1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 4 STATE GOAL COMPUTATION ....................................................................... 2

4.1 Form of Goals .......................................................................................................................... 2

4.2 Proposed Goals ...................................................................................................................... 12

4.2.1 Proposed Final Goals ......................................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Proposed Interim Goals ..................................................................................................... 63

4.3 Alternate Goals.................................................................................................................... 158

4.3.1 Alternate Final Goals ....................................................................................................... 158

4.4 Computation Procedure ..................................................................................................... 175

4.4.1 BSER factors informing state emission rate goals ........................................................ 175

4.4.2 Data used........................................................................................................................... 225

4.4.3 Calculation ........................................................................................................................ 309

4.4.4 Alternative approaches .................................................................................................... 445

4.4.5 Treatment of data years .................................................................................................. 553

4.4.6 Other ................................................................................................................................. 555
2 

CHAPTER 4 STATE GOAL COMPUTATION 

This chapter addresses comments received on the EPA’s proposed state goal computations for 

the EGU GHG Emission Guidelines. Comments received on the following topics are covered by 

this chapter: form of the goals (Section 4.1), proposed goals (Section 4.2), alternate goals 

(Section 4.3), computation procedure (Section 4.4), errors in 2012 baseline data (Section 4.5), 

rate-to-mass conversion (Section 4.6), state flexibilities (Section 4.7), other goal-setting 

approaches (Section 4.8), choice of baseline other than 2012 (Section 4.9), tribe and territory 

goals from supplemental proposal (4.10), state-specific goal computation (4.11), and other state 

goal computation related comments (4.12). 

Commenters also raised issues on topics that are not covered by this chapter. Please refer to the 

following chapters for responses specific to those issues: 

• Chapter 1: Legal 

• Chapter 2: Applicability 

• Chapter 3: GHG Mitigation Measures 

• Chapter 5: State Plan Considerations 

• Chapter 6: State Plans 

• Chapter 7: Interactions With Other EPA Programs and Rules 

• Chapter 8: Impacts and Cost Analysis 

• Chapter 9: Statutory and Executive Orders 

• Chapter 10: Rule Language Corrections 

4.1 FORM OF GOALS 

Section 4.1 covers public comments related to the form of the goals including net generation, 

gross generation, and the form of carbon dioxide. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 
3 

Comment 1: Support for the EPA's proposal to express the rate-based state goals in terms of 

emissions per unit of net generation, as opposed to gross generation. 

Response 1: See section VI.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters supported EPA's proposal to express the rate-based state goals in terms of 

emissions per unit of net generation, as opposed to gross generation. 

Commenters added as EPA acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed NSPS for new EGUs, 

the "net power supplied to the end user is a better indicator of environmental performance than 

gross output from the power producer." Commenters said using net generation as the basis for 

rate-based standards appropriately rewards efforts to increase the useful output of the power 

plants while avoiding increases in fuel consumption and emissions. Commenters stated in 

contrast, a rate-based standard based on gross generation would ignore differences in the 

efficiency of auxiliary equipment and pollution control systems among EGUs, and thus fail to 

fully incentivize the efficient generation of electricity. Commenters added using net generation 

to set state goals is feasible, as EGUs already collect the necessary data and report net generation 

data to the Energy Information Administration. 

Commenters added using net generation as the basis for rate-based standards appropriately 

incentivizes owners and operators of EGUs to optimize the efficiency of their plants by reducing 

parasitic loads associated with auxiliary equipment and emission controls; such improvements in 

efficiency increase the useful output of the plant while avoiding increases in fuel consumption 

and emissions. Commenters stated under a standard based on net generation, these improvements 

in efficiency would lower the emission rate and contribute towards bringing a fossil EGU into 

compliance. 

Commenters added a gross generation-based standard is inconsistent with the overall 

technology-forcing purpose of performance standards under section 111, as well as EPA's 

recognition in building block 1 that improvements in fossil plant efficiency yielding greater 

useful output while maintaining or reducing emissions - are an important part of the BSER. 

Commenters added EPA recognizes in the preamble to the proposed rule that "[n]early all EGUs 

already have in place the equipment necessary to determine and report hourly net generation," 

indicating that monitoring and reporting net generation would not be burdensome. Commenters 

added although net generation is currently not reported to EPA under 40 CFR Part 75, affected 

EGUs are generally required to report gross and net generation on a monthly basis to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) through Form 923 submittals. Commenters said recent PSD 

permits for new and modified EGUs also include emission standards based on net generation, 

providing further support for the feasibility and reasonableness of this approach. 

Commenters added every power plant uses a portion of the electricity it generates (which is 

called the auxiliary or parasitic load) to run internal processes, such as feedwater pumps, cooling 
4 

fans, and pollution reduction systems; a unit's net generation subtracts the auxiliary load when 

determining how much electricity the unit generates, such that it only accounts for electricity 

actually delivered for sale to the grid; by contrast, gross generation standard does not factor out 

the auxiliary load, but simply calculates the total amount of electricity produced by the unit's 

generator. Commenters said EPA has properly calculated all of the emission targets in the Clean 

Power Plan on a net output-based rather than gross output-based standard; by considering only 

net generation, EPA's plan encourages states to minimize the auxiliary load of their electric fleet 

and maximize internal efficiencies. Commenters said this will both help curb power plant CO2 

emissions and reduce the cost of generating electricity for sale to the grid, which will, in term, 

help contain electricity costs to consumers; commenters therefore, strongly supported EPA's 

decision to use a net rather than gross output-based standard for its 111(d) rule and urge the 

agency to maintain the net-based standard in the final rule. 

Commenters stated any power plant standard under 111(d) should be in terms of net, rather than 

gross, generation. Commenters supported the EPA approach of expressing the standard in terms 

of net generation rather than gross output. The commenters said the goal should be to serve the 

end users' electric demand with the minimum practicable amount of fuel, and the lowest 

practicable resulting emissions. Commenters said EPA's election to base emissions rate on net 

rather than gross generation provides utility engineers with more tools in the toolbox to meet the 

desired goal. 

Commenters stated EPA should be giving consideration to the effects of the installation of 

pollution control devices on the EGU's heat rate; even though controls degrade net heat rate, they 

provide an environmentally beneficial outcome and should therefore be accounted for. 

Commenters said U.S. EPA should not be making direct comparisons in between net and gross 

generation when providing justification for the requirements imposed under this proposal; gross 

generation is only a representation of the generator itself and that such a value reflects nothing 

else about the generation system. Commenters said if net generation is to be used, then a 

mechanism must be established to credit those units equipped with pollution control devices; 

failure to do so penalizes those units that have made significant investments in environmental 

controls, the costs of which are paid for by electricity rate-payers. 

In the event that EPA ultimately decides to use net generation, the commenters proposed an 

alternative reporting approach. Commenters said the EPA reporting system used for hourly 

emissions data submittals includes a component for standalone quality assurance and quality 

control data submittals; because there is no need for hourly net generation data, commenters 

recommended that another standalone module be developed for total net generation so that the 

data already provided to EIA20 is directly submitted to EPA at the same time. Commenters said 

the relative burden for every reporting facility to meter another data point and change its data 

collection and handling system to gather that data, to revise the reporting programs to include 

that data and for EPA to rewrite its own program to accept the data is much greater than if EPA 

were to simply develop one module to accept the EIA net generation data so that facilities can 

export that data directly into the EPA database at the same time the data are submitted to EIA. 

 

Comment 2: The goals should be based on gross generation. 
5 

Response 2: The EPA is finalizing the CPP based on subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates and statewide rate-based and mass-based goals based on net generation as explained in 

section VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP. See section VI.C. of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. Additionally, building blocks two and three in 

the EPA’s BSER operate under the premise that 1 net MWh of lower emitting generation can 

replace 1 net MWh of higher emitting generation. Therefore, measuring BSER emission 

performance rates premised on net MWh is more consistent with the abatement measures 

considered in the BSER. In regards to the concern of the interaction of net generation and 

pollution controls, the response to this comment is addressed in section 3.1.4 of this document. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

With respect to emissions goals based on gross versus net output, the commenters asserted that 

any emissions goal for an EGU source that would be affected under a final section 111(d) 

program should be based on gross generation. Commenters said any emissions goal under 

Section 111(d) must be based on the BSER determination applicable to the affected source 

category. Commenters said the affected source category under the EPA's proposal is a fossilfired electrical generating unit. Commenters said auxiliary support equipment at a power 

generating facility has consistently been regulated as separate source categories under section 

111 and Part 60 requirements; for example, coal handling facilities are regulated under 40 CFR 

60 Subpart Y. Commenters said auxiliary boilers are typically regulated under 40 CFR 60 

Subpart Db or Dc, and are clearly distinct from the EGU. Commenters said non-emitting support 

systems, such as electric-powered water-intake structures and associated pumping or general 

facility HVAC systems, are not included in section 111 source definitions; therefore, the 

emissions goals under the EPA's proposed rule clearly should be based only on what is 

achievable at the affected source, which would be defined as emissions based on either fuel 

consumed by the actual emissions source or the gross output (gross MWh) from the emissions 

source. Commenters said in addition, there are many factors that affect the auxiliary usage 

requirements at a given power plant; those factors are dependent on many circumstances beyond 

the practical control of the operator, including geographical location, size of the facility and 

number of units, water availability, previous fundamental design choices for the auxiliary 

support and pollution control equipment, etc. Commenters said basing a goal for an affected 

source category in part on efficiencies that might be gained from auxiliary equipment introduces 

further inconsistency in how the emissions goal will affect each EGU. Commenters said 

selecting a gross, versus net, basis affects the efficiency improvements that can be reliably 

achieved under Building Block 1; to the extent the EPA relied upon efficiency improvements to 

auxiliary equipment and non-emitting equipment to support its conclusion that a 6 percent 

average improvement in efficiency is achievable, the inclusion of auxiliary equipment is 

inappropriate. 

Commenters stated EPA is diverging from its practice in other air regulations (e.g., MATS) of 

using gross not net generation for the calculation of emissions rates. Commenters said the net 

CO2 emissions rate goals are not only more difficult to meet, but also punitive for stations like 

the Spurlock station which has 154 MWs of auxiliary power, 45 percent of which is used for 

pollution controls. 
6 

Commenters stated the unit of measurement for this proposed rule, pounds of carbon dioxide per 

net megawatt hours is of particular difficulty for utilities. Commenters said by imposing limits 

based on net megawatt hours instead of the more traditional gross megawatt hours, power plants 

must deduct the power used to run the facility, also dubbed as parasitic load. Commenters said 

this appears to be the first time emissions are being measured as net, instead of gross. 

Commenters said this change also makes it more difficult for electric utilities to collaborate with 

their fellow state utilities to meet the state goals, which is another wrinkle in the EPA proposed 

rule. Commenters said by using a net measurement each plant must be able to quantify its 

parasitic load now, and then predict it for future compliance purposes; however, this would be 

further complicated with the recently finalized 316B rule that regulates the intake of cooling -- of 

water for cooling purposes, which also effects natural gas plants. Commenters said under 316B, 

a power plant would need to limit its impact on aquatic biota after several years of study; the 

result could be to add a new cooling tower or the like, which in turn would add more parasitic 

load; this results in higher carbon dioxide emissions from a plant, not because the increased 

carbon dioxide -- that carbon dioxide emissions output is -- not because of the increase the 

carbon dioxide from the from the stack, but because the net megawatt hour number is smaller on 

the denominator side of the equation. 

Commenters stated the proposed Existing Source Performance Standard leaves unresolved an 

open issue concerning reporting generation data for compliance purposes as "net" or "gross" 

generation; in Section VII of the proposed rule (page 34894) the adjusted emission rate goals are 

described in terms of "net energy output"; in this section, EPA seeks comment on "...whether the 

goals and reporting requirements for existing EGUs should be expressed in terms of gross 

generation instead of net generation for consistency with existing reporting requirements and 

with the proposed requirements under the GHG standards of performance for new EGUs". 

Commenters recommended continued use of gross generation rather than switching to net 

generation. Commenters said Electric Generating facilities have been reporting gross generation 

since the beginning of the Acid Rain Program in the mid 1990's, with additional units reporting 

as the result of various NOX reduction programs, as well as the EPA Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting programs. Commenters said significant investment has been made in both the 

hardware and software necessary to comply with the reporting requirements; a change to 

reporting requirements will require every reporting entity to make both hardware and software 

changes to their existing systems. 

Commenters favored the use of gross load (i.e., generation) data over net generation for because 

of consistency and fairness. 

Commenters stated in the document titled "Part of E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review: EPA 

Response to Interagency Comments on the EGU GHG Modified/Reconstructed Source NPRM 

(clean) (2060-AR88) as part of review of EGU GHG Existing Source NPRM (2060-AR33) 

(5/30/2014)" in the docket for the proposed rule, the following text is found: "To the extent that 

the EPA finalizes modified and reconstructed standards for stationary combustion turbines that 

are consistent with the standards for newly constructed stationary combustion turbines, the EPA 

intends to take the same approach with regards to the use of net or gross output in both final 

actions." Commenters said in light of the fact that EPA's proposed new source CO2 standards 
7 

under section 111(b) are already based on gross generation, for the sake of consistency gross 

generation should also be used for the section 111(d) standards. 

Commenters stated for any state where the proposed rule's goals are to be met on a unit-by-unit 

(or fleet-by-fleet) basis, the use of net generation values penalizes utilities for electricity that is 

used to power pollution control systems-mandated by other EPA regulations-that are installed 

subsequent to 2012. Commenters said in answer to a question KDHE staff asked with regard to 

affected EGUs using existing EIA forms to report their generation under the proposed rule, EPA 

Region 7 answered: "Kansas will not be using EIA data for utilities to show compliance with the 

111(d) Plan. The State Plan will need to have monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to meet 60.5805. This is also discussed at 79 FR 34910." Commenters suggested 

that by using gross generation to meet goal performance, affected EGUs, all of which are already 

Acid Rain sources reporting CEM data to EPA's Air Markets Program, can be relieved of the 

burden of new reporting requirements by simply allowing them use of Air Markets Program 

(CEM) data to fulfill their requirements (for CO2 emissions as well as electric generation) under 

the proposed rule. 

Commenters noted that EPA solicited comment on whether the goals and reporting should be 

conducted on a net or gross basis. Commenters stated that while a net generation basis promotes 

energy efficiency, they believe that the owner or operator of an affected source should not be 

penalized for station service loads due to the operation of air pollution control devices such as 

flue gas desulfurization units, selective catalytic reduction devices, and control technology to 

reduce particulate matter emissions. Commenters therefore stated that a gross output-based 

standard is more appropriate than the net output-based standard because well-controlled fossilfuel fired EGUs consume more energy to operate air pollution control devices than uncontrolled 

units. Commenters stated that the gross output-based standards are appropriate for both new and 

existing fossil-fuel fired EGUs. Commenters stated that the definition of gross output should 

allow for 100 percent of the useful thermal energy being produced and used to be included, as 

opposed to 75 percent of useful thermal energy being produced as proposed. Commenters 

recommended that regardless of whether the final rule uses a gross output or net output based 

standard, 100 percent of the useful thermal energy should be credited. 

Comment 3: Goals should be based on absolute emissions, not carbon intensity. 

Response 3: The EPA is finalizing the CPP BSER as subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates and equivalent state goals based on carbon intensity and absolute emissions 

from affected sources. States have the flexibility to choose from any of the compliance metrics 

including mass-based state goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated the CPP targets carbon emissions, a critical U.S. GHG contributor; 

the CPP relies on a performance targets based on the carbon intensity of each state's fuel mix for 

power generation. While commenters supported that reductions in carbon intensity of the U.S. 

economy should be achieved, performance targets should be defined on the bases if absolute 
8 

carbon emissions. Commenters said because the possibility that reductions in carbon intensity 

can still result in increases in absolute carbon emissions, both goals should be addressed in the 

rule. Commenters supported a vibrant U.S. economy that meets the needs of all the nation's 

residents, but economic growth should not sacrifice long-term public health and environmental 

sustainability; this requires that economic goals and environmental goals work symbiotically. 

Commenters said EPA should develop guidance and require states demonstrate verifiable 

absolute carbon reductions, and that absolute carbon reductions be achieved in environmental 

justice communities. 

Comment 4: Goals should be based on the total mass of greenhouse gas entering the 

atmosphere.

Response 4: The EPA is finalizing the CPP subcategory-specific emission rates for BSER and 

providing states with the flexibility to use an equivalent blended rate or mass goal as an 

alternative means for demonstrating compliance. Therefore, states have the flexibility to use an 

absolute mass limit as illustrated in section VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated the rule does not actually limit total emissions, but rather the 

"intensity" of emissions; this means that instead of capping the amount of greenhouse gas or 

even carbon dioxide that power plants are allowed to pump into the atmosphere, the rule 

establishes a "rate based" emission target for each state, defined as pounds of carbon dioxide per 

megawatt-hour (CO2/MWh). Commenters said like a diet that limits calories per serving but not 

the number of servings, such an approach will ultimately fail if emissions are allowed to rise 

with increased demand. Commenters said targets should be based on the total mass of 

greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere, or at a minimum contain mass-based backstops, to 

ensure that aggressive greenhouse gas reductions are achieved. 

Commenters understand that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act provides for the consideration of 

costs, this has been improperly interpreted to preclude necessary and meaningful action. 

Commenters said the consideration of "reasonable" expense must also forthrightly address the 

much greater financial, economic, and societal costs of inadequate response. Commenters said 

the EPA can use its authority under Section 111 to establish emissions standards that push states 

to achieve much deeper reductions; furthermore, the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act 

to develop National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases (including 

methane) at levels scientists recognize must be achieved to protect health and welfare. 

Commenters said the EPA should use the strongest tools available under the Clean Air Act and 

other provisions of law to avoid climate catastrophe. 

Commenters stated fossil fuel power plants are responsible for over a third of greenhouse gas 

emissions in the U.S.; because the sector consists of a finite number of large emission sources, it 

is one of the most strategic and important to target for improvement; in order to demonstrate that 

the U.S. is serious about climate change, the EPA should adhere to the internationally accepted 

baseline year of 1990 for measurements and set much stronger targets for power plants with 

required benchmarks for compliance beginning no later than 2020. 
9 

Comment 5: CO2 Emission Target Considerations 

Response 5: The EPA is finalizing the CPP statewide goals based on CO2/net MWh. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated the Proposal does not actually impose CO2 emission limits on fossil 

fuel plants; rather, compliance is determined based on whether CO2 emission rates averaged 

across all EGU's meet the goals established for each state (or region for states that elect that 

option); EPA recognizes that while the Proposal gives states additional room to innovate and find 

the most effective way to achieve the goals, it could also significantly complicate enforcement. 

Commenters added for example, some of the "Building Blocks" assume that public agencies or 

private actors will increase the utilization of combined cycle gas units or defer the retirement of 

nuclear plants or run them at higher capacity factors; EPA and many state environmental 

agencies may lack the jurisdiction to either require or motivate such actions. Commenters said 

the Proposal assumes that EPA will take some enforcement action against a state that fails to 

achieve the statewide emission rates, but based on past experience, that is politically unpalatable 

and it is far more likely that EPA would postpone compliance deadlines. 

Commenters added EPA can resolve this dilemma by requiring all fossil fuel EGU's to meet 

specific emission limits where state or regional targets are not met by rule's deadline. 

Commenters said these default requirements could require fossil fuel plants to meet emission 

limits in 2030 based on long term rates already achieved by coal and gas-fired EGU's between 

2008 and 2013. Commenters said on the one hand, this approach maintains flexibility - fossil 

fuel plants would not have to meet the specific, performance based standards where the rule's 

statewide goals are met; on the other hand, it would ensure accountability through enforceable 

standards that would be triggered by failure to meet the targets through the more elastic approach 

that EPA has proposed. Commenters said the CO2 emission targets are more likely to be met if 

the consequences for failing to meet those objectives are clear. 

Commenters supported setting a single emission rate-based goal determined to be representative 

of BSER for a typical electric system, along with an equivalent mass-based goal. Commenters 

added that as a compliance measure, states that are already this goal should be allowed to 

demonstrate to EPA that they will continue to meet the emission rate-based or equivalent massbased goal. Commenters added that states that are meeting the goal could then comply with the 

proposed rule by submitting a plan to EPA demonstrating how they will achieve either one of the 

equivalent goals. 

Commenters stated many states, including the RGGI states, have already made substantial 

progress in reducing emissions from their power sector. Commenters said EPA should structure 

the guidelines in a way that recognizes this progress and provides equitable treatment to those 

states. Commenters said EPA should avoid any approach that imposes inequitable or 

disproportionate burdens on early mover states and fails to recognize their substantial 

progress; for example, requiring an equivalent percentage reduction for state A, which has 

already achieved most cost-effective reductions, and state B, which has taken little action and 
10 

finds many inexpensive emission reduction opportunities still available, would effectively 

disadvantage state A for having taken early action. Commenters stated one approach that EPA 

should consider is setting a single emission intensity target (e.g., a system-wide average of 1100 

lb/MWh) that would apply to each state, individually or as part of a region. Commenters said that 

approach would require all states to reduce emissions but it would be equitable to those states 

that have already made progress toward meeting the emission intensity target; EPA could 

consider providing more time to states that have more work to do to meet the target. 

Commenters stated the EPA goals are actually going to be measured based on the "Adjusted 

Output Weighted Average Pounds of CO2 Per Net Megawatt-hour From All Affected Fossil 

Fuel Fired EGU's in the State," or Heat Rate, and is specific for each state. Commenters said an 

actual goal will not be known until the state plans are accepted sometime around 2017, and will 

be calculated by dividing fossil fuel power plant emissions by the total power generation from all 

sources to come up with an average heat rate from all sources including the avoided generation 

resulting from energy efficiency projects. Commenters said a simple CO2 emission target for 

each state would be a lot simpler. 

Commenters stated early adopters and more responsible states are not getting credit for taking 

action, the commenters understand this; however, it seems more important to have a level 

playing field now. Commenters asked if EPA set a cascading limit on carbons per MWh that is 

the same for every state and that decreases over time. 

Commenters stated that EPA arrived at a Proposed State Goal, termed an "adjusted outputweighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs." 

Commenters said EPA reached this figure by dividing the total projected CO2 emissions from 

the affected EGUs under this scenario by the sum total of annual MWh generation from the 

affected EGUs + annual MWh generation from renewable and nuclear generation + annual 

MWH generation avoided by reduced demand. Commenters said a great many assumptions and 

projections inform the data inputted and the structure of this calculation. 

Commenters stated it is apparent that this is not actually a measure of the average output of CO2 

per MWh produced from fossil-fired EGUs at a specific source. Commenters said it is not 

something that could be required of, or even derived from data provided from, a particular fossilfuel fired EGU. Commenters said it is simply a way of expressing numerically, in an artificial, 

temporal fashion, the expected state-wide reduction in CO2 emission resulting from changes in 

electricity generation, dispatch and demand in the designated State from application of the four 

building blocks. 

Comment 6: Other Greenhouse Gases CO2e basis 

Response 6: The EPA is finalizing the CPP goals based on CO2 emissions. See section VIII of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for a discussion of alternative compliance measures. 
11 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated consider recognizing and providing a credit mechanism for 

reductions of other greenhouse gases in place of CO2 on a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) basis; for 

example, a coal-fired power plant could reduce its emissions of methane or nitrous oxide and 

should be allowed to substitute these reductions for any required CO2 reductions on a CO2e 

basis. Commenters stated Illinois should be allowed to account for such actions in its state plan. 

Comment 7: The EPA's Emission Guidelines Establishing Standards for States are Consistent 

with the EPA's Past Practice and Regulatory Requirements. 

Response 7: The EPA appreciates the comments of support for establishing standards 

consistently with past practice and regulatory requirements. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated EPA's formulation of the proposed rule is consistent with the 

Agency's past practice in which EPA has established emission targets and authorized states to 

develop compliance plans under section 111, which can include an "allowance system." 

