operations date listed by EPA for the NRG 

Energy CCS project.

Response 6.3-320: The EPA is not selecting IGCC as BSER, although IGCC with natural gas

co-firing, or partial CCS, is an alternative compliance path. See preamble section V.P. Thus, 

Kemper is not directly part of EPA’s primary support for the BSER determination. The EPA has 

also explained that the cost overruns involved with the project are the result of management 

decisions which are very unlikely to be repeated elsewhere, since they involved decisions 

contrary to normal protocols. 

Regarding commenters’ claims that CCS technology is likely to operate with poor reliability, 

Boundary Dam is operating “highly successfully” (in the words of the project developers, see 

preamble section V.D.2), Dakota Gasification has operated full CCS successfully for decades, 

and NETL (2015) characterizes the technology as having high reliability based on commercial 

operating experience. Finally, in response to commenters 9381 and 9396, the EPA notes that 

Alstom has publically endorsed CCS as a reliable and available technology. See preamble 

section V.F and V.I.2.c. See also statement of Alstom senior Vice President for Power and 
6-216

Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton’s statement (August 4, 2011): “AEP’s decision to put 

Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the consequences of uncertain 

climate policy. The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated the ability to capture up to 

90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant’s emissions. The technology works. But 

without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, power generators are hardpressed to invest in its continued refinement.” The press release further states that Vice 

President Macnaughton “presented findings from a recently-conducted cost analysis showing 

that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS is 

competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, 

geothermal, hydro and nuclear.”64 

Comment 6.3-321: Commenter 9666 also discussed the Boundary Dam project and stated that it 

is located outside the country and cannot serve as an example of adequate demonstration for 

United States-based generators which face different operational and technical constraints 

because: it is not a project that a company would have taken in the normal course of commercial 

operations, it cannot be considered financially feasible, and it has encountered multiple delays.

Commenter 8024 discussed the total costs of the Boundary Dam project. 

Response 6.3-321: Boundary Dam is operating highly successfully. Section 111 (a) contains no 

bar on the source of information EPA can consider in assessing which systems of performance 

are adequately demonstrated. Further, the project cost overruns related solely to the cost of the 

boiler, not the CCS system. See Memorandum of conversation between Dr. Nick Hutson (EPA) 

and Mike Monea (SaskPower), part of the administrative record for this final rule. 

Comment 6.3-322: Commenter 8966 stated that a BSER determination must rely on some 

wholly independent grounds apart from any data gathered from a publicly supported facility

under the Energy Policy Act. The commenter stated that in addition to Kemper County and 

Texas Clean Energy Project not demonstrating actual effectiveness or reliability with operational 

data, data from these facilities must be excluded from consideration in a BSER determination 

due to their public funding. 

Similarly, Commenters 9034, 9497, 9774, 10083, 10662, 10974 and 10975 stated that EPA 

should not have considered the federally funded facilities.

Response 6.3-322: EPA’s determination is not solely, or mainly, premised on performance of 

facilities receiving funds under EPAct, and can be justified entirely without consideration of any

such facility. 

Comment 6.3-323: Commenter 9515 stated that although the EPA's reading of the Energy

Policy Act is reasonable, but will not insulate it from legal challenge. Instead, the commenter 

suggested that EPA reference projects with individual components of CCS and state the partial 

CCS can be demonstrated even in the absence of projects funded by the Act through facilities 

 

64 See

http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf
6-217

such as Warrior Run, Shady Point, Searles Valley, Great Plains Synfuels and other international 

projects such as Sleipner and Schwarze.

Response 6.3-323: See preamble sections V.D and V.E.

Comment 6.3-324: Commenter 10095 stated that they are optimistic that CCS may play a role 

in reducing GHGs in the future, but integrated CCS technology is still in the development and 

demonstration phase and much remains to be understood. Commenters 9326 and 10095 asserted 

that by prematurely requiring CCS, the proposed rule will hamper the technology's advancement. 

Commenters 9326 and 9497 asserted that the application of CCS to larger pulverized coal plants 

is not available or necessarily applicable with any reliability. Similarly, Commenter 8024 stated 

that four of the six projects cited by EPA utilize technologies not suited to pulverized coal. 

Response 6.3-324: See preamble section V.L. and V.I.4. CCS is demonstrated for PC plants, 

notably at Boundary Dam #3.

Comment 6.3-325: Commenter 10095 also remarked that neither Kemper County Energy

Facility or Boundary Dam CCS project will have completed even one full year of operation 

before EPA is statutorily required to finalize the rule, which will not provide the robust 

experience required for CCS technologies to be considered Adequately Demonstrated nor fully 

satisfy the requirements of this proposal regarding subpart RR.

Response 6.3-325: The commenter (Southern Company) correctly states that Boundary Dam 

will not have completed a year of operation at the time of promulgation of the final standard. 

Nonetheless, plant performance to date has been highly successful (in the words of the project 

developers), and CCS technology has operated reliably in many other applications (see preamble 

section V.D and V.E). The EPA consequently believes it reasonable to rely on the operating 

performance of Boundary Dam as an example of demonstration of post-combustion CCS at 

commercial scale.

Comment 6.3-326: Commenters 8966, 10046, 10870, 10088 and 10952 stated that EPA and/or 

DOE have not found CCS to be viable on a commercial scale in recent statements and reports. 

Commenter 8966 also cited CRS' statement that there is no data supporting the effectiveness and 

reliability of CCS systems and therefore CCS does not meet the level of demonstration required 

by CAA Section 111. 

Commenters 8024, 9396, 10395 and 10952 further noted that EPA's Task Force recognized that 

up to ten full scale demonstration projects at EGU sites were needed to commercialize carbon 

capture technology and reduce costs from 80 percent, and endorsed a ten year timeline to 

complete needed commercialization. Commenters 9196, 9765 and 10662 cited the Task Force 

report and its conclusions that CCS is not ready for widespread implementation and is not 

demonstrated at the EGU scale.

Commenter 10395 questioned why EPA has departed from the Task Force milestones. 

Commenter 9396 further questioned how CCS can be NSPS if States have recently rejected it as 
6-218

BACT. Commenter 9774 provided examples of a State rejecting CCS as BACT and cited 

feasibility and cost as the reasons.

Commenter 8024 also cited the Task Force findings and the 2010 Guidance on BACT 

as evidence that CCS is not adequately demonstrated.

Response 6.3-326: In response to commenter 8966 et al, DOE’s latest published statement on 

CCS is that, based on commercial operating experience, it has “demonstrated ability for high 

reliability”. NETL (July 2015) p. 36. 

Comment 6.3-327: Commenter 9515 noted that the Task Force Report supports EPA's finding 

that there are no insurmountable technological barriers and provided support from a Pacific 

Northwest National Lab report that concluded that CCS is technically viable and deployed at 

large enough scales to support commercial development.

Response 6.3-327: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-328: However, Commenter 8024 cited the 2009 PNNL study's conclusions that 

CCS is technically viable, but stated that the study does not address cost or energy requirements, 

nor does it conclude that full scale CCS has been installed and integrated at an EGU. The 

Commenter also cited the BACT guidance white paper's statement that full scale CCS has 

not been installed and integrated at an EGU.

Response 6.3-328: See preamble section V.D.

Comment 6.3-329: Commenters 9197, 9596 and 10395 noted that because no full scale plants 

with CCS are operational, it is not possible to consider the technology adequately demonstrated 

or ensure that the technical configurations meet the duty cycle demands of base load EGUs, such 

as reliability and cost.

Response 6.3-329: See preamble section V.D.

Comment 6.3-330: Commenter 9034 noted that although the SAB Work Group ultimately

decided to withdraw its recommendation for further review, it encouraged EPA "to carefully 

monitor the post-rule reality to ensure that the technologies are feasible and available to newly 

constructed electricity generating units to meet the new standards." The commenter stated that 

the "post-rule reality," however, will show that CCS will remain infeasible and unavailable to 

coal-fired EGUs for the foreseeable future.

Commenter 9648 stated that their message is consistent with SAB's findings that the rulemaking 

would benefit from additional review.

Commenter 9195 noted that the Science committee uncovered serious problems and unanswered 

questions with the scientific and technical assumptions supporting EPA's new power plant 

proposal when observing interactions between EPA and the SAB.
6-219

Commenter 9396 noted that the SAB has indicated that non-EOR sequestration has not been 

peer reviewed or adequately demonstrated and has requested an analysis. The commenter stated 

that without an analysis of non-EOR sequestration, CCS cannot be designated as BSER.

Response 6.3-330: See response in chapter 2 addressing comments relating to the Information 

Quality Act. The short of it is that these commenters are significantly misinformed. First, the 

SAB was briefed in great detail on the Class VI rule as it was being developed. Second, the SAB 

workgroup in its January 7, 2014 public letter stated that “while the scientific and technical basis 

for carbon storage provisions is new and emerging science, the agency is using the best available 

science and has conducted peer review at a level required by agency guidance.” Letter p. 3. The 

full SAB endorsed this letter in their edits of Jan. 24, 2014. (Commenter 9034 correctly notes 

that the SAB withdrew its recommendation for further review, but fails to note the Workgroup’s 

finding of use of best available science and adequate and ample peer review.)

Comment 6.3-331: Commenters 8966, 9505, 9666, 9677, 10870 and 10088 also asserted that 

under the standard established in the case of Essex Chemical, CCS cannot be considered 

adequately demonstrated. Commenters 8966, 9497, 9666, 9677 and 9505 defined adequately 

demonstrated system as shown to be reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient, reasonably 

expected to serve the interests of pollution control without becoming exorbitantly costly in an 

economic or environmental way (see Essex Chemical), all of which CCS has not validated. 

Similarly, Commenters 10089 asserted that CCS is currently cost prohibitive and not 

demonstrated at the commercial scale EGUs. Commenter 10088 cited the cost issues with 

Kemper Plant as further evidence. Commenter 9677 stated that EPA does not cite any case law 

that supports deploying BSER in a source category that has never used the technology.

Response 6.3-331: A) The technology is demonstrated at full commercial scale, highly 

successfully. See preamble sections V.D.2 and V.E.2.a; B) In response to commenter 9677, 

performance of a control technology in another industry has long been recognized as a legitimate 

way to show that a technology is demonstrated. See, e.g. Lignite Energy Council, 198 F. 3d at 

934. In any case, post-combustion CCS is demonstrated within the source category; C) the 

technology is not exorbitantly costly, and does not have collateral nonair quality environmental 

or health impacts. See preamble section V.H and V.O. The BSER determination here therefore 

satisfies the standard set forth in Essex and other opinions of the D.C. Circuit.

Comment 6.3-332: Commenters 9401, 9774, 10036, 10095, 10098, 10239 and 10952 stated that 

CCS cannot be NSPS if it has never been selected as BACT. Commenters 10239 and 10098 also 

discussed the BACT selection process which, the commenters asserted, accurately rejects CCS as 

BACT due to technical and economic feasibility considerations. 

Similarly, Commenters 7977, 9401, 9683, 10239, 10030 and 10662 noted that EPA's previously

proposed rule on the same subject in 2012 did not consider CCS to be an "adequately 

demonstrated" and that there is not sufficient support to warrant a change. Commenters 9401, 

9683 and 10239 technology therefore asserted that CCS as BSER is arbitrary and capricious.

Commenter 9472 asserted that the current proposal is at odds with EPA's 2012 rulemaking 

proposal, which is still relevant because there are still no operating facilities or advancements in 

CCS.
6-220

Commenter 10083 discussed BACT limits and stated that since NSPS sets the floor for BACT 

and BACT has recently only required relatively inexpensive, small reductions in CO2, NSPS 

'would be limited to requiring very modest emission limits not more stringent than previously 

adopted BACT'.

Commenter 9773 posited that if an NSPS more stringent than would be determined under BACT 

for the same source does not appear to be the intent of the CAA, why would there be a BACT 

program under the CAA?

Commenter 10662 also stated that the following EPA statement, 'this proposal does not have any 

direct applicability on the determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for 

existing EGUs that require PSD permits to authorize a major modification of the EGU' directly

contradicts EPA's determination that BACT can be no less stringent than NSPS.

Response 6.3-332: Comments regarding the relationship of individual BACT determinations and 

the standard of performance adopted in the final rule are at preamble section XII.C. Commenter 

10062 misconstrues EPA’s statements: a final standard of performance creates a BACT floor, 

but a proposal does not, as the EPA accurately stated. Commenter 9773 that BACT 

determinations for the same source would be less stringent than the proposed NSPS, showing 

that an NSPS based on CCS is arbitrary. There have been no such BACT determinations made 

by the EPA, or by states. The closest example would be the (now discontinued) Wolverine 

project in Michigan, but the EAP proposed that this facility would not be subject to the proposed 

NSPS.

With regard to the 2012 (withdrawn) proposal (commenter 7977 et al.), the EPA stated that 

“CCS is a feasible technology option for new coal-fired power plants because CCS is technically

feasible and sufficiently available in light of the limited amount of new coal-fired construction 

expected in the foreseeable future.” 77 FR at 22414. Commenters 7977 et al. consequently do 

not accurately characterize that proposal, which in any case, has been overtaken by events, 

including the re-proposal, plus full scale successful operation of CCS at commercial scale. 

Comment 6.3-333: Commenters 9683, 10086, 10087 and 10391 cited Portland Cement Ass'n v. 

Ruckelshaus and stated that EPA has not demonstrated that CCS is available for installation or at 

a reasonable cost. Commenter 10391 also stated that the proposed rule oversteps the 

Congressional intent of the NSPS.

Similarly, Commenter 10870 cited Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus and Sierra Club v. 

Costle when stating that EPA must evaluate the "demonstration of commercial-scale systems". 

Commenters 9596 and 10046 cited the District of Columbia Circuit's Sierra Club decision that 

rejected dry scrubbing as an adequately demonstrated technology and noted that this proposed 

rule is similar (or less robust) due to the lack of commercial scale operating data. 

Commenter 10087 also cited National Lime Association v. EPA, finding that EPA must consider 

"the representativeness for the industry as a whole of the tested plants on which it relies.
6-221

Commenter 8024 cited Lignite Energy Council v. EPA in stating that EPA may not rely on 

unbuilt facilities or conjecture to document adequate demonstration.

Response 6.3-333: See preamble sections V.D (demonstration of post-combustion CCS), V.H 

and V.I (availability of BSER at reasonable cost), and V.G.1 and 2, noting how the standard of 

performance is consistent with applicable caselaw, including Portland Cement I, and Lignite 

Energy Council.

Comment 6.3-334: Commenters 9514, 9660, 9664 and 10108 provided projects (e.g., Warrior 

Run, Plant Barry, a North Dakota gasification facility, Coffeyville gasification, and a 200 mile 

pipeline for EOR in Canada), vendor statements, reports (e.g., DOE/NETL reports) and articles 

for the Agency as support for its final standards that EPA that integrated CCS is adequately

demonstrated, that EPA amply established integrated CCS systems will be available for 

commercial application on coal-fired power plants, and that the component elements of these 

systems have been in long-standing use in other similar industrial applications in the U.S. and 

abroad. Commenter 10108 further stated that the evidence is considerable more extensive than 

past NSPS, such as the SO2 BSER and supports EPA's determination. Commenter 10869 also 

stated that the component elements are commercially in use.

Commenter 9660 cited the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute 2014 report as further 

support. Commenter 9664 further stated that CCS is necessary in order to control anthropogenic 

CO2 in a timely enough manner so as to avoid the worst climate impacts.

Response 6.3-334: The EPA largely agrees with this comment. The EPA also notes that the 

Global CCS Inst report (2015, the successor to the version cited by the commenter) finds that 

“CCS is a cost competitive power sector emissions reduction tool when considered among the 

range of available low and zero emissions technologies” (p. 1), and provides LCOE estimates 

using a common methodological framework which are consistent with those of other recognized 

expert entities with respect of cost of full CCS and cost of nuclear power. The study also 

presents estimates for the various technologies, including nuclear, as a range, again consistent 

with the approach of other entities. See preamble section V.I.2. b through e.

Comment 6.3-335: Commenter 9514 provided a list of CCS projects using pre-combustion and 

post-combustion technology at commercial scale for decades in other applications. Commenter 

9660 discussed pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel combustion technologies that have 

been implemented and stated that EPA has correctly determined that CCS is a feasible 

compliance alternative with a 30 year averaging period. Commenter 9660 also cited literature 

and projects which demonstrate separation, capture and storage of CO2, such as Sleipner, In 

Salah, Weyburn, Illinois Industrial Capture and Lost Cabin projects.

Response 6.3-335: The EPA agrees with much of this comment, although noting that precombustion CCS is not part of the BSER and that the final standard of performance does not 

have a 30-year compliance averaging period.

Comment 6.3-336: Commenters 10048 and 10095 stated that the high cost of the CCS 

technology effectively precludes its deployment even if the outstanding technical limitations, 

such as a lack of integrated, commercial scale demonstration, could be addressed and the 
6-222

technology was ready for commercial deployment. Commenter 10048 noted that the 2013 NETL 

report acknowledged that CCS is not ready for implementation at coal-fired power plants. 

Commenter 10095 also stated that a CO2 emission limit based on this technology is not 

achievable as required under Section 111(b).

Response 6.3-336: See preamble V.H. and L. See also statement of American Electric Power 

that CCS can be coal’s means of perpetuation (“AEP still believes the advancement of CCS is 

critical for the sustainability of coal-fired generation”65). The NETL (2013) report was not in 

the context of partial CCS, and in any case, NETL (2015) finds that CCS is highly reliable based 

on its record in commercial application.

Comment 6.3-337: Similarly, Commenters 9034, 9765 and 10396 cited a 2013 OMB comment 

questioning EPA's finding that CCS is adequately demonstrated based on projects yet to operate. 

Commenter 10294 stated that EPA's disregard for the OMB is troublesome.

Response 6.3-337: The final standard of performance reflected interagency review pursuant to 

EO 12866.

Comment 6.3-338: Commenter 10039 asserted that EPA's proposal that the CCS BSER is 

undercut by the recent release of the Climate Change Report which describes CCS as not ready 

for widespread use. Commenters 9196, 9396, 9472, 10087 and 10095 stated that the recent 

National Climate Assessment confirms that CCS is presently in the pilot/demonstration phases of 

operational hierarchy

Response 6.3-338: This report concerned full CCS, and also considered application to existing 

sources. EPA has determined that full CCS is not the BSER for either new or existing sources.

Comment 6.3-339: Conversely, Commenters 9514 and 9664 stated that the public comments 

asserting that the NCA report questions whether CCS is ready to be deployed do not address or 

contradict anything on which EPA bases its BSER determination.

Response 6.3-339: The EPA agrees with these comments insofar as the reports concern full 

CCS and the BSER determination is based on partial CCS.

Comment 6.3-340: Commenter 10046 cited the 2012 IEA report entitled 'A Policy Strategy for 

Carbon Capture and Storage' to state that CCS is not currently cost effective or technically

mature, and should be incentivized rather than mandated.

Response 6.3-340: NETL (2015) states (p. 36) that, based on commercial operating experience, 

CCS has “demonstrated ability for high reliability.” Global CCS Institute (2015), in a 

compilation of expert views and analyses, states that “CCS is a cost competitive power sector 

emissions reduction tool when considered among the range of available low and zero emissions 

 

65 CCS LESSONS LEARNED REPORT American Electric Power Mountaineer CCS II Project Phase 1, Prepared 

for The Global CCS Institute Project # PRO 004, January 23, 2012, page 2. See also AEP FEED Study at pp. 4, 63 

(same).
6-223

technologies” (p. 1). See also preamble section V.F (vendor guarantees) and V.I.2 (reliability of 

NETL cost estimates).

Comment 6.3-341: Commenters 9514 and 9664 asserted that EPA is well within its authority to 

set standards that are technology-forcing, forward looking, and in the interests of long-term 

environmental benefit. The commenters stated that EPA is not constrained to establish new 

source emissions limits based on systems of emission reduction that are in "widespread use" (see 

Essex Chemical, 486 F.2d at 427-434 and Nat'l Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Train, 539 F.2d 775, 

786.

Response 6.3-341: The EAP largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-342: Commenter 9660 cited Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933-

34 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1054 n.70 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) to support EPA's rule and state that EPA's reliance on the successful implementation of 

various components of CCS at a small scale is consistent with previous NSPS. The commenter 

also stated that adopting CCS as BSER encourages further development and implementation of 

the control technology as Section 111b intends.

Response 6.3-342: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-343: Commenter 9514 stated that they support EPA's conclusion that geologic 

sequestration of CO2 is available and adequately demonstrated for the purpose of establishing 

CCS as BSER for coal-fired EGUs and agree that site characterization of each potential storage 

site is essential to ensure safe and permanent storage. Similarly, Commenter 10106 agreed with 

EPA's conclusion that CCS is BSER and technically proven. Commenter 9513 also agreed with 

EPA's conclusion and stated that technologies demonstrated in the oil and gas sector are 

transferable, as supported by the Joint Environmental Group comments.