Commenters said for example, in the regulations for large municipal waste combustors, sources 

subject to section 111(d) can average their emission rates and trade nitrogen oxide emission 

credits to demonstrate compliance. Commenters said under the current regulations in 40 C.F.R. 

section 60.22(a), EPA is required to publish standards of performance for the pollutant from the 

affected sources and then publish a guideline document; the regulations further explain that the 

guideline document provides information to states on the development of state plans. 

Commenters said thus, the proposed rule satisfies the emission guideline requirements in the 

existing regulations; the proposal and supporting documentation also provide highly detailed and 

record-based support for EPA's proposed BSER based on current experiences by the states to 

reduce emissions; it includes information for states to develop compliance plans, analysis of the 

building blocks that comprise BSER, state goals based on BSER, and the time in which 

compliance can be achieved, as well as other information. 

Comment 8: The Proposed Rule Should Set a Mass-Based Emission Cap Rather Than a Carbon 

Intensity Standard 

Response 8: The EPA is quantifying the BSER with subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates based on lbs of CO2/net MWh as discussed in section VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. We also provide state equivalent emission rate-based and mass-based goals. Therefore, 

per the commenters suggestion, the EPA has provided a mass-based metric that states have the 

flexibility to use. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
12 

Several commenters said that allowing states to create carbon efficiency standards may generate 

"seam conflicts" at the borders of rate-based states and states with mass-based, emission cap 

systems, such as the carbon reduction programs already in existence in California and through 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI"). Commenters said for example, these conflicts 

could arise between states with interconnected electricity systems if natural gas units in a massbased state operate slightly more efficiently than those in a rate-based state and have historically 

been dispatched before the natural gas units in the rate-based state. Commenters said the EGUs 

operating in the rate-based system (and earning an economic benefit for each MWh produced) 

could underbid EGUs operating in a mass-based system without a corresponding economic 

benefit. Commenters said this would be so because increased NGCC generation in the rate-based 

state lowers the average state emission rate in that state, allowing the rate-based state to meet its 

goal (even while increasing its mass emissions substantially). Commenters said at the same time, 

decreased generation in the mass-based state lowers that state's total emissions, allowing the 

mass state to meet its goal. Commenters said total overall emissions, however, increase; thus, a 

piecemeal approach with inconsistent state systems within larger electricity markets could result 

in shifted generation from states with mass-based systems to those with rate-based systems, 

while overall emissions increase; state-specific mass-based caps would prevent this distortion. 

4.2 PROPOSED GOALS 

Section 4.2 covers public comments related to the proposed final and interim goals. 

4.2.1 Proposed Final Goals 

 Section 4.2.1 covers public comments related to the proposed final goals including the 

stringency, achievability, state’s authority to develop, in relation to NSPS standard, disparity 

between states, and the timing. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 

Comment 1: Support for proposed final goals. 

Response 1: The EPA appreciates the comments of support for the proposed goals, please see 

sections V, VI, and Section VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for discussion of changes to 

the BSER between proposal and final based on comments, the quantification of the BSER in this 

final rule, and a description of the state goals. 

The EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed requirements were viable. The final rule 

quantifies the BSER in a manner using source-category rates rather than purely relying on state 

goals. These modifications incorporate commenter feedback in a manner that makes the 

expression of the BSER more applicable to source-categories and units within that source 
13 

category. It simultaneously assesses source reduction potential from a regional lens rather than a 

purely within a state lens as proposed. The resulting source-category rates and state goal 

compliance options similarly represent viable and feasible reductions that are consistent with the 

comments above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters provided general support for the proposed goals and stated they are fair and 

technically achievable/feasible. 

Commenters stated that even states with the most significant reduction goals will be able to meet 

their targets with relative ease given EPA's conservative assumptions and the range of emission 

reduction options available. Commenters said that since the Proposed Rule allows states to 

deploy these types of "beyond the fence line" solutions to reduce emissions in addition to the onsite options, states will be able to employ the full suite of advanced energy technologies. 

Commenters stated that this flexibility will also allow states to address a major contributing 

factor to excessive emissions: the inherent inefficiencies of the existing electricity system. 

Commenters said that by employing more natural gas and renewable generation, expanding 

demand-side energy efficiency, and deploying additional smart grid technologies, states will 

dramatically decrease their emissions as they displace generation from outmoded, high-emitting 

sources and eliminate inefficiency and waste in the system. Commenters said that given the 

availability of the full range of advanced energy technologies, states will be able to meet their 

goals easily from a technological perspective and at low cost, while at the same time increasing 

grid reliability and resiliency and providing new products and services to consumers. 

Commenters stated that by driving investment in these high-value emission-reducing 

technologies, the Clean Power Plan will accelerate the country's transition to a high-performing 

grid that is efficient, reliable, resilient, flexible, clean, affordable, and consumer-focused. 

Commenters supported EPA's proposed 2030 compliance deadline; achieving EPA's proposed 

final target will require significant shifts in generation as well as additional transmission. 

Commenters stated while aggressive, the year 2030 is an achievable compliance deadline, 

assuming EPA incorporates changes provided by commenters. 

Commenters asserted the proposed carbon emissions reduction target for Arkansas of 44% by 

2030 from 2012 carbon emissions rates is appropriate as it reflects the business strategies 

pursued by the state's electric utilities the last 10 years; Arkansas's electric generation and carbon

emissions increased 27% and 39% respectively from 2005 to 2013 despite retail electric energy 

sales rising only 1%. 

Commenters stated the emission reduction targets outlined in the Clean Power Plan are based on 

EPA's determination of the best system of emission reduction ("BSER") in the form of four 

building blocks that have been adequately demonstrated at a reasonable cost; the commenters 

urged EPA to finalize a 2030 target for Tennessee that is at least as stringent as the proposed 

target - particularly because Tennessee's actual emission rate (i.e., one that accounts for decisions 

already made) is much lower than what EPA assumes. 
14 

Commenters supported the adoption of Option 1, but with recommendations for modifying the 

draft rule; a stable, long-term policy framework is necessary to ensure that the U.S. sustains its 

commitment to reducing emissions; in addition, the country must adopt ambitious targets that 

both make significant near term reductions and set us on course to meet the long-term reductions 

necessary to mitigate greenhouse gas concentrations and the extent of climate disruption. 

Commenters also supported the EPA's proposed rate-based approach; it is likely that more end 

use of energy will shift to the electricity sector as a greater portion of transportation and space 

heating become electrified; it is possible that energy efficiency improvements and deployment of 

more efficient technologies (e.g., ground source heat pumps) and energy storage could enable the 

electricity sector to absorb new load sources without a significant increase in total load; however, 

such an outcome is not certain, and a rate-based approach would accommodate unforeseen 

changes in the electricity sector without compromising the effectiveness of the Clean Power Plan 

framework. 

Commenters applauded the EPA for its issuance of its performance standards for existing 

sources of carbon pollution; however has some general concerns. 

Commenters stated Nevada is well positioned to meet and exceed the proposed interim and final 

goals called for by the Clean Power Plan - and the successful transition Nevada is already 

undertaking underscores the wisdom of EPA's system-wide approach to reducing carbon 

emissions. Commenters encouraged the EPA to move forward with finalizing these much needed 

pollution reduction measures. Commenters said transitioning to a clean energy future in Nevada 

is already creating jobs and spurring economic development, as well as improving public health 

through better air quality; deploying these types of solutions across the country is critical if we 

hope to avoid the damages caused by a warming climate. 

Commenters stated with the implementation of existing state law, Nevada is in a strong position 

to meet the interim and final goals set forth in the Clean Power Plan. Commenters said Eightyfive percent of Nevada's electricity load is served by NV Energy through its operating utilities, 

Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Commenters said Senate Bill (SB) 

123, enacted in 2013, provides for the retirement over the next five years of 812 MW of NV 

Energy's coal-fired generation, and the replacement of that generation with lower carbonemitting resources, including significant new renewable energy generation. Commenters said a 

recent analysis, performed by Western Resource Advocates, is based on NV Energy's projection 

of loads and resources under its SB 123 implementation plan for the years 2020-2030, and its 

projection of annual carbon emissions from affected EGUs in its fleet for the same years. 

Commenters said NV Energy with its SB 123 implementation plan is on track to achieve an 

adjusted emissions rate of 796 lbs/MWh in 2020 and 528 lbs/MWh in 2030; the 10-year average 

of the adjusted emission rates for the 2020-2029 compliance period is 678 lbs/MWh, and the 

company achieves an adjusted emissions rate of 552 lbs/MWh in 2029. Commenters said these 

projected emission rates for NV Energy easily meet EPA's interim goal for Nevada of 697 

lbs/MWh, as well as the final goal of 647 lbs/MWh. Commenters noted that these projections do 

not assume the retirement of all coal-fired EGUs by 2020. Commenters said NV Energy's 

projected emissions from the coal-fired North Valmy Generating Station are included until its 

scheduled retirement at the end of 2025, and its projected emissions from the coal-fired TS 

Power Plant are included through 2030. 
15 

Commenters supported the Proposal's establishment of emission goals for states, including an 

interim goal, which would apply between 2020 and 2029, and a final goal, which must be 

achieved starting in 2030. Commenters understood that state emission goals are not uniform and 

that some states will be required to reduce emissions rates more than others; it appears that even 

states with even the most significant reduction goals will be able to meet their targets with 

relative ease given EPA's conservative assumptions used in setting emission performance 

standards and the range of carbon emission reduction options available for compliance, including 

the range of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency. Commenters said as a result 

of certain assumptions and provisions, the proposed rule significantly underestimates the degree 

to which renewable energy, in particular, can help New York meet its carbon reduction goal. 

Commenters stated EPA's target-setting did not take into account many of the carbon-reducing 

measures that Tennessee had begun pursuing prior to the proposal; when those measures - which 

include coal unit retirements and conversions, the construction of new natural gas units, and new 

investments in renewable generation and energy efficiency - are taken into account, Tennessee 

will achieve 88 percent of its reduction target merely by staying the course. While the 

assumptions that the commenters made in performing these calculations were simplified in 

comparison to the level of detail needed to determine actual compliance, these calculations 

nevertheless reflect the achievability of Tennessee's target. 

Commenters stated as a result of the actions taken to date, the New England region is already 

well positioned in the U.S. as leader in clean energy and its ability to meet greenhouse gas 

emission reduction targets. 

Commenters modeled 3 scenarios: business-as-usual (BAU) scenario against a natural gas fuel 

switching, scenario, and a 30% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Commenters said this 

preliminary analysis shows that Wisconsin can meet EPA's CO2 reduction targets by pursuing 

two compliance options, a 30% by 2030 RPS, or a statewide shift to displace coal with increased 

dispatch of existing natural gas units. Commenters said while the 30% RPS will require 

significant construction of new renewable generation, it is cost-competitive with the natural gas 

fuel switching alternative by 2030 (though actual costs could vary widely depending on many 

variables that were not tested in this initial analysis). Commenters said the 30% RPS scenario 

will also result in highly diversified generation mix that will insulate Wisconsin's utilities and 

electric ratepayers against volatile fuel prices and potential CO2 compliance costs. 

Commenters said EPA has stated that its determination of state-specific emission targets will 

reflect emission reductions available to or achievable by regulated sources through state plans. 

Commenters said the Proposed Rule evaluates specific alternatives for emission reduction - both 

directly at the regulated sources and in manners that may indirectly affect emissions from 

regulated sources - among several energy generation scenarios, and also insists that states should 

be afforded substantial flexibility in devising individual plans to achieve these state goals. 

Commenters said these two principals - achievability of emission levels and state flexibility in 

devising plans - are fundamental to the consistency of the regulatory framework with the 

statutory authority. 
16 

Commenters requested that the EPA issue guidelines and approve state-established performance 

standards that are based on reductions of carbon dioxide emissions achievable by measures 

undertaken at fossil-fueled power plants. 

Commenters stated that the language of section 111 is sufficiently broad to authorize the 

selection of an averaging system as the best system of emission reduction, thus expressing state 

goals as average, state-wide performance levels is reasonable and consistent with EPA's 

authority under the Clean Air Act 

Comment 2: The EPA should revise/adjust state goals; recommendations.

Response 2: The EPA appreciates the comments of support for the proposed goals and 

recommendations, please see sections V, VI, VII, and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

for a description of the BSER, its quantification, and accompanying state goal compliance 

options. 

In regards to these comments on Virginia’s goal on Brunswick and Warren plants, Dominion 

Power’s comment confirmed they were under construction by NSPS definition. The EPA 

determined it was inappropriate to ignore any under construction units from the quantification of 

BSER and establishment of states goals as they are considered affected sources under 111(d). 

Other commenters suggested that under construction units be included in the quantification of 

BSER and state goals and that is consistent with how the EPA is finalizing the BSER 

quantification. 

In regards to the comment on Arizona’s goal, there is no distributed generation assumed in the 

BB3 RE levels assumed in the BSER quantification. See section V.E. of the final rule preamble 

and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for further explanation of BB3 in the final rule. 

In regards to the Louisiana comment, the EPA has revised some of its baseline Louisiana data 

per the commenters’ note and comments elsewhere in this document. Notably, the Washington 

Parish facility was removed from the likely affected inventory as commenters pointed out that it 

was no longer under construction. This change is reflected in the final rule’s BSER 

quantification of subcategory rates, and in the Louisiana state goals.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters asserted that EPA does not have the authority to consider emissions reductions 

beyond the fence line in a BSER analysis; however, if EPA decides to proceed with a BSER 

analysis that includes Building Blocks 2 through 4, then it must consider that a state goal of no 

less than 2,215 pounds of CO2 per MWh is a more representative and realistic state goal for 

Wyoming, as evidenced by WDEQ's and PSC's analysis of the Propose Rule. Commenters said 

the state goal of 2,215 is derived by adjusting inputs to EPA's model as follows and as supported 

by the WDEQ and PSC analyses: Adjust Building Block 1 from 6% to 2% and incorporate a 3 

year baseline (2010-2012) of 2,343 lbs CO2/MWh; Correct Building Block 2 to 95 MW; Adjust 

Building Block 3 from a 6% escalation factor to a 1% escalation factor; Adjust Building Block 4 

from a cumulative savings of 9.73% to 3.77% 
17 

Commenters requested EPA implement the following recommendations for Virginia: 1) EPA 

should remove NGCC units under construction from the calculation of the state reduction 

targets; EPA should recalculate the Virginia targets excluding the emissions and megawatt-hours 

from the Warren and Brunswick NGCC facilities. (Although there is no direct impact to 

Virginia's target, EPA should likewise remove nuclear units under construction in the calculation 

of state targets.) 2) EPA should eliminate the 6 percent adjustment assumed in the calculation of 

the state target to reflect "at risk" nuclear and recalculate the Virginia target accordingly; at this

time, there is no existing nuclear generation in Virginia that is economically at risk. 3) EPA 

should adjust the state target to reflect the state-specific renewable potential identified under the 

NREL Alternative renewable approach. 4) EPA should adjust the state target based on statespecific energy savings instead of the savings realized by the "best performing" 12 states. 5) EPA 

should adjust the state target to appropriately recognize and credit unit efficiency improvements 

and uprates achieved prior to the 2012 baseline. 

Commenters added when EPA's goal calculations are corrected to use NGCC net capacity rather 

than nameplate capacity, and an incremental NGCC emission rate, Florida's proposed goal in 

2030 is above 900 lb/MWh; EPA must correct its errors related to Florida's goals, recalculate the 

goals, and provide an opportunity for public review and comment. 

Commenters stated the average emission rate of coal-fired EGUs depends in part on how often 

they are required to ramp up and down, and the amount of time for which they can operate at 

optimal capacity; integration of increasing amounts of natural gas generation, RE, EE, and 

redispatch-as contemplated by the Proposed Rule-will reduce the average utilization of coal-fired 

EGUs, thus increasing their average heat rate and CO2 emissions; therefore, even if additional 

efficiency improvements are feasible, the implementation of the other Building Blocks could 

greatly reduce the amount of emission reductions that would otherwise be achievable through 

improving coal-fired EGUs' efficiency. Commenters said such inefficiencies should be 

considered by the EPA in its determination of interim and final emissions targets for states. 

Commenters stated Louisiana's final goal should be 1078 lb CO2/MWh, with an alternate goal of 

1239 lb CO2/MWh after accounting for discrepancies. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule sets Louisiana's final goal at 883 pounds of CO2 per net 

megawatt hour (lb CO2/MWh) and specifies the state's "alternate goal" as 1025 lb CO2/MWh. 

Commenters said after accounting for discrepancies, Louisiana's final goal should be 1078 lb 

CO2/MWh, with an alternate goal of 1239 lb CO2/MWh. Commenters asserted EPA's use 

of incorrect data calls into question the rule in its entirety and warrants its abandonment, at the 

very least EPA should revise Louisiana's goals; however, even if these numbers are revised by 

EPA- the results would still cripple the state's economy. 

Commenters stated EPA's use of incorrect data calls into question the rule in its entirety and 

warrants its abandonment, at the very least EPA should revise Louisiana's goals. 

Commenters stated following the correction of a number of discrepancies in EPA's data and a 

revised regional RE target Louisiana's final goal should be set at 1131 lb CO2/MWh, with an 

alternate goal of 1270 lb CO2/MWh. 
18 

Commenters stated the net effect of changes raises Louisiana's final goal to 1078 lb CO2/MWh 

and its alternate goal to 1239 lb CO2/MWh. 

Commenters supported EPA's finalization of a 2030 target for Virginia that is at least as stringent 

as the proposed target - particularly because Virginia's actual starting point (i.e. one that accounts

for decisions already made) is much lower than what EPA assumes. Commenters re-created the 

state target EPA computed for Virginia using the four BSER building blocks; for Virginia, the 

baseline carbon emissions rate for fossil-fuel generation in 2012 was 1,438 lbs/MWh; applying 

each of the four building blocks to Virginia's 2012 baseline resulted in an emissions rate goal of 

810 lbs/MWh in 2030, with an interim goal of 884 lbs/MWh average for years 2020 - 2029. 

Commenters recommended that EPA correct the Arizona goal to exclude the distributed 

generation portion of the goal. 

Commenters have prepared corrected, but incomplete, Alaska goal calculations; and stated these 

updated calculations are incomplete because EPA did not provide adequate information to 

determine the basis for several calculation steps. Commenters said even so, these incomplete, 

corrected calculations demonstrate that the recalculated interim CO2 performance goal for 

Alaska should be no less than 1,261 pounds of CO2 per net megawatt-hour (lb CO2/net MWh) 

compared to the proposed EPA interim goal of 1,097 lb CO2/net MWh. Commenters said the 

same incomplete, corrected calculations demonstrate that the final CO2 performance goal for 

Alaska should be no less than 1,191 lb CO2/net MWh compared to the proposed EPA final goal 

of 1,003 lb CO2/net MWh. Commenters said the completely corrected calculations will likely 

result in higher goals. 

Commenters supported the overall EPA approach of setting a target rate of CO2 emissions for 

each state. Commenters said this performance-based approach provides the maximum flexibility 

to states to achieve the targets, while ensuring that the essential climate protection goal of 

significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector is achieved; but it is 

essential to remedy the technical and economic defects of the way in which the EPA has gone 

about setting rates for states. Commenters stated the major issues in need of remedy, while 

adopting as much of the EPA approach as possible, are: 

1. The setting of target rates should be technology neutral, unlike the EPA's treatment of natural 

gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. 

2. Emissions and generation from various years should not be combined, emissions should be 

calculated for each year according to total emissions and total generation from all affected 

sources and all other generation (except the small sources which are consistently omitted from 

both emission and generation calculations). 

3. The separation between the EPA's functions and those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) needs to be recognized; the EPA should not assume that reactor licenses would be 

extended beyond their current expiry dates; safety and environmental considerations demand that 

the EPA construct its rule without presuming future NRC actions, one way or another; options 

exist that better meet the BSER tests than subsidizing existing nuclear plants. 
19 

4. States should have flexibility in meeting the target emission rates, which is already the case in 

the Draft CPP; however, the EPA should make clear that certain approaches like increasing 

natural gas use may not meet the compliance test under adverse but realistic venting and 

warming potential assumptions; the EPA should also make clear that nuclear plants whose 

licenses expire before 2030 cannot be included in compliance plans. 

5. The trajectory in 2030 should be compatible with long-term (2050 onward) need for the 

elimination of nearly all energy-related CO2 emissions. 

6. The framework should be able to accommodate resilience of the electric grid and economic 

justice so that low- and middle-income households are not disproportionately impacted. 

7. The cost criterion should be consistently and realistically applied to determine the best system 

of emission reduction; the commenters has used a cost criterion of $20 per metric ton pf CO2 

emission reduction or less relative to a new coal plant for inclusion in the best system of 

emission reduction. 

8. Non-air quality impacts need to be considered. 

9. Water use should be considered; specifically, low water use should be a consideration for 

inclusion in the BSER; the EPA should specify that states must meet their target emission rates 

even if there are increases in CO2 emissions due to nuclear power plant derating caused by lack 

of cooling water or by discharge temperature considerations. 

10. The range of natural gas leakage estimates and global warming potential values that are 

relevant to climate protection need to be taken into account; specifically higher published 

leakage estimates and the 20-year warming potential for methane should be used to estimate the 

upper limit of potential CO2eq impacts; at the very least, the EPA should use the mean of the 

published leakage rates and a 20-year warming potential for methane (whether from coal, oil, or 

natural gas fields) to estimate the overall impact of natural gas use. 

11. The overall targets set by the EPA are weak given the ample opportunities for low-cost or 

even negative cost CO2 emission reductions and the need for stronger targets for climate 

protection. 

Commenters stated that EPA should evaluate whether and when the level of performance 

achieved by the RGGI states can be achieved throughout the United States using the various 

tools at the disposal of the states. Commenters stated that EPA should structure the emission 

guidelines to require that states make significant progress in the next decade toward achieving 

the reductions and performance level demonstrated by RGGI to be readily achievable by the best 

systems of emission reduction. 

Comment 3: The EPA should strengthen the targets. 

Response 3: Please see section VII of the preamble for the final rule’s state goals. 
20 

The EPA has revised our methodology for quantifying the BSER in this final CPP. See 

preamble section V for a description of how it defines BSER and what abatement technologies 

and levels are assumed to be available. See section VI along with the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for CPP Final Rule for a description of the annual emission impacts. The following are 

summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated EPA should strengthen the targets. 

Commenters stated the state-by-state targets in the proposal are not based on policies already 

adopted by each state; the EPA approach underestimates the use of renewables and conservation 

and, for some states, assumes less use of renewables and conservation in 2030 than is already in 

place today or less than has already committed to by the state. Commenters urged EPA to more 

accurately estimate the potential for use of renewable energy and to strengthen the state-by-state 

targets accordingly; the commenters added energy conservation can realistically play a larger 

role in displacing carbon emissions and that should be recognized in the state estimates as well. 

Commenters stated EPA should strengthen its proposal by calling for more ambitious reductions 

of carbon emissions from power plants by at least 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. 

Commenters added strengthen the targets for reductions in carbon emissions; the draft rule 

purports to require that the power sector cut carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 30% 

from 2005 levels by 2030. Commenters said while at first glance a 30% cut seems strong, sector 

emissions were already 15% below 2005 levels in 2013, so the rule cuts only another 15% over 

the next 15 years; this contribution from the power sector to economy-wide reductions is far 

lower than the world's best climate scientists have determined is needed to stave off the worst 

effects of global warming; and it does not arm President Obama with the ambitious greenhouse 

gas goal and credible emissions reduction mechanism that other countries must see from our 

nation during the crucial international climate change negotiations next year - both as proof of 

U.S. action and as a template that others can emulate. 

Commenters stated identifying the "best" system of emission "reduction" must entail a thorough 

effort to capture feasible and cost-effective reductions, taking into consideration the goals and 

standards set by other countries. Commenters said a carbon emissions target far greater than the 

target set by EPA is necessary to protect the climate and is also feasible and cost-effective. 

Commenters said EPA proposes a target of 30% reduction below 2005 carbon emission levels by 

2030; but it is feasible and cost-effective to reduce carbon emissions from EGUs by 55% below 

2005 levels by 2030. Commenters said it is also necessary for achieving climate-related goals; 

this degree of carbon reduction would be consistent with the European Union's target for GHG 

reductions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, putting the United States in a stronger position in 

the climate negotiations scheduled to take place in Paris in December 2015. 

Commenters suggested ways that the EPA can strengthen the targets that EPA set for states - and 

Texas in particular - so that the CPP can get the U.S. closer to the needed level of reductions to 

make a difference in the fight against climate change. Commenters said given Texas's role as the 

largest source of carbon pollution emissions from electric generating facilities, the largest burner 

and importer of coal, and nation's largest consumer of electricity, the commenters asserted that 

the CPP correctly recognizes that Texas must play a leading role in the effort to reduce carbon 
21 

emissions. Commenters said while the EPA's targeted emissions reductions from power plants 

are ambitious, commenters asserted Texas can do even better. 

Commenters stated some utilities in Texas are already moving toward a much higher renewable 

goal or target; Austin City Council recently passed policy that called upon achieving a 50% 

renewable target in 2020 and a 65% renewable target for Austin Energy in 2025; Austin Energy 

responded by stating that it could meet a 50% to 55% goal by 2025 affordably; CPS Energy has 

stated it will meet its 20% by 2020 target three years early, while Denton Municipal Utility is 

already meeting a 40% goal of renewable energy; Pedernales Electric Cooperative set a 30% 

renewable energy goal for 2030. Commenters said a stronger renewable energy target based on 

what Texas can realistically achieve will promote the type of energy infrastructure that will 

ultimately be needed to stabilize the climate. Commenters said as a policy matter, the EPA 

should therefore prioritize renewable energy over other building blocks by making renewable 

energy targets stronger and more realistic; more importantly, the EPA must recalculate Texas's 

renewable energy targets because there is no support in the record for EPA's arbitrary 

assumptions that there will be zero renewable growth before 2017, or after Texas achieves 20% 

deployment. Commenters asserted a target in the 40% range is achievable in Texas. 

Commenters stated both the interim target and the final 2030 target should be more ambitious to 

properly realize reductions that can be achieved. Commenters said we can achieve significant 

reductions over the next half decade and will not have to backload reductions towards 2030 as 

much as the current proposal would entail. Commenters said overall, EPA's goal of 30 percent 

reduction by 2030 is too modest; not only does it leave significant achievable reductions on the 

table, it is also not likely an ambitious enough target to meet the President's new commitment 

made in last month's agreement with China to achieving U.S. reductions of 26-28 percent by 

2025; that can likely only be achieved by deeper cuts than the CPP currently calls for along with 

other carbon cutting policies. 

Commenters stated EPA proposes a target of 30% reduction below 2005 carbon emission levels 

by 2030; this amounts to only about a 7 percent reduction in emissions relative to 

1990. Commenters said to set such a low target for carbon emission reductions by 2030 would 

make it virtually impossible to achieve 84% carbon emission reductions by 2050; in addition the 

EPA's heavy reliance on natural gas to meet the 2030 targets makes it even more difficult to 

achieve higher emissions reductions by 2050. Commenters said in any event, EPA's proposed 

reliance on natural gas is not necessary; it is both feasible and cost-effective to reduce carbon 

emissions from EGUs by about 55% below 2005 levels by 2030. 

Commenters added EPA fails to recognize that it is both feasible and cost-effective to reduce 

carbon emissions from EGUs by about 55% below 2005 levels by 2030; this is demonstrated in 

48 state-specific models; states can achieve greater carbon reductions than the targets proposed 

by EPA, relying primarily on efficiency and renewable energy; this can be done at costs of 

carbon reduction per metric ton of CO2 equivalent that are generally lower than those in the 

Clean Power Plan. 

Commenters stated the carbon pollution limit for states and existing stationary sources should be 

increased to the level necessary to bring atmospheric carbon concentration back to 350 ppm by 

2100. 
22 

Commenters stated the proposed target should be greater than the 2012 renewable energy levels; 

to set the bar lower means the country will take a few steps back from reducing carbon dioxide 

emission. Commenters said the determination of state's renewable energy objective should be 

based off of what it was before and should not go beneath it; renewable energy is too valuable to 

not to reconsider and the country should remain producing more of the treasured energy, no 

matter of its source. Commenters said by stating the proposed goal higher, it will strengthen this 

proposed rule and solidify positive outcomes in the future. 

Commenters stated the goal for Nevada should be recalculated; rather than pushing to continue 

business as usual and refuse to do anything to address climate change and its peril for future 

generations, Nevadans want to do more to make their planet and their communities livable in the 

future. Commenters said the explosive appetite for rooftop solar, offered at only a small savings 

from the existing utility bill, shows people's desire for clean energy choices. Commenters said 

cities including Reno, Boulder City and Las Vegas are building solar and wind facilities to 

reduce their carbon footprint; Boulder City has set land aside as a renewable energy zone which 

is providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in income to the city. Commenters said it's time to 

build the new energy economy of the 21st century, with healthier families and communities, 

through doubling down on energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, and the many 

other technologies that will provide a better way for Nevada. 

Commenters stated North Carolina's target is readily achievable; in fact, North Carolina will not 

need to take any additional action to comply with the Clean Power Plan, beyond the actions its 

electric utilities have already taken to date and the requirements of North Carolina law. 

Commenters said North Carolina's post-2012 coal retirements, its shift to increased natural gas 

generation, the addition of under-construction natural gas power plants, and preservation of 

existing nuclear reduce the State's emission rate to 1,377 lbs/MWh. Commenters said when 

North Carolina's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard requirements are added in, the State's 

emission rate falls to 949 lbs/MWh - well below the Clean Power Plan target of 992 lbs/MWh. 

Commenters said EPA should require greater reductions in North Carolina to reflect the best 

system of emission reductions. 

Commenters stated because of the clear need for even greater carbon pollution reductions, the 

final Clean Power Plan carbon pollution limits can and must set stronger limits. Commenters 

said EPA should increase the carbon pollution reduction goal of the Clean Power Plan, which 

can be achieved by finalizing a rule with 1) recognizes the growth of wind and solar energy and 

2) takes full advantage of energy efficiency. Commenters said the EPA should also encourage 

strong state implementation plans that include significant renewable energy and efficiency 

measures and support for workers and under-represented communities. 

Commenters stated the emissions reductions called for in EPA's plan are less significant than the 

reductions climate scientists tell us are necessary; time is not on our side; according to the Center 

for Biological Diversity, the proposed 30% reduction in carbon dioxide from a 2005 baseline by 

2030 corresponds to only a 7.7% reduction from 1990 which is the year accepted by the United 

States Framework Convention on Climate Change. Commenters said the emission goals in the 

proposed rule are not adequate. 
23 

Commenters supported a final CPP with stronger CO2 reduction goals; EPA should 

incorporate CO2 emission reduction goals that are consistent with the carbon reduction goals 

released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Commenters said the draft 

CPP essentially penalizes states with lower CO2 emissions by setting higher reduction goals 

while states with higher CO2 emissions have lower reduction goals. Commenters said CO2 

reductions can be strengthened by increasing the target reduction goals of higher CO2 emitting 

states. Commenters said no consideration should be given to lowering the CO2 reduction targets 

established in the CPP. Commenters said further delaying action on CO2 will make it harder and 

more expensive to reduce CO2 emissions in the future. 

Commenters stated this rule is important for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but it will not 

achieve the science-based emissions reduction levels for 2050 discussed by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Commenters encouraged EPA to carefully review 

the analysis done by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council that shows a path for EPA to boost cost-effective emissions reductions an additional 10 

percent by 2030. 

Commenters stated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a goal for 

Missouri electric utility generating units to reduce their carbon pollution by a scant 21 percent by 

2030 relative to 2005 emissions; this goal is insufficient to help counter the increased frequency 

and intensity of catastrophic weather events already occurring throughout the U.S. and the world. 

Commenters said the proposed reductions are considerably less than Missouri is capable of 

achieving, and that 77 percent of Missourians support in the Clean Energy Survey report released 

November 2014. Commenters said given the consolidated political power that the investorowned electric utilities wield in Missouri, promulgation of inadequate carbon reductions will 

enable them to lock in the combustion of substantially larger quantities of coal for decades, and 

higher carbon emissions, than can and must be achieved. Commenters said lowering these goals 

will prevent the needed protections from being achieved; given the consolidated political power 

that the investor-owned electric utilities wield in Missouri, promulgation of inadequate carbon 

reductions will enable them to lock in the combustion of substantially larger quantities of coal 

for decades, and higher carbon emissions, than can and must be achieved, if we are to leave a 

livable world for future generations. 

Commenters stated in preparation of comments for this Rule, several major Illinois 

environmental organizations conducted an analysis that concluded if the State of Illinois did 

nothing other than what is already being done and what is currently planned in energy efficiency 

and renewable energy growth, Illinois would be able to meet its EPA target. Commenters said 

they also observe what Illinois has the capacity to do much more than what is currently being 

planned. Commenters said as was recently demonstrated in a report by the Union of Concerned 

Scientists, Strengthening the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Oct. 14, 2014)] the contribution for CO2 

reduction to be expected from renewable energy sources has been greatly underestimated by both 

EPA and the EIA. Commenters said the UCS reports that, "increased renewable electricity 

growth could allow states to collectively cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from power plants 

40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 rather than the 30 percent reduction EPA included in its 

draft rule." Commenters asserted that the EPA needs to correct this underestimate in its Draft 

Rule, which would then either allow for greater expectation for CO2 reduction, a prioritization of 

renewable energy as a CO2 reduction source, or both. Commenters said give priority to use of 
24 

renewable energy resources and energy efficiency for maximum carbon reduction; place state 

compliance emphasis on the implementation of renewables and energy efficiency, the more the 

better. 

Commenters stated EPA documents that 29 states have established RPS goals and other states 

are using other measures to promote renewables; however, using a bizarre construct or 

methodology, EPA proposes achieving a national average of 13% renewables by 2029. 

Commenters said the reality is that 21 states will do much less than 13%. 

Commenters recommended a minimum 30% renewable goal by 2029 for every state that 

includes only renewables that do not generate CO2; thus biomass combustion should not be 

included as a renewable. Commenters said a recent article at Think Progress "HOW RENEW 

ABLES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE LEAPFROGGING TRADITIONAL POWER", 

NOV. 4, 2014, Jeff Spross reports on an analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

Commenters said developing nations are outpacing developed ones in installing renewables and 

jumping past fossil fuels; in 55 developing countries, renewable capacity grew by 143% between 

2008 to 2013, 28.6% per year; by contrast the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) nations saw only 84% growth, 16.8% per year; if OECD countries saw 

84% growth in 5 years, the US should be able to at least achieve 168% growth in renewables 

over the course of 10 years. Commenters said the Universe or Baseline being addressed is not 

total Greenhouse gas emissions from the electric generation sector, but a subset of these 

emissions; the rule deals with just CO2 and promises a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions from 

the power sector only by 2030 from 2005 (not including NGCC plant emissions). Commenters 

said what is critical to halt climate change is effectively dealing with total GHG emissions and 

achieving 80% reduction by 2050; simply not counting some emissions from this sector harms 

goal achievement. 

Commenters stated the latest studies require dramatic cuts (35-65%) to greenhouse gas emissions 

by 2030, in order to avoid a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature. Commenters said this proposed 

rule would only achieve about a 10% reduction; this is not an acceptable goal. Commenters said 

the EPA's goals fall short of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent goals for 

developed countries, of reductions from 15 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020; 

and 80 percent reductions by 2050. The commenters said the Clean Power Plan should increase 

its reduction goals to minimize impacts from climate change. 

Commenters stated even though the Clean Power Plan focuses on reducing carbon pollution 

from power plants 30% by 2030, the EPA estimated states could make these reductions faster. 

Commenters said states can go much further than 30% by 2030 because states are already going 

beyond EPA's proposal by retiring dirty power plants and scaling up renewables and energy 

efficiency. Commenters said for example in Kentucky, the Assistant Secretary for Climate 

Policy, John Lyons, recently stated that the average carbon emissions of Kentucky's fleet of coalfired power plants should meet the new standard by 2020; that's because 11 coal boilers are 

already scheduled to shut down because of other EPA air quality regulations. Commenters 

said Kentucky can meet the Clean Power Plan standards simply by continuing their present 

course, with little incentive for additional innovation. Commenters said that the EPA's listening 

sessions resulted in a desire for flexibility across states; but that flexibility should not override 

strong incentives for states to "step up their game." Commenters said while the new EPA 

standards call for a 30 percent reduction in the nation's carbon emissions by 2030, Kentucky's 
25 

specific goal is a cut of only 18.3 percent. Commenters said the Kentucky state agencies will tell 

you this gives them the flexibility they need, but this degree of "flexibility" is a disincentive for 

real action in our state. Commenters said when the EPA set the state standards, it did not 

incorporate the latest information on coal retirements; so the targets given to Kentucky are could 

be much more stringent and still be totally achievable. Commenters understood that states like 

Kentucky have a major challenge, given that 93 percent of the state's electricity is generated from 

coal; however Kentucky has made little progress in moving the state forward in any way that will 

allow it to remain anywhere except for the very bottom of every indicator: from efficiency, to 

clean power, to protection of human health. Commenters said EPA's Clean Power Plan continues 

the subsidization of obsolete coal-fired and nuclear power, making it more difficult to move our 

state forward onto cleaner resources. 

Commenters stated considering current analysis on the potential to reduce carbon pollution from 

the power sector and the urgency of doing so, commenters recommended that the CPP strive to 

secure a reduction in carbon pollution of at least 40 percent below 2005 levels rather than the 30 

percent proposed. Commenters stated this can be accomplished by: 

• Using more current cost and production estimates for renewable energy sources; 

• Strengthening the targets for energy efficiency, which are significantly 

undervalued; 

• Strengthening the emissions outcome in 2020 (near term emissions reductions are 

vital for climate security); and 

• Significantly strengthening the emissions outcome in the later years (2030 is far 

too long to achieve such modest emission reductions) 

Commenters asked the EPA to respond to a Natural Resources Defense Council model of a 

similar but more ambitious set of intensity-based targets illustrating that it is possible to cut CO2 

pollution from America's power plants by 21 to 31 percent (relative to 2012 levels) by 2020, and 

25 to 38 percent by 2025. Commenters said the estimated cost ranges from no increase to about 

$14.6 billion in 2020 with benefits-in saved lives, reduced illness, and climate change avoided-of 

$28 to $63 billion, far exceeding the estimated costs; this analysis illustrates that EPA can 

strengthen the CPP at reasonable cost. 

Commenters stated as EPA refines the Rule, it is critical that the emission reductions from the 

final Rule are at least equivalent to those in the proposed Rule; while this Rule is a positive step, 

the emission reductions necessary to address climate change exceed this initial step and for that 

reason it is important that EPA holds to the reductions in the proposed Plan. 

Commenters stated an analysis of the IPCC5 report shows that the EPA's target of 30 percent 

reduction in the electricity sector relative to 2005 by 2030 is very inadequate; in fact it amounts 

to only about a 7 percent reduction in emissions relative to 1990. Commenters said this target is 

insufficient and will not put the United States on a path to reductions of about 84 percent by 

2050. Commenters said the problem is made more serious by the CPP's reliance on increasing 

natural gas use for a significant portion of its reductions; relying on natural gas as a "bridge" 
26 

creates the more arduous and costly problem of subsequently eliminating most of this natural gas 

along with other fossil fuel infrastructure from the electricity sector by 2050; moreover, the time 

frame of EPA's CPP does not discuss issues beyond 2030 or set its target in the needed long-term 

context. Commenters do not disagree with the 2030 time-limit on the CPP. Commenters said the 

CPP should not undermine or preclude the effectiveness of longer-term measures that may be 

required in the future. 

Commenters stated in order to meet the challenges posed by a path that would keep the global 

mean temperature rise below 2 degrees C, the CPP should address the following long-term 

lessons that can easily be derived from the IPCC5 report: 

1. Short-term and medium-term reductions in CO2eq emissions must be compatible with the 

longer-term elimination of fossil fuels; commenters agree with the EPA that retrofitting carbon 

capture and sequestration technology on to existing power plants "would not represent the BSER 

[Best System of Emission Reduction]". 

2. A corollary of lesson 1 above is that investments in fossil fuel-related technologies with long 

payback times, such as new natural gas production and transport infrastructure, should be 

discouraged; at any rate, the structure of the rule and the approaches for reducing electricity 

sector CO2eq emissions should not depend on such investments; for instance, increasing the 

production of natural gas for electricity production should not be treated as BSER; if venting 

rates prove to be high, such increases may not even be a compliance mechanism. 

3. Fundamental changes in the structure of the energy system and, specifically, in the electricity 

system will be required, given that significant amounts of variable energy sources (notably wind 

and solar) will be required to greatly reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuels; such changes 

are required in any case to increase the resilience of the electricity system. 

4. If the electricity sector is to be transformed, it must be affordable for middle-income and low 

income people. 

5. Grid resiliency should be a paramount goal of any carbon reduction plan, given that the 

adverse impacts of climate disruption include disruptions in energy production from increased 

frequency and severity of droughts and storms. 

6. Since the cost of CO2 reductions is far lower than the estimated health and environmental 

benefits as estimated in the CPP, a more ambitious target than that set by the EPA is, in any case, 

indicated. 

Commenters said as stated by the EPA, the CPP promises to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 

2030; the EPA's final carbon dioxide emissions projection for 2030 is 3.655x1012 lbs/yr, which 

corresponds to a 35% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 levels. While this 

appears to be an ambitious goal, commenters stated they have found that this results in only an 

18% reduction in emissions from 2012 levels; meaning, the U.S. has already achieved half of the 

30% goal from 2005 to 2012. Commenters said according to the EIA, carbon dioxide emissions 

from energy consumption at power plants in 2012 have already decreased by 15% from 2005 

levels; therefore, the CPP is actually only requiring a 15% reduction in carbon emissions by 

2030. Commenters recommended that the EPA set its goals based on 2012 levels. Commenters 
27 

added the carbon dioxide emissions rate calculation for each state should be corrected to include 

generation from all sources; in the proposed goal setting calculation, only the generation from 

existing fossil fuel plants is included for an initial carbon intensity value; thus, the adjusted 

emissions rate will decrease by adding all other generation options in the denominator without 

changing the current energy mix; in order to determine a reasonable goal, both the initial and 

final emissions intensity calculations should include all generation sources. 

Commenters stated the proposed rules are strong enough or fast enough to address the scope of 

the climate crisis; almost half of the reductions from 2005 levels that are defined in the rules 

have already been accomplished. Commenters said the small scale of reductions that are 

proposed between 2020 and 2030 are inadequate. Commenters requested the EPA to require far 

more substantial reductions in the final decade of the plan, with increased emphasis on 

renewable energy and conservation. Commenters urged the EPA to strengthen the regulations so 

that more substantial reductions in CO2 emissions will be achieved; commenters requested 

targets - for both 2020 and 2030 - that shift more generating capacity to renewable energy 

sources, and that move more strongly in implementing end-use energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated the Clean Power Plan must set more aggressive emissions reduction targets; 

emissions reductions must be consistent with what climate science demands. Commenters said 

the emissions targets should be strengthened by increasing energy efficiency and the use of 

renewables; energy efficiency is the cheapest, most rapidly deployable solution for reducing 

carbon emissions. Commenters said states can cost-effectively achieve stronger energy savings 

than what the EPA is proposing; similarly, states can produce more renewable electricity than the 

EPA has calculated under its proposed plan. Commenters said strengthening the carbon rule 

should start with recognizing the full potential and achievable deployment of energy efficiency 

and renewable energy. 

Commenters urged EPA to finalize these historic and urgently needed carbon pollution standards 

by June 1, 2015, as set forth in the Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution 

Standards; and to strengthen the environmental outcome of the standards by: 

-Recognizing the full potential across the electric system and all resource types to reduce 

emissions and especially utilizing updated cost and performance data for renewables and energy 

efficiency to ensure we achieve more at lower cost; 

-Strengthening the emissions outcome in 2020-near term emissions reductions are vital for 

climate security; and 

-Significantly strengthening the emissions outcome in the later years - 2030 is far too long to 

achieve such modest emission reductions 

Commenters said considering current data on the potential to reduce carbon pollution from the 

power sector and the urgency of doing so, the Clean Power Plan should secure a reduction in 

carbon pollution of at least 40% below 2005 levels.

Commenters stated even though the Clean Power Plan focuses on reducing carbon pollution 

from power plants 30 percent by 2030, the EPA estimated that we could make these reductions 

faster; commenters said we can go much further than 30 percent by 2030 because states are 
28 

already going beyond EPA's proposal by retiring dirty power plants and scaling up renewables 

and energy efficiency; Kentucky, a heavily coal-dependent state is an example of this. 

Commenters said in Kentucky, the Assistant Secretary for Climate Policy, John Lyons, recently 

stated that the average carbon emissions of Kentucky's fleet of coal-fired power plants should 

meet the new standard by 2020; that's because 11 coal boilers are already scheduled to shut down 

because of other EPA air quality regulations; in other words, Kentucky can meet the Clean 

Power Plan standards simply by continuing their present course, with little incentive for 

additional innovation. Commenters said despite this, Kentucky stakeholders have asked EPA 

for a longer timeline; yet Kentucky already has lower goals than most states. Commenters said it 

is clear that states must be asked to adhere to strong goals in order to finally initiate the 

fundamental changes necessary to bring about real improvements. Commenters said but that 

flexibility should not override strong incentives for states to reach their achievable potential. 

Commenters said while the new EPA standards call for a 30 percent reduction in the nation's 

carbon emissions by 2030, Kentucky's specific goal is a cut of only 18.3 percent; this degree of 

"flexibility" is a disincentive for real action in Kentucky. Commenters added when the EPA set 

the state standards, it did not incorporate the latest information on coal retirements; so the targets

given to Kentucky could be much more stringent and still be totally achievable. 

Commenters understood that states like Kentucky will have a major shift, given that 93 percent 

of the state's electricity is generated from coal; however Kentucky has made little progress in 

moving the state forward in any way that will allow it to remain anywhere except for the very 

bottom of every indicator: from efficiency, to clean power, to protection of human health. 

Commenters said the EPA's Clean Power Plan continues the subsidization of obsolete coal-fired 

and nuclear power, making it more difficult to move Kentucky forward onto cleaner resources. 

Commenters said other commenters have shown that the EPA targets are largely modest and that 

there are alternatives that can result in much deeper carbon cuts; for example, the Union of 

Concerned Scientists have done an analysis that shows Kentucky can achieve significantly larger 

reductions than the current EPA plan. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule falls short of the rapid transition to clean energy that is 

necessary to prevent a catastrophic increase in global temperature. Commenters said the Clean 

Power Plan's goals for states underestimate our capacity to expand clean energy and energy 

efficiency; these goals are, in many cases, lower than pre-existing targets of state renewable 

portfolios and efficiency standards, equal to what states have already achieved, and only 

minimally higher than U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections under a 

"business as usual" scenario. Commenters recommended inclusion of current state Renewable 

Energy and Efficiency Standards, which are set by law, and determination of future goals based 

on more recent growth rates (2009 to 2013). 

Commenters stated EPA based the reductions on the agency's calculations of what each state 

could do; however, some states report that they are already doing more in some categories than 

EPA has proposed as a target. Commenters said EPA needs to set standards that encourage states 

to do more even if they are already meeting targets. 

Commenters stated the Clean Power Plan proposes a target of a 30 percent reduction below 2005 

carbon emission levels by 2030; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
29 

said that carbon emissions should be reduced globally by 41 percent to 72 percent from 2010 

levels in order to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Commenters said 

research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research has found that "it is feasible 

and cost-effective to reduce carbon emissions from EGUs by 55 percent below 2005 levels by 

2030. This degree of carbon reduction would be consistent with the European Union's target for 

GHG reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030." Commenters said to match this, the 

U.S. would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030, 

and by 84 percent by 2050. Commenters said the proposed EPS target amounts to about a 7 

percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels; this low target would make it almost impossible 

to play catch-up later and get an 84 percent reduction by 2050, and adding in heavy reliance on 

natural gas worsens the scenario. Commenters said while the Clean Power Plan counts on natural 

gas for reducing carbon emissions, methane emissions are not accounted for and natural gas 

venting over the next three decades could negate most, if not all, of the gains made by the Clean 

Power Plan. 