Response 6.3-343: The EAP largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-344: Commenters 9471 and 9666 stated that they do not believe CCS will become

commercially available for full-scale application to EGUs in 7 years and therefore, the proposed 

BSER is incorrect. Similarly, Commenter 2864 stated that it will be five to ten years before the 

technology is commercially available and cost-effective. The commenter stated that once 

facilities are operational, cost and feasibility can be evaluated. Commenter 9196 cited a DOE 

report that stated that CCS is 20 years away from commercially availability.

Commenter 9666 also listed Alstom, Congressional Research Service, U.K. Ministry for Energy

and Climate Change, International Energy Agency, and DOE as entities that have stated it will 

take until at least 2020 to determine if CCS is commercially proven and a technology deemed 

"best system of emission reduction" of CO2 is shared by other governmental and regulatory

agencies.

Response 6.3-344: These commenters are referring to full CCS being available as a retrofit 

technology. The BSER determination for new sources involves neither of these. With regard to 

Alstom, the EPA notes Alstom’s public statements that CCS works, that it is cost effective, and 
6-224

also notes that Alstom has provided public cost estimates for CCS consistent with those of 

NETL. See preamble sections V.F.3 and V.I.2.c. See also statement of Alstom senior Vice 

President for Power and Environment Policies Joan Macnaughton’s statement (August 4, 2011): 

“AEP’s decision to put Mountaineer II on-hold (sic) is a bellwether to our leaders on the 

consequences of uncertain climate policy. The Validation Plant at Mountaineer demonstrated 

the ability to capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide from a stream of the plant’s emissions. 

The technology works. But without clear policies in place outlining options for cost recovery, 

power generators are hard-pressed to invest in its continued refinement.” The press release 

further states that Vice President Macnaughton “presented findings from a recently-conducted 

cost analysis showing that the cost of electricity generated by coal and natural gas plants 

equipped with CCS is competitive with other low or no-carbon energy carbon energy sources, 

such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and nuclear.”66 

Comment 6.3-345: Commenter 10085 proposed that EPA rely on subsequent statutory reviews 

of the final rule to determine when CCS becomes adequately demonstrated and ready to 

incorporate into NSPS.

Response 6.3-345: The EPA has reasonably determined that partial CCS, with a highly efficient 

SCPC, is BSER now.

Comment 6.3-346: Commenter 9666 stated that a facility in the planning or construction stages 

provides no evidence that CCS can operate reliably or efficiently, no accurate evidence regarding 

the cost as costs may continue to rise substantially until construction is complete, and no 

guarantee that it will reach completion and become operational.

Response 6.3-346: See preamble sections V.D and V.E explaining operating facilities show that 

CCS is a demonstrated, effective, and reliable technology.

Comment 6.3-347: Commenter 10095 stated that pre- and post-combustion CCS demonstration 

projects are technologically different, are not interchangeable, not demonstrated at the 

commercial scale, and thus, cannot be comingled to justify partial CCS as being Adequately 

Demonstrated. The commenter further asserted that EPA cannot claim an emission standard 

based on partial CCS provides equivalent levels of operational and design flexibility without 

properly analyzing the potential for pre- and post-combustion CCS applications because the 

flexibility, if any, will clearly be different.

Response 6.3-347: The EPA is considering post- and pre-combustion CCS independently, and 

also assessing costs of each independently. See preamble sections V.D. and E. and V.H.4., 5. 

And 7.

Comment 6.3-348: Commenter 9666 remarked that EPA's only achievability analysis is based 

on its estimates of CCS performance using pre-combustion CO2 separation technology, which 

can be implemented only at IGCC units. Therefore, the commenter stated that EPA has not 

demonstrated that the proposed NSPS is achievable for units firing PC.

 

66 See 

http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR_JMacN_CCSbriefing_FINAL.pdf
6-225

Similarly, Commenter 9486 stated that EPA's examples only include coal gasification facilities, 

not standard coal fired plants.

Response 6.3-348: See preamble section V.J.

Comment 6.3-349: Commenter 9666 discussed the difference between commercially 

availability and commercially proven, and stated that the evolution of a control technology from 

FOAK to NOAK is unchartered and includes significant economic and technological risks. 

Similarly, Commenter 9597 stated that because no one has experience designing, installing and 

operating an EGU with CCS, the risks will be too great to build a new coal plant. Commenter 

9426 further commented that there are several types of capture systems, each of which must go 

through FOAK before reaching NOAK costs.

Response 6.3-349: Post-combustion CCS is successfully demonstrated at the Boundary Dam 

facility. Vendors are actively promoting the technology, using cost estimates consistent with 

those estimated here. See preamble sections V.F. and V.I.2.b. 

Comment 6.3-350: Commenter 9593 stated that EPA's proposal ignores the difference between 

showing that a control technology is adequately demonstrated and establishing an associated 

emission limit that is achievable. The commenter noted that EPA is proposing partial CCS as 

BSER despite the successful deployment on an EGU in a full scale operation, and EPA's reliance 

on case law to support this determination ignores that the cases that have reviewed past NSPS 

standards have not involved a BSER determination that had not been deployed at all on operating 

sources in the source category. 

Response 6.3-350: CCS is deployed on operating facilities. The commenter is mistaken as a 

matter of law that a BSER must be deployed on all operating sources, which would indeed defeat 

the whole purpose of a new source standard which is to reflect best system of emission 

reduction, not some type of least common denominator.Commenter 0775 noted that one of the 

five planned coal plants listed in the EIA database does include CCS, but that project, Medicine 

Bow Fuel & Power LLC, is not a power plant and may not need post-combustion CCS in order 

to capture and store its carbon emissions.

A source which is not a power plant is not an affected EGU, and so is not subject to the 

promulgated NSPS.

Comment 6.3-351: Commenter 9396 stated that EPA is imposing a requirement that dictates the 

combustion and control technology, which would generally be collaborative decided by State 

public utility commissions, municipal utility commissions, and cooperative boards and 

associated electric utilities, through the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process taking into 

account local conditions and multiple factors to make the critical choices of what type of plant to 

build and what fuel to use. 

Response 6.3-351: The EPA is not requiring sources to use a particular technology, nor does the 

final standard of performance force use of a particular technology. There are a variety of 

potential compliance alternatives available, including IGCC with natural gas co-firing, and 

SCPC with natural gas co-firing.
6-226

Comment 6.3-352: Commenter 9195 provided the following list of questions for EPA:

a. Are any of these 12 projects a full-scale, base-load electric power plant?

b. Do any of these 12 projects currently have a final Class VI well permit?

c. For each of these 12 projects, please provide:

A general description of the project, its location, and the electric generating capacity of the 

project, and the specific type of fuel the project uses; The approximate date any planning initially

began for the project or a previous iteration of the project; The current status of the 

project, Estimated completion date of the project; Planned operating life of the project.; A 

technical description of the capture technologies, including detailed disclosure of any chemicals 

used in these systems; Documentation of any commercial guarantees for capture technologies 

used in conjunction with any projects receiving federal funding; Volume of C02 currently 

captured; the annual volume of C02 anticipated to be captured when fully operational; and the

total volume of C02 anticipated to be captured over the lifetime of the project; Explain where, 

how, and under what regulatory and reporting systems the C02 will be stored; The total federal, 

state, or municipal financial assistance the project has received or anticipates obtaining. Please 

include any grants, tax incentives, loan grantees, or rate recovery mechanisms; Explain the 

parasitic load factor of the entire carbon capture, compression, transport, and storage system. 

Explain how this impacts the efficiency of the project as compared to the project without 

CCS; Explain how the project foot print is impacted by the CCS system; Provide the percentage 

of the overall cost of the project that is predominately related to the CCS portion of the 

project; List any objections made to the project by any stakeholders, environmental groups, 

NGOs, or other individuals. Provide petitions for any challenges or objections that are currently 

pending. For any objections that have been resolved, provide concessions or alterations made 

that allowed the project to move forward. 

d. isn't there a difference between demonstrating the components of CCS and demonstrating 

CCS as a fully integrated system?

e. How does EPA explain these apparent inconsistencies between EPA's finding and EPA-cited 

and co-draft studies?

f. Please identify all: 

Post-combustion coal projects EPA has cited or is aware of; Post-combustion natural gas projects 

EPA has cited or is aware of; Pre-combustion CCS projects currently capturing and storing C02 

at coal power plants that EPA has cited or is aware of; Pre-combustion CCS projects currently

capturing and storing C02 at natural gas power plants that EPA has cited or is aware of; CCS 

power plant projects proposed or under construction that EPA has cited or is aware of; Other 

non-power generation CCS projects currently capturing and storing C02 at the same scale that 

would be required in the power generation context- at least 1,000,000 tons C02 per year. How 

long has any such project been continuously capturing, injecting, and monitoring at this scale? 

What legal and regulatory systems are any such projects operating under? 
6-227

Response 6.3-352: See preamble sections V.D. and V.E. The EPA has issued six class VI

permits to date, to Archer Daniels Midland and FutureGen. Issues of parasitic load are addressed 

in preamble section V.O.3.

Comment 6.3-353: Commenter 8024 stated that, to date, Congress has not authorized programs 

to accelerate the large-scale commercial demonstration of CCS technologies beyond the 

relatively modest programs funded through the Office of Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of 

Energy and as a result CCS has not adequately demonstrated.

Response 6.3-353: See preamble sections V.D. and V.E.

Comment 6.3-354: Commenter 9194 noted that every proposed NSPS, except for 

this NSPS, had vendor performance guarantees at the time of the proposal. Commenter 10046 

also discussed the absence of vendor guarantees as an indication that CCS is not adequately 

demonstrated.

Response 6.3-354: There are in fact vendor guarantees for CCS. See preamble section V.F.

Promotion of Technological Development

Comment 6.3-355: Commenters 7977, 10098, 10618 stated that EPA mischaracterizes and 

overstates the technology-forcing nature of the NSPS provisions. According to commenters 

10098, 10239, because CCS remains an emerging technology that cannot be effectively 

implemented today, EPA cannot require its use in coal-fired EGUs because the NSPS is effective 

upon proposal and not at some later undeterminable date when technological advances may

occur. 

Commenter 7977 stated that the proposed rule sets a standard which forces the use of an 

experimental, currently infeasible technology, a factor that is not implicit in Section 111(b) of the 

CAA or explicit within the statute. The commenter stated that the proposed rule, which relies 

upon technology forcing to justify the proposed standard, exceeds relevant authority.

Commenter 10239 stated that nothing in section 111 or the EPA's implementing regulations 

mandates that the EPA must consider whether the system promotes the implementation and 

further development of technology.

Response 6.3-355: See preamble section III.H.3.d and responses on this issue in chapter 2 of this 

RTC.

Comment 6.3-356: Commenters 1624, 9033, 9196, 9426, 9666, 9683, 9780, 10046, 10098, 

10100, 10239, 10618, 10662 stated that the proposal will impede or stop CCS development. 

Commenters 9196, 9426, 9683, 10046, 10098 stated EPA's reliance on CCS in the proposed rule 

is likely to impede, rather than promote, the development of CCS technology because it will 

have the practical effect of preventing any new coal-fired EGUs from being built. 

According to commenters 9033, 9196, without new coal plants, it is unlikely technology

developers will continue to invest in CCS development. The commenters noted that with 
6-228

decreased coal, there will be decreased R&D and investment into CCS technology. Commenter 

9033 cites the slowing pace of private and public investment world-wide in CCS projects as 

shown in the annual survey of the Global Capture and Storage Institute. Commenters 9196, 

10100 stated that increased costs associated with CCS for coal-fired EGUs and resulting 

increased electricity prices from such units would yield few, if any, merchant power companies 

or regulated electric utilities that are likely to invest in a new coal-fired power plant with CCS 

and as a result, CCS technology will not be developed, refined or improved so as to make 

it technologically or economically viable. Commenter 9780 stated that given current market 

realities, the key for driving CCS technology development at this point is not a regulatory

requirement, but rather government financial assistance. The commenter concluded that without 

substantial federal financial assistance, no additional CCS projects on coal-based EGUs are 

expected to be built in the U.S., and, as a result, there will be no further CCS development. 

Commenter 9666 stated that EPA's proposed NSPS will have the opposite effect (to promoting 

technological development) by foreclosing further CCS demonstration projects at commercial 

power plants. According to the commenter, a standard that requires all new coal-fired units to 

operate CCS cannot promote CCS if it simultaneously prevents the construction of any new coalfired units, as EPA's proposed standard does. Commenters 9196, 9780 also stated that beyond the 

exorbitant costs of CCS, requiring new Subpart Da sources to use unproven technology to meet 

an unachievable emission limit with significant penalties for noncompliance will only discourage 

investment in these units.

Response 6.3-356: See preamble section V.I.4. We again note that AEP took exactly the 

opposite position in its earlier public statements on this issue, as did Alstom.

Comment 6.3-357: Commenter 10100 stated that the proposal will encourage the export of coal 

to China and other developing nations without creating incentives for commercialization of CCS 

to control coal-fired CO2 emissions.

Response 6.3-357: See preamble section V.I.4.

Comment 6.3-358: Commenter 9664 stated that the additional costs associated with moving the 

technology forward are justified and reasonable. The commenter cited the RIA noting that 

sequestration costs can be defrayed with the revenue of captured CO2 to EOR operations. 

According to the commenter, , it is relevant to the technology-forcing and forward looking 

aspects of section 111 standard-setting that the costs associated with CCS technology

applications are expected to decrease over time.

Response 6.3-358: The EPA largely agrees with these comments, although we note that costs of 

the standard of performance are reasonable even if those costs are not defrayed by a facility

utilizing EOR opportunities.

Comment 6.3-359: Commenters 9664 and 10108 cited Sierra Club v. Costle 657 F.2d at 341, 

346-47 and S. Rep. No. 91-1196 (1970) at *16 noting that EPA can, and to be consistent with 

Congressional intent, must encourage emerging technologies through the form and structure of 

this standard. Commenter 10108 agrees with EPA's conclusion that the proposed NSPS will 

advance these goals by identifying CCS as BSER for coal-fired power plants, lowering the cost 

of the technology through learning-by-doing and encouraging further research and development 
6-229

by DOE/NETL, referencing SaskPower's investment in the Boundary Dam project that appears 

to be driven in part by Canadian carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. 

Response 6.3-359: See preamble section III.H.5.d.

Comment 6.3-360: Commenter 9514 stated that NSPS standards must be forward-looking and 

technology-forcing. Referencing Portland Cement Ass'n, 486 F.2d at 391 and Essex Chem. 

Corp., 486 F.2d 427, the commenter stated that the "best system of emission reduction" need not 

be in actual commercial use in the regulated industry at the time the standards are initially set. 

Response 6.3-360: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-361: Commenter 8925 stated that by requiring CCS, the proposed rule raises the 

hurdle substantially for companies interested in developing innovative coal technologies such as 

IGCC plants. The commenter noted that with significantly lower incremental costs of capture 

and lower heat rate penalties than pulverized coal plants, IGCC has been viewed as one key

pathway forward on CCS, but there are only a few operating IGCC plants in the world so there is 

still much to learn about it. According to the commenter, experience-based cost and performance 

improvements for IGCC will not be possible under the proposed regulation without incurring the 

additional cost, time, effort and risk of deploying CCS.

Response 6.3-361: The standard of performance does not require use of CCS or any other 

technology. We specifically note that IGCC with natural gas co-firing is a potential alternative 

compliance pathway. The EPA consequently does not agree with this comment.

Comment 6.3-362: Commenters 9497, 10664 stated that the EPA's intention to promote CCS 

through the proposed rule goes counter to objectives and is a disincentive for the development of 

other technologies. Commenter 10664 stated that Congress did not seek to promote one 

technology over all others, and cited congressional testimony regarding the topic. 

Commenter 10239 stated that alternative control technologies are dismissed because they do not 

promote the development of CCS, which the commenter described as arbitrary, capricious, and 

unlawful for several reasons.

Response 6.3-362: The final standard of performance can be met by any means of a source’s 

choice, and there are alternative compliance pathways that do not involve use of CCS.

Comment 6.3-363: Commenters 9408, 9657 stated their concern that this rulemaking may

become an insurmountable barrier to the prospective construction and operation of new coalfired electric generation units, thereby compromising a desirable level of energy supply diversity

in our nation and in our community. The commenters stated their lack of support for policies that 

mandate fuel switching, directly or indirectly, should be promulgated as a reasonable means of 

complying with an emission standard. 

Commenter 9426 stated that it is unlikely that electric generators would choose unproven CCS 

technology if a less risky alternative in NGCC is available. The commenter stated that it is 
6-230

difficult to understand how the proposal would somehow cause generators to pursue coal with 

CCS over NGCC

Response 6.3-363: See preamble section V.I.4.

Comment 6.3-364: Commenter 9201 stated that EPA's rule does not incentivize technology and 

EPA's rationale is flawed. The commenter stated that there is no incentive to develop CCS, and 

additionally creates a disincentive by inducing construction of NGCC units that are not burdened 

with the costs and technological uncertainties associated with CCS. According to the commenter, 

the proposed rule does not induce better performance from NGCC and the standard is 

substantially higher than what can be achieved with the best existing technology. The commenter 

noted that they are not suggesting EPA mandate CCS for NGCC units, but simply pointing out 

inherent contradiction between the agency's reasoning for setting a standard for new coal plants 

based upon CCS and the standard for NGCC units. The commenter provided the analogy to 

DOE's incentive example for lightbulbs in which EPA would in effect be requiring certain 

manufacturers of light bulbs to become more efficient while exempting others. The commenter 

concluded that EPA's reasoning is an arbitrary decision and does not satisfy the legal 

requirements of CAA section 111.

Response 6.3-364: See preamble section V.L. and V.I.4.

Comment 6.3-365: Commenters 9666, 10662 stated that any CCS-based standard unlawfully

dictates the choice of technology that Subpart Da sources must use. 

According to commenter 9666, this violates section 111(b)(5) of the Act, which provides that 

nothing under section 111 shall be construed "to authorize the Administrator to require any new 

or modified source to install and operate any particular technological system of continuous 

emission reduction to comply with any new source standard of performance." The commenter 

noted that the proposed NSPS for Subpart Da sources could not be met with anything other than 

CCS.

Commenter 10662 stated that under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B)(5), EPA cannot require any 

particular system of continuous emission reduction.

Response 6.3-365: The commenters are mistaken. The final standard of performance is a 

numerical limit which can be met by any means a source chooses. The EPA has further shown 

that there are alternative compliance pathways available which do not need to utilize CCS, which 

compliance pathways are also demonstrated, available at reasonable cost, and do not have 

collateral adverse environmental or energy utilization impacts.

Comment 6.3-366: Commenters 9666, 10662 stated that EPA cannot use section 111 to mandate 

the use of unproven control systems under the guise of "promoting technological development." 

Commenter 10046 stated that it is unlikely that Congress provided discretion in section 111(b) 

for EPA to impose a mandate that would retard development of the technology that EPA is trying 

to force. 
6-231

Response 6.3-366: See preamble section III.H.5.d. and other comment responses in RTC 2 on 

this issue.

Comment 6.3-367: Commenters 9666, 10046 stated EPA cannot select as BSER a technology

that has not been adequately demonstrated based on an asserted interest in "promoting 

technological development." According to the commenters, requiring CCS will actually hinder 

its development by discouraging construction of new Subpart Da units. 

Commenter 10046 compared the EPA's FGD technology forcing NSPS with that for CCS, and 

noted that now, alternative fuels are available.

Response 6.3-367: The EPA has not selected a BSER solely to promote use of a technology, 

and its determination would be the same whether or not it considered this factor. See preamble 

section III.H.5.d.

Comment 6.3-368: Commenter 9666 stated the effective way to encourage technological 

innovation is to provide developers with greater regulatory flexibility, as the D.C. Circuit 

recognized in Sierra Club by allowing EPA to promulgate a less stringent flexible standard that 

could be met by units experimenting with promising (yet unproven) dry scrubber technology. 

657 F.2d at 351.

Response 6.3-368: The final standard of performance in fact can be achieved a number of 

different ways of which the EPA is aware.

Comment 6.3-369: Commenter 9666 stated EPA provides no support for its assertion that "not 

identifying partial CCS as the BSER could potentially impede further utilization and 

development of CCS." 79 Fed. Reg. at 1480. According to the commenter, the Agency has 

identified several projects currently under construction or in development that plan to integrate 

CCS, despite the fact that those projects are not subject to any CO2 emission limit based on the 

use of CCS, and therefore it is unclear why EPA believes the current regulatory status quo that 

has led to these projects would impede other similar projects from being developed in the future. 

Commenter 9426 stated that the EPA contradicts itself by stating that few if any solid fossil-fuel 

EGUs will be built in the foreseeable future, and that a standard for new coal-fired EGUs based 

on partial capture "promotes deployment and further development of the technology."