Commenters stated it is both feasible and cost-effective to reduce carbon emission to much lower 

levels without relying on new natural gas or nuclear energy; according to the Institute for Energy 

and Environmental Research, "EPA fails to recognize that it is both feasible and cost-effective to 

reduce carbon emissions from EGUs by about 55 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This is 

demonstrated in 48 state-specific models, which are described in the IEER Comments." 

Commenters stated if the interim targets are loosened, commenters recommended that EPA 

consider ways to tighten the final targets such that there is no net increase to cumulative 

emissions between 2020 and 2030 relative to the Proposal. 

 

Commenters stated the proposed regulations are not at all ambitious, and set targets that, even 

when they are met, will accomplish far too little. Commenters said climate scientists warn that 

immediate action to dramatically cut all greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent a 

global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees C, a level at which serious damage will still 

occur, and beyond which the worst impacts of climate change cannot be avoided. Commenters 

said the proposed regulations, which the EPA predicts could reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

from power plants up to 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, fail to adequately respond to this threat. 

Commenters stated the state-level targets in the CPP are much too lenient; in fact, the EPA's 

goals for many states are weaker than the targets those states have already set for themselves and 

expect to meet without any additional action. Commenters said many states would be able to 

comply with the rule's weak carbon dioxide targets by simply running gas-fired power plants 

more often, or by trading allowances for emissions with states like California that are already on 

track to exceed targets set for them by the rule. Commenters said another problem is that, even 

looking just at CO2, the CPP does not actually limit total emissions, but instead limits the carbon 

"intensity" of emissions (pounds of CO2/MWh). Commenters said targets should be based on the 

total amount of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere, or at a minimum should include massbased backstops, to ensure that aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets are met. 
30 

Commenters stated this rule does not go far enough to ensure adequate carbon emissions 

reductions; a concerted effort to rein in carbon pollution requires emission targets that are more 

ambitious, that result in renewable energy and energy efficiency potential being more widely 

realized throughout the country. Commenters said more ambitious reductions will allow this rule 

to do more to stave off the dire consequences of climate change for rural communities. 

Commenters stated the final rule should go beyond the 30% reduction now contemplated. 

Commenters said the IPCC and others have concluded that, in order to avoid a 2 degrees C (3.7 

degrees F) atmospheric temperature rise, the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% or 

more by 2030. Commenters said as one of the highest per-capita emitters, the U.S. needs to 

reduce its share by more than 80%, and power plants must be a major focus; consequently, the 

target of 30% by 2030 is lower than necessary. Commenters said this is particularly true because 

it risks attracting investments that will lead to stranded costs before 2050; accordingly, EPA 

should strengthen the rule to require 40%-50% reduction by 2030 with clear guidance that 

additional cuts will be required in the following two decades. 

Commenters stated with Americans already facing worsening risks of climate impacts, the EPA's 

Clean Power Plan is an important step forward in the effort to limit those risks. Commenters said 

the Union of Concerned Scientists offer a systematic and consistent methodology for calculating 

more aggressive targets for renewable energy generation that achieves 10 percent greater 

emission reductions than the EPA's proposed method, i.e., emission reductions of 40 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2030. Commenters said the methodology is a logical outgrowth of the 

EPA's approaches but does not rely on applying state renewable electricity standards (RES) to 

states without such policies, and it achieves greater reductions in emissions in all regions and in 

all but four states. 

Comment 4: The EPA's proposed targets/goals are unreasonable/unachievable/arbitrary and 

capricious/too stringent/not a valid standard of performance. 

Response 4: See responses above. 

The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ concern that the BSER quantification imposes a cap on 

electricity generation. The BSER applies only to existing sources; more importantly, as 

demonstrated by prior regulations that have limited emissions from power plants, a limitation on 

emissions does not impose a limitation on generation, because there are technologies available to 

facilitate generation while lowering emissions. 

The EPA also adjusted the heat rate improvement assumptions (BB1) as described in section V 

of the preamble and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

Demand-side energy efficiency and nuclear energy are no longer part of BSER quantification in 

this final rule as discussed in section V of the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 
31 

Commenters stated there are a number of legal, technical, and practical concerns and 

uncertainties that make implementation of the proposed rule unworkable; many of these 

unknowns relate to the assumptions underlying each building block, regulatory strategies that are 

unproven, levels of implementation that are technically and practically unachievable, or 

interactions that are not feasible to design or enforce within the existing statutory and regulatory 

authorities of the states. 

Commenters added EPA acknowledges that some of these issues "introduce practical 

enforceability considerations under a state plan." Commenters said there is no way for states to 

assure that individual generating units will achieve the emission reductions associated with block 

1, and no technical basis upon which EPA can conclude that the projected emission reductions 

will actually occur, because EPA does not evaluate the extent to which such measures have 

already been implemented, and did not properly account for the heat rate increases associated 

with recent control equipment installations. Commenters said there is no way for states to control 

system dispatch decisions that are entrusted to regional authorities, and simply attempting to 

"freeze" emissions from designated facilities in 2020 based on projected emissions and 

generation that accommodate the effects EPA hopes to achieve through building blocks 1 and 2 

does not adequately account for the many factors that introduce variability into existing units' 

utilization and emissions, including weather patterns, unanticipated equipment problems, and 

changes in local load conditions. Commenters said the output of renewable resources similarly is 

heavily influenced by weather conditions, equipment condition, and other factors that are neither 

controlled nor controllable by the designated facilities or the states, and EPA has misinterpreted 

existing state standards by ignoring the extent to which those standards are currently satisfied by 

participation in multi-state REC markets, the extent to which they are satisfied in whole or part 

through energy efficiency measures or alternative payments, and the extent to which they rely on 

unique resources whose status as "renewable" energy sources in any future section 111(d) plan is 

uncertain. Commenters said these errors make EPA's cumulative targets unreasonable and 

arbitrary. 

Commenters stated some of the largest work-producing states face daunting reduction 

goals; Ohio, which has generated the largest number of NMA utility work hours over the given 

timeframe, must slash emissions by 28 percent; Pennsylvania, the third-largest contributor of 

NMA utility hours, by 31 percent; and New Jersey, ranking ninth, must cut CO2 by 43 percent. 

Commenters added equally instructive is how these states rank nationally in terms of the 

reduction percentages; Ohio's 28 percent reduction goal is only the thirty-second highest goal 

nationwide, meaning 17 other states face more challenges; North Dakota's reduction goal of 11 

percent is the lowest of the 49 states (Vermont was excluded, because it has no fossil-fueled 

power plants). Commenters said under any reasonable scenario, an 11 percent reduction in 

carbon emissions by 2030 (around a decade and a half) would be hailed as a monumental 

achievement but in the scheme put forth by the agency, it is the bare minimum - the lowest 

emissions reduction goal in the entire country; this speaks volumes about the unrealistic goals set 

by the EPA. 

Commenters stated in conjunction with the implementation issues related to enforceability, U.S. 

EPA has set a goal that is not practically achievable by Ohio. Commenters said until a statespecific analysis is conducted to determine the feasibility of these goals, with the added 

understanding of U.S. EPA expectations related to how they must be quantifiable, non-
32 

duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable, Ohio EPA cannot support adoption of either 

of the proposed options. 

Commenters stated based on EPA's goal calculations, both a lower baseline emission rate and 

high levels of RE and EE in the baseline year cause a state's ultimate performance goal to be 

more stringent due to the fact that EPA's methodology does not take into account coal-fired 

generation that already was displaced by RE and EE prior to 2012. Commenters said existing 

(i.e., pre-2012) RE and EE therefore negatively impacts early-acting states by making the 

baseline emissions rate artificially low; for example, RE displaced a significant amount of coalfired generation in Minnesota prior to 2012; Xcel Energy retired its High Bridge coal-fired units 

in 2007 and replaced them with a new NGCC facility in 2008; the following year, Xcel Energy 

replaced the Riverside coal-fired units with a new NGCC facility. Commenters said these coal 

retirements resulted in significant reductions in CO2 emissions and the state's average emissions 

rate; further, in 2008, Xcel Energy brought the Grand Meadow Wind Farm online, followed in 

2010 by the Nobles Wind Farm as well as large amounts of purchased wind power. Commenters 

said this wind power, which required support from the NGCCs that Xcel Energy built to replace 

the retired coal-fired units, also resulted in reduced utilization of the new NGCC units. The 

commenters said absent the retirement of these coal-fired units and the new wind investments, 

Minnesota's baseline emission rate would have been significantly higher. Commenters said 

applying EPA's goal calculation methodology to this higher baseline emission rate would have 

resulted in less stringent CO2 emission goals for Minnesota. 

Commenters stated several of EPA's State-Specific Emissions Reductions Targets Are Arbitrary 

and Capricious. Commenters said for Arizona: EPA's BSER analysis ignores 94% of all existing 

nuclear generation and all existing hydropower; this has a profound impact on States such as 

Arizona that generate a large percentage of their power from these zero-emission sources. 

Commenters said for Arkansas: EPA failed to consider potential challenges for States who are 

members of multiple RTOs; for such States, electricity generation and use cannot be shifted 

between the four building blocks on a State-wide basis as EPA assumed in the proposal. 

Commenters said for Pennsylvania: EPA failed to account for and credit early action taken by 

States with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; such States should not 

be penalized by EPA with even lower emissions reduction targets as a result. Commenters said 

for Texas: It is arbitrary and capricious to hold a single State responsible for more than 20% of 

the total GHG reductions to be achieved nationally under the rule despite the fact that it only 

generates 11% of the nation's electricity. 

Commenters stated requiring New York to seek dramatic reductions in the electricity generation 

sector may also have unintended consequences in broader GHG emission reduction policy and 

strategy. Commenters said one potential undesired consequence of EPA's proposal is that, if New 

York is asked to dedicate a disproportionate amount of its limited investment resources in 

seeking less productive emissions reduction in the electricity sector, this is likely to sacrifice a 

level of investment in the more intensive thermal load sector, eroding progress towards overall 

GHG emission reductions; in addition, New York is initiating new policies and strategies that are 

designed to look at all fuel inputs to a building or industrial facility, and provide energy 

efficiency or renewable energy alternatives that will improve the emissions profile of the entire 

structure without isolating electric energy efficiency. Commenters said it is anticipated that these 

initiatives will provide a model for other states on how to achieve greater levels of scale for all-
33 

fuels energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives, in the pursuit of realizing emission 

reduction levels that create a path to an 80% reduction by 2050 across the entire economy. 

Commenters said for these reasons, particularly given the progress the State has already made in 

reducing emissions from its electric sector, the proposal's 2030 target CO2 emission rate of 549 

lbs/MWh for New York's power sector is unduly ambitious and does not account for Statespecific electric system constraints; because of the unintended implications of the proposal and 

the potential for economic and competitive disadvantages to result for the State, EPA should 

revise the proposal to create more equity in the CPP while simultaneously increasing emission 

reductions overall. 

Commenters stated none of the options for reducing carbon intensity from AEPCO's Apache 

Station (heat rate improvements and redispatch) will approach either the 735 lb/MWh Interim 

Goal or the 702 lb/MWh Final Goal; additional measures will be required. 

Commenters stated that there are no viable or cost effective mechanisms by which the targets 

proposed by EPA for Alabama are attainable. 

Commenters stated EPA assumes that Florida can meet a supposed national average of 13% 

increase in Renewable Energy, with 22,109,614 MWh coming from that sector in 2029, and 

that's 11.5% of current generation. Commenters said in order to help meet the final goal, the City 

of Tallahassee utilities must either get credit for, and/or find another 266 lbs/MWh reductions 

from reducing energy demand and the use of alternative energy. Commenters said only five 

states currently have a projected renewable portfolio standard this high - and note that we are 

referring to projections, not actualizations. Commenters said the 985.77 lbs/MWh already 

reflects sizeable reductions in energy demand from renewable energy projects. Commenters said 

City of Tallahassee has been one of the more aggressive in regard of CO2 reduction and even 

their nationally recognized and award winning utilities are unable to meet even the interim goal. 

Commenters said the real impact of the final goal of 740 lb/MWh is that a sustainability-award 

winning, zero-coal municipality would need to obtain approximately 25% of its current energy 

needs from non-CO2 emitting sources. Commenters said this is a very aggressive goal; 

commenters suggested that this goal does not reflect a feasible emissions standard that reflects 

what is already adequately demonstrated. 

Commenters stated through aggressive unit replacements, fuel switching and efficiency 

improvements, the commenters had successfully reduced its carbon intensity over the past 2.5 

decades by approximately 40%, despite a corresponding increase in customer demand; however, 

notwithstanding these early and voluntary actions, this award-winning modern and efficient 

natural gas utility, which also operates one of only two hydroelectric power plants in the state of 

Florida, and which has received international and national recognition, still remains well above 

the EPA interim and final limit of 794 and 740 pounds per megawatt-hour, respectively. 

Commenters stated the proposed limits established for Florida will potentially result in the early 

adopters, being at a disadvantage in meeting the new goals. 

Commenters stated there are significant policy and technical impediments that make 

implementation of this proposal impractical and likely impossible; starting with the exclusive 

role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in determining how energy is 

dispatched, the proposed rule impermissibly requires States to regulate dispatch in contravention 
34 

of FERC authority; next is the inability of the States to regulate based upon environmental rather 

than economic dispatch when such decisions are controlled by regional transmission 

organizations and independent system operators whose boundaries are not contiguous with state 

borders. Commenters added there is the potential impact of the rule on the reliability of the 

supply of electricity; there are numerous faulty assumptions on which each of the Building 

Blocks is based. Commenters said these faulty assumptions include such critical issues as 

limitations on source efficiency improvements, natural gas availability and existing natural gas 

generation capacity, shortages of transmission infrastructure for required additional renewable 

generation, arbitrary treatment of nuclear power, and the unrealistic assumptions regarding future 

potential reduction in electricity demand based on energy efficiency programs. 

Commenters stated that EPA should retain compliance flexibility in the final rule. Commenters 

encouraged the EPA to maintain in the final rule the compliance flexibility provided to states. 

Commenters also encouraged EPA to add additional compliance options, such as the use of 

combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which are highly efficient and clean approaches to 

generating power and thermal energy from a single fuel source. Commenters stated that the goals 

EPA set for states are too stringent, which leaves states with few options to comply with the 

regulation. Commenters stated that if EPA were to finalize the proposed goals without further 

modification, many states would in fact have very little actual flexibility in how to comply with 

their goal, if in fact they could comply at all. 

Commenters stated "EPA does have authority to hold the industry to a standard of improved 

design and operational advances, so long as there is substantial evidence that such improvements 

are feasible and will produce the improved performance necessary to meet the standard." Sierra 

Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 364 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Commenters said EPA's proposed BSER 

simply does not meet this standard because EPA cannot provide "substantial evidence" that the 

state goals are feasible. Commenters said the Agency has used national aggregated data for each 

step in establishing BSER; EPA then applies the aggregated data to each state's energy fleet to 

determine that state's goal. Commenters said because this national data represents EPA's analysis 

of 48 states total, and not any one individual state, EPA is skewing each state goal to the point 

where it is in no way a reflection of that state's ability to meet it. Commenters added the 

assumptions underlying the individual building blocks are unfounded and fraught with error; 

thus, EPA has not provided substantial evidence to show that the BSER will produce the 

performance necessary to meet the standard, nor that the BSER is reasonably reliable, efficient, 

or cost-effective. 

Commenters stated a problem is that reduction targets for each state are measured per unit of 

energy meaning pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour' like a diet that limits calories per cookie, but 
35 

not the number of cookies, this won't work in the long run because it allows emissions to rise as 

the demand for power goes up. 

Commenters stated the do not support the proposed targets; goals 

are unreasonable/unachievable/arbitrary and capricious/unfeasible/too stringent. 

Commenters stated EPA has asserted that each of the individual targets assigned to states under 

the proposal are based on reasonably achievable rather than maximum performance levels; 

commenters were concerned that, as with its proposed rule for new power plants, EPA is basing 

enormously impactful mandates on technological or technology assumptions that have yet to be 

demonstrated as achievable at a reasonable cost, and in some cases achievable at any cost. 

Commenters stated there are not sufficient "compensating" reductions that would allow states to 

both consider potential adjustments for remaining useful life and the cost of compliance to meet 

their emission standards on schedule. Commenters said in Pennsylvania, for example, the 

stringency of each Building Block leaves no cushion to overachieve in any of them to 

compensate for fewer reductions under Building Block 1. 

Commenters stated EPA underestimates the overwhelming hurdles to installing the infrastructure 

needed to effectuate this proposal. Commenters said converting existing coal units to natural gas 

operation would require a multiple of over 2.5 times the gas currently used by the local 

distribution system. Commenters said unlike most power plants in the U.S., the commenters are 

currently served by a natural gas pipeline; however, the existing pipeline capacity is far from 

what would be required to meet such an increased year-round gas demand. Commenters said a 

new pipeline and associated costs not considered in the proposal would be unavoidable. 

Commenters said with few exceptions, electric utilities are not empowered to construct natural 

gas pipelines. Commenters said given the competing demand that would inevitably ensue 

following promulgation of this rule, there is no guarantee that the commenters could persuade a 

pipeline company to undertake a project on behalf of a small municipal entity, let alone to 

complete it under the time constraints in the rule. 

Commenters stated the EPA proposes two mandatory emission rate goals for affected fossil-fuel 

generation units located in the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, "Mandatory Goals"). 

Commenters said affected Virginia units - that is, those that are already producing power or are 

under construction by 2014 - must first achieve an interim goal of 884 pounds of CO2/MWh, 

beginning in 2020 ("Mandatory Interim Goal"); then, beginning in 2030, affected Virginia units 

must achieve a final goal of 810 pounds of CO2/MWh ("Mandatory Final Goal"). Commenters 

said EPA asserts that the Mandatory Goals for Virginia are a lawful "standard of performance," 

which the Clean Air Act defines as follows: "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which 

reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 

nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately demonstrated." Commenters said the Mandatory Goals for 

Virginia cannot be considered a valid "standard of performance" under this statutory provision 

for many reasons; among other things, the Proposed Regulation establishes Mandatory Goals for 

Virginia that: 
36 

(A) impose more stringent requirements - in fact, substantially more stringent - for affected, 

existing generating units than the standard for new units, yet to be built; 

(B) will require the retirement of a significant level of base load generation that must be replaced 

at a cost that is unreasonable and in a timeframe that compromises reliability; 

(C) fail to recognize significant and recent investments that (1) have substantially reduced carbon 

dioxide and other emissions in Virginia; and (2) if stranded, will also contribute to higher costs 

and higher bills for Virginia residents and businesses; 

(D) fail to recognize Virginia's significant investment in and utilization of zero-carbon nuclear 

generation and, in fact, effectively penalize Virginia by including "at risk" nuclear generation in 

the calculation of Virginia's goals; 

(E) incorporate generic and unsupported expectations of levels of renewable generation and 

energy efficiency that, when applied to Virginia, are extremely ambitious, almost certainly 

unachievable, and uneconomic under traditional standards 

Commenters stated, EPA has failed to conduct the necessary feasibility or cost analysis on a unitby-unit basis or state-by-state analyses of costs, infrastructure requirements for BBs #2 and #3, 

permit limitations to re-dispatch, impact on electric reliability, feasibility of renewable and 

energy efficiency requirements or any consideration of early actions taken by utilities and states 

to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Commenters stated, the state goal computation results in inequitable regulation of states and 

affected EGUs. Commenters said, in calculating state goals, the EPA applied all four Building 

Blocks to each state's 2012 electric generation to determine the extent to which the state could 

reduce its CO2 emissions rate by 2030. Commenters said, the EPA's methodology in setting the 

goals is based on its conclusion that the four Building Blocks are part of an integrated "system" 

of operation of affected EGUs. Commenters said, however, the EPA has not taken the steps 

necessary to develop a technically sound BSER that demonstrates that the four Building Blocks 

are in fact integrated and achievable (setting aside the fact that a BSER that extends beyond the 

definition of the affected source is not legal). Commenters said, in fact, the EPA seems to 

acknowledge that individual states may find one or more of the Building Blocks technically 

infeasible or too costly to implement. Commenters said, the EPA's analysis relies too heavily on 

modeling scenarios and assumptions rather than on the hard technical analysis required by the 

regulations in setting BSER, with the consequence that the EPA fails to address real concerns 

that individual states will face serious hurdles to implementing the Proposed Guidelines. 

Commenters said, the EPA simply concludes that there will not be a problem because the rule 

provides the states with so much flexibility. Commenters said, for example, the EPA believes the 

proposal is justified because it believes the rule is imposing "reasonable" levels of each Building 

Block ("rather than the maximum") and that a state should be able to increase its use of another 

Building Block, in such case, to compensate for a lower or no use of another Building Block. 

Commenters said, in fact, the EPA's proposal is neither reasonable nor flexible, and will result in 

significant inequities among states. Commenters said, there are a number of issues which create 
37 

these inequities that include inappropriate reliance on a single baseline year: unrealistic and 

flawed assessment of the capability of achieving heat rate improvement targets; renewable 

energy growth, and demand-side efficiency goals; failure to account for differences among the 

states across the nation; and failure to appropriately credit or account for efforts many EGU 

sources and states have already taken that have reduced the intensity of carbon emissions. 

Commenters said, a legally constructed section 111(d) rule would afford the required flexibility 

for each state to design its own rules that would achieve the objectives and guidelines established 

by the BSER for the affected source category and to hold its own sources accountable for 

compliance with source reduction targets that have been adequately demonstrated as 

achievable. Commenters said, here, the EPA is proposing a course of action that will in essence 

force many states to enter into interstate compacts or trading programs or else turn over 

implementation of the rule to the EPA, not because they are exercising the flexibility afforded 

under section 111(d) but because the severity of the EPA's required emissions reductions will 

require a level of control that is simply not feasible or technically achievable within those states. 

Commenters said, as such, the proposed rule is beyond the EPA's authority under the CAA. 

Commenters stated, the proposed rule also will create inequity by forcing many EGU owners and 

operators to abandon or significantly curtail operation of generating units where significant 

investments have been made to install state-of-the-art control systems to meet MATS and other 

air regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, 

and in North Carolina, the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act. Commenters said, for 

regulated utilities, these costs are typically borne by customers in accordance with rates approved 

by state regulatory commissions. Commenters said, where the EPA's stringent and unjustified 

state emissions goals force retirement or significantly reduced utilization of these assets, the rule 

creates an inequity for consumers who must bear the costs related to these stranded investments 

and at the same time face significant cost increases through implementation of the Proposed 

Guidelines requirements. Commenters said, in fact, Duke Energy has already taken actions in 

North Carolina through upgrade of its coal-fired fleet, retirement of older generating units, and 

installation of new natural gas combined cycle facilities which not only reduced emissions of 

SO2, NOx, mercury, and other criteria or hazardous air pollutants, but also resulted in a 28 

percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels through 2013. Commenters said, but under 

the Proposed Guidelines, not only is there no credit for those actions, but North Carolina is 

punished for taking these actions by given a lower starting emission rate. Commenters said, and 

the citizens of North Carolina (and South Carolina to the extent impacted by ratemaking 

decisions) will now be subject to goals that are unduly strict and that are not equitable across the 

states. Commenters said, EPA has effectively created 50 subcategories of sources and tailormade BSER by using each state's emission rates as the starting point for the application of its 

Building Blocks. Commenters said, never before has EPA taken this sort of approach to 

establishing any limit or guideline under section 111. Commenters said, EPA's actions, which 

result in setting 50 different BSER limits for the same types of sources, is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

Commenters stated the Proposal aims to achieve its objective of lower CO2 emissions, not by 

controlling emissions at the source as is typically done, but rather by forcing a shift in the type of

resources used to serve electric retail customers. Commenters added it is, in effect, a resource 
38 

planning rule. Commenters stated utilities have different means of resource planning, both from 

a legal structure and economic perspective. Commenters stated because the utility is vertically 

integrated and serves as a balancing authority, the steps it eventually would take pursuant to a 

state plan to meet the rule's goals are complicated and might conflict with state resource planning 

rules and oversight - particularly in the proposed timeframes. 

As discussed in section V of the preamble, the EPA believes all affected EGUs have strategies 

available to them individually to meet their subcategory-specific emission performance rate. 

Comment 5: The EPA's proposed state goals and analysis are flawed. 

Response 5: Based on comments and our further consideration, the EPA is modifying the 

expression of the BSER from a state goal to subcategory-specific emission performance rates in 

the final rule as suggested in the above comment. The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

suggestion that this change merits re-proposal. As described in Section V and VI of the 

preamble, these subcategory-specific emission performance rates are consistent with the proposal 

expression of the BSER which took comment on the impact to different subcategories. Whereas 

the proposal blended the BSER adjusted generation and emissions from all affected fossil 

sources together to provide states flexibility through a state goal, this final rule provides 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates as the expression of the BSER while also 

including rate-based and mass-based goals to provide flexibility to states and sources. By simply 

segmenting the steps it proposed, these subcategory-specific emission performance rates are a 

clear logical outgrowth of the proposal. The concepts and underlying data were available at 

proposal, and the EPA can accommodate the commenters’ suggestion of subcategory-specific 

rates without providing new material or concepts.

In regards to comments on VT and DC, section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to 

establish the BSER for affected sources. Because these states/districts have no affected sources 

– the EPA did not establish a BSER for these areas.

As explained in Section V of the preamble, the EPA has revised its heat rate improvement. 

The EPA’s building blocks are informed by historical data, deployment patterns, and established 

cost and performance criteria as described in Section V of the preamble and the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD. The EPA believes the BSER is cost-effective and feasible. Subsequent to 

establishing the BSER, the EPA used the IPM power sector model to further test the cost and 

viability of the BSER. States have the flexibility to determine the best aggregate pathway to 

compliance among its affected sources and distribute that reduction burden in the most 

appropriate manner. Therefore, there is no unit-level technical limitation that cannot be 

addressed through the myriad of compliance pathways available to the state. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed state goals and analysis are flawed. 
39 

Commenters said the analysis generally overestimates the possible reductions available from the 

Building Blocks, resulting in state goals that may not reflect the reductions that are achievable. 

Commenters stated the goals are flawed due to EPA's failure to apply its definition of BSER only 

to the source category subject to regulation. Commenters said because this defect pervades 

EPA's entire methodology for calculating state emission goals, EPA must withdraw the Proposed 

Guidelines. 

Commenters added EPA has no authority to regulate the behavior of consumers, and its 

simplistic evaluation of the potential for future energy efficiency measures ignores fundamental 

aspects of program design and achievability. Commenters said there are errors in each and every 

one of the blocks upon which the state goal calculation is based that make the final result 

arbitrary and capricious; all of these errors inflate the prospects for future emission reductions, 

and simply shift the search for effective ways to meet the arbitrary goals from one building block 

to another and beyond, to measures EPA admits are not cost-effective, in a continuous loop of 

legally, technically, and practically flawed options that impairs the development of any workable 

compliance solution. 

Commenters stated the assumption of a nationwide 6% HRI across the coal-fired fleet is 

technically infeasible and impractical and should not be used without further research and 

validation to form state CO2 intensity goals. 

Commenters stated challenges under the Proposed Rule and "Generation-based" State Goals 

since the proposed rule regulates in-state generation only, it: 

1. Favors states that import emitting generation, which have reduced or no compliance 

obligations (e.g. VT and DC); 

2. Favors states that consume their own in-state emitting generation, which have more policy 

options available to achieve compliance; 

3. Disfavors states that export emitting generation, which must claim emitting generation that 

they're not consuming or paying for; 

4. Favors states that export renewable generation, which may be able to claim reductions without 

paying for them; and 

5. Disfavors states that import renewable generation, which are paying for reductions that they 

may not be able to claim. 

Commenters said the Proposed Rule will potentially disincentivize policies and measures that 

affect reductions anywhere but at in-state generation that is consumed in-state; exporting units 

will not be affected by demand-side efforts in the exporting states and reductions at those same 

units caused by demand-side efforts at the importing state will not be counted. Commenters 

said states that are net importers, for example, see little reason to enact policies and pursue 

activities that reduce emissions from those generators; the result leaves low-cost, demonstrated 

reductions on the table. 
40 

Commenters stated U.S. EPA's proposal, while legally dubious, is also factually deficient. 

Commenters said the reductions proposed under building block 1 are grossly overstated and the 

reductions proposed under building blocks 2 through 4 are impractical under state law. 

Commenters said U.S. EPA should revise its set goal for emission reductions based on a realistic 

assessment of building block 1 and allow the state of Ohio to implement a SIP to achieve those 

reductions as required by 111(d). 

Commenters appreciated the effort the EPA has taken in an attempt to create what they believe is 

an achievable, yet challenging, requirement to reduce carbon intensity from the nation's power 

sector; however, EPA's interim and final budget goals need to be adjusted to reflect the 

corrections in the technical data to reflect the achievable CO2 emission goals while still having a 

reliable electric network. Commenters said these adjustments also need to take into account the 

timing required to implement the significant changes that would be required by the electric 

industry. Commenters said the interim and final budget is unachievable for utilities as a key 

component of the State of Florida's goal. Commenters said the proposed rule avoids limiting 

emissions from individual emissions units; instead, it implements a state-wide emissions cap; the 

resulting numerical limit is unique to each state. Commenters said how the cap is met remains 

partially in the discretion of each state, but EPA's goals assume a state, particularly those with 

Florida's circumstances, will have to heavily force the use of renewable or zero-carbon emitting 

resources and demand-side energy conservation and efficiency practices or else purchase offsets 

from other states. Commenters said it remains to be seen whether such offsets will even be 

available. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule does not include adequate specifics to determine whether 

the Alaska CO2 Performance Goals can actually be achieved; EPA should determine whether the 

performance goals can, as a practical matter, be achieved before promulgating this rule. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Rule specifically prohibits states from making any "case-bycase" exceptions based on factors such as: (1) unreasonable costs of control resulting from plant 

age, location, or basic process design; (2) the physical impossibility of installing necessary 

control equipment; or (3) other factors specific to the facility (or class of facilities) that make 

application of a less stringent standard or final compliance time significantly more reasonable. 

Commenters said the Proposed Rule rejects the possibility of a "less stringent standard" or final 

compliance time; instead, the Proposed Rule requires that any state CAA section 111(d) Plan 

must show "achievement of emission performance equivalent to the goals established by the 

EPA, on a timeline equivalent to that in the Proposed Rule." 

Commenters stated EPA must redo its energy efficiency assumptions and state targets. 

Commenters said the EPA assumed that without the CPP, incremental energy efficiency does not 

occur; this is an incorrect assumption and has led to a much higher target for energy efficiency 

by state. Commenters said the EPA assumption grossly overstates the benefits of the CPP; 

according to the EIA, for example, the industrial sector has reduced its energy intensity by 41 

percent since 1987. Commenters said this has been achieved largely through voluntary energy 

efficiency improvements; the industrial sector has demonstrated that it does not need a regulatory 

framework to improve energy efficiency. Commenters said the EPA should rethink its approach 

to energy efficiency; industrial companies have firsthand experience nationwide on electric 

utility delivered energy efficiency programs; a better way forward is to drive energy efficiency 
41 

through the residential sector and through improved appliance standards, heating and cooling 

systems, and better building codes. 

Commenters said that, The Proposed Rule's method of determining a state’s target relies a on a 

legally and technically flawed basis which, creates more uncertainty and more stringent 

targets. Commenters said the Building Blocks are incompatible with the BSER required under 

section 111(d) for two reasons. Commenters gave the reason that Building Blocks 2, 3 and 4 

impose reduction goals that cannot be achieved by individual sources. 

See section V of the preamble. The EPA believes that all affected EGUs have compliance 

options available to them to meet the subcategory-specific emission performance rates. 

Comment 6: The EPA should work with states to set goals/let states set goals. 

Response 6: The EPA is expressing the BSER as subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates for this final rule. Per commenters’ suggestions, states have the flexibility to establish unitlevel requirements within the state and demonstrate that those requirements will result in a rate 

or mass outcome that complies with values put forth in sections VI and VII of the preamble. The 

EPA supports the commenters’ suggestion that states be allowed to customize program targets 

and timelines for sources in the state. Section 111(d) does require that the EPA establish a 

BSER, and it has met that obligation in this final rule while providing states as much flexibility 

to customize source requirements as possible as long as they still demonstrate compliance as 

discussed in section VIII of the preamble. 

There are no BB4 EE assumptions in the final rule BSER quantification as described in Section 

V of the preamble. 

The EPA engaged in significant stakeholder outreach during the comment period. Feedback 

received through that notice-and-comment process informed the final rule BSER quantification.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA should address state-specific concerns about the proposed emission 

rate goals. Commenters said that EPA should work with the states and RTOs to set achievable 

state goals that reflect future in-state conditions. 

Commenters stated that EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to allow States to set the standards 

of performance, and to determine the extent to which, and the timing for applying those 

standards individually for each unit in its jurisdiction. 

Commenters stated the EPA should allow Pennsylvania and other states to set less stringent 

performance standards and longer compliance schedules for power plants within their 

jurisdiction, and Pennsylvania and other states should be given maximum flexibility by the EPA 

to implement carbon dioxide performance standards for fossil-fueled power plants within their 

jurisdiction. 
42 

Commenters stated when determining the need for new electric generating facilities, the 

commenters always considers the utilization of renewable energy resources and, by Florida law, 

cost effectiveness must be considered. Commenters said the Florida Statutes require 

consideration of electric system reliability and integrity, reasonable cost, fuel diversity, and 

reasonably available renewable and conservation measures. Commenters said based on the FCG 

analysis, the cost of achieving the proposed CO2 emissions reductions using a proposed 10 

percent renewable energy component for calculating the 2030 goal is not 

reasonable; accordingly, commenters requested that EPA withdraw the proposed state goals and 

work with states to adjust renewable energy generation targets to achievable levels within a 

reasonable time-frame. 

Commenters added by establishing state limits the CPP has limited the state environmental 

agencies flexibility to establish unit by unit limits under section 111(d). Commenters supported 

allowing states to conduct unit by unit evaluations to establish emission limits and the flexibility 

to use building blocks 2-4 to calculate compliance.

Commenters stated because of the calculation errors and incorrect assumptions underlying the 

EE savings goal of the Proposed Rule, EPA should withdraw the 1.5% annual incremental 

savings goal, and the 10.3% annual cumulative goal for 2029, and work with the state to develop 

goals that are technically and economically feasible for North Carolina based on North Carolinaspecific facts. 

Commenters stated EPA incorporates concepts for CO2 emission reductions that states currently 

have no authority to enforce such as energy efficiency programs and renewable energy 

initiatives. Commenters said much consideration should be given to allow states to develop their 

own methods for including these efforts to meet the final state goals. Commenters said this 

proposal essentially requires the incorporation of renewables and energy efficiency programs to 

meet the required reductions. Commenters said this is unchartered territory for many states and 

should therefore not be presented as requirements but as potential compliance options. 

Commenters stated EPA should allow each state to customize its own program targets and 

timelines after taking account of its generation portfolio, history of CO2 reduction measures, 

potential for renewable generation, and local economy. Commenters said providing states with 

this small measure of input will go a long way to ensuring EPA targets and timelines are 

practically achievable. Commenters said in this effort, EPA should allow credit to regulated 

entities for emission-reduction steps already taken. 

Comment 7: The EPA should not make goals lower than New standards (NSPS); should not be 

more stringent than NSPS. 

Response 7: The EPA disagrees with the comparison between stringency of state goals and 

NSPS rates as the two metrics are not apples-to-apples. First, the EPA has modified our 

approach to quantifying the BSER from state goals to subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates. However, the commenters concern still translate – a nominally higher 111(b) 

rate is less stringent that a 111(d) state goal or subcategory-specific emission performance rate. 
43 

However, the EPA believes this mischaracterizes the issue by treating two different metrics 

similarly. The metric for the NSPS standard is different than the metric for the section 111(d) 

standard and the two should not be compared to each other. The 111(b) standard pertains solely 

to emissions and generation (and corresponding emission rate) at a source. The 111(d) rates may 

reflect additional inputs and thus a nominal comparison of the two numbers is not an accurate 

gauge of relative stringency. 

Based on comments received, the EPA is promulgating a final expression of the BSER as 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates, where every affected EGU in a given 

subcategory is given the same rate. This addresses the commenters concern about inequitable 

treatment of technologies depending on geographic location. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that the goals for existing sources proposed under 111(d) are more 

stringent than the CO2 per MWh emission level required by EPA to be achieved by new coal or 

gas power plants under Section 111(b) of the CAA. 

Commenters added that Texas' interim 853 lbs/CO2 MWh and final 791 lbs/CO2/MWh goals are 

lower than the standards for new units under Section 111(b). 

Commenters added EPA has set emission guidelines for 26 states at a level more stringent than 

the 1,100 lbs/MWh New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) established by EPA in the 111(b) 

rulemaking governing new fossil-fired power plants. Commenters stated it is preposterous to 

have an emission standard for existing power plants that is below the standard for new power 

plants; the absurdity of an existing source standard that is more stringent than a new source 

standard becomes even more pronounced when such stringency is brought about as a result of an 

unfair and unlawful action to penalize states and regional governmental entities such as TVA that 

have been in the forefront developing and promoting nuclear power. 

Commenters stated the Existing Source Proposal imposes unreasonable and unlawful burdens on 

the states because the final emission goals set forth thereunder are unattainable; indeed, many of 

the states' final emission goals are significantly lower than the emission standards for new 

sources under the New Source Proposal and modified/reconstructed sources under the Modified 

Source Proposal. Commenters said it is manifestly unreasonable to require existing sources to 

emit at a fraction of what is required of new and modified/reconstructed units; the inherent 

differences between new and modified/reconstructed sources on one hand and existing plants on 

the other justify a higher emission standard for existing plants. Commenters said for example, the 

costs associated with installing emission controls at existing plants is generally much higher than 

installing the same emission controls at new and modified/reconstructed plants; this is one reason 

why EPA has historically imposed stricter emission controls on new and modified/reconstructed 

plants. 

Commenters added for many states, including South Carolina, the goals under the proposed 

Section 111(d) rule are more stringent than those in the Section 111(b) rule for new sources. 

Commenters said South Carolina's goal in the proposed rule is 772 lbs CO2/MWh and the EPA 

has proposed an emissions rate of 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh for new large NGCC units in its new 
44 

source review standards (NSPS) for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units under Section 

111(b). Commenters asserted that the intent of Section 111 of the CAA is to allow existing 

sources to achieve less stringent standards than new sources; in addition, because of this 

discrepancy, the replacement of the South Carolina's current generating capacity with new fossil 

fueled capacity would result in an allowance for higher CO2 emissions. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Regulation requires existing fossil fuel units located in Virginia 

to achieve a carbon emission rate that is as much as 26% lower than the carbon emission rate that 

the EPA recently determined can be achieved by new units using the best available control 

technology. Cs said compared to Virginia's Mandatory Goals of 884 and 810 pounds of 

CO2/MWh, the new source performance standard for a new coal unit is 1,000 to 1,050, and for a 

new gas unit is 1,100; thus, a new fossil unit in Virginia - which can only be constructed using 

the absolute best control technology and without physical and other engineering limitations 

attendant to existing infrastructure - faces a far less stringent compliance requirement than 

existing units. Commenters said such a topsy-turvy result for Virginia could seem a mere oddity 

to the general public when considered in the context of electric generation units; however, it 

would be hard to imagine the EPA advancing such a proposal in areas that are more familiar to 

everyday life. Commenters asked would it be rational to require the current owners of 

automobiles or lawnmowers throughout Virginia, for example, to meet an emission standard that 

is 26% more stringent than required for the production of new cars or lawnmowers that must use 

the best available technology. Commenters said turning regulation on its head in this way - 

requiring older, but still useful equipment to meet a standard that the EPA admits cannot be 

achieved even by entirely new equipment - is a recipe for stranding prior investments and 

requiring significant additional investment, both of which will likely be paid for in large part, if 

not entirely, by consumers. Commenters said in finalizing its Proposed Regulation, the EPA 

should correct this irrational and inequitable result, consistent with the logic found elsewhere in 

the Proposed Regulation. Commenters said when considering carbon capture and sequestration, 

for example, the Proposed Regulation recognizes that modifications of existing units "entail 

additional considerations beyond those at issue for new units" - including the expectation that 

such costs "would be expected to be substantial," and that "some existing EGUs might have 

space limitations and thus might not be able to accommodate... expansion." Commenters said 

existing generating units cannot rationally be expected to achieve more than new units of the 

same type; there is no legal or rational basis to set Virginia's Mandatory Goals for existing units 

below the standards required for new units. 

Commenters stated EPA's CO2 emission rate target for existing EGUs in Virginia in 2030 is very 

aggressive, and is set at a level that is more stringent than EPA's proposed rule for new sources. 

Commenters said as proposed, EPA has determined that CO2 emissions from affected existing 

sources in Virginia can be reduced to 810 lbs/MWh, while a new coal-fired EGU, whether 

located in Virginia or elsewhere would need only to meet a standard of 1,100 lbs/MWh; in fact, a 

new natural gas-fired combustion turbine over 850MMBtu/h heat input could locate in Virginia 

and only be required to meet a 1,000 lbs/MWh rate. Commenters said it has been longstanding 

CAA policy to consider new sources as presenting an opportunity to install the most advanced 

air pollution control equipment; for example, the NSR program requires consideration of the 

"best available control technology" on a case-by-case basis before construction can commence 

on a new major source; similarly, the CAA has provided less stringent requirements for existing 

sources. Commenters said EPA specifically recognized that costs are considered under CAA 
45 

section 111 (d). EPA explained: "Such a consideration is inherently different than for new 

sources, because controls cannot be included in the design of an existing facility and because 

physical limitations may make installation of a particular control systems impossible or 

unreasonably expensive in some cases." Commenters said the differential between new and 

existing source regulation has also been reflected in previous CAA section 111 (d) rules that 

have promulgated less strict standards for existing sources than those contained in a predicate 

CAA section 111 (b) rule for the new sources; but EPA's Proposed Rule stands this established 

procedure on its head. Commenters said this result is also contrary to EPA's prior interpretation 

of CAA section 111(d) guidelines; in reviewing how the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions 

("GHGs") could occur under the CAA section 111(d), EPA previously indicated that: "Section 

111(d) guidelines, like NSPS standards, must reflect the emission reduction achievable through 

the application of BDT. However, both the statute and EPA's regulations implementing section 

111(d) recognize that existing sources may not always have the capability to achieve the same 

levels of control at reasonable cost as new sources. The statute and EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 

60.24 permits states and EPA to set less stringent standards or longer compliance schedules for 

existing sources where warranted considering cost of control, useful life of facilities; location or 

process design at a particular facility; physical impossibility of installing necessary control 

equipment; or other factors making less stringent limits or longer compliance schedules 

appropriate." Commenters said EPA previously understood that CAA section 111(d) is based on 

the best technology that might be applied to an existing source and that existing sources may not 

have the capability to achieve the same levels of control as new sources. Commenters said in the 

Proposed Rule, EPA offers no explanation why it departs from this established methodology, or 

the general expectation that existing source controls should be less onerous than those applied to 

new sources. Commenters said Virginia is also at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis its 

neighboring states, which all have 2030 emission rate goals that are substantially higher than 

Virginia's goal of 810 lbs/MWh; the Proposed Rule would require greater CO2 emission 

reductions on a pound per megawatt hour basis for affected units in Virginia than from similar 

units in Kentucky or West Virginia. 

Commenters stated EPA's algorithm that combines all four building blocks provides a state-wide 

emission rate goal for existing power plants in many states that is more stringent than EPA is 

proposing for new power plants; this is not a realistic or a reasonable outcome. Commenters said 

GHGs are well-mixed, and take many years to leave the atmosphere; their effect is long-term and 

global and, generally speaking, the atmosphere is unconcerned where the CO2 molecule 

originated. Commenters said it is appropriate to compare the proposed Section 111(d) statewide 

goal for existing EGU sources with the proposed Section 111(b) unit standard for new EGU 

sources; EPA has proposed for state-based CO2 emission performance interim and final goals of 

647 lb/MWh and 531 lb/MWh, respectively. Commenters said EPA has proposed emission rates 

for new EGUs ranging from 1,000 lb/MWh /MWh to 1,100 lb/MWh, depending on the type and 

size of the unit. Commenters said according to EPA's Technical Support Document: Goal 

Computation, New Jersey's existing EGUs are achieving an emission rate of 1,035 lb/MWh. The 

commenters said if the existing EGUs were to be replaced by new EGUs, the fleet would be 

subjected to a collective emission rate of 1,000 lb/MWh to 1,100 lb/MWh; this is in the range of 

New Jersey's existing EGUs. Commenters said it is not reasonable to expect deeper emissions 

reductions from existing EGUs than what is required from new EGUs; a uniform national goal in 
46 

this range could achieve the same 30% CO2 reduction as EPA projects it will achieve under the 

rule proposal. 

Commenters stated EPA has proposed to set the Interim and Final Goals below 1,000 lb/MWh 

for a number of States, including Arizona; setting the rate below 1,000 lb/MWh creates 

substantial practical problems and equity issues. Commenters said even modern NGCC units 

may not be able to consistently achieve a rate that is much below 1,000 lb/MWh; this means that 

modern NGCC units will, in States with low Interim and Final Goals, need to "blend" their 

emissions with renewables or energy efficiency steps to achieve a rate that is below their native 

emission rate. 

Commenters said in states, such as Arizona, where the NGCC units are owned primarily by 

"merchant" facilities and the population is served by traditional utilities (whether IOU, public or 

cooperative), this disparity creates significant problems. Commenters said in order to the NGCC 

units to run, they must reduce their emissions; however, the merchant NGCC operators likely 

have no renewables and no opportunity, as generation facilities only, to develop substantial 

energy efficiency improvements that would have the effect of reducing the NGCC EGU's carbon 

emission rate. Commenters said in order for merchant NGCC units to run in states with Interim 

and Final Goals below the carbon emission rate achieved by an NGCC unit, the State must either 

require the merchant plants to install RE (which may or may not be within their financial means), 

purchase RE or energy efficiency credits from a traditional utility or other entity that has such 

credits (if any such EE credits exist or are allowed by the Proposed Rule, which is unclear), or 

else order the in-state utilities to achieve additional reductions to offset the "excess" emissions of

the merchant NGCC units. Commenters said if, as is the case in Arizona, a sizeable portion of 

the merchant NGCC power is directed to the export market, it is not clear that the State will be 

willing to impose additional costs upon its citizens and taxpayers for the sole benefit of a foreign 

state's citizens and taxpayers. Commenters said the net effect may be that these units either shut 

down, resulting in an increase in the overall carbon intensity, or are forced out of the interstate 

market; in any event, the interconnected nature of the grid will suffer and EPA's IPM Modeling, 

which relies heavily upon such interstate movement of electricity to meet the Proposed Rule's 

Interim and Final Goals at reasonable costs, may prove illusory. Commenters said the practical 

solution to this problem is to set the Proposed Rule's goal no lower than the eventual NSPS rate 

and allow use of the Building Blocks as an alternative to meeting the NSPS goal. 