Commenters 7977, 10662 stated that there is a distinction between technology forcing and 

encouraging technological innovation, and section 111(j) of the CAA specifically provides for 

the promotion, development, and deployment of innovative technological systems of continuous 

reduction for technologies like CCS that have not been adequately demonstrated. The commenter 

stated that, section 103(g) of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to conduct a basic 

engineering research and technology program to develop non-regulatory technologies and 

strategies.

Commenter 10046 stated that if the EPA's proposal will not promote the development of CCS 

technology, then EPA has no legitimate basis to proceed.
6-232

Commenter 10046 stated that the EPA should analyze whether the performance standard 

enhances or diminishes CCS technology or economic risk, or whether the addition of 

environmental compliance risk (requiring CCS) for one fuel (coal) but not the other (gas) does 

anything other than force companies to build gas units and avoid coal units. 

Commenter 10046 noted that the statue and applicable case law require EPA to set a different 

standard if in fact the standard it proposes to set would stymie CCS development. The 

commenter provided citations to support their statement.

Response 6.3-369: The EPA’s task is to identify a best system of emission reduction adequately

demonstrated and to set a standard predicated on performance of that technology. The EPA has 

done so here. The final standard of performance will encourage new sources – indeed will

compel them – to emit less CO2 than they would if doing business as usual. Moreover, it is well 

documented that a regulatory requirement often brings a great influx of technological innovation. 

See preamble section V.K. and L., and TSD documenting the history of technological innovation 

following the 1971 NSPS for this same industry. We again note that AEP and Alstom, in prior 

public statements extolling CCS technology reliability and cost-effectiveness, indicated the 

importance of a firm regulatory framework to promote use of CCS.

Comment 6.3-370: Commenter 9201 stated EPA's assertions about the proposed rule's ability to 

incentivize technological innovation are not adequately explained in the face of the unavailability

of CCS technology for commercial power generators. Thus, the commenter noted, EPA's 

decision to set CCS as BSER over other technologies that represent significant CO2 reductions 

and incentivize technological innovation of efficient coal generation is unreasoned and arbitrary.

Response 6.3-370: CCS is an available technology.

Comment 6.3-371: Commenter 10048 stated that in the absence of environmental benefits, it 

appears that EPA's overriding reason for proposing the rule is to provide an incentive to promote 

adoption of CCS technology; however, as EPA is well aware, CCS is a complex, costly and 

legally challenging technology that will not be adopted when more cost-effective and less 

complicated generation alternatives are available.

Response 6.3-371: As shown in RIA 4, new non-compliant coal technology is not being 

constructed, for reasons unrelated to this NSPS. New coal capacity is a technology now being 

adopted as a means of preserving a diverse energy portfolio, or some other reason than lower 

cost. The promulgated standard of performance preserves that alternative by leaving new coal 

priced competitively with other baseload dispatchable non-NGCC technologies. Moreover, 

should there be very significant increases in natural gas prices, there may be renewed interest in new 

coal plants. Issuing a standard that allows construction of new high-emitting coal plants without a 

CCS requirement therefore poses a nontrivial risk of increased emissions and further exacerbation to 

climate. Given their long lifetimes, construction of new high-emitting coal plants could lock in their 

higher emissions for many decades to come. See preamble section V.K.
6-233

Nationwide, Long-Term Perspective

Comment 6.3-372: Commenter 9735 stated that the proposed rule provides no graduated or 

realistic targets over the long-term, but rather immediately sets a low baseline emissions target 

that cannot currently be achieved on a large-scale or cost-effectively. The commenter further 

stated that it is necessary to encourage investment in advanced emissions reduction technologies 

while working toward CCS. 

Response 6.3-372: The EPA has reasonably determined that partial CCS, with highly efficient 

SCPC, is BSER now. The EPA must therefore establish a standard of performance reflecting 

performance of that BSER.

Comment 6.3-373: Commenter 9664 discussed the authority of EPA to adopt standards and 

technologies without requiring a cost-benefit analysis at the plant level as long as the response to 

the problem and the pollution reduction benefits can be justified at the regional or national level 

through a broad assessment (see Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d. at 329-332, S. Rep. No. 95-127 

(1977) and H. Rep. No.95-294 (1977)).

Response 6.3-373: The EAP largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-374: Conversely, Commenter 9666 stated that the Agency may not set an NSPS 

based on national-scale considerations if it would impose unreasonable costs, environmental 

impacts, or energy requirements at the individual plant level, rather that the CAA only permits 

EPA to consider long term effects once it has determined that source-level impacts are consistent 

with the statutory criteria for NSPS (also citing Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 330). The 

commenter suggested that EPA improperly focuses on the costs and effects of its CCS mandate 

on a nationwide, long-term scale at the expense of considering its effects on individual new 

sources.

Response 6.3-374: The EPA has considered both plant-level impacts and national impacts in its 

determinations here.

Comment 6.3-375: Commenter 9774 states that the NSPS for coal-fired power plants cannot be 

based on CCS at this time, and that EPA must correct the NSPS deficiencies and modify the rule 

to exclude sources that are inappropriately regulated in order to avoid significant issues within 

the utility sector, including possible delays in CO2 emission reductions.

Response 6.3-375: The EPA disagrees. See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-376: Commenter 9425 suggested that these regulations may force several power 

plants to shut down in a relatively short amount of time. The commenter remarked upon the need 

for states to have enough time to work with EPA to understand the impacts to fuel diversity and 

energy reliability in setting the standards, as well as the implementation and timing of the 

standards.

Response 6.3-376: These standards apply to new sources exclusively, or to modified and 

reconstructed sources. There is no question that such a source would be ‘shut down’ when not 

yet in existence.
6-234

Comment 6.3-377: Similarly, Commenters 9201, 6429 and 9666 discussed the potential impact 

of CCS on diversity of fuel supply for the electric grid in terms of both reliability and 

affordability. Commenter 9666 also stated that although the EPA recognizes that protecting fuel 

diversity is important and that the costs of CCS will render construction of new coal-fired 

capacity infeasible under the proposed standard, EPA incorrectly assumes that the CCS mandate 

will not increase energy prices or change the structure of the energy sector. Commenters 9201, 

6429 and 9666 suggested that because coal will be uncompetitive with natural gas due to CCS, 

the grid will become less diverse, more susceptible to price spikes and disruptions, and it will be 

less certain that additional natural gas-fired capacity will reliably meet the basic demand for 

electricity. Commenter 9426 provided the price increases during the polar vortex as an example, 

and stated that the proposed standard will distort the true cost of natural gas. 

Response 6.3-377: Coal is already economically non-competitive with natural gas. See RIA 

chapter 4. See preamble section V.I.4. as to why basing a standard of performance on partial 

CCS will not discourage new coal capacity or use of CCS. Again, AEP was of the considered 

public view that CCS represents a lifeline for the industry, not a millstone.

Comment 6.3-378: Commenter 10870 also stated its concern that the Proposed Rule will result 

in the elimination of coal from the nation's fuel portfolio rather than more fuel diversity, leading 

to less reliable and less affordable electricity as well as less effectively controlled sources of 

power generation needed for the economy. The commenter further asserted that uncertainty of 

additional requirements under Section 111(d) will effectively end development of coal-fired 

electric utility units unless the Proposed Rule is written to exclude any new requirements during 

the life of the plant.

Response 6.3-378: The standard of performance adopted here does not apply to existing 

facilities.

Comment 6.3-379: Commenter 10048 stated that the majority of renewable energy options are 

not baseload resources. Additionally the commenter remarked that no significant new nuclear 

generation is planned, therefore fuel diversity can be expected to decrease.

Response 6.3-379: Public announcements including IRPs confirm that utilities are interested in 

technologies that could provide or preserve fuel diversity within generating fleets. The Integrated 

Resource Plan TSD notes examples where the goal of fuel diversity was considered in IRPs; in 

many cases, these plans considered new generation that would not rely on natural gas. In 

particular, several utilities that considered fuel diversity in developing their IRPs included new 

nuclear generation as a potential future generation strategy. See also Global CCS Inst, “The 

Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies” (2015)p. 1 finding that “[n]uclear 

generation plant as well as hydro and geothermal platn can also be cost competitive ins ome 

markets fiven thei high utilisation rates (i.e. can be oeprated 80 to 90 per cent of the time)”.

Comment 6.3-380: Commenter 9666 remarked that EPA incorrectly assumes in Section II that 

in the future, coal units without CCS will not be competitive with natural gas units not subject to 

CCS. The commenter further suggested that coal only becomes uncompetitive once a costly and 

undemonstrated CCS is imposed.
6-235

Response 6.3-380: See RIA chapter 4.

Comment 6.3-381: Commenter 9666 also stated that requiring CCS will not promote coal-fired 

generation by eliminating future obligatory controls uncertainty as EPA purports since this 

would be true of any final action EPA takes, regardless of the level of control 

chosen. Furthermore, the commenter states that this rulemaking does not confer any advantage 

because any source that is subject to this proposed NSPS would not be subject to future NSPS 

controls or revised standards since the controls would apply only proactively, and sources could 

avoid falling under the revised standard by foregoing modification or reconstruction.

Response 6.3-381: See preamble section V.L and K. (documenting, among other things, the 

spurt in technological innovation after promulgation of NSPS based on FGC scrubber technology

less well developed than CCS at a comparable point in the regulatory timeline), and see also 

statements of AEP that regulatory uncertainty was a factor in the decision not to proceed with the 

Mountaineer demonstration project. 

Comment 6.3-382: Commenter 9191 stated that each of the facilities cited by EPA involve 

unique circumstances that do not render CCS appropriate for nationwide application

Response 6.3-382: The EPA disagrees. See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-383: Commenter 10052 stated that CCS is infeasible in much of the country due 

to pipeline capacity, site availability and demonstration projects.

Similarly, Commenter 9408 stated that CCS will be particularly difficult to deploy in some 

geologic formations and implored EPA not to promulgate any standard that relies on CCS in

those areas. For example, Florida has an artesian aquifer that underlies the entire State and is a 

source of potable water for every community in Florida. Because of the aquifer's relative 

importance, the commenter suggested that it is unlikely that subsurface CCS will ever be allowed 

in Florida, nor is the risk of potentially compromising the resource by injecting CO2 into it or 

through it acceptable. The commenter also suggested it is improbable that other State would 

accept Florida's CO2 emissions to be transported for permanent storage.

Response 6.3-383: See Section V.M. of the preamble and the technical support document on 

geographic availability. Potential GS formations are widely available in the United States. The 

EPA recognizes that geologic conditions to support CO2 storage may not exist in all regions of 

the country. Where such capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in those areas can be served 

by coal-fired power plants built in neighboring areas with geologic availability with generated 

electricity being supplied via transmission line, see Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability, 

or the CO2 can be transported to available GS sites via pipeline. For other of those areas, coalfired power plants are either not being built due to state law prohibition s against building such 

units, or other available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power plant 

meeting the promulgated NSPS to be sited. There are alternative means of complying with the 

final standards of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting 

difficulties based on lack of a CO2 repository would be obviated.

The EPA notes that Figure 1 of the technical support document on geographic availability shows 
6-236

the areas of Florida that are within 100 kilometers of a potential GS formation; electricity 

demand may be served by coal-fired electricity generation built in areas that are proximate with 

geologic sequestration, and this electricity can be delivered through transmission lines.

Comment 6.3-384: Commenter 9426 stated that public education and communication between 

communities and potential storage project proponents is needed to move forward on a large scale 

so that landowners are comfortable with the process, monitoring and verification elements of 

CCS. The commenter provided fracking as an example of possible public reaction. 

Response 6.3-384: Public awareness and support have been widely recognized as critical 

components in the development of new energy infrastructure, including CCS deployment. 

Efforts have been made to design strategies for successful outreach to the public. For example, 

under the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, DOE has been engaging with local 

communities to educate and inform them about planned pilot and demonstration projects in their 

areas. DOE’s Best Practices for Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects

presents lessons learned through the planning and implementation of CCS projects, as well as 

best practices for community engagement. 

Comment 6.3-385: Commenter 10089 stated that given the currently sparse CCS market, the 

electric power sector would be compelled to work from ground zero to become compliant with 

NSPS. The commenter recommended that further analysis is necessary to ascertain whether CCS 

is indeed the best system of emission reduction for new power plants. 

Response 6.3-385: The EPA disagrees. See preamble section V.

Comment 6.3-386: Commenter 0775 stated what while CCS may not meet desired cost and 

energy efficiency goals today, the regulation is a safeguard against coal as the dominant energy

source and stimulates CCS technology.

Response 6.3-386: The EPA disagrees with this comment on every count. Partial CCS is an 

adequately demonstrated technology within the meaning of section 111 (a) of the Act. The 

objective of a standard of performance is to have new plants perform to a level achievable by the 

performance of the BSER. It is not to be a safeguard against use of any particular technology, 

industrial process, or fuel source, and the EPA has no such objective here.

Energy and Nonair Quality Environmental Impacts

Comment 6.3-387: Commenters 9381, 9396, 9592, 9666, 9780 and 10100 stated that the subject 

has not been adequately assessed the as required by Section 111(a)(1). Commenter 9194 cited 

1973 and 1999 court decisions requiring that EPA fully assess non-air and economic impacts.

Commenters 9194, 9381, 9592, 9780 and 10100 noted that additional consideration of 

environmental impacts of CCS, such as reduced energy efficiency, increased coal use, increased 

water withdrawal and consumption, increased water discharges, and increased emissions of 

criteria and toxic pollutants, is required by EPA to meet statutory obligations.
6-237

Commenter 9396 cited a 2013 NETL report discussing the significant energy, efficiency, water 

use, air emissions and cost impacts that could result from partial CCS.

Response 6.3-387: The EPA has carefully considered potential nonair impacts of the final 

standard of performance, as required by CAA section 111 (a)(1). EPA has carefully considered 

the safety of transport and permanent sequestration of captured CO2 and has found reasonably

that the regulatory structures of 49 CFR Part 195 (for CO2 pipelines), and Class VI and Class II 

injection wells (for geologic sequestration and EOR, respectively), with the further 

complementary monitoring and reporting standards of GHGRP subpart RR, assures safe 

transport and permanent sequestration. EPA has also projected that, under a set of assumptions

where new non-compliant coal-fired capacity is added, there will be SO2 (and consequent 

secondary PM) reductions associated with use of partial CCS (due to the need for ultrahigh 

purity solvent). See RIA chapter 5.3 and Table 5.1. Issues of water use are addressed at 

preamble section V.O.2.

Comment 6.3-388: Commenter 9396 cited a NETL report to estimate that to meet EPA's 

proposed standard with an SCPC, it would require:

 a capture rate between 30 and 50%

 an additional 180,000 to 300,000 tons of coal each year

 a decrease in net fuel efficiency from 39% to 33-35% and heat rate from 8687 Btu/kWh 

to 9695-10379 Btu/kWh

 an increase in water withdrawal of 16-30% and consumption by 14-26%

 an increase of NOx, Hg, and PM by 2-7%

 the capital cost by 26-39%

 the operating cost by 30-43%

 and cost between $79 and 102 per tonne of CO2 avoided.

The commenter asserted that these results indicate a full energy and environmental impact 

assessment is warranted and has not been conducted.

Response 6.3-388: These estimates reflect full CCS. The final standard of performance has 

considerably reduced water use impacts, which the EPA has evaluated and found to be 

reasonable. See preamble section V.O.2.

Comment 6.3-389: Commenter 9596 stated that EPA should withdraw the NPR in order to 

evaluate the potential impact of CCS on groundwater and other environmental factors because 

the current proposal is arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the requirements of 

the statute. 

Response 6.3-389: EPA has carefully evaluated the risks of injected CO2 to underground 

sources of drinking water (which can include groundwater) in its rules for Class VI and Class II 

injection wells. Owners or operators of Class VI wells must develop and implement a 

comprehensive testing and monitoring plan for their projects that includes injectate analysis, 

mechanical integrity testing, corrosion monitoring, ground water and geochemical monitoring, 
6-238

pressure fall-off testing, CO2 plume and pressure front monitoring and tracking. Groundwater 

and geochemical monitoring is explicitly required. 67 Owners and operators must periodically

review the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate operational and monitoring data and the 

most recent area of review reevaluation.68

Comment 6.3-390: Commenter 10033 requested that EPA draw on lessons learned with MTBE 

to ensure that the benefits of CCS are carefully weighed against the costs and risks of geologic 

sequestration and CCS.

Response 6.3-390: Storage of a chemical in in-ground, unregulated tanks is in no way

comparable to the detailed and comprehensive regulatory requirements for CO2 geologic 

sequestration in Class VI wells, or the regulatory requirements for use of CO2 for EOR in 

regulated Class II injection wells.

Comment 6.3-391: Commenters 7977, 9648 and 10681 stated that EPA has not addressed 

parasitic loads.

Commenter 10681 further asserted that the final rule should allow parasitic loads on an IGCC 

system to be treated similarly to a utility boiler. Commenter 9648 stated that EPA must conduct a 

lifecycle energy consumption and emissions inventory evaluation and demonstrate that the 25 

percent and 50 percent partial capture rate associated with BSER for IGCC and conventional 

coal-fired utility boilers, respectively, are based on actual performance levels, and the risks 

associated with implementing a complex technology that delivers the needed emission 

reductions. 

Similarly, Commenters 7977, 9196, and 9780 stated that EPA must investigate how the CCS 

energy penalty of approximately 30% may impact the technical feasibility of CCS integrated 

with electricity generation and must be addressed by EPA. Commenter 10039 stated that the 

energy penalty is at least 40%, requires upsizing of EGU equipment, and results in higher 

emissions of pollutants. Commenters 9003 and 9648 also noted that additional energy

requirements can increase criteria air pollutants and toxic air pollutant emissions, as well as raise 

nonattainment concerns.

Commenters 10017, 10050, 10552 noted that it is inconsistent and wasteful for EPA to mandate 

a specific technology (CCS) that consumes a large power load in order to operate. Commenter 

7977 also discussed the environmental impacts of increased coal use.

Commenter 10618 cited the DOE and GAO estimates, up to 30% and 32% respectively, for the 

energy penalty associated with CCS. Commenter 8966 provided a citation stating that the energy

penalty may range from 12 to 28%. Commenter 9772 cited a 2013 CRS Report identifying 

energy penalties from 16 to 40%. Commenter 10680 cited a CRS report identifying energy

penalties 19 to 30%, or 10 to 100 times other currently employed control systems.

 

67 40 CFR §146.90.

68 40 CFR §146.90(j).
6-239

Commenter 8957 estimated that if plant that sequesters and retains 40% of its own emissions, 

it will only result in a 12% reduction from the uncontrolled plant for an equivalent net electrical 

output. The Commenter concludes that therefore, CCS is not currently economically viable due 

to the significant energy penalty nor is it necessarily environmentally beneficial.

Commenter 10048 stated that the additional power needed to offset the energy penalties, 

resulting in additional baseload units, carbon emissions and costs, should not be considered 

reasonable until the energy penalty is minimized. 

Response 6.3-391: The EPA has carefully addressed the issue of parasitic loads and finds the 

potential energy impacts to be reasonable at a per plant level. See preamble section V.O.3.

Comment 6.3-392: Conversely, Commenter 10108 suggested that the BSER determination has 

met the needs to assess the environmental impacts and notes that the energy penalty is 

anticipated to decrease as coal plants as efficiency and the availability of advanced technologies 

increase.

Response 6.3-392: The EPA largely agrees with this comment.

Comment 6.3-393: Commenters 9777 and 9780 also provided referenced estimates of some 

potential environmental impacts, including a 90%, 87% and 46% increase in water consumption 

for PC units, for SCPC units and for IGCC plants, respectively, as well as water requirements to 

compress and transport supercritical CO2. Commenter 9777 also cited NETL water consumption 

requirements for EGUs with CCS and stated that EPA should reconsider whether CCS is BSER 

due to water demands.

Response 6.3-393: See preamble section V.O.2.

Comment 6.3-394: Similarly, Commenters 9666 and 10039 stated that CCS will nearly double 

the amount of water required for energy generation at units subject to the proposed standard. 

Commenter 10039 stated that EPA must consider the impact on water supply and water quality. 

Commenter 9497 stated that the proposed rule does not address how water requirements may

affect reliability, especially in areas with water shortages.

Commenter 9777 provided results from a study that indicate CCS would increase water 

withdrawal by 5-7% and consumption by 88-100% by 2030. The commenter stated that water 

increases raise concerns about CCS feasibility due to water availability, water rights, and costs of 

long term water purchases, especially in states with water shortages. Commenter 9777 

recommended that operational data from a full scale plant would help address concerns regarding 

water consumption.

Commenter 9666 further stated that the placement of CCS needs to be balanced with water 

requirements and water availability, and EPA cannot adopt an NSPS that precludes construction 

of new sources at water-restricted areas in the U.S. in keeping with the CAA, relevant case law, 

and EPA's past practice (See Sierra Club, 657 F.2d at 330).

Response 6.3-394: See section V.O.2 to the preamble to the final rule.
6-240

Comment 6.3-395: Commenter 9770 stated EPA's environmental assessments never looked at 

the water management issues that result from CCS. The commenter observed that the EPA and 

DOE have never inquired of states whether they would anticipate, given that more than half of 

the states in the U.S. are in their second year of drought, whether this brackish water might be 

needed to augment surface and other groundwater resources. The commenter stated there are 

questions about the threat that injection of CO2 underground would pose to deep saline aquifers. 

According to the commenter, our municipal utilities have an obligation to protect existing and 

future drinking water resources located in deep saline aquifers, in addition to providing reliable, 

affordable and environmentally responsible electricity. The commenter agreed with AWWA 

regarding the potential threats to future municipal and private drinking water resources from 

CCS and about how those threats are relevant to EPA's BSER determination

Response 6.3-395: See preamble section V.O.2 for the EPA’s consideration of the issue of water 

use. Drinking water resources are the focus of protection under the Class VI and Class II UIC 

regulations. Preamble section V.N. explains why those rigorous standards result in protection of 

underground sources of drinking water, and that the siting and monitoring regime which achieves 

that protection also prevents releases of sequestered CO2 to the ambient air.

Comment 6.3-396: Commenter 9666 also stated that EPA has incorrectly attributed a larger 

water consumption to CCS at gas-fired power plants than coal-fired power plants, thus ruling out 

CCS as BSER for gas and not for coal plants. However, water consumption would be expected to 

increase by 70% at gas-fired plants and 90% and 87% for PC and SCPS units. The commenter 

remarked that the BSER determination effectively bans new coal-fired EGUs, reducing nation's 

baseload energy diversity and almost exclusively promoting natural gas due to permitting 

burdens for nuclear and hydroelectric energy generation.

Response 6.3-396: Water use issues are addressed at preamble section V.O.2. The final BSER 

determination does not ban new coal-fired EGUs, and (as expressed by AEP) may provide a 

means for continued use of coal in new facilities as part of the nation’s energy portfolio. 

Comment 6.3-397: Commenter 9195 provided the following list of questions in relation to sole 

source aquifers:

 How did EPA address the cross statutory issues related to the injection and sequestration 

of CO2 if the injection must go through a sole source aquifer?

 Please explain how EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and EPA's Office of Water 

communicated and considered the impact of the proposal on EPA's own special program 

dedicated to protection of sole source aquifers.

Response 6.3-397: See preamble section V.N.

Comment 6.3-398: Commenters 9648 and 9770 stated that EPA has not assessed the impacts of 

permanent storage of compressed gases. Commenter 9648 stated that the proposed rule transfers 

air pollution to other environmental media. Commenter 9648 further stated that altering pressure 

gradients could cause numerous health and environmental impacts.
6-241

Commenter 9648 also cited the SAB's concerns on cross-media issues and recommended that 

EPA request that NRC conduct an assessment.

Commenter 9648 also stated that a commercial sized partial CCS may not be feasible with power 

plants with limited space.

Response 6.3-398: EPA has carefully assessed the issues of geologic sequestration, and strongly 

disagrees with the commenters’ assertions that EPA has not studied the issue, and the cursory

assertion in comment 9648 that geologic sequestration of captured CO2 could lead to numerous 

adverse health and environmental impacts.69 In particular, the Class VI standards require very 

proscriptive site evaluation and on-going monitoring. Owners or operators of Class VI wells 

must develop and implement a comprehensive testing and monitoring plan for their projects that 

includes injectate analysis, mechanical integrity testing, corrosion monitoring, ground water and 

geochemical monitoring, pressure fall-off testing, CO2 plume and pressure front monitoring and 

tracking, and, at the discretion of the Class VI director, surface air and/or soil gas monitoring.70

Owners and operators must periodically review the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate 

operational and monitoring data and the most recent area of review reevaluation.71 Robust 

monitoring of the CO2 stream, injection pressures, integrity of the injection well, ground water 

quality and geochemistry, and monitoring of the CO2 plume and position of the pressure front 

throughout injection will ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment, preserve water 

quality, and allow for timely detection of any leakage of CO2 or displaced formation fluids. 

Comment 6.3-399: Commenter 10661 stated that EPA must address will increase in ammonia 

emissions, coal ash and boiler slag from CCS deployment, which cannot be captured using 

control technologies.

Response 6.3-399: The NETL cost estimates include costs for disposal of fly ash and bottom 

ash. See NETL (July 2015) at p. 43. Moreover, ash is generated as a result of coal combustion, 

not capture of the resulting CO2. With respect to ammonia emissions, new steam generating 

EGUs that choose to comply with the final standard of performance by implementing partial 

post-combustion CCS are likely to use commercially-available amine-based capture systems. 

Some concern has been raised regarding emissions of amines and amine degradation of amines 

(e.g., ammonia, NH3) from the capture process. To reduce the amine emissions, MHI introduced 

the first optimized washing system within an absorber column in 1994, and developed a 

proprietary washing system in 2003. In that system, a proprietary reagent is added to the water 

washing section to capture amine impurities such as amine, degraded amine, ammonia, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, carbonic acids and nitrosamines.72 MHI has continued to improve 

 

69 We note further that commenter 9648 (North Carolina DENR) did not submit any comments on the Class VI 

standards during the rulemaking developing those standards, even though the purpose of that rulemaking was to 

assure safety of geologic sequestration of captured CO2 from fossil-fuel fired power plants. See , e.g., 75 FR at 

77233 (Dec. 10, 2010). 

70 40 CFR §146.90.

71 40 CFR §146.90(j).

72 Sharma, S.; Azzi, M.; “A critical review of existing strategies for emission control in the monoethanolaminebased carbon capture process and some recommendations for improved strategies”, Fuel, 121, 178 (2014).
6-242

this technology for further reduction of amine emissions and established an “advanced amine 

emission reduction system”.

Research performed by MHI at Alabama Power’s Plant Barry indicated that an increasing SO3 

content in flue gas caused a significant increase of amine emissions. During testing, at Plant 

Barry MHI applied its proprietary washing system and confirmed that the amine emission were 

drastically reduced.73 Others have also studied emissions and control strategies and have 

determined that a conventional multi-stage water wash and mist eliminator at the exit of the CO2

scrubber is effective at removal of gaseous amine and amine degradation products emissions.

Additional research continues in this area

Comment 6.3-400: Commenter 9201 asserted that EPA failed to examine the impacts of 

increased methane emissions from natural gas development needed to supply the power sector. 

Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the GHG reductions from new high performing 

SCPC or IGCC would be about 20 percent below the national average for the existing coal fleet. 

Commenter 9201 therefore remarked that if EPA adjusted the methane global warming potential 

used in assessment studies to the most recent factor, shale gas has a greater GHG footprint than 

coal used for electricity over the 20-year time horizon. 

Response 6.3-400: The comment that the promulgated NSPS will lead to increase CH4 

emissions due to increased use of natural gas has no basis. New natural gas capacity is being 

added for reasons unrelated to this standard of performance. See RIA chapter 4. The commenter 

also evidently assumes CH4 emissions associated with natural gas production and transport are 

uncontrollable, which the EPA does not believe to be the case.

Comment 6.3-401: Commenter 10680 stated that upstream emissions from coal mining, 

processing and transport will be considerably higher because CCS plants will consume more 

coal.

Response 6.3-401: Issues of parasitic load are addressed at preamble section V.O.3. 

DOE/NETL estimates that a new SCPC unit would utilize about 4% more coal in order to meet 

the final 1,400 lb CO2/MWh standard (to provide the same net power output). However, since 

the EPA has specified that the BSER for new fossil fuel-fired steam generating units is “a highly 

efficient supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) unit implementing partial CCS”, a new unit 

meeting the final standard of performance will utilize less coal than a comparably-sized existing 

coal-fired plant that is less efficient.

Comment 6.3-402: Commenter 10693 stated their support for policies that require significant 

control technologies and the phasing out of conventional coal fired plants due to the health and 

air quality impacts associated with coal mining and use. Similarly, Commenter 8924 supported 

the EPA in addressing carbon pollution and requested that the final rule regulate coal fired plants 

to reduce emissions to the levels that they are capable of.

 

73 Kamijo, T.; et al., “SO3 Impact on Amine Emission and Emission Reduction Technology”, Energy Procedia, 

Volume 37, 1793 (2013).
6-243

Response 6.3-402: The final standards of performance represent a level of emission reduction 

capable of being achieved using a best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated. 

That is all that the EPA is empowered to do under section 111 (b). The standard has nothing to 

do with phasing out conventional coal fired plants, and, as AEP indicated in its public 

statements, may provide a means for new coal capacity in the future.

Comment 6.3-403: Commenter 6501 stated their support for the proposed CO2 limits due to the 

health and environmental impacts of air pollution and climate change.

Response 6.3-403: The EAP acknowledges the commenter’s support.

Comment 6.3-404: Commenter 9516 stated that the proposed rule allows CCS sources to credit 

electricity from unregulated sources used to power the gasifier and compressor when 

determining compliance.

Response 6.3-404: The EPA notes that steam generating unit means any furnace, boiler, or other 

device used for combusting fuel and producing steam (nuclear steam generators are not included) 

plus any integrated equipment that provides electricity or useful thermal output to the affected 

EGU(s) or auxiliary equipment.

Comment 6.3-405: Commenter 9682 stated that in the context of GHG regulation under the 

NSPS program, the energy-requirement and environmental-impact assessments prescribed by the 

statute are the same. The commenter noted that the whole reason for burning and thus emitting 

carbon dioxide is that fossil fuels are stores of energy. As a result, the commenter stated that 

what should be two distinct inquiries into "energy requirements" and "environmental impacts" 

impermissibly collapse, in the context of fossil-fuel burning, into one and the same assessment.

Response 6.3-405: The EPA has analyzed these two factors separately, and permissibly so. 

Issues of water use and safety of sequestered CO2 are not the same issues as energy use due to 

energy required to operate CO2 control technology. See preamble sections V.O.2. and 3.

Use of Purportedly Extra-Statutory "Purposes" to Justify Standard of Performance

Comment 6.3-406: Commenter 9514 stated EPA properly considered the costs of partial CCS in 

light of the benefits that will accrue from considering the social cost of carbon and the cobenefits from reduced emissions of other harmful pollutants, including SO2, NOx, and 

PM2.5. The commenter also stated EPA also appropriately considered, in compliance with the 

CAA, the co-benefits of reduced emissions of SO2 and NOx that would result from the proposed 

rule's CO2 emission limits. The commenter stated EPA's recognition of co-benefits is consistent 

with the methodology it applied in the MATS rulemaking, which also addressed the rule's 

positive impacts on emissions of related pollutants. According to the commenter, this 

methodology is also consistent with scientific studies linking policies to reduce greenhouse gases 

with shorter-term air quality co-benefits.

Response 6.3-406: EPA is finding that highly efficient SCPC and partial CCS is the BSER 

because it removes more emissions at reasonable cost (considering especially capital cost and 

LCOE, on a per plant basis), and does not have collateral adverse nonair health and 

environmental impacts, or impose undue energy burdens. This determination does not rest on 
6-244

any consideration of monetized emission reductions, nor does section 111 (a) dictate any

particular method (or metric) for considering costs. The EPA has also found that if new coal 

capacity is added, there are net quantified benefits under a range of assumptions, in the form of 

both CO2 reductions and reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants controlled incidentally by 

the standard. See RIA chapter 5. This may be another reason to find the standard to be 

adequately demonstrated considering costs. The EPA notes that SO2 is a criteria pollutant (and 

indeed, already regulated under NSPS for this industry), so no issue is raised regarding 

considering benefits of control of a pollutant not otherwise within the scope of section 111 

standards.

Comment 6.3-407: Commenter 9514 stated that although EPA is not required to engage in a 

traditional cost-benefit analysis, the degree of the pollution reduction benefits that a proposed 

standard would achieve must be considered along with the costs of achieving it. The commenter 

referenced Sierra Club, 657 F.2d at 314, 327-28 (upholding costly SO2 standards that would 

provide significant pollution benefits); and Essex Chem. Corp., 486 F.2d at 437 (acid mist 

standards were reasoned and cost benefit analysis was not required).

Response 6.3-407: EPA believes that its cost analysis, and its conclusions that the costs of the 

final standard are reasonable and not exorbitant, are in accord with both of these cited cases.

Comment 6.3-408: Commenter 9666 stated EPA does not separately measure the benefits 

associated with the control of CO2 emissions that would purportedly result from the proposed 

rule. Instead, the commenter noted, EPA estimates the combined benefits of reducing CO2, fine 

particulate matter, SO2, and NOx emissions. According to the commenter, if the purpose of the 

rule is to address CO2 emissions from EGUs, EPA cannot properly introduce its estimates of the 

purported benefits of controls of other emissions.

Response 6.3-408: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that EPA cannot 

properly introduce estimates of benefits associated with reductions in emissions of pollutants 

other than CO2. As a preliminary matter, the EPA notes that the determination that the costs of 

the rule are reasonable are based on the analysis in sections V.H. and I. of the preamble to the 

final rule. However, the EPA has also found that if new coal capacity is added, there will be net 

quantified benefits under a range of assumptions, in the form of both CO2 reductions and 

reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants that will occur due to implementation of the 

standard. See RIA chapter 5. This may be another reason to find the standard to be adequately 

demonstrated considering costs. The commenter’s statement that a BSER determination is 

limited to a single pollutant and that the positive effects on emissions of another air pollutant 

cannot be considered when deciding what is “best” does not make sense. Suppose technology A 

removed 100 units of CO2 and no other pollutants (or had a negative impact on other pollutants,

and technology B removed 99 units of CO2 and significant amounts of other air pollutants as 

well. The commenter suggests EPA would have to ignore the impact of technology B on air 

pollutants other than CO2 in deciding which one is the “best” system of emission reduction. This 

approach would not be consistent with the requirement that EPA must consider collateral 

impacts in determining which technology is “best” under section 111. See Essex Chemical 

Corp., 486 F. 2d at 439; Portland Cement. 486 F. 2d at 386. Moreover, the EPA notes that SO2 is 

a criteria pollutant (and indeed, already regulated under NSPS for this industry), so no issue is 
6-245

raised regarding considering benefits of control of a pollutant not otherwise within the scope of 

section 111 standards.

Comment 6.3-409: Commenter 9593 stated EPA cannot bolster its determination that partial 

CCS is adequately demonstrated with an extra-statutory assertion that it can choose a technology

or set a related emission limitation in order to achieve "meaningful reductions." According to the 

commenter, the amount of reductions that may be achievable is unrelated to a determination that 

a technology has been adequately demonstrated. The commenter stated EPA must set an 

emission limit at the level that is achievable by the demonstrated technology, not a limit that 

would result in GHG reductions that EPA deems meaningful. Additionally, the commenter stated 

EPA's criterion related to attaining "meaningful" reductions also directly conflicts with EPA's 

analysis that the proposed GHG NSPS, if adopted, will not reduce GHGs in any event because of 

what EPA predicts power plant deployments are likely to be in the next several years.

Response 6.3-409: The amount of emission reductions achieved is certainly a relevant factor in 

determining if a system of emission reduction is “best”. See. e.g., Sierra Club, 657 F. 2d at 326 

(“we can think of no sensible interpretation of the statutory words ‘best technological system’ 

which would not incorporate the amount of air pollution as a relevant factor to be weighed when 

determining the optimal standard for controlling ... emissions”). For the same reason, lowest 

emitting performers are best in determining the MACT floor under CAA section 112 (d) (3). See 

NRDC v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006.

Other BSER Options

Comment 6.3-410: Commenters (1377, 5853, 6118, 6644, 6871, 8024, 8032, 8348, 8957, 9001, 

9194, 9201, 9381, 9428, 9666, 9767, 9780, 10052, 10098, 10100, 10238, 10387, 10500, 10501, 

10618, 10929) stated that the EPA should consider other technologies rather than CCS as BSER. 

Commenters (2470, 8348, 8501, 8923, 8949, 8971, 9034, 9194, 9197, 9201, 9381, 9407, 9472, 

9472, 9593, 9595, 9596, 9665, 10017, 10048, 10098, 10100, 10466, 10500, 10680) noted 

that technologies such as SCPC, USCPC and IGCC generation have been adequately 

demonstrated and can serve as the basis for a BSER determination. Commenter (10618) stated 

that ultra-supercritical technologies are beginning to emerge as a cost-effective design 

preference, and have good prospects for growth. Commenters (9381, 9472, 10618) provided data 

showing CO2 reductions from SCPC and USCPC designs compared to typical existing coal-fired 

EGUs. 

Commenters (8348, 9197, 9665, 9666, 9772, 10388) recommended that EPA adopt a BSER 

determination for coal-fired boilers and IGCC units based on the emission rates achievable by 

IGCC, supercritical, and ultra-supercritical technologies without CCS.

Commenters (8024, 8957, 9001, 9428, 10048, 10238, 10387, 10501) suggested that EPA 

reconsider its proposal or withdraw and re-propose this rule to include these existing 

technologies.

Response 6.3-410: See preamble section V.P.1.
6-246

Comment 6.3-411: Commenter (10618) questioned the maturity and performance of the IGCC 

process, stating that while IGCC is technically feasible, it has not been adequately demonstrated. 

The commenter discussed the status of the Kemper and Edwardsport facilities, stating that both 

have experienced significant cost escalations throughout their design and construction and 

neither has been demonstrated to be equivalent or more efficient than other coal-based 

generation technologies. The commenter noted that a NETL database (cited in text) indicates at 

least 16 potential IGCC projects have been cancelled in the U.S. in recent years.

Response 6.3-411: The EPA is not selecting IGCC as BSER. See preamble section V.P.1.

Comment 6.3-412: Commenters (6962, 9768, 9766, 10029, 10035, 10664) suggested biotech 

uses for captured CO2. The commenters provided information about reuse to develop biofuels 

and other products, and recommended that these technologies be considered as BSER for carbon 

storage. Commenters (9766, 10029, 10664) noted that by foreclosing the beneficial reuse of 

captured CO2 to produce algae-based fuel, EPA has failed to take advantage of the opportunity

and has misapplied Section 111. 

Commenter (10029) provided cost benefits of biotech uses for CO2 compared to costs for carbon 

sequestration. The commenter asked that beneficial reuse technologies are not categorically

excluded technologies and may be used by affected EGUs, alone or in combination with other 

technologies, to meet the proposed CO2 emission limit.

Response 6.3-412: The final rule provides that types of storage of captured CO2 other than 

sequestration at an entity reporting under the subpart RR rules may be utilized, provided that an 

applicant makes a case-by-case demonstration that the storage method is as effective as geologic 

sequestration. See §60.5555(g) of the final rule.

Comment 6.3-413: Commenters (9107, 9497, 10035, 10106, 10237) discussed alternative 

technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from coal combustion. Commenters (9107, 9497) 

discussed a coal gasification processes. Commenter (10106) suggested co-firing of coal and 

natural gas as a form of emissions reduction. Commenter (10237) discussed concentrated solar 

power (CSP) as a means to achieve carbon reductions. 

Commenters (10664) suggested that an affected EGU should be allowed to use more than one 

technology to achieve the standard

Response 6.3-413: The final standard is a performance standard which can be met by whatever 

means the source chooses. EPA has specifically noted that natural gas co-firing is a potential 

alternative means of compliance for both PC and IGCC facilities, so that EPA agrees with the 

suggestion in comment 10106. 

Comment 6.3-414: Commenters (7977, 10618, 10680) stated that a BSER determination based 

on highly efficient generation technologies alone would produce significant emission reductions 

and other advantages. Commenter (9772) stated that EPA should not take away options for 

improving the efficiency of replacement baseload generation plants.
6-247

Commenter (10618) discussed the emission reductions possible with an NSPS based on the best 

performing existing units in the EPA's CAMD database. The commenter provided a table 

showing potential CO2 reductions in the case of replacement of existing units with ultrasupercritical units, and discussed other environmental benefits resulting from higher efficiency

technologies. 

Commenter (9486) compared the energy requirements of CCS and those emitted by a well 

operated USCPC unit, and stated that the actual emissions of CO2 from a newer technology coal 

fired EGU on a unit of energy delivered to the grid basis are essentially the same as those from a 

unit utilizing CCS. Commenter 10680 stated the parasitic load that CCS requires will increase 

emissions.

Commenter (10618) stated that efficiency-based improvements would be more readily

transferred to existing units than CCS technologies.

Commenter (9665) stated that these technologies, particularly IGCC units, also can be 

constructed to be CCS ready, which would enable them to be retrofitted with CCS equipment in 

the future. Commenter (9772) noted that highly efficient technologies would also lower barriers 

to future implementation of CCS as that technology matures.

Commenter (10618) stated that an NSPS based on higher efficiency technologies would drive 

future innovation, increase operating flexibility, and reduce development risks.

Commenter (10618) stated that a BSER determination based on high efficient generation 

technologies would enable even more advanced generation and emission control systems, 

including CCS, to be developed, demonstrated, and commercialized.