Commenters stated the EPA's methodology for setting state goals for CO2 emissions is flawed 

and results in unrealistic and unfair targets that states are mandated to achieve. Commenters said 

the BSER scheme that EPA has developed imposes extreme CO2 reduction mandates on many 

states, far beyond what can be realistically achieved. Commenters said whether measured in 

terms of the percentage reduction over the status quo or the tonnage reduction, imposing actual 

CO2 emission goals below 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh is unrealistic. Commenters said EPA's 

methodology results in 26 states being required to meet targets below 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh - as 

low as 215 lbs CO2/MWh in Washington. Commenters said it virtually forces states to shift to 

entirely renewable generation to meet their electricity needs, without consideration of the 

specific circumstances of each individual state, the reliability of the electric grid or the cost of 

electricity to consumers. Commenters said such stringent target-setting is regulatory overreach, 

and is so disconnected from the facts that it constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision making. 

See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 
47 

S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443, 458 (1983) (agency action will be upheld only if it "articulates 

a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found 

and the choice made'") (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 

(1962)). 

Commenters stated for example, South Dakota, which in 2012 emitted less carbon dioxide than 

46 other states, was saddled with a 35% reduction requirement, bringing its target in at 741 lbs 

CO2/MWh - in a state that has only one coal plant and one NGCC plant. Commenters said the 

targets force extreme reductions in states where renewable energy has a long history and CO2 

emissions are already low; South Dakota produces 74 percent of its energy from renewables - 50 

percent hydro and 24 percent wind - with only 26 percent from fossil fuels. Commenters said 

many other states are in a similar position; it is patently unfair to force extreme reductions on 

states that already have low CO2 emissions. Commenters added the Clean Air Act, Section 

111(d)(1)(A) states that the Administrator may establish standards of performance for any 

existing source of an air pollutant. Commenters said in South Dakota, only two units are 

considered affected EGUs; rather than looking at the actual emissions of the affected EGU, and 

looking at the BSER available to those particular EGUs to come up with an appropriate target, 

the EPA looked "outside the fence" resulting in extrapolations on renewables and energy 

efficiency that have little to do with the actual affected units. 

 

Comment 8: The EPA should use the NSPS limit under 111(b) as minimum emission rate for 

existing NGCC. 

Response 8: The metrics for the NSPS limits are different than the metric for the existing source 

limits and should not be compared to each other. The EPA promulgated different metrics given 

the different direction provided under sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in calculating state goals under section 111(d), EPA has assigned a more 

stringent CO2 emission rate to existing NGCC units (900 lbs./MWh for Arizona) than proposed 

for new units under section 111(b). Commenters asserted that the analysis EPA conducted under 

its section 111(b) proposal should hold true under the section 111(d) proposal since EPA 

evaluated all existing units as a basis for establishing the proposed emissions rate limit for new 

units. Commenters said in the proposed section 111(b) rule, EPA's proposed CO2 emissions rate 

for new units is 1,000 lbs./MWh-gross (approximately 1,031 lbs./net MWh) for NGCC units 

with a capacity greater than 850 MMBtu/hour. Commenters said EPA asserts that these emission 

rates can be met over the lifetime of a modern high efficiency NGCC unit and are representative 

of the emission rates of the best performing NGCC units in the country. Commenters said 

therefore, in a final rule EPA should use the same CO2 emission limit proposed for new NGCC 

units by EPA under section 111(b) in January 2014, as a minimum emission rate assumption for 

existing NGCC units. 
48 

Comment 9: Disparity between the state goals. 

Response 9: As explained in the preamble sections V and VI, the EPA took a subcategoryspecific approach in this final rule meaning that every affected EGU within the same subcategory 

in the continental U.S. face the same emission rate expression of BSER. Moreover, the state 

goals expressed in the final rule reflect a more narrow range of emissions rates. See the CO2 

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computations TSD for CPP final rule. 

The regionalized approach in this final rule distributes reductions from a building block category 

across a given region. 

The EPA agrees with commenters that a BSER quantification should be expressed in some type 

of uniform metric and believes it has achieved that through its use of subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates. States that already have lower emitting generation or other 

abatement measures underway will benefit from those on the way reductions. 

The EPA does not agree that the commenters’ concern regarding Brunswick and Warren 

facilities are relevant to this final rule or proposal. The comments support the classification that 

they are under construction units and suggest under construction units not be included in the 

BSER quantification. However, the EPA believes the agency has an obligation to establish 

BSER for likely affected sources. These facilities are treated in the same manner as they are 

subject to the same BSER subcategory-specific emission performance rate as every other 

affected NGCC unit. Moreover, the regionalization approach in this final rule extends that 

reduction potential to out-of-state sources in the eastern interconnect, and therefore Virginia does 

not bear all the generation replacement assumptions within its own state. 

In regards to comments about the Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and South Carolina state goals, 

the EPA notes that we are no longer quantifying the BSER through the use of a state goal, but 

rather through subcategory-specific emission performance rates. However, the EPA is providing 

compliance flexibility, and in many of these states, the final CPP state goals are different than the 

proposed values that the commenters expressed concern with. 

As described in preamble Section V, demand-side energy efficiency is not part of the final rule’s 

BSER quantification. 

See the Regulatory Impact Analysis for CPP Final Rule and the Resource Adequacy and 

Reliability Final TSD for a response to comments on cost estimates and grid reliability. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated there is disparity between the state goals. 

Commenters stated there is disparity between the goals between the early action states and other 

states that have been less proactive. 
49 

Commenters stated some states can do more to reduce their emissions at lower cost, and do so 

cost effectively (e.g., greater deployment of energy efficiency programs). 

Commenters stated the 2030 CO2 emissions goal or carbon dioxide emissions goal for many 

states is lower than the beginning baseline for several of the states; EPA appears to be picking 

winning and losing states for economic development.

Commenters stated do not penalize states for their success; energy production and consumption 

does not start and stop at state borders; compliance must not disproportionately penalize one 

state at the gain of another. 

Commenters stated that MA, NY, and RI, have advanced energy efficiency and renewable 

programs, are members of RGGI, have already significantly reduced their emissions, but 

the proposed rule does not recognize these achievements. 

Commenters stated the Northeastern states that participate in RGGI have been national leaders in 

carbon dioxide reduction; yet, the draft rule appears to ask more of those states than of other 

states across the country. Commenters said it would be extremely unfortunate if the result of 

111(d) were that the Northeast was disadvantaged for being an early leader on carbon emission 

reductions. 

Commenters added the rule largely relies on clean energy leaders like Minnesota to make further 

reductions in carbon emissions to provide an overall level of national rule stringency while 

asking less of states with currently underdeveloped clean energy resources; such a strategy may 

not take full advantage of the "low-hanging fruit" of carbon emissions reductions that remain 

available in many states, while seeking more aggressive reductions from states well-into their 

clean energy transition. 

Commenters added the necessary CO2 reductions and resulting compliance costs will be 

distributed unfairly amongst the states; residents and businesses in states bearing higher 

compliance costs will also be disproportionately impacted economically as electricity prices 

increase as a result of the rule. Commenters said future economic development may also be 

impacted as potential future businesses weigh operating costs of locating a facility in one state 

versus another; additionally, the disparate state goals will, by extension, necessarily result in 

comparative disparate treatment of EGUs depending on the state in which the EGUs are located. 

Commenters added for example, instead of all coal-fired EGUs being required to meet BSER in 

a similar manner across the country, the emission limit that a particular coal-fired EGU may be 

required to meet will be vastly different depending on where the source is located; in states 

where electrical generation is predominately coal-based (e.g., Kentucky, North Dakota, and West 

Virginia), the state goals are significantly less stringent than in states that have diversified 

generation mixes including coal and other fossil fuel-fired sources (e.g., Texas and Florida). 

Commenters said a state with a much more stringent goal, such as Texas, would be forced to 

require more CO2 reductions from coal-fired EGUs within its jurisdiction than a state with coalfired EGUs that has a much less stringent state goal. Commenters said the EPA provides no 

justification for why EGUs within the same source and fuel category should be subject to wildly 

varying standards of performance and thereby varying costs and controls, including shutdowns, 
50 

depending only upon the state in which they operate; the EPA also has no legal basis for 

establishing state-specific standards of performance. 

Commenters added the goals are set in a way that creates inconsistencies between states; this 

offers neighboring states a competitive advantage over Michigan. Commenters said given that 

Michigan was an early adopter of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and energy efficiency 

(EE) programs and other states were not, Michigan is tasked under the proposal with a greater 

level of renewable energy (RE) and EE goals. Commenters said this is an inequitable burden that 

must be equalized in the final rule; those impacts are contrary to the requirement that USEPA 

"must not give competitive advantage to one state over another in attracting industry" when 

setting new source performance standards. 

Commenters stated other Midwestern states do not have to reduce at such a high percentage as 

Minnesota; also, emission reduction efforts taken prior to 2012 should count toward any such 

emission reduction percentage calculation. 

Commenters added the clean power plan unreasonably asks states in our region to bear a 

disproportionate and higher burden of CO2 emissions reductions compared to the nation as a 

whole- especially our state of Arkansas at 45 percent. 

Commenters added of greatest concern is the imposition of greater and unreasonable emission 

reduction requirements upon some states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, which already 

have reduced their carbon intensity, diversified their generation portfolios and achieved emission 

reductions, while providing much less stringent requirements on states that have been less 

forward-looking. Commenters said this dichotomy creates an economic and competitive 

advantage to those states that have done the least and a disadvantage to those who have done the 

most; EPA essentially penalizes early action and rewards inaction, and incorrectly assumes these 

states can do significantly more simply because they have access to multiple sources of 

electricity generation. 

Commenters added in Virginia, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) has been responsible 

for oversight of utility rates for more than 100 years; the SCC was established by the 

Constitution of Virginia and has broad regulatory oversight of utilities, telecommunications, 

banking and insurance. Commenters said with regard to electric utilities, Virginia's successful 

application of the regulatory compact concept has led to reliable service and stable, competitive 

rates when compared to national or regional averages; at the same time, Virginia ratepayers have 

made substantial investments in clean energy, as demonstrated by Dominion's consistent ranking 

in the lowest one third of carbon emitters by intensity among major power producers. 

Commenters said the draft rule has the unintended consequence of penalizing states that took 

aggressive, early action to produce energy in a more environmentally responsible manner, such 

as Dominion's closure or conversion of coal units at seven of its Virginia power stations within 

its regulated generation fleet. 

Commenters added the proposed rule does not give appropriate credit to investments already 

made by Virginia utilities and their customers, and the state's recent reductions in CO2 
51 

emissions; Virginia's generation portfolio includes lower carbon generating sources such as 

highly efficient natural gas combined cycle units (NGCC), non-emitting nuclear units, and 

growing use of renewable resources. Commenters said this balanced generation fleet, which also 

includes coal-powered units, provides Virginians with a reliable, affordable and 

environmentally-responsible supply of electricity. 

Commenters added the EPA rule will affect Virginia and North Carolina disproportionately, 

compared to the reduction goals assigned to other nearby states; for example, West Virginia's 

2030 carbon intensity goal of 1,620 pounds per megawatt-hour of generation is twice the level 

set for Virginia at 810 pounds per megawatt-hour; Kentucky's 2030 goal is more than twice as 

high; Maryland's 2030 goal of 1,187 pounds per megawatt-hour is more than 46 percent higher 

than Virginia's. Commenters said targets in these and many other states are above the level EPA 

has proposed for new sources; this allows these states the option of using NGCC build to achieve 

compliance; for states like Virginia and North Carolina, with emission rate goals lower than the 

standard proposed for new sources, incorporating these units into state compliance plans would 

create significant compliance challenges; assuming it could be accomplished, a compliance 

strategy in Virginia that replaces all existing coal-fired generation with comparable amounts of 

state-of-the-art NGCC generation would not achieve the proposed interim target of 884 lbs/MWh 

or the proposed 2030 of 810 lbs/MWh. 

Commenters added this disparity actually incentivizes new NGCC build in states with higher 

targets and emissions than in states with lower targets and less emissions; the fact that EPA 

proposes existing source standards are more stringent than the standard for new sources certainly 

raises question as to whether new units should ever become regulated under 111(d) or will be 

ever be credited with meeting the affected state's goal; for example, a single 1,300 MW, 920 lb 

CO2/MWh NGCC unit in West Virginia, similar to the Brunswick facility being constructed in 

Virginia, would calculate to offset approximately 6 percent of West Virginia's total CO2 

emissions at a 70 percent capacity factor with its emission rate well below the West Virginia 

target of 1,620 lb/MWh; by contrast, the same plant located in Virginia would be expected to 

remain under 111(b) rules because its permitted emissions rate would be above the statewide 

Virginia target. Commenters said although the actual impact to the environment would be the 

same, whether the units are located in either state, the accounting with respect to the existing 

source rule as proposed would be substantially different. 

Commenters added this disparity is further exacerbated in Virginia by the inclusion of NGCC 

units that were under construction as of January 8, 2014 in the calculation of the state 

goals; Dominion Virginia Power's (DVP) Warren and Brunswick power generating facilities are 

captured by this inequitable and unfair policy which results in an increase in the stringency of the 

Virginia state target by almost 40 lb/MWh; this methodology disadvantages states, such as 

Virginia, that are meeting future energy needs proactively with lower-carbon emitting combinedcycle natural gas-fired base load generation. Commenters said furthermore, including an "at risk" 

nuclear component in the computation of the state target for states, such as Virginia, with 

existing zero-emitting nuclear generation further reduces the proposed reduction targets without 

accomplishing its intended purpose of preserving existing nuclear units; as a result, states such as 

Virginia for which nuclear generation provides a significant amount of the state's electric 

generation are neither recognized nor credited for investments in tins carbon-free nuclear 

generation. 
52 

Commenters stated the issue of state-by-state equity is important to Virginia, a state whose 

balanced electricity portfolio, downward emissions trajectory, and reasonable electricity costs are 

a rough proxy for what is envisioned at the national level under this proposal. Commenters said 

using EPA's 2012 baseline, Virginia has reduced its power plant CO2 emissions 38 percent from 

a 2005 peak, transitioning steadily from coal to gas and relying on nuclear for 40 percent of its 

generation - twice the national average; yet its emissions reduction target is proportionally 

stringent compared to those of states that have done less. While commenters acknowledged that 

a one-size-fits-all emissions target is impractical among states with vastly different power 

sectors, commenters also asserted it is good policy to reward states that have taken steps to 

reduce the carbon intensity of their power sectors.

Commenters stated one key way to address this equity issue and properly reward states with 

balanced electricity portfolios is to include all zero-emitting capacity in the 2012 compliance 

baseline; nuclear accounts for 40 percent of Virginia's electricity portfolio, yet only 6 percent is 

factored into the state's target in the draft standard. Commenters said not including one third of 

Virginia's current overall generation significantly skews the picture of its electric sector. 

Commenters were concerned that North Carolina might be unable to achieve these objectives 

under the methodology and assumptions EPA used to determine proposed state carbon 

performance standards. Commenters said unlike other states in the Southeast, elected officials in 

North Carolina previously took forward-thinking actions that reduced carbon emissions, spurred 

renewable electricity generation, and improved energy efficiency. Commenters said rather than 

reward North Carolina for these actions, the proposed rule could impose higher compliance 

burdens on North Carolina than it would have had it not taken early action. Commenters said any 

final rule must not result in higher compliance burdens for North Carolina than for neighboring 

states that chose not to take similar bold actions.

Commenters added the proposal sets wildly different targets for each state, varying on a rate 

basis from a low of 215 lb/MWh to a high of 1783 lb/MWh. Commenters said on a percentage 

basis, the targets present power sector reductions that vary from a low of 15% to a high of 73%, 

which will pit one state against another in commenting on this rule proposal. Commenters said 

these numbers are based upon what EPA thinks it knows best about every aspect of every state 

power generation sector, developing fuel source infrastructure, dispatch, energy markets, energy 

usage demands of businesses now and in the future, energy usage demands and habits of citizens, 

and the weather. Commenters said the inequities of this proposal are clear from the numbers 

alone; but the basis and background for such numbers are weak and depend upon too many 

assumptions about too many unknowns. 

Commenters added EPA's proposed goals create inequity among states, and specifically result in 

a disproportionate impact on Florida. Commenters said EPA has proposed different interim and 

final goals for each state; such an approach is arbitrary and capricious and unfair, as it creates 

economic competition among states and requires some states, such as Florida, to shoulder a 

disproportionate amount of the economic burden. Commenters said for example, EPA proposed 

final goals of 1,783; 1,771; 1,763; and 1,714 lb/MWh-net for North Dakota, Montana, Kentucky, 

and Wyoming, respectively; Florida's proposed goal in 2030 of 740 lb/MWh-net is less than half 

of these states' goals, and 25 percent less than the national average. 
53 

Commenters added the disproportionate impact on Florida is illustrated by comparing states' 

percent reduction requirement, as well as the percentage of coal-fired capacity EPA projects will 

retire. Commenters said for example, EPA's modeling projects over 90 percent of Florida's coalfired capacity to be prematurely retired while projecting that none of North Dakota or Montana's 

coal-fired capacity will be prematurely retired, and it actually projects a delay in retirement of 

1,379 MW of coal fired capacity in Kentucky compared to the Base Case. Commenters said 

EPA's methodology unfairly penalizes states like Florida with an already-significant percentage 

of NGCC; this result is completely inequitable, and places states with lower interim and final 

goals at a severe disadvantage compared to states with higher interim and final goals. 

Commenters said EPA cannot reasonably justify such different treatment among states, and its 

approach is thus arbitrary and capricious. 

Commenters stated the USEPA's goal computation methodology may lead to inequitable results. 

Commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan proposes a methodology to calculate state goals 

that is applied uniformly to the states; however the methodology results in some states having 

much more stringent goals than others. Commenters said generally the states with the worst 

carbon emissions are asked to lower their emissions the least, and states that have made more 

investments toward natural gas generation and renewable energy sources, such as Nevada, are 

being asked to lower their emissions the most. Commenters said this disparate treatment 

objectionable. 

Commenters stated the Clean Power Plan's proposed methodology for setting goals on a state-bystate basis is fundamentally unfair to states like Oregon, where the carbon profile of the electric 

sector is significantly lower than the national average; the proposal's methodology and the 

assumptions it uses to calculate goals punish states and electric power customers like ours that 

have already made significant investments to address climate change. Commenters said that 

disproportionate burden potentially puts our state and region at an economic disadvantage 

relative to the rest of the nation. 

Commenters added EPA can take several steps to better align emission reduction targets with 

states responsibilities for power sector emissions; for example, EPA can i) recognize carbon 

reduction measures that take place between proposal of the Clean Power Plan and 2020; ii) apply 

a "floor" and "ceiling" to the amount of coal plant output displaced by NGCCs, and iii) "cap" the 

amount of energy efficiency assumed by leading states in Building Block 4. 

Commenters added states that have already obtained large CO2 emission reductions, such as 

Wisconsin, are being required to reduce emissions more than those that have not taken 

significant steps to decrease emissions; for example, those states that have invested in efficient 

natural gas plants, and consequently are reducing emissions from other higher emitting sources, 

have more stringent goals than they would have if they had not invested in these facilities; this 

perplexing approach needs to be corrected in any final rule. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Carbon Rule may accomplish a 30 percent reduction to carbon 

emissions however, it exacts much greater emission reductions in some states than others and the 

reductions have no relationship to existing CO2 state emission levels. Commenters said this 

application imposes a heavier burden on some states as opposed to others; using Arizona as an 

example, the state has a well-balanced energy portfolio and fairly young fleet of EGUs; however, 
54 

some states which have a less balanced and more polluting energy mix face significantly less 

reductions than Arizona. Commenters said the result is that states like Arizona are being forced 

to carry a more significant burden than other states because of its diverse energy mix and early 

implementation of RE and EE. Commenters said the EPA goal calculation methodology leads to 

disproportionate and unequal results among the states. The commenters said states with large 

coal fleets and little or no NGCC or nuclear generation contribute significantly more to the 

national CO2 emissions than states with balanced portfolios and aggressive RE and EE 

programs; yet, based upon EPA goal calculation methodology, those states contribute 

significantly less to the overall 2030 reduction established by EPA. Commenters recommended 

that the EPA revise its goal calculation methodology to establish a balanced reduction strategy 

among the states that at least has some relationship to the state's contribution to nationwide CO2 

emissions. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule has a disproportionate impact on Arizona relative to other 

states, even though Arizona has a more balanced portfolio and has put in place aggressive energy 

efficiency and renewable energy standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Commenters said Arizona was among the first states to adopt renewable portfolio requirements 

in 1994, which were replaced in 2006 with the current Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff 

(REST). Commenters said the REST calls for TEP, UNSE and other regulated utilities to supply 

15 percent of their retail load through renewable resources by 2025. Commenters said in 2010, 

the ACC adopted the Energy Efficiency Standard, which calls for TEP and UNSE to increase the 

savings realized through approved energy efficiency programs each year until the cumulative 

savings reach 22 percent by 2020. Commenters said the EPA seems to imply [79 FR 34833, 

34834, 34853, 34865, 34897] that these aggressive programs provide Arizona with an ability to 

achieve the second highest emission rate reduction of all states. 

Commenters were concerned about the equity of the proposed rule; states with less than 5% coalfired generation have an average percent reduction obligation (35.6%) significantly higher than 

those with more than 70% coal-fired generation (20.3%). Commenters said 24 states with more 

coal-fired generation than Louisiana (on a percent basis) have lower percent reduction goals. 

Commenters said per EPA's data, Louisiana's 2012 CO2 emission rate was 1466 pounds per 

megawatt hour (lb/MWh); therefore, Louisiana's goal of 883 lb CO2/MWh represents a 40% 

reduction. Commenters said Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and South Carolina are the 

only states with more coal-fired generation than Louisiana for which EPA's proposal imposes 

more stringent obligations (on a percent reduction basis). 

Commenters stated per section 111(d) of the Act, the BSER must reflect the "degree of emission 

limitation achievable" by an existing EGU and cannot be dependent on any other unrelated 

aspect of a state's generation profile, including its existing NGCC fleet or its perceived potential 

to develop new RE resources. Commenters added proposing a unique goal for each state does not 

comport with how the electrical grid is operated; the "movement" of electricity is coordinated by 

regional transmission organizations, most of which service multiple states and dispatch without 

regard to political boundaries. 
55 

Commenters stated EPA demonstrates that many states are moving quickly to adopt the most 

promising clean and sustainable energy options-energy efficiency and nonfuel renewables like 

solar and wind. Commenters applauded the use of these clean and least cost options for 

compliance with the Carbon rule; however, EPA set very low targets for those states that have 

done the least thus far on energy efficiency and renewables; apparently the less you have done 

already, the less you are asked to do. 

Commenters stated by forcing Minnesota to reduce its carbon emissions 41 percent by 2030 will 

jeopardizes Minnesota's economic vitality by reducing our market competitiveness. Commenters 

advocated for and encouraged the EPA to pursue a well diversified mix of power sources; a 

diversified combination of power sources will serve Minnesota, and the country, well over time 

by balancing affordable and reliable power with environmental responsibility. Commenters 

asked the EPA to better balance Minnesota's mandate to reduce its carbon emissions the by 41 

percent. Commenters said all states should be asked to step up and meet a fair and equitable 

mandate; there are additional states that should be mandated to participate at higher levels. 

Commenters asked the EPA to reconsider Minnesota's mandate for a 41 percent carbon emission 

reduction in favor of additional participation by states with lower mandates; by maintaining a fair 

and equitable mandate utilities will continue to utilize a well diversified fuel source mix while 

maintaining affordable energy for rate payers and remaining competitive. 

Commenters understood that different states will have different targets based on feasibility, 

electrical systems, and other variables; however as written, it seems that the proposal requires 

more of states that have already made substantial carbon reductions - like Delaware - than of 

states that have not yet acted. Commenters were concerned that as proposed, the Clean Power 

Plan will place early action states at a competitive disadvantage; the commenters asked that the 

EPA consider adjusting the state targets to address these inequities. 