Commenters (8024, 9033) stated that a new generation of supercritical, ultra-supercritical and 

IGCC units is needed to support the deployment of second-generation CCS technologies, which 

DOE projects may cost roughly 50 percent less than current first generation 

technologies. Commenter (9033) has estimated that using best efficient technology and then 

upgrading the existing fleet, the industry can combine to exceed proposed targets for reduction in 

CO2 prior to 2020 and the next NSPS review.

Commenters (7977, 10618) stated that given the predicted high parasitic load of a CCS, higher 

efficiency technologies would use less coal, water, and raw materials with less resulting 

emissions, wastewater, and combustion byproducts.

Commenter (10030) stated that an NSPS predicated upon efficiency could be defensible as 

BSER based upon technology and economics.

Response 6.3-414: Use of highly efficient boilers is part of the BSER, but partial CCS is as 

well. See preamble section V.P.1. However, if a developer chose to construct highly efficient 

SCPC using natural gas co-firing, the standard of performance is achievable, and such a unit can 

be designed to be CCS ready.
6-248

Comment 6.3-415: Commenters (8348, 8923, 8957, 9033, 9201, 9381, 9590, 9593, 9665, 9772, 

10100, 10680) noted that selecting high efficiency boiler designs as BSER would provide the 

advantage of significant reductions of CO2 emissions over older plant designs. 

Commenter (9201) stated that because most of the current coal-fired EGU fleet is comprised of 

subcritical technology, a migration to new, higher efficiency SCPC technology as smaller and 

less efficient units are retired would produce real emissions benefits.

Commenter (9665) noted that there would be no downside to that approach, because few coalbased units will be built in the near future.

Commenters (9381, 10100) stated that for the same power output, a higher efficiency coal plant 

will require less CO2 to be captured; this means a smaller, less costly capture plant; lower 

operating costs; and less CO2 to be transported and stored.

Response 6.3-415: The final standard of performance is based on performance of a highly 

efficient SCPC with partial CCS. This BSER will result in even greater emission reductions than 

SCPC alone, no matter how efficient. See preamble section V.K.

Comment 6.3-416: Commenter (10017) stated that the reduction levels using current technology

are not only adequate, but necessary in order to ensure that the EPA develops a standard that is 

consistent with the approach used to develop the natural gas NSPS. The commenter noted that 

the emissions of new SCPC and IGCC units when compared to the average emissions from coalfired power plants represent a reduction of 25 and 36 percent respectively. The commenter stated 

that these reductions are more than twice the reductions proposed for natural gas plants.

Response 6.3-416: There are persuasive reasons not to base BSER for NGCC plants on 

performance of CCS. See preamble section IX.C.

Comment 6.3-417: Commenters (10098, 10618) stated that dismissal of other technologies is 

inappropriate. 

Commenter (10098) stated that basing the NSPS on energy efficiency technologies would spur 

innovations that would allow power plant operators and contractors to meet GHG emission limits 

in the most cost-effective manner. The commenter stated that the EPA failed to explore this 

possibility in the proposed rule, making its rejection of this option arbitrary and capricious.

Commenter (10618) stated that EPA's lack of evaluation of highly efficient generating 

technologies is inconsistent with Section 111(b)(3), which requires EPA to issue and take into 

account information on technologies that could be applied to the specific source category for 

which an NSPS is being developed.

Commenter (10017) stated that the NSPS is a technology-based standard, not an air quality

standard driven program. The commenter stated that the EPA should not use the NSPS in an 

attempt to reach some predetermined reduction standard or issue standards that support only

certain industries or technologies. The commenter recommended that the EPA should recognize 

existing operating technology to set the NSPS standard.
6-249

Response 6.3-417: The EPA agrees that section 111 (b) is a technology-based standard. 

Nonetheless, in determining what system of emission reduction is “best”, it is at the least 

reasonable to consider the extent of air pollution reduction. Partial CCS is a demonstrated 

technology available for deployment now at reasonable cost without collateral adverse impacts 

on other environmental media or on energy requirements. It achieves significantly more 

emission reductions than SCPC alone. See preamble section V.K. Partial CCS is therefore part 

of a best system. Commenter 10618’s reference to CAA section 111 (b)(3) is obscure. That 

provision requires EPA, from time to time, “issue information on pollution control technologies 

for categories of new sources and air pollutants subject to the provisions of this section”. This 

provision is unrelated to the process of setting a standard of performance, and in any case, the 

EPA has shown that partial CCS is a pollution control technology amendable for use (and 

actually being used) by fossil fuel fired steam electric generating units.

Comment 6.3-418: Commenters (10085, 10618) suggested that the EPA revisit the application 

of BSER and review information available through BACT determinations, EPA reports, 

demonstrated performance of international efforts, and the CAMD database. 

Commenter (10618) discussed their review of CAMD data for coal-based EGUs, and the 

comparison of CO2 emissions between units grouped by decade and the AEP Turk Plant.

Commenter (10618) provided a table summarizing international efforts evaluating highly 

efficient generating technologies.

Commenter (10618) provided a list of three EPA reports that evaluate highly efficient generating 

technologies.

Commenters (9201, 10098, 10618) discuss EPA reports and guidance that found these 

technologies to be effective methods of reducing GHG emissions. Commenters (9201, 10618) 

stated that consideration of these reports and other related information would clearly indicate that 

highly efficient generation technologies are the BSER upon which a balanced NSPS could be 

based. 

Commenter (9201) provided information about emission rates for facilities using SCPC units 

from the EPA CAMD database.

Response 6.3-418: See preamble section V.P. 1 and earlier comment responses in this unit. 

Please note in particular the analysis in section V.P.1 showing that new coal capacity would 

already reflect supercritical technology, so that a standard based on performance of that level of 

control would simply ratify a status quo, not result in emission reductions over baseline emission 

levels.

Comment 6.3-419: Commenters (10098, 10618) disagreed with the EPA's rationale to not 

promote highly efficient technologies because a standard using highly efficient technologies 

could impede the advancement of CCS technology. The commenters stated that basing the NSPS 

on energy efficiency technologies would spur innovations that would allow power plant 

operators and contractors to meet GHG emission limits in the most cost-effective manner. 

Commenter (10618) stated that further development of highly efficient technologies could 
6-250

actually benefit the development of CCS. Commenter (10618) asked if the EPA proposing an 

NSPS based on the use of the BSER, or is EPA proposing a CCS development rule.

Response 6.3-419: The final standard of performance is based on the section 111 (a) statutory

criteria: a best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated, and the level of 

performance achievable through use of that system of performance. 

Comment 6.3-420: Commenters (8032, 9201, 9590, 10092, 10097, 10098, 10395, 10618) stated 

that the EPA has ignored information about highly efficient generation technologies. 

Commenter (10618) stated that the EPA has not provided a serious, objective evaluation of the 

technology. The commenter stated that the EPA has not defined or identified highly efficient 

generation technologies, identified or assessed key variables that impact efficiency, assessed 

overall environmental benefits, or quantified the magnitude of emission reductions with the use 

of energy efficiency technologies, thus providing no basis for the Agency to compare these 

technologies with CCS. 

Commenter (10618) noted that the EPA referenced nine international projects and databases 

listing dozens of other international efforts related to various aspects of CCS development, but in 

the evaluation of highly efficient generating technologies as the BSER, EPA referenced zero 

projects.

Commenter (10098) stated that by failing to explore the use of energy efficiency technologies, 

EPA's rejection of this option is arbitrary and capricious.

Response 6.3-420: See preamble section V.P.1 and note that highly efficient supercritical PCs 

represent a baseline of performance for a new source here.

Comment 6.3-421: Commenters (9201, 10680) stated that the EPA dismisses emissions 

reductions from SCPC and IGCC as providing "little meaningful CO2 emissions 

reductions." Commenter (9201) noted that the 40 percent reduction required from new coal 

plants in contrast to the proposed standard for new natural gas-fired plants that are 25 percent 

higher than the performance of the ten best operating units. Commenter (10680) stated that the 

EPA's different approaches in setting the coal and natural gas standards cannot be reconciled 

and, as a result, are unreasoned and arbitrary.

Response 6.3-421: See preamble section IX.C.4.

Comment 6.3-422: Commenter (9665) noted that EPA would be better served to adopt a nonCCS BSER standard for new fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle (IGCC) units. The commenter expressed concern that the partial CCS standard 

is legally vulnerable and could jeopardize the validity of the entire NSPS rule. 

Commenter (10085) stated that to avoid legal scrutiny, the EPA should look at coal-fired EGUs 

that have been constructed within the past ten years and look at what control technologies were 

determined to be best available control technologies (BACT) at the time of construction.
6-251

Response 6.3-422: The EPA believes it has made reasoned findings that partial CCS is part of 

the best system of emission reductions for this source category.

Comment 6.3-423: Commenter (9665) recommended an emission limit of 1,700 lb. CO2/MWh 

on a gross output basis for these high efficiency units. 

Commenter (9472) discussed the results of an attached report that analyzed CO2 emissions data 

for all coal-fueled units that have commenced operation since 2007. The commenter stated that 

the data was analyzed using EPA methodology to determine emissions rates that would be 

achievable over a ten-year period. The commenter stated that in the report, the following 

emissions rates are achievable for new coal-fueled power plants without CCS:

-1,915 lbs CO2/MWh for supercritical boilers burning bituminous and subbituminous coals;

-2,080 lbs CO2/MWh for subcritical boilers burning bituminous and subbituminous coals; and

-2,150 lbs CO2/MWh for all boilers burning lignite coals.

The commenter recommended that the EPA should adopt the emissions limits for the particular 

subcategories set forth above.

Commenter (9201) stated that emissions rates for conventional non-CCS coal units are still too 

low given operational realities, and should be set at a minimum between 1,800 and 2,000 lbs. 

CO2/MWh.

Commenter (10664) suggested that the proposed rulemaking be revised to be outcome based. 

The commenter recommended that the EPA set the standard, provide a mechanism to 

demonstrate that the standard has been met, and allow reuse technologies to be an option for 

affected EGUs, alone or in combination with other technologies to achieve the proposed CO2

emission limit.

Commenter (9194) stated that the CO2 emission rate achievable by a new SCPC unit should be 

adopted for the GHG NSPS for coal-fired EGUs.

Commenters (8024, 9201) suggested that the EPA propose an alternative NSPS limiting CO2

emissions to the emissions rate achieved by new supercritical, ultra-supercritical and IGCC coal 

technologies, which would be consistent with current EPA GHG BACT Guidance.

Commenter (10951) stated that EPA should be incenting the construction of a new generation of 

highly efficient super-critical and ultra-supercritical coal plants.

Response 6.3-423: See preamble section V.P.1.

Comment 6.3-424: Commenter (9593, 9780) stated that the EPA can best move forward with 

the proposed NSPS by adopting the emissions standards achievable by supercritical coal-fired 

boilers, which achieves significant reductions when compared to the subcritical boiler 

technology in the existing coal-fired fleet, and evaluating in the future whether CCS has become 

adequately demonstrated. 
6-252

Commenter (9033, 9320, 9426) recommended EPA set CCS aside until the eight year review of 

the NSPS to avoid conflict between EPA and DOE timelines for the commercialization of CCS 

technologies.

Commenter (8348) stated that as CCS technology develops, the EPA can then give consideration 

to a more aggressive CCUS performance standard that could be applied to each EGU 

classification at a level of performance proven achievable for each particular classification, 

whether coal or natural gas-fired.

Commenter (8957) stated that if and when CCS becomes commercially viable, it may be more 

efficient to set appropriate NSPS across all source categories, including NGCC. The commenter 

stated that until CCS is commercially available, EPA should not pursue it for this rulemaking. 

Commenter (3176) recommended further research and development for CCS without requiring 

CCS now.

Response 6.3-424: See preamble section V.P.1.

6.3.7 EIA Analysis

Comment 6.3-425: Commenter 8925 noted that based on EPA's reliance in the EIA upon the 

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2013, no new conventional coal facilities are projected beyond 

what is currently under development through 2020 and because coal + CCS is more expensive 

than conventional coal and provides no additional economic value under current and proposed 

federal regulations, this implies no new coal with CCS would be built through 2040, in the 

absence of additional incentives (e.g., financial subsidies or emission limits). The commenter 

argued that no deployment of electric generating units with CCS for at least 8 and perhaps up to 

26 or more years suggests little financial incentive for commercial research or vendor activity, 

and that combined with uncertain funding for government-funded research on CCS, this 

commercial slowdown suggests slowing progress on CCS.

Response 6.3-425: This comment reflects analysis in RIA chapter 4, and is thus consistent with 

EPA’s analysis that no new non-compliant coal would be built due to economic reasons. 

However, commenters (including commenters to the 2012 proposal) indicated there are other 

reasons for adding capacity, including preserving fuel diversity, and as a hedge against rising 

natural gas prices. The final standard of performance is structured to assure that coal remains 

cost competitive with other low-carbon baseload dispatchable non-NGCC technologies. The ongoing research into CCS, active vendor efforts in the field, and prior regulatory history indicate 

that a standard of performance can be a spur to development and deployment of the new 

pollution control technology which forms the basis of a standard of performance. See preamble 

sections V.F, V.I.4, and V.L.

Comment 6.3-426: Commenter 9201 stated EPA's assessment on the impact of its proposal 

relies upon flawed modeling and assumptions that produce a static default assumption that no 

new coal-based power would be built even in the absence of this proposal. The commenter 

referenced that analysis used in the MATS rule and noted that only 50 MW of coal capacity had 

been retired as of February 2014 as compared to the higher EPA estimates. Citing multiple 
6-253

studies of natural gas demand, the commenter stated that EPA policies that force the retirement 

of coal base load power plants, such as EPA's proposed NSPS, pose a permanent structural 

barrier to assuring the electric grid remains diverse enough to minimize both reliability crisis and 

higher and more volatile prices that reverberate throughout the economy writ large.

Response 6.3-426: The commenter is incorrect in stating that the standards set by this rule 

“force the retirement” of coal power plants or any generating capacity. The standards for new 

sources under 111(b) only impact newly constructed generating capacity and have no bearing on 

existing generating capacity.

6.3.8 Effect of the Proposed NSPS Rule on CCS Development, Demonstration 

and Deployment

Comment 6.3-427: Commenter 9033 asserted that requiring CCS for coal has the potential to 

distort the market because the extreme capital cost of the CCS equipment and additional 

operating cost, as documented by the NETL studies, making NGCC more competitive than coal 

with CCS.

Response 6.3-427: NGCC is already significantly more competitive than coal. See RIA chapter 

4. Preamble section V.I.4 addresses the issue of whether the incremental cost of partial CCS 

could make new coal uncompetitive with NGCC, considering current and forseeable market 

conditions.

Comment 6.3-428: Commenters 9592, 9683 and 10095 stated that imposing a mandate before 

CCS is ready will result in project developers choosing a technology that is proven and has lower 

cost, which reduces the potential market for CCS technology developers and may result in an 

abandonment of the CCS technology. Commenter 9592 also provided a reference that IEA's 

2012 Technology Roadmap for High-Efficiency Low Emission Coal-Fired Generation stated that 

wide international deployment of ultra-supercritical and advanced ultra-supercritical units must 

precede the widespread deployment of CCS technology. 

Commenters 8032, 9196, 9426 suggested that the proposed rule will actually slow the 

development of CCS and other clean coal technologies. The commenter insisted that creating a 

mandate will have the effect of forcing out investment and research into developing technologies 

and practices because they are not contemplated by the EPA rule.

Commenters 9505, 10031, 10088 suggested that instead of encouraging development, the 

requirement for the deployment of partial CCS will foreclose further demonstration projects of 

this technology at commercial power plants. The commenter further noted that significant 

penalties for noncompliance discourages [practically prohibits] any future investment in such 

units. At a minimum, the commenter believes the mandate will significantly delay deployment 

of a cost effective and commercially available CCS technology.

Commenter 10046 stated that the availability, or lack thereof, of alternatives to building coal 

units with CCS systems is a key consideration in determining whether a mandate will force, and 

thereby promote, the technology's development, or consign it to the dust bin. The commenter 
6-254

further suggested that since EPA proposes to require that new coal plants add a technology that is 

decidedly immature, the inevitable response will be to build new gas units exclusively.

Commenters 1959, 9407, 9471, 9194, 9596, 10500, 10952 stated that mandating CCS for new 

coal-fired power plants before the technology is commercially viable and adequately 

demonstrated could ultimately impede, rather than accelerate, its development.

Commenter 10500 stated that hindering development of CCS at home will increase worldwide 

emissions of CO2. 

Response 6.3-428: These comments are at odds with historic developments of a regulatory

requirement spurring massive technological innovation and development. See preamble section 

V.L. The EPA notes that CCS technology is further developed than FGD scrubber technology

was in 1971 when EPA based a standard of performance on that technology as BSER, and for 

this reason (among others) regards comments such as those of commenter 1959 as misplaced.

Comment 6.3-429: Commenters 9326, 9472 and 10095 listed several reasons why EPA should 

not base the standard for coal on CCS technology, including that the proposed NSPS will 

effectively ban new coal-fueled power plants and therefore a more efficient second generation 

CCS will likely never be demonstrated in the U.S. Commenter 9472 stated that overcoming 

challenges such as available space for CCS, proximity to pipeline infrastructure, suitable storage 

or EOR availability has limited and will likely continue to limit the opportunity to demonstrate 

second generation CCS on existing coal plants. Therefore, the commenter asserted that EPA is 

mistaken in stating that the standard serves as an incentive for future CCS technology

development. Commenter 9326 also stated that the proposed rule eliminates the potential for 

modernizing the coal-fired power fleet with modern high-efficiency super- and ultra-critical 

pulverized coal boilers. 

Commenters 8024, 10046 stated that this regulation will essentially stop the development of 

CCS. The commenter noted that without new coal plants, it is unlikely technology developers 

will continue to invest in CCS development. Commenters 8024, 10036 noted that since the 

proposed regulation provides a significantly lower cost alternative (NGCC without controls) to 

the application of CCS to coal, there is unlikely to be a market for at least 10 years, and most 

R&D cannot be sustained for that long. Commenter 10046 stated that the EPA should withdraw 

its proposal.

Response 6.3-429: See preamble section V.I.4. Issues of siting availability are addressed in 

preamble section V.M. and the Geographic Availability TSD.

Comment 6.3-430: Commenters 8501, 9201, 9422, 9734, 10036, 10243 asserted that EPA is 

providing a disincentive and likely freezing any new investments in the development and 

deployment of CCS by offering the choice between CCS-controlled coal units and uncontrolled 

NGCC units. .

Commenter 10243 stated that without a strong financial mechanism to support CCS, the 

proposed standard does not allow for R&D time that will provide confidence to investors. 
6-255

Commenters 9201, 9426 stated utilities are effectively barred from developing CCS projects by

the combination of EPA's regulatory requirements, their need to respond to the fundamental 

economics and concerns of providing affordable power, the continued availability of the option 

to build NGCC units without any carbon constraints, and because utilities do not value fuel 

diversity simply for the sake of being diverse. As a result, the commenter asserted that coal 

generation is not incentivized to achieve higher efficiency potential such as ultra-supercritical 

coal, and the deployment of CCS will vanish along with America's ability to be a leader in CCS 

development in the future.

Commenter 9033 noted that in today's market of moderate natural gas prices, it is very unlikely 

that any commission will allow the recovery of development costs on existing plants based on a 

new plant rule that allows uncontrolled natural gas alternatives that are obviously less expensive.

Commenters 9326, 10036, 10046, 10880 stated that the regulations do not reflect the current 

status of the proven economic viability of CCs technologies for deployment across the broad 

range of coal generating equipment. The commenters noted that this creates a situation where it 

is highly unlikely that power producers will be able to justify the financial risks associated with 

building a high-efficiency power project without the assurance that the technology can meet the 

new standards.

Commenter 10046 stated that a CCS-based emission rate standard such as the one proposed by 

EPA will in fact lead to a delay in CCS investment, and consequently, will not promote the 

development of CCS, but retards it. The commenter further noted that since much of the US 

power industry operates in deregulated markets, the financial risk concerns identified with CCS 

will hinder development of the technology in these markets.

Commenter 10046 stated that a CCS mandate moves the CCS technology risk to cover the entire 

EGU, because the plant cannot be operated except in compliance with the CCS mandate.

Commenter 10036 noted that in light of existing, alternative, lower cost fuel options, lack of 

adequate government cost-share funding support to accelerated development and lower costs of 

CCS technology simply extends the time when technology commercialization is probable. The 

commenter stated that the proposed rule limits investment choices because the timeline for 

potential return on investments is unknown or significantly extended.

Commenter 8501 stated that the proposed rule will likely defer investment in energy efficient 

coal based generation. 

Response 6.3-430: The final rule does not change the fundamentals of wholesale electricity 

markets. An independent power producer (IPP) developing an electric generation unit in a 

competitive wholesale electricity market bears the risk when considering whether to develop that 

resource. The IPP makes a decision to develop the generation based on its assessment of risk and 

its ability to recover costs through a bilateral contract or the spot market. A vertically integrated 

utility, whether operating in an RTOISO or more traditional market structures outside an 

RTO/ISO, would be subject to cost-of-service regulation by a state PUC or other jurisdictional 

regulator in order to obtain cost recovery. RTOs and ISOs have mechanisms in place to ensure 
6-256

adequate resources to meet demand and reliably operate the grid (e.g., capacity and energy

market rules that ensure generators have the opportunity to recover their costs, including fixed 

costs). Moreover, as shown in RIA chapter 4 and discussed in preamble section V.H.3, new noncompliant coal capacity is unlikely to be constructed in the foreseeable future for reasons 

unrelated to the present standard. Commenters 9201 et al. indicate, for example, that even 

ultrasupercritical capacity is not currently financially viable.

Comment 6.3-431: Similarly, Commenter 8925 asserted their concern about the proposed rule's 

precedent, which could discourage companies from participating in future technology 

demonstration efforts by using only two partially constructed, government supported technology 

demonstration projects as a key part of its basis for establishing emission limits. 

Commenter 8348 stated that as written, the proposed rule will immediately eliminate coal as an 

option for new power plants with a resulting loss of interest by the industry in continued CCUS 

research and development. The commenter goes on to stress the importance of investing in next 

generation carbon capture technology R&D.

Commenters 9426, 10046, 10395 stated that the proposed rule discourages the private sector's 

willingness to invest in CCS technology development, and without that investment, the 

technology may never be commercialized.

Commenters 9407, 10952 disagree with the EPA that that "the industry needs a stick" to 

demonstrate CCS to the point of availability and cost reasonableness. The commenters stated that 

the projects EPA cites in the proposal in attempt to justify CCS as BSER all originated without 

the "stick" that EPA now believes is necessary.

Response 6.3-431: The AEP experience at the Mountaineer project suggests otherwise, when the 

company cited absence of a clear legal mandate for CO2 reduction as a chief reason for 

abandoning the project. 

Comment 6.3-432: Commenter 9780 stated that only coal-based units with CCS that receive 

government funding will be built in the future since the costs of CCS will prevent new coalbased units. Additionally, the commenter stated that current CCS projects will help DOE and 

private industry study how to trim retail costs and reduce costs for second-generation carbon 

capture technology, suggesting that the technology is not adequately demonstrated. 

Commenters 10086, 10870 stated that the EPA is not expecting new coal plants to be built until 

2022. The commenters stated that with no new plants being built, there will be no demand, or 

research and development, for CCS technology. The commenter stated that the capital cost 

cannot come down if there is no wide spread deployment of the technology. 

Response 6.3-432: Research into CCS is dynamic and on-going and the EPA does not expect it 

to cease. See preamble section V.H.8.b. 

Comment 6.3-433: Commenter 10952 (NRECA pp. 5-6) maintains that a CCS mandate 

ultimately would perversely influence worldwide GHG emissions because of a chilling effect 

bringing about true CCS demonstration and commercialization. The commenter posits a case 
6-257

whereby China will add large volumes of new coal capacity, no U.S. domestic coal capacity is 

added, net CO2 increases from Chinese coal combustion swamp U.S. reductions attributable to 

the difference between coal and gas-fired EGU emission rates, the result being “a missed 

opportunity to foster worldwide CCS application, minimal and inconsequential reductions in 

U.S. CO2 emissions, and an increase in worldwide CO3 emissions that without this proposal we 

could have been on tract (sic) to curb significantly going forward.”

Response 6.3-433: As it happens, the United States and China have signed a bilateral agreement 

whereby China has committed to significant reductions in CO2 emissions over the next decades. 

To the extent potential international response to domestic actions is a relevant consideration 

under section 111 (a), this development is at direct odds with the commenter’s hypothetical.

Comment 6.3-434: Commenter 7502 stated that it is evident that the proposed regulations would 

spur further innovation and investment in such technology [low carbon technologies] in the near 

future. 

Commenter 9035 stated that the combination of a regulatory driver and financial support is 

needed to spur investment in CCS projects. The commenter suggested potential funding 

mechanisms.

Commenter 9035 stated that Public Service Commissions have been reluctant to approve CCS 

construction, but should be more willing to approve ratepayer cost recovery for CCS projects if 

there is regulatory certainty. 

Commenters 9035, 10103 stated that in order to support a diverse set of affordable low-emitting 

sources of electricity, further research, development and demonstration of CCS is needed. 

Commenter 9035 stated that the proposed rule should be assessed on its effectiveness in 

supporting, and not inhibiting, the deployment of carbon capture, CO2-EOR, and other carboncutting technologies. Commenter 10103 asked that the EPA ensure the CCS technology is 

appropriately proven and available for use.

Response 6.3-434: The EPA largely agrees with these comments, which provide support for the 

proposition that a regulatory standard promotes development of the new technology on which it 

is based. 

6.4 PROPOSED EMISSION LIMIT OF 1,100 LB CO2/MWH

Comment 6.4-1: Several commenters (0784; 1902, 2471, 3236; 8957, 9033, 9192, 9472, 9497, 

9602, 9678, 9725, 10050, 10085, 10097, 10104,10395, 10504, 10552, 10680; 10974; 11062; 

10975; 11063; 10963) stated that the proposed limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh for coal based EGU 

is not achievable. 

One commenter (9033) stated that based on heat rates projected for IGCC and USC on lower 

rank coals, the 1800 lb/MWh standard is unachievable. The commenter provided a table of 

expected CO2 emissions for selected US fuels for a modern PC power plant operating at full load 

conditions that shows that the 1800 lb/MWh limit may be achievable at full load conditions for 

bituminous coals, barely achievable for subbituminous coals, and unattainable for lignites. 
6-258

According to the commenter, the unavailability of CCS means no new units could even be 

considered. Two commenters (9497-5231; 10104-4644) stated that CCS has not yet been 

commercially proven and that setting the standard at the current proposed level of 1,100 

lbs/MWH will effectively ensure that no new coal-fired plants are built, including promising 

high-efficiency technologies that would in themselves reduce CO2 output, such as ultrasupercritical power plants.

The commenter (9033) stated that EPA set the standard for theoretical best performing units in 

only two classes and fails to account for the change in heat rates of units that will occur and 

cause them to exceed the limit. According to the commenter, all combustion equipment incurs an 

increase in heat rate with time and operation and it is conceivable that units meeting the 

requirements when new will fail the standard over time. Commenters (9033, 9472) cite the 

following factors as impacting plant heat rate, and thus CO2 emissions, making the proposed 

EPA limit difficult to achieve:

Partial Load Operation. Net plant heat rate increases as the plant operating load is reduced, with 

a corresponding increase in the specific CO 2 emissions. 

Base load Operation. All power plants have load variation that impact a plant's heat rate and CO2

emissions. 

Cycling Operation. A typical PC cycling plant may operate 30% of the time at 100% load, 55% 

of the time between 50-75% load, with the balance at lower loads. The average capacity would 

be about 70% and the plant would have an average heat rate about 4-5% higher than at 100% 

load.

Degradation Due To Plant Age. Normal wear and tear is to be expected which has an impact on

the plant heat rate.

Site Factors. Other factors can have a negative impact on plant heat rate and CO2 emissions. For 

example, areas with limited water resources could require an air-cooled condenser vs. water 

cooling. Local water temperature can also have an impact on condenser operating pressure and 

heat rate.

The commenter (9033) provided a table summarizes the impact of an increase in plant heat rate 

due to the above factors on the specific CO2 emissions for a state-of-the-art USC PC power 

plant. A plant that is required to cycle would likely have a heat rate 5% higher than its design 

100% load heat rate. It is likely that the bituminous plant would also exceed the limit when site 

specific factors, impacts of startup, shutdown, and age deterioration are also factored in. The 

cycling impact could be more significant in the future as renewables assume a larger portion of 

total power generation. One commenter (10100-1182) stated that the use of cycling units is 

increasing and do not have the efficiency of baseload units.

According to the commenters (9033, 10085), the Clean Air Markets Database used by EPA to 

support the proposed 1800 lb CO2/MWh limit shows that while there were a limited number of 

plants that met this target, the bulk of the reporting plants exceeded it by a wide margin.
6-259

The commenter (9033) compares the 4 SCPC plants that the EPA cited in justifying the proposed 

1800 lb CO2/MWh target. What stood out was the high capacity factor for these four plants. The 

commenter stated that they were clearly operating as base load plants, with capacity factors in 

the mid 80% for three of them and that none of them would have met the proposed target if they

operated as typical cycling units.

The commenter (9033) notes that EPA states that marginal units can achieve the standard by 

applying improvements, such as double reheat, coal drying (for lignites), and cofiring with 

natural gas. These modifications all add additional equipment at the expense of increased 

capital/operating cost and potentially decreased availability and makes coal-fired technology less 

competitive.

Because permits are customarily permanent, the commenter (9033) stated that setting an output 

standard based on "as new" performance values for equipment that is known to lose efficiency

over time will ensure that eventually no plant will meet its permit limits.

One commenter (9472) stated that EPA should not base a standard for coal on CCS technology

and should withdraw the proposed NSPS. The commenter provided information showing the 

projected CO2 emission rate that would result in one exceedance in 10 and 20 years for each 

boiler category (lignite, subcritical and supercritical). The commenter recommended the 

following emissions rates: -1,915 lbs CO2/MWh for supercritical boilers burning bituminous and 

subbituminous coals; -2,080 lbs CO2/MWh for subcritical boilers burning bituminous and 

subbituminous coals; and -2,150 lbs CO2/MWh for all boilers burning lignite coals. The 

commenter (9472) provided the following data:

-emissions data for subcritical and supercritical units firing PRB and eastern bituminous coal and 

at levels greater than 1,800 lbs/MWh. 

-the relationship between annual CO2 emitted and average heat throughput with the lowest 

emissions achieved at the highest heat throughput. The data for one unit show CO2 emissions 

increasing almost continuously as heat throughput decreases, with recent data exceeding 1,800 

lbs/MWh for the least heat throughput.

-full, high and low loads showing that for most units CO2 emission rates increase when operating 

at less than maximum load and that CO2 emissions can increase by 100 lbs/MWh and in some 

instances by as much as 200 lbs/MWh. 

-the cumulative distribution of CO2 data at or below a given CO2 rate for three categories of 

EGU units: subcritical, supercritical and lignite-fired boilers, comparing fuel type (i.e. 

bituminous coal or subbituminous coal).

Several commenters (6870; 9190; 9192; 9497; 9590; 9725; 6649; 10097; 10104; 10395; 10501;

10552; 10680) stated that EPA has proposed for new coal EGU' s a standard (1,100 lb 

CO2/MWh) that no existing coal base load EGU can achieve-not even the newest demonstrated 

coal technologies such as supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) and integrated gasification 

combined cycle (IGCC). The proposed emission standard is at least 40 percent lower than the 

performance level that is achievable by these demonstrated coal technologies. One commenter 

(9678-765) stated that EPA cannot promulgate a standard lower than 1,200 lb CO2/MWh if that 
6-260

standard cannot be achieved by adequately demonstrated technology. Commenter (10504-3606) 

stated that new IGCC generation has an estimated emission rate of 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh, which 

far exceeds the proposed standard of 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh for coal-fired units.

Several commenters (1902; 8349; 9602; 9774; 10043; 10083; 10555; 10665) stated that the new 

coal limits cannot be met with the latest generation technology including those new coal 

technologies in Europe. The commenter has provided EPA the last 7 years of new plant 

information that demonstrates that none of these coal-fired plants come close to meeting the 

1,100 lb/MWh limit. EPA should withdraw and re-propose the NSPS rule and set the standard 

based upon a new coal plant of 1950 lb/MWh, which is achievable. A limit of 1,950 lbs. 

CO2/MWh would make the rule consistent with demonstrated supercritical and ultra-supercritical 

technology. No new coal plant could achieve a limit of 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh without the use of 

CCS and no full scale, commercial coal-fired power plants operate in the U.S. with this 

technology.

Several commenters (2471; 8974; 10024; 10393) suggested a 1950 lb/MWh emission standard. 

One commenter (2471-4198) stated that this would still be technology-forcing. EPA should 

consider allowing an EGU to meet part of the limit through financial carbon-reduction 

mechanisms or instruments, such as through the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits. 

One commenter (7977) stated that EPA consider 1,700 lbs CO2/MWh as the limit for coal-fired 

boilers. This emission limit would accomplish nearly 20 percent CO2 emission reductions 

compared to the national average of 2,100 lbs CO2/MWh for the current U.S. coal-fired fleet. 

This standard is being achieved by only the cleanest and most recently commissioned coal-fired 

units in the nation, setting an aggressive target for new generation and requiring technology

advancement through the New Source Review program.

One commenter (9678) stated that EPA has not defined why reductions on the level of those that 

could be achieved by IGCC, supercritical, or ultra-supercritical units are not significant. EPA 

does not explain why a reduction of 700 lb CO2/MWh is significant, while a reduction of 400 to 

500 lb CO2/MWh is not. Nor does EPA explain how this determination relates to the analysis 

contained in the RIA for the proposed rule (e.g., that, overall, the proposed standards will result 

in negligible reductions in CO2 emissions). Thus, EPA's decision to consider only technologies 

that can achieve an emissions standard of 1,200 lb CO2/MWh on a gross output basis does not 

appear legally defensible. One commenter (9592-732) stated that EPA should have compared 

SCPC emissions to the typical CO2 emissions rate of existing coal-fired generating units. The 

CO2 emission rates of a new SCPC unit are significantly lower than the typical existing coalfired EGU and would meet EPA's desire for significant CO2 emission reductions as shown by the 

table below.

One commenter (10017; 10050) stated that EPA uses two distinct approaches for developing 

standards for fossil fueled EGUs. The standard for NGCC technology is based upon actual 

emission data while the standard for coal base load technology is based upon calculations for 

hypothetical coal units using unproven CCS technologies. Consistent methods should be used for 

determining the proposed standards. One commenter (10050) stated that EPA rejects basing a 

coal base load plant standard on SCPC and IGCC as not providing as much emission reductions 

as practicable. The reductions achieved are real, substantial and as much as practicable with 

adequately demonstrated technology. For NGCC technology, EPA does not attempt to seek as 
6-261

much reduction as practicable and instead allows emission levels 20 percent higher than the 

levels achieved by the best performing units. EPA's different approaches in setting the coal and 

natural gas standards cannot be reconciled and, as a result, are unreasoned and arbitrary.

One commenter (8937) stated that the proposal fails to establish a workable pathway for coal. 

Rather than restrict construction of coal fired EGUs to those that are fortunate enough to receive 

sufficient government assistance, EPA should set a standard that allows efficient coal based 

EGUs to be built while the CCS technology is being fully developed into a stand-alone 

economically viable technology. As EPA has indicated on its' Clean Energy Site, the average 

CO2 emission rate for coal fired EGUs in the U.S. is 2,249 lbs CO2/MWh. That figure should be 

the starting point for establishing an interim target for new coal fired units while CCS is being 

fully developed and deployed.

Two commenter (9736; 10876) stated that the proposed rules, when examined based on high 

heating value (HHV) heat rates - appear to favor one CT design over another, which seem to 

preclude at least the frame-design option from consideration for future capacity additions. This 

"disfavoring" of frame-design units is short-sighted as the optimum design for most NGCC units 

is based on use of both a frame-design CT and a heat recovery steam generating (HRSG) unit. As 

EPA is apparently favoring NGCCs for new generation, this presents a dilemma for smaller 

entities that need additional generation: a near-term solution to power supply needs - absent the 

aforementioned "disfavoring" - could be to install a frame-design CT, with the goal of "stepping 

up" that unit to an NGCC unit at a later date by adding a HRSG unit. In this fashion, the initial 

costs of installing new capacity would be lower, and power supply capacity could grow as the 

community's needs grew. A higher standard be established that would not preclude frame-design 

units.

One commenter (0784) stated that EPA inadequately considered the total amount of carbon 

currently being released into the atmosphere with the closing of older coal-fired electric 

generation units and the retrofitting of others.

One commenter (9497) stated they have lignite reserves that may be amenable to UCG with CCS 

and reinjection back into the coal seam or use in EOR. EPA's proposed rule would inhibit further 

research and development of this potential energy source by setting an initially insurmountable 

hurdle in the 1,100 lb/MWh CO2 emission standard. This is a clear example of the potential 

innovation-stifling impact of the proposed rule. UCG may represent a valuable technological 

path, but with a stringent CO2 limit in place, there may be no viable way to start on the path 

without violating the standard. The commenter requests that EPA modify its proposed rule to 

allow for RD&D and scale implementation of alternative coal based technologies, including 

UCG. One commenter (9723-6902) stated that a limit of not less than 2,200 lb/MWh should be 

considered by the EPA for lignite coal-fired EGUs.

One commenter (0784) encouraged EPA to phase in carbon emission standards for new coalfired generation units based on the best available proven technologies and suggested that 1,800 

lbs/MWh is an appropriate initial point.

One commenter (10618) stated that the rates being considered by EPA (1,000 to 1,200 lb/MWh) 

have not been proven to be technically feasible and have certainly not been adequately 

demonstrated for coal-based electric generation technologies. The commenter recently completed 
6-262

construction of an ultra-supercritical unit, which is employing state-of-the-art advanced coal 

technology. Based on the subbituminous fuel used, the projections for load fluctuation and 

periodic unit startups, operations to date, and available information regarding equipment 

degradation over a units operational life, the commenter estimates that an annual gross CO2

emission rate of 1,900 lb/MWh would incent the development of more highly efficient 

generation technologies, while properly balancing the other factors (including costs) associated 

with the determination of the BSER.

Commenters (9665; 10098) supports EPA's proposed compliance option under which utility

boilers and IGCC units could average emissions on an 84-month rolling average basis. Any 

source choosing the 84-month alternative standard would be continuously mindful of the source's 

obligation to meet the standard over the long term. It would be highly unlikely that a source 

would intentionally operate a unit at less than the optimal level it could practically achieve since 

any "excess" emissions would need to be made up in later years of operation. A source that 

operated above the standard would be required to underrun the standard by at least the same 

amount over the same period of time that it operated above the standard. Therefore, EPA should 

not establish an 84-month alternative standard at a level lower than 1,100 lb. CO2/MWh. It is 

also unnecessary for EPA to establish an upper limit on CO2 emissions under the alternative 

standard, or to require compliance with the 12-month standard. Again, a source is ultimately

penalized under the 84-month alternative standard if a unit exceeds the required standard by

needing to offset the excess emissions with emission levels commensurately lower than the 

standard. This provides sufficient incentive for regulated sources to not exceed standards 

indiscriminately, but only where justified.

One commenter (8024) stated there is no rational basis in climate change policy for exempting 

CO2 emissions from natural gas generation while penalizing coal-based generation with 

uneconomic NSPS. Comprehensive global climate modeling analyses show that methane leakage 

from natural gas exploration, production, transport, and generation processes can offset all or 

more of the CO2 differential between coal and gas generation. The proposed rule is 

fundamentally unsound for this reason.

Response 6.4-1: The premise of most of these comments is that SCPC or IGCC boilers, 

operating alone, cannot achieve the proposed standard of performance, and because CCS is not 

feasible, this means these units cannot achieve the standard. CCS is in fact demonstrated and 

feasible, and the final standard of performance can also be achieved by alternative means not 

involving CCS.

Response 6.4-2: This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired steam 

generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such 

sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard 

of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel 

types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States.

Comment 6.4-2: Two commenters (1624; 9423) favor an efficiency based standard. One 

commenter (9423) stated that EPA did not appropriately consider an efficiency-based standard 

for PC and circulating fluidized bed (CFB) units but the standard for NGCC turbines is precisely 

a standard based solely upon efficiency. The heat recovery portion of a NGCC unit does not 
6-263

reduce emissions, but instead improves efficiency in producing electricity (or steam) by 

extracting heat from the exhaust gas. EPA has relied upon defining an efficiency level for NGCC 

units as BSER, yet rejects defining a standard based upon efficiency measures for coal- fired 

EGUs. The commenter also stated that EPA is applying an emission standard based on combined 

cycle turbines to a completely different source type of EGU. IGCC units, the basis for the 1100 

lbCO2/MWh limit, should be either listed as a separate source category or the BSER standard for 

IGCC should be listed in Subpart KKKK, because the source of emissions is from the combined 

cycled turbine and not the gasifier. Combined cycle turbines generally produce more electrical 

output per the same amount of fuel burned in an EGU that utilizes a simple steam cycle to 

produce electricity, because the combined cycle uses the steam cycle and a mechanical cycle to 

produce electricity. The claim that NGCC is inherently lower-emitting is completely a function 

of the basis of the standard that EPA chose, which is an output based standard of lb C02/MWh. 