Commenters stated the inadequacies of the EPA's calculation can be seen by the striking 

differences in each state's final reduction requirement, caused primarily by the assumptions that 

underlie the building blocks. Commenters said while Idaho currently does not generate 

electricity from coal plants within its borders, it consumes coal-generated energy from at least 

five other states that export it to Idaho; if CPP compliance forces the exporting states to decrease 

their coal generation, such will force Idaho to compensate by increasing its CO2 generation from 

its own in-state existing natural gas plants in order to make up for the states no longer able to 

export coal-generated energy to Idaho because of their own EPA imposed regulations. 

Commenters said the effect of this is that Idaho's initial carbon baseline as assumed by the EPA, 

as well as Idaho's resulting emissions-reduction requirements going forward have been 

erroneously calculated. Commenters said the fact is that Arkansas is a net exporter of electricity 

and, as such, is severely penalized by the CPP. The commenters said unless energy exporting 

states are compensated for the cost of controlling emissions incurred in supplying energy to other 

regions, regulating based on the location of the power source rather than the location of the user 

will be a primary example of the CPP's inequity and inherent inefficiencies. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule imposes a higher standard of performance (ostensibly as 

BSER) on existing EGUs located in states that have already required significant GHG 

reductions, as compared to units in the same regulated source category located in states that have 

taken no or less aggressive measures to reduce GHG emissions. Commenters said the primary 
56 

reason for the proposed rule's disparate impact is that EPA has determined the proposed state 

goals by applying EPA's BSER formula to each state's current level of performance, regardless 

of the measures a state has already taken. Commenters said such an approach ultimately 

corresponds to the imposition of varying, rather than uniform, performance obligations on 

sources within the same source category, and cannot qualify as a BSER-derived standard; thus, 

the state goals that EPA has developed would disparately impact EGUs in states that are "ahead 

of the curve" in planning for climate change because the relative stringency of the goals in these 

states is significantly greater than in less proactive states; in other words, the state goals in the 

proposed rule would require states that have already achieved meaningful GHG reductions to 

impose measures on affected entities that exceed corresponding measures that must be applied in 

states that have previously achieved less significant GHG reductions. Commenters said such 

inconsistent application of performance standards to sources within the same source category is 

contrary to the clear language of Section 111(d) of the CAA, and the concept of BSER. 

Commenters stated despite having been proactive in reducing CO2 emissions from the State's 

electric generating fleet, the electric cooperatives and other electricity providers in South 

Carolina are disproportionally impacted by the proposed EPA rule. Commenters said South 

Carolinians will have to bear the burden of making the largest carbon intensity reduction in the 

nation; EPA says SC must drop from 1,587 lbs/MWH to 772 lbs/MWh by 2030. Commenters 

said EPA assigned one state which has a similar CO2 emission rate of 1,552 lbs/MWh a target 

reduction of just 16 percent; assignments for other states are similarly inconsistent. Commenters 

said EPA should be consistent in its rules so that it doesn't penalize states that have been early 

investors in carbon-free technology and those who have limited access to additional natural gas 

resources. Commenters said EPA's proposal should not place additional burdens on particular 

states as to other generation options due to inconsistent results when applying EPA's model. 

Commenters added that Texas' 2012 baseline level is lower than the final goal set by EPA for 13 

other states (HI, IN, IA, KS, KY, MO, MT, NE, ND, OH, UT, WV, WY). Commenters added 

the proposal would require TX to account for 18-25% of the country's total CO2 reductions. 

Commenters stated the disparate impacts of the proposed guidelines across states illustrate the 

arbitrary and capricious nature of the proposed guidelines. Commenters said there is clearly no 

relationship between a state's 2012 fossil emission rate and the amount by which each state 

would have to lower its CO2 emission rate based on the EPA's proposed goals, other than 

perhaps an inverse relationship. Commenters said requiring states with initially lower emission 

rates to make larger emission rate reductions relative to their base line rate makes no sense. 

Commenters said the results of the EPA's IPM modeling of the Proposed Guidelines further 

confirm the inequitable and arbitrary impact of the Proposed Guidelines. Commenters said the 

Proposed Guidelines would result in significant stranded investments in some states while 

essentially leaving the coal-fired EGUs in other states virtually untouched, and the more a state 

has done to lower its CO2 emissions by developing NGCC and new nuclear generation, the more 

impacted they are by the Proposed Guidelines. Commenters said this is further illustrated by the 

multiplier effect that values the same MWh of RE or energy efficiency very differently across 

states. 

Commenters stated that the goals are unfair to some states and that there needs to be uniform 

state reductions from baseline CO2 emissions levels. 
57 

Commenters stated Section 111(d) requires EPA to establish uniform performance standards for 

regulated sources based on a consistent baseline; therefore, the final rule must fully account for 

the efforts that states and/or regulated sources have already undertaken to limit CO2 emissions 

from existing EGUs in determining BSER and setting state goals. Commenters said as proposed, 

the CPP penalizes states that have undertaken to achieve GHG emission reductions by imposing 

a higher standard of performance on existing EGUs in states that have already required or 

achieved GHG reductions. Commenters said EPA must adjust the state goals to adhere to the 

mandate of Section 111(d) to impose state goals that are reflective of uniform BSER-derived 

performance standards. 

Commenters added EPA should do more to ensure that the emission reductions obligations under 

the final guidelines more accurately reflect the comparable emissions reduction potential in all 

states. 

Commenters stated the effect of EPA's proposed rule is that the performance goals are not 

equitable across the States. Commenters said some States, like Georgia that have made previous 

efforts to reduce carbon emissions are particularly (and inexplicably) punished; prior to the 

Proposal, between 2005 and 2012, Georgia had already reduced CO2 mass emissions by 

approximately 30%. Commenters said despite this, EPA's CPP Proposal requires Georgia to 

achieve an additional 48% reduction in the State's CO2 emission rate. Commenters said goals for 

other states who have previously achieved far fewer CO2 reductions are considerably less 

stringent; if anything, the opposite should be true. 

Commenters stated EPA should ensure that the reductions required of each state are generally 

equivalent by 2030; that is, for those states that have not yet taken action to reduce GHG 

emissions, the reductions targets should be increased because the actual experience of the RGGI 

states amply demonstrates that substantial reductions readily can be achieved from the "low 

hanging fruit." Commenters said to prevent geographic inequities and unequal burdens, all states 

equally should be required to undertake further efforts in order to further reduce emissions. 

Commenters stated the state-by-state differences present a unique challenge in formulating stateby-state existing source performance standards for electric generating units under section 111(d) 

of the Clean Air Act. Commenters said the CO2/MWh "state goals" proposed by U.S. EPA under 

section 111(d), however, do not take into account the most material differences from state to 

state, but rather only consider the extent to which existing coal-fired (and to a very small degree 

oil- and natural gas-fired) steam electric generation can be shifted to existing natural gas 

combined cycle combustion turbines or renewable energy (RE) generation. (The energy 

efficiency (EE) assumptions underlying the "state goals" are the same for all states, and the 

nuclear generation assumption is the same for all states with existing nuclear generating 

capacity.) Commenters said these overly simplistic assumptions threaten to significantly and 

disproportionately increase the cost of electricity to Ohio businesses and households, and to 

decrease the reliability of electric service in Ohio. 

Commenters stated the purported flexibility provided to the states in U.S. EPA's section 111(d) 

proposal all relates to how mandatory CO2/MWh "state goals" are met, not to what the goals 

should be, or what performance standard is most appropriate for a given existing source in the 

source category. Commenters said according to U.S. EPA's proposal, "the goals are binding, and 
58 

the states, in their CAA section 111(d) plans, must meet those goals and may not make them less 

stringent." Commenters said not only are the states given zero flexibility or discretion in setting 

the overall level of performance existing generating units must meet, but the state flexibility EPA 

says it intends for meeting the "state goals" also is illusory. Commenters said a state like Ohio 

does not have multiple ways to reduce coal-fired electric generation to the extent, and on the 

schedule, that U.S. EPA's proposed "state goals" require. Commenters said the relatively abrupt 

decrease in coal-fired generation required, and abrupt increase in other forms of generation 

required, raise serious concerns about the impact of the proposed "state goals" on electricity costs 

and reliability in Ohio. Commenters said U.S. EPA's proposal, moreover, places no limits on its 

costs to consumers, and does nothing to contain the costs associated with its reordering of 

generation economics; nor does the proposal have any contingency plan or safety valve to assure 

the reliability and security of electricity and natural gas supplies. Commenters said the 

achievement of the CO2/MWh interim goals beginning in 2020, and final goals beginning in 

2030, are all that matter under U.S. EPA's proposal. 

Commenters stated the imposition of an inviolate statewide limit on CO2/MWh emissions from 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating units, no matter how costly (to consumers or taxpayers or 

both) it turns out to be, violates U.S. EPA's statutory duty to take into account cost in 

determining the best system of emission reduction. Commenters said the mandate to decrease 

coal-fired generation and increase wind, solar, and natural gas-fired generation by 2020 and 

beyond, no matter what the consequences to the reliability of electric service, violates U.S. 

EPA's statutory duty to take into account energy requirements in determining the best system of 

emission reduction. Commenters said U.S. EPA's emission guidelines for CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating units must have a cost cap and a reliability assurance 

mechanism. 

 

Commenters stated that there is a wide range of state-specific 2030 targets that appear to place 

some states at a competitive disadvantage by requiring more from states that have already made 

substantial progress, while requiring less from states that have yet to aggressively implement 

emission reduction plans. Commenters stated as an example using Building Block 4, Maine is 

required to reduce demand by 12.1 percent whereas Kansas is only required to reduce their 

demand by 9.5, despite Maine having much lower emissions. 

 

Commenters stated just because a certain level of energy efficiency has been reached in one 

state does not mean it can be repeated in another state with a different mix of residential, 

commercial, and industrial electricity customers; EPA needs to develop the assumptions it uses 

to calculate state performance goals by evaluating what can be done in each state; EPA should 

not base the goals on what a few states have done and assume they can be repeated either 

regionally in the case of renewables or nationally in the case of energy efficiency. 

Comment 10: Uniform emission rates - not feasible
59 

Response 10: The EPA disagrees with this comment. As described in Section V and VI of the 

preamble, the EPA is establishing subcategory-specific emission performance rates consistent 

with previous 111(d) actions and comments received on the proposal. While the EPA appreciates 

the different boiler characteristics and starting points for many sources within a category, the 

BSER rates expressed reflect subcategory-specific emission performance rates offer abatement 

measures to all affected EGUs through potential on-site or off-site actions. The EPA did not 

need to identify unit-specific rates on a more granular level than the subcategory average. 

Moreover, states have the flexibility to distribute compliance responsibility to the affected EGUs 

in its state in different manner if its views it best to do so. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the USEPA requested comment on nationally uniform emission rates for 

particular types of affected EGUs. Commenters said uniform emission rates are not feasible for 

existing sources; unlike end-of-pipe controls of criteria pollutants, there is no technological 

solution that would lead to a uniform emission rate given the myriad of boiler designs, ages 

(vintage), and efficiencies. Commenters said it would be impracticable and unrealistic to 

establish one emission rate for a given class or size of existing EGUs. 

Comment 11: The EPA should reconsider the timeline for the final goals; timing issues.

Response 11: The timing of the final goals is 2030. The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

suggestion that the final goals should be moved to 2025. The EPA carefully analyzed cost and 

performance capabilities of building block three potential and the accompanying annual 

assumptions regarding potential are based on historical deployment levels and determined to be 

cost-effective. Moving the final goals to 2025 would not be consistent with the building block 

three assumptions discussed in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The EPA appreciates the commenters’ concerns regarding the amount of time necessary to 

design, permit, and install new technologies associated with the BSER. See section V.A for a 

discussion of timing. 

Under the statute and the implementing regulations, EPA identifies a Best System of Emission 

Reductions for existing sources. There is no sunset provision in 111(d) in 2030. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has set up goals for 2030, and has asked the states to develop average 

interim goals for the 2020- 2029 period; EPA establishes elongated deadlines for states to 

provide final plans: June 30th 2017 or June 30th 2018, depending of the approach selected; states 

need only begin to achieve GHG reductions by 2020, and only need to meet an interim 

performance level based on their 2020-2029 period average. Commenters said this means states 

can backload most of their gains to the end of next decade without running into compliance 
60 

issues; this timeline will not create an urgent climate of investment in solutions anytime soon, 

especially given the numerous political changes that may be perceived to be possible in 

Washington during that period. Commenters asserted that this delays progress too far in the 

future to trigger utility investments early on; the existing U.S. coal fleet is significantly aged, 

with 74% of all coal-fired capacity at least 30 years old and with significant portions even older; 

nearly one-quarter of the U.S. coal fleet could retire by the end of this decade, necessitating 

significant new investment to replace these plants. Commenters said EPA should consider a 

more explicit "ratcheting up" method within shorter time intervals, to reflect technology 

evolution driving down the cost of solutions. 

Commenters recommended that the final targets be set for 2025 rather than 2030 and at levels 

reflecting a pace of reduction through 2025 comparable to that proposed in the draft rule through 

2020. Commenters recommended that the rule indicate EPA's intent to adopt new targets for a 

subsequent period based upon an updated assessment of the best system of emissions reduction 

to be completed by EPA in 2023. 

Commenters asserted that EPA has vastly underestimated the amount of time that it takes utilities 

to design, permit, construct, and start up new generation units; the long period required to make 

generation changes must also consider the long delays in building support infrastructure such as 

pipelines and electrical transmission lines; both of these items are difficult if not impossible to 

achieve under the Purposed Rules. Commenters said the emission reductions expected under the 

terms of the Proposed Rule will require new generation resources; commenters recommended 

EPA extend the time table and back-load reductions rather than front load. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Carbon Rule defines the final performance period as 2030 and 

thereafter, when the state must meet the final emission performance level specified in Section 

60.5740(a)(3) on a 3 year calendar year rolling average starting January 1, 2030. Commenters 

said defining the final performance period as 2030 and thereafter for the State Plan is 

unreasonable; especially for Building Blocks 2, 3, and 4, an EPA enforcement overlay into 

perpetuity is arbitrary and capricious and is not necessary or appropriate. 

Commenters stated the final compliance date should be extended. 

Commenters added efforts to negotiate and implement interstate plans, or to convert a rate-based 

emission reduction goal to a mass-based reduction goal, are likely to be even more timeconsuming, as action will be required by multiple States, as well as by RTOs that do not follow 

state boundaries; given limited legislative calendars and the burdens already placed on 

regulators, each of these steps will take considerable time - far more than EPA has allowed even 

with extensions. Commenters stated that the final compliance deadline must be extended, from 

2030 to at least 2035, to account for the more realistic timeframes. 

Commenters stated the final compliance date should be 2035. 
61 

Commenters stated under the EPA's proposed guidelines, each state must meet the final goal on a 

three calendar year rolling average starting January 1, 2030. Commenters said while emissions 

averaging periods do not alleviate potential issues with or guarantee electrical reliability, this 

does provide some degree of flexibility for affected utilities to achieve the Clean Power Plan 

compliance requirements. Commenters said there are many reasons that utilities experience 

fluctuations in operations due to the inherent nature of electricity production and consequently 

variations in annual emissions quantities; numerous factors could cause emissions to be higher or 

lower during a given year including, but not limited to weather conditions, source and 

availability of fuel supply, customer energy demand, generation dispatch and outages. 

Commenters recommended that EPA's final guidelines maintain at least the three-year averaging 

period for determination of compliance with the final goal. 

Commenters stated the vast majority of the emission reductions required of states by 2030 - often 

90% or more - will be required in the very first year of the rule; as a result, the rule is likely to 

threaten reliability and accelerate the "lock-in" of large amounts of new natural gas generation, 

particularly in some regions, while generally delaying the deployment of tomorrow's cleaner and 

cheaper renewable energy and emerging competitive distributed energy resources. 

Commenters questioned whether the publication date of the Proposal is appropriate cut off for 

crediting previous GHG reduction efforts. 

Comment 12: Small Public and Cooperative Utility

Response 12: The EPA appreciates the unique circumstances of the small public and cooperative 

utility. However, we disagree with the commenters’ assertion that the proposed or final rule 

would require a shutdown of these units. The final rule provides multiple compliance 

flexibilities that would include 1) source-level acquisition of reduction credits that a source can 

count towards compliance with the subcategory-specific emission performance rate, 2) state 

plans that also provide a broad platform from which a state can further distinguish requirements 

for sources in its state and thus accommodate special concerns of public and cooperative utilities. 

The EPA also modeled a compliance scenario with its final emission performance rates, and this 

scenario showed that many sources that did not meet the subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates or the state goal on their own remained in operation given the compliance 

flexibilities available to them. See Section V of the preamble for a discussion of BSER, and 

section VIII for a discussion of state plans. See section VII of the preamble for the final state 

goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that while EPA acknowledged America's not-for- profit, member-owned 

Electric Cooperatives are different than most utilities, EPA's proposal doesn't provide a workable 

solution to address cooperatives' unique circumstances. Commenters added that should a state 
62 

choose to reduce the burden on cooperatives, under EPA's approach the state would need to 

increase the burden on other utility providers since the state still must meet the EPA's goal. 

Commenters stated that the solution is for EPA to rework their assumptions and set reasonable 

and achievable state goals. 

Commenters stated in the Final Goal period (e.g., 2030 and thereafter period), the qualifying 

small public or cooperative utility would need to achieve the following: -Shutdown the nonachieving unit(s) at the start of the final goal period; or -If any non-achieving unit(s) will remain 

in operation beyond 2029, then --continue any measures imposed on the non-achieving unit(s) 

and the utility by the state plan effective in 2029; and --install additional renewable energy or 

obtain renewable energy credits (in a state plan recognizing such credits) equal to at least 10% of 

the non-achieving unit(s)' capacity prior to the start of the final goal period and every five years 

thereafter if the unit(s) continue to run. 

Comment 13: Comments on Final goals for Tribal and Territories. 

Response 13: The EPA reviewed these comments submitting data corrections for the tribes and 

territories and updated its baseline accordingly. See the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and 

Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule for the final unit-level assumptions used for these 

sources. The EPA agrees with the commenters that a regional approach should be used for 

determining the BB3 potential for states and tribes. Section V.A and section VI of the preamble 

describes how the EPA is shifting to a regionalized building block framework for this final rule. 

In regards to the territories, the EPA is not quantifying a BSER or equivalent state goals for the 

territories as described in preamble section VII. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed interim and final goals calculations by EPA for Puerto Rico 

contain inaccurate information that must be corrected; commenters made the following 

recommendations: 

a. The heat rate values (cHRCoal, cHROil and cHRNGCC) used by EPA were verified and 

found to be different from the actual values for the affected generating units; as specified by 

EPA, the heat rates selected were based on 2012 data from the EIA, Electric Power Annual, 

Table 8.2: Average tested heat rates by prime mover and energy source 2007-2012. the 

commenters proved the 2012 real values in a table with heat rate values for Oil ST and NGCC on 

page 7. 

b. The net generation value (cPRSales) used by EPA was selected from the 2012 electricity sales 

(MWh): Form EIA-861 , specifically under the "Sales to Ultimate Consumers" column 

(18,150,330 MWh); this selection does not represent the amount of energy generated and 

transmitted to the grid by the affected generating units; moreover, the value includes generation 
63 

from other non-applicable generating units, such as hydroelectric, renewable energy, combined 

cycles (oil-fired) and combustion turbines sources; instead, EPA should have selected the "Total 

Sources" item (21 ,296,328 MWh), and exclude all generation related to the non-applicable 

generation sources (1,653,978 MWh); therefore, the net generation value to be used should have 

been 19,642,350 MWh; the commenters recommended using this value, instead of using sales. 

c. Some of the values used by EPA for the Generation Capacity of some of the generating units 

are not correct, specifically for the EcoElectrica, San Juan 5 & 6, and the oil-fired combustion 

turbines; the commenters provided a table with corrected generation capacity for units in Puerto 

Rico Page 8. 

d. As expressed by EPA on the TSD, CO2 emission data for 2012 were available at the unit level 

for Puerto Rico, but information was not available for unit-level net electricity generation in 

2012; EPA estimated 2012 net electricity generation by multiplying each unit's ratio of 

maximum net electricity generation to maximum CO2 emissions by the unit's reported CO2 

emissions in 2012; the commenters had more accurate data in relation to the real historical values 

for each generating unit for such period, the commenters provided a table of net electricity 

generation in 2012 on page 9. 

Commenters stated the targets for the power plants in Indian Country should be revised: 1) 

correct the formula, 2) adopt the annual two percent minimum shift from higher-emitting to 

lower-emitting sources, and 3) adopt and re-allocate a regional version of the alternative 

renewable approach based on each areas share of regional emissions. Commenters said these 

revised targets only represent a portion of the opportunity for strengthening and balancing state 

targets, and do not include the corrections to the available quantity of cost-effective energy 

efficiency and renewable energy. 

Commenters stated in regards to the tribal & territories supplementary rule; as a result of deep 

financial difficulty arising during the 1990's, Deseret is party to existing long-term debt 

restructuring arrangements with its creditors. Commenters said while the terms of these debt 

restructures remain in effect, Deseret is prohibited from, among other things, diversifying its 

holdings, acquiring (through ownership, construction, acquisition, generation purchase or 

otherwise) additional or different generating resources. Commenters said the terms of these 

arrangements are set to continue through 2030. Commenters said beginning after 2030, the time 

frame set for compliance with the final goal under the Supplemental Proposal, Deseret would be 

once again free to respond and formulate compliance strategy without directly resulting in 

abrogation or default under its pre-existing contractual obligations. 

4.2.2 Proposed Interim Goals 

Section 4.2.2 covers public comments related to the proposed interim goals including the 

stringency, achievability, flexibility, and the timing. 
64 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: The EPA should retain the interim goals, support for interim goals.

Response 1: The EPA appreciates the comments in support of the interim goals. See sections V 

and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters supported the interim goals. 

Commenters added EPA's proposed interim goals are reasonable and EPA's approach reflects the 

operation of the electric system. Commenters supported EPA's basic premise that the integrated 

electric generation, transmission, and distribution system itself plays an important role in 

determining the BSER. Commenters said electricity itself is a fungible commodity, and the lower 

48 states are served by three interconnected electric grids through which electricity flows without 

regard to political boundaries; whether a particular generation unit operates at any given time 

depends upon whether the unit will be paid the price it requires to operate; if other plants in the 

same interconnected grid are willing to supply that electricity for a lower price, those will be 

dispatched instead. Commenters said to the extent that environmental regulations raise the cost 

of generation at higher-emitting facilities, they tend to shift generation away from those facilities 

toward lower-emitting sources; thus, as EPA has recognized in CSAPR and other rules affecting 

the electricity sector, the most cost-effective approach to emissions reductions leverages the 

integrated nature of the electricity market to shift production from higher-emitting sources to 

lower-emitting sources. 

Commenters added accordingly, it is appropriate for EPA to base standards of performance for 

affected sources on reductions that could be achieved from so-called "outside the fence" actions - 

that is, those that exploit the interconnected nature of the electric system as a whole - while, of 

course, giving states the flexibility to achieve those standards of performance through the 

policies of their choice. Commenters stated because of the limited potential for reductions from 

"inside the fence" actions, including modifications to existing fossil fuel-fired generation units or 

their fuels, EPA must look "outside the fence" to the electric system as a whole in order to 

achieve the meaningful reductions in carbon emissions from affected units that the Clean Air Act 

requires. Commenters said the BSER should not be handicapped by artificially restricting CO2 

reduction potential to inside-the-fence actions; while the displacement of CO2 emissions by 

outside-the-fence options must be subject to verification, redispatch to lower-carbon resources, 

renewable energy and improved end-use energy efficiency undeniably have the potential to 

reduce CO2 emissions by reducing fossil generation.

Commenters stated EPA's proposed interim target is an essential component of the rule. 