EPA is stacking both CCS and an "inherently lower emitting unit," a combined cycle turbine, to 

establish an output based emission standard that EPA is erroneously applying to a completely 

different source type of EGU (subcritical, supercritical pulverized coal boilers, and circulating 

fluidized bed units). 

One commenter (9426) stated that the EPA has proposed to apply to pulverized coal ("PC") units 

the 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour ("lb CO2/MWh") standard, which is based on 

technology applicable only to IGCC units. Any standard that applies to PC units based on a 

finding that it is achievable with a technology that only IGCC units can use is also contrary to 

law.

Response 6.4-3: Commenter 9426 states that the standard of performance can only be met using 

a technology suitable only for IGCC. The commenter is incorrect. Both pre- and postcombustion CCS are demonstrated technologies. This final standard of performance for newly 

constructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward 

for the construction of such sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting 

technological innovation. The standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating units for all fuel types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the 

United States. Comments regarding there being “no requirement for emission reduction” have 

been addressed elsewhere.

Comment 6.4-3: One commenter (10100) stated that, assuming that EPA finalizes a standard for 

coal-fired EGUs based on partial CCS, they support a standard of 1,200 lb CO2/MWh for fossil 

fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units. These standards are within the ranges proposed by EPA 

and more accurately account for unit cycling, performance degradation, and other factors. If 

EPA does not adopt the higher performance standards, EPA should consider a sliding scale based 

on generation thresholds to determine the performance standard for EGUs on an individualized 

basis. For example, the highest limit should apply to units operating at low capacity factors (i.e., 

in the 33 percent to 45 percent range). The emissions limit could be reduced incrementally as the 

generation threshold increases.

Response 6.4-4: The final standard of performance is less stringent than this commenter 

recommends, and so provides a greater degree of flexibility. This final standard of performance 

for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units provides a clear and achievable 

path forward for the construction of such sources while addressing GHG emissions and 
6-264

supporting technological innovation. The standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by 

fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel types, under a wide range of conditions, and 

throughout the United States.

Comment 6.4-4: One commenter (8957) stated separate emission limits must be established for 

each type of fossil fuel-fired units. Additionally, dual fuel capability should be more adequately 

addressed for boilers and turbines. The requirement for a turbine to burn at least 90% natural gas 

to be an affected source needs to be removed. Most turbines are capable of firing multiple fuels 

without major modifications, so a turbine can simply fire 11% petroleum or other fuel to 

completely avoid the regulation. EPA should set a performance standard of 1,000 lbs C02/MWh 

(gross) or 1,050 lbs C02/MWh (net) on a 12-month annual average basis for NGCC and 1,800 

lbs C02/MWh (gross) or 1,925 lbs C02/MWh (net) on a 12-month annual average basis for coalfired units. After it becomes an economically feasible control technology, CCS will become the 

BACT to reduce C02 emissions for both coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants that are 

subject to the Tailoring Rule. The commenter agreed with EPA that NSPS should be the floor for 

determining BACT and when it becomes an economically feasible control technology, CCS will 

become the BACT for PSD permits. 

One commenter (10043) requested that EPA increase the emissions limit for new NGCC units 

from 1,000 to 1,250 lbs. CO2/MWh. While it is possible to purchase a new NGCC unit that 

meets the 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh threshold in the short term, it is unclear whether new NGCC units 

can sustain that high level when used to firm up delivery of wind and other intermittent 

generation sources

One commenter (10095-2618) stated that for NGCCs, EPA must set an emissions limit that is 

achievable and considers economic-, environmental-, and energy-related impacts. EPA must 

explain how the standard is achievable under the most adverse conditions which can reasonably

be expected to occur. Historical operating data show that many units operate above the proposed 

standard when experiencing adverse conditions. Also, the proposed standard is constricting 

considering the wide operational variability NGCCs experience over the units' lifespan and does 

not represent the best balance of economic, environmental, and energy considerations. Finally, 

EPA has created unintended consequences by providing rolling three-year average applicability

criteria.

Response 6.4-5: This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such 

sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard 

of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel 

types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States. See preamble section 

V.J and the ‘Achievability’ TSD available in the rulemaking docket.

Comment 6.4-5: One commenter (7990) stated that EPA base the applicability requirements on 

the source's design and purpose prior to completion, because new EGUs must know what 

performance standards will apply to them during the licensing process. New EGUs undergoing 

New Source Review should be allowed to accept limits in operating permit conditions in order to 

remain below the Propose Rule's applicability provisions. This methodology is consistent with 

the current approach under the Title V program.
6-265

Response 6.4-6: The commenter is mistaken. The NSPS applies immediately. This final 

standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units provides a 

clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such sources while addressing GHG 

emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is 

achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel types, under a wide range of 

conditions, and throughout the United States.

Comment 6.4-6: One commenter (10119) stated that EPA fails to establish that fossil fuel-fired 

boilers and IGCC facilities cannot achieve an emissions rate lower than 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh for 

coal-fired EGUs, which is based on a 25% CO2 capture rate at a new IGCC facility. According to 

the commenter, using the same technology necessary to capture 25% - a single-stage water-gas 

shift ("WGS") reactor and two-stage acid gas removal system - a facility would be expected to 

achieve a CO2 emission reduction of up to 75%, or an emissions rate of approximately 380 lb 

CO2/MWh-gross. The commenter stated that according to the proposed rule, an IGCC facility

using this technology thus could dial in a far greater amount of CO2 capture and achieve a far 

lower CO2 emissions rate than EPA has proposed. EPA's proposed emissions standards do not 

reflect a minimal 25% CO2 capture rate and lack support.

One commenter (10394-1700) stated that their state has established emission performance 

standards (EPS) at 1,100 lbs CO2/MWh of electricity for local publicly owned electric utilities, 

which, unlike EPA's proposed limits, also applies to existing utilities, and in general includes 

emissions from boilers, combustion turbines, reciprocating or other engines and fuel cells. The 

commenter stated that the emission limit for large natural gas-fired units (those with a heat input 

threshold greater than 850 MMBtu/h) should be more stringent than EPA proposed. The 

commenter recommends an emission rate limit of 950 lbs CO2/MWh. According to the 

commenter, several permits recently issued for large natural gas-fired units have been for 

projects with lower emission rates and a recently permitted 1-on-1 combined cycle unit will meet 

the limit of 950 lbs CO2/MWh. The commenter stated that the limit for the smaller combined 

cycle units (heat input rating below or equal to 850 MMBtu/h) should be more stringent than 

proposed and be set at 1,050 lbs CO2/MWh. Based on the commenter's experience, the smaller 

combined cycle units can be less efficient than the larger turbines; however, their overall 

efficiency will still be higher than the simple cycle units. The commenter has recently permitted 

a 1-on-1 combined cycle unit that will meet the lower limit of 1,050 lbs CO2/MWh net (gross 

output), 12-month rolling average, inclusive with manufacturer turbine degradation.

Response 6.4-7: This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such 

sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard 

of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel 

types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States.

Comment 6.4-7: One commenter (9406) stated that although the proposed emission limit for 

coal-fired EGUs is based on the emissions reductions that can be achieved through CCS, EGUs 

are permitted to meet those standards using any combination of means. Although no new coalfired EGUs are being planned, before the drop in natural gas prices, many states, including 

Pennsylvania, had informed developers that new coal-fired plants would need to be built to 

carbon capture ready standards. If a developer wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant for 
6-266

purposes of energy diversity, it could readily design it as a carbon capture ready plant and 

employ a wide variety of other means already described in GHG BACT determinations to 

achieve the proposed 1,100 lb CO2/MWh performance standard. For instance, many existing 

coal-fired plants can co-fire coal and natural gas to reduce emissions rates. Coal-fired plants can 

also use biomass fuels produced by sintering and other processes to reduce GHG emissions. At 

least one natural gas combined cycle plant combined solar power to reduce its overall GHG 

emissions produced per megawatt hour. A carbon capture ready supercritical coal-fired unit, 

coupled with a highly efficient NGCC unit, solar, or wind capacity and using partial biomass fuel 

could likely be designed to meet the proposed standard of performance. EPA could consider 

these alternative means of meeting its proposed standard.

Response 6.4-8: The EPA largely agrees with this comment. Co-firing with natural gas is an 

alternative compliance pathway for meeting the final standard for both SCPC and IGCC. 

Comment 6.4-8: One commenter (8020; 8939; 10103 ) supports allowing plant owners to 

choose either compliance option: 1,100 pounds of C02 per Megawatt-hour ("lb/Mwh") over a 

12-operating month rolling average, or between 1,000 and 1,050 lb/Mwh over an 84-operating 

month rolling average. 

One commenter (1900) stated that while a 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross averaged over a 12-month 

operating period seems adequate, perhaps it could be extended to 24 months to give these 

companies more time to meet this demand. It may also be appropriate to set the limit for the 

rolling 7-year average to a stricter amount, perhaps closer to 950 lb CO2/MWh. This would cause 

EGU companies to take more immediate action so they don't have to meet such a strict limitation 

in the future. By setting a larger gap between the limitations, more action is likely to be taken in 

a shorter amount of time.

Response 6.4-9: The EPA is not finalizing the option of the 84-month compliance period.

Comment 6.4-9: One commenter (7977) stated that pursuant to Section 111(b) of the CAA, 

EPA must set an achievable standard for fossil fuel units that: is consistent with Congressional 

intent; encourages the use of local fuels; expands energy resources that could be burned in 

compliance with emission limits; and makes technology and fuel choices less restrictive.

Response 6.4-10: The commenter states a number of factors which are not enumerated in section 

111 (a), including encouraging the use of local fuels, and making technology choices and fuel 

choices less restrictive. These factors are not part of a best system of emission reduction, as 

defined in section 111 (a). 

Comment 6.4-10: One commenter (9513) stated that EPA needs to pay attention to detail and 

cannot forego the opportunity to reduce hundreds of thousands or millions of tons of CO2

emissions simply because those opportunities don't generate reductions of hundreds of millions 

of tons by themselves. For example, the agency proposes to establish the new emission 

limitations to two significant digits where 1,000 lbs/MWh is represented as 1.0 x 103 lb/MWh 

and sources are allowed to round down to comply. This would relax the NSPS by an additional 

1-5 percent (depending on whether EPA allows sources to apply the rounding to the test results 

expressed in Imperial (English) or metric units). To illustrate, an emission rate of 1049.99 would 
6-267

round down to 1000 and comply with the proposed limit if expressed in U.S. units. If the 

determination is in metric units the effect would be smaller. The commenter anticipates that this 

issue will be highly controversial, and yet EPA has not analyzed the impact. 

Response 6.4-11: This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such 

sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard 

of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel 

types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States.

Comment 6.4-11: One commenter (10047) recommended that EPA revise the proposed standard 

for coal-fired EGUs to a level equal to that met by the very latest and most efficient units 

permitted in the United States, and that it continue to monitor the progress of CCS or other CO2

control technologies, such that if a control technology is shown to be effective and economical in 

the future, EPA will be positioned to revise the NSPS as appropriate. Whereas coal-fired units 

were originally designed for an operating life of 35 years, recent history has shown that units can 

operate as long as 50 to 60 years through life-extension projects. Thus, there is the specter of 

half-century consequences of this NSPS. If EPA sets the CO2 standard at a level reflecting 

efficiency, it must be positioned to revise the standard quickly should CCS or some other control 

technology be shown to be economically viable in the future.

One commenter (10869) stated that the proposed optional limits (1100 or 1000-1050 lb 

CO2/MWh) could potentially allow a plant to implement CCS technology to reduce their 

emissions after the initial operation date. This approach recognizes the current state of CCS 

technology while providing an incentive to make it more widely available on a faster timeline 

than may have been the case without the carbon standard. The final standard should include firm 

timelines for power plants to demonstrate that they are using CCS and impose penalties if not 

implemented on time. The 40% rate of carbon capture implied by this standard is low. Note that 

installing CCS at a power plant will impose an efficiency penalty that would raise overall 

emissions. CCS capture rates will need to be 85% or more if this technology is to help contribute 

to U.S. power sector emissions reductions of 90%t or more by 2050. EPA will need to provide a 

pathway to a more ambitious level of carbon capture for coal-fired power plants; otherwise we 

risk locking in long-lived carbon-intensive energy sources.

Response 6.4-12: Note that the EPA must review section 111 (b) no later than 8 years, and so 

will monitor on-going technical developments, as comment 10047 urges.

Comment 6.4-12: One commenter (10606) stated that to provide an opportunity for new natural 

gas-fired steam boilers to be constructed, EPA should promulgate an appropriate CO2 emission 

limit for natural gas-fired boilers, taking into account the maximum thermal efficiency of such a 

boiler. Natural gas burning emits CO2 at a rate of approximately 53 kg/MMBtu, equivalent to 

116.7 lb CO2/MMBtu heat input. Therefore, an appropriate optional standard, based on heat 

input, would be 120 lb CO2/MMBtu (12 month rolling average) and would account for variations 

in the heating value and methane content of natural gas. A standard based on gross output would 

be approximately 1,300 lb CO2 per MWh (12 month rolling average). This proposed standard 

would allow the development of natural gas-fired steam generation in the future, while limiting 
6-268

CO2 emissions to about one-half the amount that would be produced with coal-fired generation 

facilities.

Response 6.4-13: This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired 

steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such 

sources while addressing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard 

of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh-g is achievable by fossil fuel-fired steam generating units for all fuel 

types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States. This standard is 

applicable to all new fossil-fuel fired steam generating EGUs – including those firing natural gas. 

Comment 6.4-13: One commenter (10606) stated that an auxiliary or backup EGU should be 

exempt from the CO2 emission standard. Backup EGUs will be package boilers in almost all 

cases, due to the relatively low cost of such units. However, a package boiler could not comply 

with the proposed limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh gross output.

Response 6.4-14: Applicability issues are addressed in the preamble sections III.C and III.D.

6.4.1 Achievability of Proposed Standard with CCS Technology

Comment 6.4-14: Several commenters (9666, 9472, 9650, 10039; 10618; 10552; 10240; 10050; 

10052; 8937; 9034; 10100; 5731; 9780; 9194; 9592; 9197; 10023; 9397; 8906; 10870; 8974; 

9422; 10520; 9471; 10051; 10048; 9003; 10952; 10466; 0587; 9192; 8032; 10392; 9780; 10662; 

7977; 8971) disagreed with EPA that BSER for coal fired EGUs is CCS. Industry, in parallel, 

the U.S. Department of Energy, along with other public and private efforts, have recognized that 

potential CO2 emission reduction technologies, including CCS for fossil fuel-based electric 

generation processes, must overcome significant development barriers if they are to have any

chance of becoming a technically feasible and commercially viable control option. No CCS 

technologies have been demonstrated in a fully integrated end-to-end configuration at scale on a 

coal baseload EGU. There are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, 

transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon 

sequestration. Currently, there are no commercially viable power plant projects that employ 

permanent carbon sequestration. Of the examples provided by EPA in the proposed NSPS, none 

of the projects are currently operating.

One commenter (9780) stated that the only U.S. project already under construction, Southern 

Company's Kemper project, has seen significant cost overruns in the past 18 months. None of the 

other cited U.S. projects have achieved financial closure or broken ground, with the exception of 

the W.A. Parish facility, which chose to commence construction of the natural gas turbines early 

because it made economic sense to do so independent of the CCS project, which is still on hold. 

None of these projects is in operation. Kemper is not only a first-of-a-kind project, but also a 

one-of-a-kind project. Due to its many site-specific characteristics, the Kemper project cannot be 

consistently replicated on a national level. In its reliance on the Kemper project, EPA has 

ignored the unique nature of this project and has not explained how Kemper reasonably can 

serve as a model for other new EGUs in the rest of the country.

One commenter (9192) hosted a first-of-its-kind project at the Pleasant Prairie Power plant to test 

a chilled ammonia scrubber technology to separate and capture up to 90 percent of the CO2
6-269

emissions from a small portion of the flue gas from one of the boilers. The project did not 

include storage of any captured CO2. The project demonstrated that the process was capable of 

removing 90% of incoming CO2 from a slip stream of the host power plant's flue gas. The 

project operated at up to a flue gas flow equivalent of 1.7 MW electric power generation. This 

project represented an early step in developing a commercial-scale technology to capture CO2

emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The pilot project confirmed the predicted 

performance of the chilled ammonia carbon capture system at an operating power plant. To date 

neither this technology nor any other has been retro-fitted at full scale at a commercially

operating power plant. Therefore, the project did not demonstrate that carbon capture and storage 

is the best system of emission reduction.

One commenter (10618) operated the first integrated CCS project in the world on a coal- based 

generation plant. The commenter stated they provided comments on the 2012 proposal to 

alleviate misconceptions by EPA by placing into proper context the scope and outcome of its 

CCS program. The current proposed rule continues to misrepresent the scope, results, and 

lessons learned from the Mountaineer Plant CCS project. In their submittal, the commenter 

provided a number of qualifications regarding the results of that CCS project. While the project 

was successful, it is a far cry from being representative of what's required for full-scale 

deployment.

Commenter (10039) stated that EPA's finds CCS as BSER for coal fired EGUs in the absence of 

any operating data from any CO2 sources of the size of a pulverized coal EGU (above 3,000 

mmBtu/hr heat input). US EPA does not present any data in the rule docket from the type and 

size of sources it proposes to require to meet the BSER limits of this proposed rule because 

neither carbon capture nor geological sequestration have ever been implemented at a coal fired 

EGU greater than 100 MW before.

One commenter (9666) stated that EPA's achievability determination is not supported by any

technical or statistical analysis of emissions data from units implementing CCS because no such 

data exist. According to the commenter, EPA relies on a 2011 cost and performance report by 

DOE that assumes the performance of various CCS configurations and is not based on 

information gathered from actual operating experience. The commenter further stated that EPA's 

only achievability analysis is based on its estimates of CCS performance using pre-combustion 

CO2 separation technology, which can be implemented only at IGCC units and that EPA 

nowhere analyzes whether the proposed 1,100 lb/MWh limit is achievable for units firing PC.

One commenter (9472) stated that EPA is proposing to set a stringent CO2 performance standard 

which no new coal-fueled plant anywhere in the world has come close to meeting based on CCS 

technology that is not adequately demonstrated. The commenter stated that the EPA record 

shows that there are no coal-fueled power plants in the US -or even in the world - that are 

currently operating with a full-scale commercial application of CCS. According to the 

commenter, the flaw in the EPA proposal is concluding that CCS is adequately demonstrated 

based on the assumption that a few planned, but unbuilt, full-scale CCS project will successfully 

demonstrate in the future the effectiveness and reliability of this emerging, but unproven 

technology. The Agency is proposing to set a CO2 performance standard based on mere 

speculation or conjecture.
6-270

The commenter (9472) stated that EPA cannot base its BSER determination on small or 

experimental projects that seek to demonstrate CCS at pilot scale, for example, plants at 

Vattenfall, Germany; Southern Company's Plant Barry; and AEP sponsored Mountaineer Power 

Plant. The commenter stated that these pilot-scale slipstream projects have proven that CCS is a 

potentially viable technology but is insufficient to demonstrate that CCS can be implemented at 

full-scale utility applications. 

The commenter (9472) stated that EPA cannot base its BSER determination on a few industrial 

applications of CCS. According to the commenter, none of the industrial projects referenced by 

EPA involve the full-scale commercial application of a CCS technology on a power plant that 

sells electricity into the grid and therefore cannot constitute an "adequately demonstrated" 

technology that can be used to set performance standards for coal-fueled power plants under 

section 111(b) of the CAA. For several industrial CCS projects cited by EPA, the commenter 

described how such facilities differed from coal-fueled power plants.

One commenter (10952) stated that the proposed NSPS for coal-fired EGUs requiring carbon 

capture is not supported by the existing state of carbon capture technology as applied to EGUs, 

and EPA does not have the discretionary authority to impose it.

One commenter (9426) stated that because the various CCS processes have never been 

demonstrated together, and because even pilot scale operations have been done on only some of 

the various coal types and ranks, the industry has limited insight into the effects of combustion, 

unit operation, and load cycling on the capture plant, which in turn will affect the compression, 

which in turn will affect the pipeline and injection operation. The lack of operating experience 

and the impact of different types and ranks of coals are but a few of the unknowns and risks 

associated with CCS projects. According to the commenter, technologies are in the early stage of 

development or are conceptual and demonstration projects are expected to be initiated in the 

2030 to 2035 time period. A demonstration project can take 7-10 years to be designed, built, and 

operated enough to be helpful in the design of commercially deployed replicants and prove that 

commercializing CCS technology is significantly more involved than stringing together existing 

pieces of hardware and declaring victory.

One commenter (9424) stated that CCS, particularly sequestration, is poorly understood and has 

known and unknown negative environmental effects. Opposition to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 

and hydraulic fracturing would certainly increase were subsurface injection of carbon dioxide 

expanded to include storage and disposal. The small number and size of carbon dioxide storage 

projects in operation, often at preexisting oil and gas production sites, do not justify widespread 

implementation of the technology for sequestration. The commenter disagrees that this circular 

logic justifies selection of a BSER that is so poorly understood. We respectfully request that EPA 

increase the proposed emissions limit to 1,950 lbs CO2/MWh, while continuing carefully

controlled and monitored demonstrations of CCS systems. 

One commenter (10395) stated that EPA should determine that, for pulverized coal facilities, it is 

not feasible at this time to set a standard of performance. Then, at a future time when CCS 

becomes an "achievable" and "adequately demonstrated" technology as defined by the definition 

of "standard of performance" at Section 111 (a)(1), the Administrator may make a change as set 

forth in Section 111(h)(4).
6-271

One commenter (9426) stated that even if CCS were demonstrated to be technically feasible, if 

the many implementation issues are not resolved satisfactorily, a CO2 emission standard based 

on CCS would not be achievable. 

One commenter (7977) stated that currently, there are no control technologies employed that 

allow any new commercial-scale coal-fired boilers and IGCC units to achieve the proposed 

standards. EPA fails to justify its determination and proposed limitations with any real test data 

that indicate whether a source is capable of achieving compliance.

Response 6.4-15: The commenters are mistaken. Partial post and pre-combustion CCS is 

demonstrated at full scale (preamble sections V.D. and E), as is sequestration of captured carbon 

in deep saline formations. Preamble section V.N.

Comment 6.4-15: One commenter (10039) stated that EPA has not accounted for performance 

degradation of emission units or control systems (CCS) in any of the performance standards 

proposed. The commenter stated that given EPA's position that projects that impact life 

extension or recapture degraded performance and/or load at EGUs are modifications, EPA must 

include expected degradation of these units and control devices over the life of the EGU in its 

calculation of the achievability of the standard. EPA needs to collect data on the achievability of 

the standards over the entire plant life cycle to determine the achievability of the proposed EGU 

standards. 

Response 6.4-16: The final standard is achievable over a range of operating conditions.

Comment 6.4-16: One commenter (10555) estimated that transporting captured CO2 from 

Milwaukee, WI to Decatur, IL, the closest CO2 storage site, could cost as much as $405 million. 

A separate Wisconsin Public Service Commission report estimated that the total cost to construct 

a pipeline network dedicated to CO2 transportation could be between $550 million and $1 

billion. Both key energy and environmental regulatory agencies concluded that the transportation 

component of CCS alone may hinder its commercial viability in Wisconsin. The WDNR notes 

that the EPA is not projecting the path of technological development for CCS in the reasonable 

way that is required by the Clean Air Act taking into account best available control technology

determinations. Further, the commenter requests that the EPA amend the currently proposed 

1,800 lb CO2/MWh threshold based on the assumption that a supercritical coal boiler can meet 

the limitation. Two Wisconsin supercritical coal boilers at We Energies are only achieving an 

average emission rate of approximately 1,950 lb CO2/MWh.

Response 6.4-17: See preamble section V.I.5. The EPA’s cost estimates do in fact include costs 

associated with transportation and storage of CO2.

Potential GS formations are widely available in the United States. The EPA recognizes that 

geologic conditions to support CO2 storage may not exist in all regions of the country. Where 

such capacity is unavailable, electricity demand in those areas can be served by coal-fired power 

plants built in neighboring areas with geologic availability with generated electricity being 

supplied via transmission line, see Figure 1 of TSD on geographic availability, or the CO2 can be 

transported to available GS sites via pipeline. For other of those areas, coal-fired power plants 

are either not being built due to state law prohibition s against building such units, or other 
6-272

available compliance alternatives exist allowing a new coal-fired power plant meeting the 

promulgated NSPS to be sited. There are alternative means of complying with the final standards 

of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting difficulties based on 

lack of a CO2 repository would be obviated.

Comment 6.4-17: One commenter (9426) stated that the integration of CCS systems with coalbased generation technologies creates a number of practical development challenges, such as 

differences in operating philosophies between a steady-state chemical production process (like 

CCS) and a dynamic load-following process (like power generation). Parasitic energy

consumption, physical space requirements, power plant integration, and flue gas compatibility all 

pose obstacles to the capture of CO2 at a power plant. The reliability of a CCS system could be 

affected by problems arising in each CCS process. Because full scale carbon capture, 

compression and transportation, and storage have not been integrated on a power plant, it is 

unknown how the three processes will interact.

Response 6.4-18: All of these operations are integrated at commercial scale at Boundary Dam, 

recently designated as POWER magazine’s power plant of the year due to successful operation 

of CCS at full commercial scale.

6.5 OTHER SUBCATEGORIES

Comment 6.5-1: One commenter (9664) stated that while subpart Da applies to new liquid oiland gas-fired units, EPA appropriately emphasizes coal- and petcoke-fired units because no new 

utility steam-generating units designed to be fired primarily with liquid oil or gas have been built 

for many years and none are expected to be built in the foreseeable future due to the significantly

lower costs of building Subpart KKKK combustion turbines. 

Response 6.5-1: There is no need to subcategorize by fuel. The standards are achievable across a 

wide range of operating conditions and fuel types.

Comment 6.5-2: One commenter (9321; 10618) stated that EPA must provide special 

consideration for coal refuse fired units and that the proposed GHG standards would discourage 

the development of new coal refuse fired units. According to the commenter, the quality of the 

coal refuse is highly variable with the heating value of coal refuse decreasing while the sulfur 

content has increased. EPA must provide new units with the operational flexibility to burn the 

wide range of coal refuse and encourage the development of new units. Because of their 

environmental benefits of coal refuse fired EGU's, EPA should adopt a subcategory for coal 

refuse fired EGUs. The combustion of coal refuse stock piles results in uncontrolled emissions 

and abandoned mine sites release methane. The commenter hopes that EPA will continue to see 

the value of eliminating these uncontrolled emissions by allowing the use of coal refuse as a fuel 

in EGUs. The commenter recommends that EPA support removing coal refuse piles by either 

exempting or sub-categorizing waste coal fired EGUs. An environmental benefit of exempting 

CFB coal refuse units from the rule would encourage new construction. For economic reasons, 

such as fuel considerations and plant size, coal refuse EGU's using CFB technology cannot apply 

capital intensive carbon sequestration or advanced efficiency (heat rate) technologies to reduce 

the greenhouse gaseous at the plant sites and should be excluded from the proposed rule. The 

commenter stated that capture percentages will be extremely difficult to achieve in a CFB boiler 
6-273

burning coal refuse that also injects limestone into the boiler to control SO2 emissions. The 

commenter stated that EPA should extend special consideration for coal refuse-fired EGUs as 

they did in the NSPS for SO2, PM and NOx. The carbon sequestration that occurs as a result of 

the carbonation/mineralization of ash from coal refuse fired units is another example of the 

multimedia environmental benefits provided by coal refuse fired plants.

One commenter (8957) supports an exemption for waste coal facilities given the environmental 

benefits. If an exemption cannot be granted to waste coal-fired facilities, the commenter 

recommends a separate subcategory for this technology. Coal refuse piles naturally combust and 

burn slowly emitting C02 and other air pollutants The commenter hs been mitigating this 

environmental impact by combusting coal refuse in circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers. 

Since coal refuse piles produce C02 naturally, the CFBs generate electric power and steam for 

use while providing benefits to the economy without increasing the net C02 emissions and the 

ash generated through this process is alkali in nature, and is often sought for use in reclaiming 

abandoned mines and mine lands. Due to the multiple environmental benefits of remediating coal 

refuse piles, EPA should establish an exemption for EGU s that burn over 75% coal refuse on an 

annual basis. The advantages in using coal refuse to create electricity is that a mining waste 

facility would produce no net GHG emissions in the long term and emissions would be no 

greater than the short-term emissions of a combined cycle gas plant. Remediation would stop 

current and future C02 emissions resulting from the uncontrolled combustion of waste piles. 

Should an exemption not be granted to waste coal-fired facilities, the commenter recommends 

setting limits for bituminous gob and anthracite culm at 2,200 lb C02/MWh (gross) or 2,350 lb 

C02/MWh (net).

Response 6.5-2: The rationale for not exempting coal refuse-fired EGUs is in the preamble to 

this final rule.

Comment 6.5-3: One commenter (10554) stated they see no legitimate basis for coal refuse to 

be subcategorized and they should be treated in the same manner as all other coal-fired EGUs.

One commenter (3862) stated that since industrial units are more likely to experience load 

fluctuations and more startup and shutdowns, a review should be made of the available data to 

determine whether these operational factors for industrial units dictate an exemption or subcategorization with different limits based on more potential variability.

Response 6.5-3: There is no need to subcategorize by fuel. The standards are achievable across 

a wide range of operating conditions and fuel types. The rationale for not exempting coal refusefired EGUs is in the preamble to this final rule. This final rule only covers EGUs, not industrial 

units.

Comment 6.5-4: Two commenters (9471, 9780) stated that in determining the appropriate 

BSER and resulting emissions standards for new fossil-based steam EGUs, EPA should consider 

fundamental design and process differences between the different units subject to subpart Da. 

The commenters stated that significant differences in design and operations between IGCC and 

pulverized coal boilers should be recognized, as should the differences among coal types. The 

commenters stated that subcategorizing based on boiler and fuel type would ensure that any 

resulting standards are achievable. Further, the commenters suggested that any resulting 
6-274

standards could not be deemed to be achievable unless EPA could demonstrate that all operating 

periods, including periods of startup and shutdown, were considered when setting the standards.

Several commenter (9777; 10388; 10606; 10618; 10965) stated that EPA should establish 

separate standards for coal-fired and gas-fired units. EPA should establish an NSPS subcategory

that is specific to IGCC as these processes are fundamentally different from other coal generation 

technologies. The commenter describes why a separate subcategory is needed and the issues to 

be considered in establishing a separate subcategory. 

Response 6.5-4: The final standard of performance is achievable and adequately demonstrated 

considering operation with different types of coal. See preamble section V.J. and Achievability

TSD. The final standard is also achievable with an SCPC with partial CCS or co-firing, and an 

IGCC with co-firing of natural gas (or CCS, if the source chooses).

Comment 6.5-5: Two commenters (10088, 10667) stated that if EPA does not provide a lignite 

subcategory, operators of these power plants would be forced to forgo maximizing use of this 

domestic, plentiful, and affordable resource. This will signal the end of such co-located mine 

mouth plants as well as the ability to recover potentially sizable investments in their mines 

because of the limitations placed on an operator's ability to maintain, expand or add capacity to 

use these local, domestic, and sizeable fuel supplies. This would be incredibly burdensome on 

Texas units, which rely heavily on their lignite reserves.

One commenter (9777) citing a study by Cichanowicz and Hein found that coal composition, 

load factors, boiler design and coal moisture all affect C02 emissions and recommends that coal 

types should be further subcategorized.

Response 6.5-5: The EPA does not agree with this comment. The EPA examines the issue of 

alternative coal types in section V.J. and finds that the standard of performance is achievable 

using any coal type, and has accounted for the increased capture rate (and additional cost0 if 

other-than-bituminous coal is used. With regard to use of lignite, lignite drying is a normal 

technology which allows efficient combustion of lignite coal.

6.5.1 Coal-Fired Projects Under Development

Comment 6.5-6: One commenter (9403) stated that for plants that have proceeded in their 

development beyond the point when CCS could be incorporated into the plant design (assuming 

it could be incorporated at all), imposition of a CO2 standard that depends on CCS technology

would effectively prevent construction of the facility. This would result in significant costs to the 

project investors, both in terms of lost sunk costs and lost opportunity costs. Given that EPA has 

identified at most three projects that are presently under development, any reductions in CO2

emissions achieved would be minimal. This is especially true given that any plant that is 

constructed will be subject to existing source standards EPA promulgates under Section 111(d). 

The commenter stated that they executed binding contracts for the purchase and erection of the 

Plant Washington boiler prior to publication of the proposed rule and believes these contractual 

obligations are more than sufficient to constitute commencement of construction for purposes of 

the NSPS program. The commenter anticipates that Plant Washington will be an existing source 

subject to any existing-source standard EPA may promulgate under Section 111(d) of the Clean 
6-275

Air Act. The commenter stated that they addressed their permit status in comments (an 

attachment to these comments) on the previous proposed rule and unlike the previous proposed 

rule, the current proposed rule would allow Plant Washington to obtain the pollution-control 

guarantees necessary to move forward. The commenter recently sought and received an 

extension of the construction deadline in its PSD permit, which is currently undergoing public 

comment. EPA should adopt its proposal and create a sub-category for the three projects 

identified in the Proposed Rule, which would allow for development of a site-specific CO2

standard based on BSER for each facility.

Regarding EPA's proposal to consider a subcategory for three coal-fired projects currently under 

development with construction permits, including the proposed Wolverine EGU project in 

Rogers City, Michigan, the proposed Washington County EGU project in Georgia, and the 

proposed Holcomb EGU project in Kansas, one commenter (9666) stated that it is rational for the 

Agency to exercise its section 111 discretion by subcategorizing this category and excluding the 

three coal-fired power plants that are so far along in the permitting process that this proposal 

would make it impossible for them to be completed. 

One commenter (8909) agreed with EPA's proposal [not proposing standards for "transitional 

units", i.e. fossil fuel-fired EGU projects presently under development that were fully permitted 

but had not yet commenced construction at the time of the proposal], especially given the sparse 

universe of potential "transitional" sources. In the unlikely event that any transitional EGU 

commences construction, EPA should develop a GHG NSPS specifically for that source.

One commenter (10394) stated that EPA's proposed approach will create uncertainty in projects 

which may have already undergone full permitting, but are undergoing financing prior to 

commencement of construction. The commenter recommends that EPA propose a deadline 

similar to the GHG Title V Tailoring Rule, so that it provides a future date for an EGU which has 

been fully permitted, but has not yet commenced construction to become subject to the new 

standard. Otherwise, the EGU be subject to any GHG standards that EPA develops for existing 

EGUs.

One commenter (9599) supports EPA's decision not to subject the Holcomb 2 project in Kansas 

to the proposed GHG NSPS. The commenter submitted background information including 

actions taken to date, timelines, sunken costs incurred, PSD permitting activities, and contractual 

activities.

Response 6.5-6: See preamble section III.J.

Comment 6.5-7: Two commenters (9514; 10119; 2983) did not support the exemption of 

transitional sources.

Commenter 9514 supported EPA's decision to "discard the transitional source classification, to 

abandon its approach of using sunk costs to determine BSER for these sources, and to apply the 

proposed standard to plants that are designed to meet it, such as the Texas Clean Energy

Project." There is no legal justification for creating a separate subcategory based solely on "the 

stage of a source's development." Commenter 9514 noted that "Section 111 does not provide 

EPA with discretion to establish a special standard for a particular source that cannot be 
6-276

distinguished by type, size, or class." The commenter does not share EPA's apparent concern 

regarding the extent that [its]own actions related to the MATS rule may have hampered 

developers' efforts to commence construction provide a basis for special treatment of these 

sources. As shown above, EPA's actions were not the cause of the developers' delay. Rather, the 

projects were mired in legal issues and/or have been lacking in investor interest for years - issues 

entirely unrelated to the MATS rule. In any case, this is not a relevant factor to EPA when 

making a BSER determination or setting a performance standard.

Commenter 9514 stated, "To rely on a forthcoming 111(d) standard as an excuse for exempting 

certain new sources from a 111(b) standard also creates bad precedent that could be applied 

beyond the context of this particular rulemaking." 

Commenter 10119 stated that there is no factual basis for exemption of transitional sources and 

results in a lack of notice to the public. Any attempt by EPA to exempt these transitional sources 

based on the relative size of its projected investment loss would be perpetually behind and 

constantly require, as it does here, to rule blindly and without factual basis for some sources. 

EPA's lack of facts also, by necessity, translates into lack of notice to the public and the inability 

to comment, automatically invalidating the action for that reason alone. The commenter stated 

that EPA is not, and should never be, in the business of carving out one-off exemptions from 

NSPS standards based on a concept as nebulous as lost business opportunities. Moreover, EPA 

should not create incentives for the most powerful individual facility owners to seek to exert 

undue influence over its decisions. Congress has drawn a bright line about who is covered by 

proposed new performance standards, and EPA is required to enforce it.

Commenter 9514 asked that EPA define the timeframe and process for determining the status of 

the transitional sources and offered support for the classification of the transitional sources as 

new sources. The commenter stated that in the final rule, EPA should make clear the process by

which it will make this determination, including the time frame for this decision and the 

opportunity for public participation. As a number of the Joint Environmental Commenters 

explained in their 2012 comments on the initial NSPS proposal, state environmental agencies 

have not been reliable in enforcing EPA's guidance or other authorities interpreting this 

definition. Indeed, the state of Kansas recently enacted into law a provision that purportedly 

gives the state permitting agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources 

under development and requires the state agency to base its regulation on a variety of factors not 

permitted under the CAA. Given the history of state backing of these plants, including issuance 

of decisions later struck down by state courts, it is especially inappropriate to rely on the states to 

enforce the definition here. EPA must therefore make clear both the timeline and process for 

EPA to determine the final status of these plants.

Commenter 9514 offered support that each of the three transitional sources should not be 

considered existing sources. 

Overall:

-significant evidence shows that none of these three sources is poised to begin construction at 

any time in the near future

Two Elk:
6-277

-Has a permit that has now lapsed due to lack of construction activity for many years

-Two Elk's 2003 PSD permit has expired due to lack of construction since 2007

-EPA's intention is ambiguous: not mentioned in Federal Register as a transitional source but 

was mentioned in the September 2013 PUD TSD

Plant Washington:

-Plant had not commenced construction by April 13, 2012: "the PSD permit authorizing 

construction of Plant Washington was not final or legally effective until June 15, 2012"

-The record lacks any evidence that P4G has retained an EPC contractor, a necessary first step in 

designed and building an electric generating unit.

-It has not secured contracts to construct the balance of the plant

-Nor has it sought or obtained an NSPS applicability determination form EPA.

-The plant has requested an extension from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division of 

the commence construction deadline for its preconstruction air permit under the closely

analogous provision of the PSD program, acknowledging in September 2013 that:

1. it had not obtained vendor guarantees

2. it had not secured necessary construction financing

3. it had not completed designs for the plant

4. it had not finalized construction arrangements

Holcomb 2:

-Developers assert in February 13, 2013 letter that its sunk costs are sufficient to have 

'commence[d] construction but the commenter noted that EPA's regulations defining 

commencement of construction do not include a developer's sunk cost amount the factors 

relevant to such a determination

-Plant has not begun a continuous program of physical construction.

-The Holcomb developers have not received necessary approval from the Rural Utilities Service.

-The Holcomb Project may not commence construction without a valid PSD permit."

-Tri-State submitted a resource plan update to state regulators in 2012 representing that no new 

coal-fired generating capacity - not the Holcomb project nor any other coal-fired Facility - is 

either needed or expected to be added to Tri-State's portfolio within the next 20 years.

Wolverine:

-Mentioned in Federal Register but has been cancelled [Reference: 79 FR 1461-62]

Response 6.5-7: See section III.J.

Comment 6.5-8: One commenter (10098) stated that because of the unique impact of Section 

111(a)(2) on new sources, which are subject to the rule at the time of proposal, this proposed rule 

is causing harm now. Upon proposal, any new facilities must commit resources to meet the 

stringency of the proposed standard.

Response 6.5-8: This effect is created by statute, which fixes an NSPS trigger date, and is not a 

consequence of anything specific to the present action.

Comment 6.5-9: Commenter 10119 pointed out that "transitional relief" from the proposed rule 

will create many negative incentives, such as discouraging industry from anticipating changes in 
6-278

legal rules, affording exempted facilities relief from regulations with which others must comply, 

creating an unequal competitive playing field; depriving the public of the regulation's benefits 

while bestowing a windfall on the exempted facilities, discouraging early adoption of improved 

and advanced technology, shielding exempted sources from market pressures that would 

otherwise promote technological advances and environmental benefits more quickly and broadly, 

creating expectations that laws will change or can be avoided; creating disincentives for 

voluntary and early compliance; and rewarding lobbying.

Response 6.5-9: See section III.J.

Comment 6.5-10: Commenter 10119 stated that while EPA has the authority under section 

111(b)(2) to create a new subcategory for Wolverine, Washington County and Holcomb, doing 

so would create a category because these three projects might suffer opportunity costs arising 

solely as the result of the specific timing of proposal of the instant new standard. Therefore, the 

commenter asserted that no other future project could ever qualify, creating an exemption rather 

than a subcategory and retarding rather than encouraging the development of improved 

technology.

Response 6.5-10: See section III.J. The EPA does not see that exempting plants that may never 

operate, but if they do may be unable to meet the standard of performance based on previously 

approved designs, would not otherwise compromise the national standard. As noted in the 

preamble to the final rule, the EPA would carefully examine whether these plants (should they

oeprate0 can achieve the standard of 1400 lb CO2/MWh.