Commenters said the interim target ensures states and utilities begin reducing emissions in the 
65 

near term. Commenters said these emissions reductions are critical to addressing climate change, 

protecting the West's valuable natural resources and avoiding the most severe impacts on western 

water supplies, forests and agricultural lands, and rural and urban communities. Commenters 

said requiring compliance with a final target and not an interim target will lead many states and 

utilities to delay these important emissions reductions, and will make mitigating the impacts of 

climate change in the West difficult, if not impossible. Commenters said climate change is driven 

by the atmospheric loading of greenhouse gases; removing or delaying the interim targets would 

dramatically increase the tonnage of atmospheric CO2, and jeopardize the ability of EPA's 

proposal to meaningfully reduce GHGs. Commenters said as part of its effort to address climate 

change, EPA should commit to regularly review the best system of emission reduction to ensure 

that it continues to reflect the system that can maximize reductions in carbon pollution. 

Commenters urged EPA to ensure that a robust requirement remains for interim carbon 

reductions in the 2020-2029 timeframe. Commenters appreciated the need for flexibility for 

states to choose the appropriate glide path for emissions reductions over the 10-year time 

horizon, but the proposal already strikes an appropriate balance by allowing a state to set its own 

glide path so long as the average rate achieved over that time horizon hits the "interim target." 

Commenters said the State Agencies' comments suggest a "milestone" approach which the 

commenters asserted can be taken based on the rule as proposed - provided that by the time a 

state gets to 2030, the average emissions rate between 2020 and 2029 hits the interim target rate 

required by EPA. Commenters said allowing states to choose their own emissions reductions 

goals that don't meet the average interim rate set by EPA over this 10-year time horizon could 

result in substantially decreasing the emissions reductions achieved through the program, as well 

as potentially undermining the short and medium-term opportunities for investment in cleaner 

energy strategies - and the economic benefits that flow from those opportunities for states such 

as Nevada. 

Commenters recommended the following with respect to accelerating the schedule for emissions 

reductions: 

- Interim targets are a necessary component of the final rule to increase certainty of attainment of 

emissions targets and to provide better enforceability of the rule; EPA should not consider the 

elimination of interim targets. 

- Neither should the interim targets should be relaxed; the commenters urged the EPA to look at 

strengthening the interim targets established in the Clean Power Plan as consistent with both the 

findings of fact and with the purposes of the rule; five year compliance targets would better 

achieve the objectives of the Clean Power Plan. 

- Shorter compliance timelines should be instituted as a risk management tool, to reduce the risk 

of shortfalls at the 2020 and 2030 milestones in the Plan; failures to meet early targets should 

serve as triggers for further EPA review and recommendations for corrective action. 
66 

- It will also be important that emissions reductions are credited at the time they will actually 

occur; compliance actions that yield deferred benefits should not be credited with carbon 

reductions prior to the year in which they produce the reductions. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed interim goals are achievable and should not be relaxed.

Commenters added the proposed interim goals reflect the reality that some emission reduction 

techniques must be deployed over a longer period of time than others; therefore, the interim 

goals are based primarily on emission reductions from Building Block 1 (heat rate improvements 

at coal plants) and Building Block 2 (redispatch of generation from coal plants to under-utilized 

NGCC plants), as well as preservation of some existing nuclear generation, that EPA has 

determined can be accomplished between the rule's finalization in 2015 and the beginning of 

interim compliance in 2020. Commenters said additional reductions from new renewable energy 

facilities and energy efficiency projects will be phased in over the course of the interim period, 

and the interim goals reflect the average of the achievable emissions rates for each of the interim 

years; thus, EPA proposed a ten-year averaging period for compliance with the interim goals to 

provide sufficient time for states to implement all of the reductions necessary to meet these 

goals. Commenters said the phase-in of Building Blocks 3 and 4 and the ten-year averaging 

period, not to mention the five years between finalization and the beginning of the compliance 

period, combine to provide the electric industry with a gradual "glide path" to the final goals. 

Commenters added as a starting point, it is clear that significant reductions in CO2 emissions can 

be achieved by 2020 and sustained thereafter by maximizing the redispatch of coal-fired 

generation to existing NGCCs; recent PJM modeling proves as much and other modeling efforts 

have produced comparable results. Commenters said while concerns about electric or natural gas 

transmission capacity may be real in specific instances, these issues are not widespread and 

should not be used as an excuse to weaken or delay all interim reductions; more importantly, 

these instances are already factored into the existing grid-management system on which Smart 

System Dispatch relies. 

Commenters added if a NGCC plant becomes unavailable due to a natural gas curtailment, a 

different plant will be dispatched to take up its load, even if that plant is a higher-cost, higheremissions coal plant; by relying on existing mechanisms of reliability-driven least-cost dispatch, 

Smart System Dispatch would render moot the potential concerns raised by the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") with regard to resource adequacy and essential 

reliability services. Commenters said NERC's preliminary qualitative analysis assumed that the 

Building Blocks were implemented literally, without regard to reliability-driven least-cost 

dispatch across states, which necessarily would increase costs and reduce reliability margins 

beyond what would actually be expected to occur. 

Commenters stated that U.S. EPA has received comments stating that the interim targets may 

create implementation challenges early in the life of the program where sharp emission cuts are 

necessary by 2020, however the proposed rule should provide clear glide-paths to ensure that 
67 

states are on track towards their 2030 emission targets, and the rule should continue to require 

states to deliver those reductions as quickly as possible. 

Commenters stated some Agencies' claim that the interim targets are infeasible is not supportable 

except for a plan that makes no changes to business as usual. Commenters said this is, 

unfortunately, the crux of the comments by the Agencies: that compliance is not possible with 

business as usual; however, compliance even in the short term is in actuality quite feasible by 

utilizing relatively modest increments of the building blocks. Commenters said in the years prior 

to 2025, modest fuel switching to more efficient gas units along with incremental energy 

efficiency and new renewables already in development are likely to allow Nevada to meet the 

targets; it is also highly likely that distributed generation will continue to grow at a geometric 

pace to help fill the gap. Commenters said in three months this year, SolarCity - one companysigned up 5,000 new solar roof customers in southern Nevada; there is an enormous appetite for 

solar as its price continues to plummet. 

 

Comment 2: Support for Interim Goals, however use series of Interim Goals with alternate time 

periods. 

Response 2: See sections I.A. and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has proposed a ten-year averaging period between 2020 and 2029 for 

states to achieve the interim emission rate target. Commenters said strong interim targets are 

essential in order to deliver near-term reductions in carbon pollution and begin to transition the 

power sector away from high-emitting infrastructure and towards lower-polluting resources. 

Commenters said in order to ensure that states are making appropriate progress towards the 

interim target, EPA should divide the ten-year period into two five-year compliance periods; 

Commenters stated EPA should commit to regular review of the best system of emission 

reduction to ensure that it continues to reflect the system that can maximize reductions in carbon 

pollution considering cost, energy requirements, and impacts on other health and environmental 

outcomes, as required by the CAA. 

Commenters supported the Interim Goals that assure an early ramp up and demonstrable, 

continuous progress toward compliance with the 2030 target for reduction of carbon emissions; 

because states may not be able to begin implementing their plans until 2017, it may be advisable 

to replace the 2020 interim goal with a series of Interim Goals, such as three 4-year periods. 

Commenters stated states should not be allowed to average their performance over the ten-year 

period from 2020 to 2029; at most, states should be allowed a two-year averaging period to meet 
68 

firm interim targets. Commenters said should EPA decide to allow a longer averaging period, the 

agency should at least set "backstops" that function as minimal annual targets that must be met 

regardless of averaging. 

Comment 3: The EPA should modify the interim goals; make adjustments.

Response 3: See sections I.A. and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated modify the interim goals to allow states to more gradually meet the final 

goal; modifying the interim goals such that states are not required to achieve the majority of 

emission reductions prior to 2020 might mitigate many of the issues Oregon faces with regard to 

the Boardman Plant. Commenters said in particular, beginning the interim period on January 1, 

2021 or thereafter would resolve the issue and align the rule with the EPA-approved Boardman 

2020 plan; applying block 2 incrementally - as the proposal does for blocks 3 and 4 - may or may 

not correct the Boardman issue; to address the problem, such an approach would need to include 

Boardman's full generation and associated emissions during calendar year 2020 in the calculation 

of the interim goal. 

Commenters stated in addition to the overall reduction requirement, infrastructure limitations, 

and lack of flexibility for Arizona, the interim deadline timeframe is overly aggressive and 

currently not achievable; the interim deadline of 2020 does not provide adequate time to 

construct the necessary infrastructure and convert all coal generation to natural gas; the citizens 

of Arizona will continue to require power generation, and a shift of this magnitude is simply not 

possible. Commenters said thus, at a minimum, the interim goal must be revised in order to 

provide any possibility of Arizona being able to comply with the mandated carbon emission 

reductions. 

Commenters added apply a regulatory adjustment to the interim goals to account for coal plants 

that committed to enforceable retirement dates prior to the 111(d) proposal. Commenters said the 

proposal treats several types of EGUs uniquely, including hydropower, nuclear power, and 

under-construction NGCC units; to hold Oregon and the few other states that have acted early to 

retire coal plants during the 2020-2029 timeframe harmless, the final rule could uniquely treat 

such coal plants. Commenters said the rule could stipulate that these plants are not subject to 

111(d) regulations or amend state goals to account for their emissions prior to their agreed-upon 

retirement dates. 

Commenters stated the EPA should adopt one or more of the following changes to the Rule, 

which will strengthen support for the Clean Power Plan, reduce its costs and lead to greater 

emission reductions prior to 2050: 1) Maintain strong 2030 goals for states, but allow them to 
69 

determine their own emission reduction trajectories; setting only 2030 emission goals - while 

making showings of feasibility, enforceability and reasonable progress - would give states the 

time they need to adopt policies for a low cost, smooth and more thorough transition to truly 

clean power technologies. 2) Modify the 10 year compliance constraint; EPA should change the 

10-year compliance requirement so that states must meet one-half of the interim goal, on 

average, in each of the 10 years from 2020 to 2029, while also meeting the 2030 goal; this would 

allow each state to set a straight diagonal line glide path from 2020 to 2030, or a number of other 

trajectories that might better suit the state - including dramatic early reductions in any state that 

deems them prudent. 3) Modify the BSER and its timing to better support state glide-paths; EPA 

should also modify the degree and timing of when it assumes BSER building blocks to be 

activated, phasing in emission reductions over enough time to avoid the negative impacts on 

reliability, state economies and the environment of mandatory dramatic early emission 

reductions; in particular, EPA should assume the gradual phase-in gas redispatch between 2020 

and 2029, in recognition of the severe reliability, price and electric system impacts of too rapid a 

shift in coal and gas dispatch. Commenters said these changes will allow states to develop plans 

that ensure a smooth transition from high to low power sector CO2 emissions, while limiting the 

reliability risks, price shocks, and other significant problems the proposed rule will create, and 

achieving greater overall CO2 reductions at a lower cost. 

Commenters suggested modifications to the EPA's building block approach include specific 

adjustments to building blocks 2 and 4 that would impact the level of Arizona's goals; these 

adjustments include: 

-EPA consider the remaining useful life of existing plants as well as applying a phase-in of the 

re-dispatch assumed by building block 2 over the 2020 to 2030 time period rather than assuming 

that this re-dispatch could occur by 2020. 

-EPA adjust building block 4 to consider a 0.6% annual efficiency improvement rather than 1.5% 

when establishing overall target levels; this benchmark would be more in line with studies of 

achievable efficiency penetration levels. 

Commenters said these building block adjustments would make compliance feasible under more 

extended timelines and would be more consistent with the emission trajectory of the Arizona 

Glide Path scenario. Commenters said the adjusted goals would result in a reduction of the 

interim goal for Arizona from the unachievable 735 lb CO2/MWh to 1,119 lbCO2/MWh; the 

final adjusted goal would be slightly higher than that proposed in the CPP at 942 lb CO2/MWh 

versus the proposed 702 lb CO2/MWh. 

Commenters stated some utility commentators treat the 2020 targets in the Plan as requirements, 

and suggested that utilities would not have enough time to fully comply by 2020; the 

commenters said in fact, the only requirements in the Plan are the 2030 annual emissions and the 
70 

average emissions in 2020 - 2030. Commenters said if Arkansas misses the target for 2020, it can 

make it up any time before 2030. 

 

Comment 4: The EPA should eliminate the interim goals; Interim goals unnecessary.

Response 4: See sections I.A. and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should remove the interim goals (2020-2029). 

Commenters added it is impossible for States to determine during the timeline provided what 

infrastructure will be required and how long it will take to plan, site, and build it; therefore, it is 

impossible for States to determine now what phase-in schedule will be needed to meet EPA's 

targets. Commenters said EPA thus commits the same basic legal and practical error in its 

NODA that invalidates its Proposed Rule: it imposes on its own, without statutory authority, 

universal standards of performance which, by statute, the States are supposed to set and are 

supposed to apply on a source-by source basis. 

Commenters added the changes to individual plants, transmission and pipeline infrastructure, and 

the function of state and regional power markets will all necessitate much more time than EPA 

allocates by imposing 2020 as the interim compliance goal. 

Commenters stated EPA prescribes aggressive interim emission reductions starting in 2020; to 

reduce the cost of the rule, EPA should eliminate the interim targets and give states, who possess 

intimate knowledge of their system needs, the flexibility to adopt interim milestones as 

appropriate. 

Commenters stated the time allowed to develop a multi-state plan is not adequate to address the 

obstacles associated with this approach; therefore, commenters recommended the EPA remove 

the interim goal and allow more time for the development of the most effective plan (state or 

multi-state). 

Commenters added EPA can eliminate the need for separating Block 2 into two segments 

reflecting gas infrastructure constraints by establishing 2030 as the earliest CPP compliance date, 

eliminating the interim targets between 2020 and 2029. Commenters noted that EPA should not 

compel states to study their natural gas infrastructure needs on a "hurry up" basis in order to 

receive potential relief that might compensate for the many shortcomings in EPA's proposed 

2020 interim target date. Commenters said the siting of natural gas pipeline infrastructure is done 

on a national level by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and development 
71 

requires cooperation between multiple states and across large regions that require considerations 

beyond the boundaries of energy decisions being addressed within a single state's planning. 

Commenters recommended eliminating the interim goals; the beginning interim year of 2020 is 

very aggressive, when considering the final rule will be issued in June 2016, with most states 

expected to take the allowed two years to develop an individual state plan or three years to 

develop a multi-state plan. Commenters said this would mean EPA review of the plan would not 

be completed until 2019 or 2020 for a multi-state plan; there is little time for compliance with the 

interim goal by 2020. 

Commenters recommended that after removing the unlawful reductions associated with natural 

gas dispatching, renewable energy generation, and energy efficiency/demand side management 

offsets, EPA only requires states to meet the final alternate state goals for 2025 or the final state 

goals for 2030; further, commenters recommended that EPA allow each state to decide whether 

to plan for the 2025 alternate final state mandate or the 2030 final state mandate. 

Commenters stated combining the unreasonableness of meeting unrealistic targets with the 

limited opportunity for heat rate improvements and redispatch in Building Blocks #1 and #2, 

results in serious consequences both in the short-term and long-term. Commenters stated EPRI 

has determined that any shortfalls within Building Blocks #3 or #4 would require decreases in 

fossil generation; the "fossil leverage factor" highlights that the algebra of the compliance 

equation results in a multiplier effect; 1 MWhr shortfall of nonemitting resources must be made 

up by more than a factor of 2 MWhrs of fossil generation in 20 states across the United 

States. Commenters said this leverage factor is significantly increased if nonemitting resources 

are not met by the 2020 interim goal. Commenters said this "fossil leverage factor" underscores 

the reason why the interim goals must be set aside.

Commenters stated the ultimate objective of EPA's proposed CPP is for states to obtain their 

specified emissions intensity in 2030; however, EPA has established interim goals between 2020 

and 2029 that must be met (or federal action may be taken), even though the 2030 goal may not 

be in jeopardy. Commenters said complicating this matter is the fact that EPA set interim goals 

that are front-loaded, and state plan approval timelines leave insufficient time for action; 

furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data also shows that emissions 

can vary by more than 10% year to year for reasons outside the control of Electric Generating 

Units (EGUs). Commenters said the interim goal progress, established by each state or multistate compact, should not be over-ruled by EPA for a mere 10% deviation; such enforcement 

discretion should solely be with state regulators who are more familiar with state specific 

circumstances and planning. Commenters said federal enforcement, if any, should be reserved 

for gross deviations of any EPA approved plan or a state's seeming unwillingness to participate 

in the process; thus, Consumers Energy requests that EPA eliminate the interim federal goals and 

enforcement mechanisms, and allow states or multi-state compacts to develop their own 

emissions reduction trajectory within their individual plans. Commenters' request maintains the 
72 

concept of the 2030 long-term federal goals, while supporting state specific planning scenarios 

and infrastructure development. 

Commenters urged EPA to eliminate the proposed interim goals or allow states to demonstrate 

compliance with the goals on a voluntary basis. Commenters said the interim goals are too 

stringent due predominantly to the requirement to make reductions from all Building Blocks by 

2020, or even beginning earlier in the case of Building Block 3 and Building Block 4. 

Commenters do not agree with EPA that phasing in Building Block 2 would solve the issues and 

allow compliance with an interim target. 

Commenters stated numerous factors support the need to eliminate the interim compliance 

period. Commenters said EPA has not demonstrated that every state can increase utilization of 

existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units to 70 % by 2020. Commenters said EPA 

incorrectly assumes that current natural gas and electric transmission infrastructure is sufficient 

to support this dramatic increase, and EPA does not account for the fact that many natural gas 

units must back-up renewable generation; increasing generation from existing NGCC units will 

likely require electric and gas transmission upgrades and expansions. Commenters said as NERC 

recently has noted, these projects can take ten to fifteen years to plan, design, site, permit and 

construct. Commenters added further, the proposed interim compliance period does not allow 

sufficient time for regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators 

(ISOs) to evaluate and potentially alter market rules to accommodate changes in dispatch. 

Commenters said EPA's proposed final 2029 goal for Alabama is an emission rate of 1,059 

pounds of CO2 per Megawatt Hour (Lbs CO2/MWHr), which represents a decrease of 27% 

relative to the 2012 baseline of 1,444 Lbs CO2/MWHr. Commenters said in order to meet 

Alabama's interim goal, over half of the proposed 27% emissions rate decrease must occur by 

2020; this is less than three years after individual state plans are due and is an unrealistic goal. 

Commenters said EPA should either adjust the interim goal to reflect more realistic goals in the 

2020-2024 time frame, or preferably, eliminate the interim goals. 

Commenters stated many of EPA's BSER assumptions are overly aggressive, and will be 

difficult to implement in the near term; moreover, it is possible that future changes in electricity 

markets, unexpected weather events, or the retirement of significant megawatts of existing 

nuclear capacity could further disprove the assumptions on which EPA has based state targets. 

Commenters said the unexpected early retirement of numerous baseload nuclear facilities could 

require significant, long-term increases in natural gas and coal-fired generation-a situation that is 

not unlike that which unfolded in California in the wake of the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station. Commenters were skeptical that the proposed interim goals can be met ontime, at reasonable cost, without significant disruptions in electric reliability. Commenters urged 

EPA to eliminate the interim compliance target; such a target is neither required by the CAA nor 

necessary to achieve the Proposed Rule's emission reduction goals. Commenters said elimination 

of the interim target would allow states and utilities to implement emission reductions on a 

schedule and through mechanisms that will reduce costs as much as possible for consumers 
73 

while still meeting EPA's 2030 targets. Commenters said if EPA is concerned that states will fail 

to meet the 2030 targets, the agency could institute a mid-term review process in 2025 to 

consider states' progress and ensure that they are making adequate progress toward meeting the 

final targets. Commenters said such an approach is preferable to EPA's current proposal because 

it would significantly reduce the near-term reliability and implementation concerns that we and 

others have raised, while still maintaining the environmental integrity of the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters stated: 

1. EPA should eliminate the interim goal. 

2. If EPA retains an interim goal, EPA should allow North Dakota credit for early adoption of 

renewable energy in demonstrating compliance with the interim goal. 

3. EPA should adjust the interim goal to account for the realities associated with increased 

utilization of natural gas generation. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed rule assumes that emission reductions can be obtained on a 

steady path beginning in 2020; it therefore proposes binding interim emission reduction goals 

based on a 10-year average emission rate from 2020 to 2029. Commenters said meeting those 

interim emission goals requires unreasonably extreme reductions beginning in the very first year; 

any shortfall in reductions in the early years can only be made up by later-year emission rates 

that will necessarily need to be substantially below the average emission rate that EPA has set; as 

a result, Iowa might be required to achieve emission rates in later years of the interim period that 

are even lower than the final emission rate that EPA proposes would apply beginning in the final 

compliance year. Commenters said this is unrealistic; EPA should thus abandon the interim 

emission reduction goals and the interim emission rates and, if the other deficiencies in the 

proposed rule can be corrected, promulgate final emission guidelines that contain only a final 

emission reduction target. Commenters said emissions reductions are already being obtained in 

Iowa, and those reductions will continue to increase as new technologies develop and as older 

generation is replaced by newer, more efficient, lower-emitting, or non-emitting generation. 

Commenters said the final emission guidelines should be designed to ensure that the States are 

on a glide path toward compliance by the final compliance deadline. Commenters said interim 

emission reduction goals are not only unnecessary to achieve this, but are likely to prove 

impossible to implement. 

Commenters stated the proposed interim goals create unfair schedules and burdens on some 

states in several ways; compliance with the interim goal, particularly for Idaho and Washington 

which must rely on RE and EE, may require state-level legislation and rulemaking that could 

easily extent to nearly 2020, leaving little time to plan smooth implementation; further, for 

Washington State, the EPA baseline assumes the closure of the Centralia coal-fired plant, since 

the state has an agreement to ensure its closure, with Unit 1 coming offline by 2021, and Unit 2 

shutting down by 2026. Commenters said unfortunately, EPA has failed to recognize these 
74 

closure dates and instead has assumed that both units are closed by 2020, years ahead of 

schedule; this assumption means the only realistic avenue for the state to meet the interim goal is 

moving the Centralia coal plant closure up by six-years; this option is unrealistic and would be 

damaging to the state, both from economic and power system reliability perspectives. 

Commenters said ideally the final rule will not include interim goals. Commenters said where it 

does, EPA should not accelerate plant closure dates; further, states should be able to determine 

their own compliance path and, where any interim measurements are required, demonstrate to 

EPA that the plans are on track to reach final 2030 goals. Commenters said eliminating the 

interim goals, or allowing states to develop their own glide path to 2030, would provide true 

flexibility in the rule; allowing states to determine when and how to achieve CO2 emission rate 

reductions will moderate some of the economic impacts and unintended consequences of the 

proposed rule. 

Commenters stated in 2013, anticipating the issuance of the proposed rule by EPA, the Kentucky 

Legislature unanimously passed House Bill 388 which directs the Kentucky Energy and 

Environment Cabinet (EEC) in the implementation to the proposed rule and in accordance with 

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, to establish best system of emission reduction that has been 

adequately demonstrated for coal-fired electric generation units subject to the performance 

standard. Commenters said in developing the performance standards the Division for Air Quality 

must take into account: 1) the cost of achieving the emission reduction; 2) impacting non-air 

quality health and the environment; and 3) maintaining energy requirements needed to serve the 

load on the electric generation unit. Commenters said the Kentucky legislature also limits the 

application of the proposed rule by the Division for Air Quality to reductions in emissions of 

carbon dioxide that can reasonably be achieved through measures undertaken at each coal-fired 

electric generating unit and efficiency and other measures that can be undertakes at each coalfired electric generating unit to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions without doing the following: 

-Switching from coal to other fuels; 

-Co-firing other fuels with coal, or 

-Limiting the utilization of the electric generating unit 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed rule is not consistent with intent of the Kentucky 

Legislature, who has mandated an approach that is consistent with Section 111(d), unlike the 

over-reach that EPA is attempting with the proposed rule. Commenters said there is the need to 

eliminate the interim goals and to rather allow impacted EGUs the full time to ensure that the 

most cost effective long-term controls are implemented. 

Commenters stated EPA has also offered no legal justification for the interim goals. Commenters 

said EPA has said that its "state goals form the EPA's emission guidelines"; thus, EPA's 

regulations would allow the agency to take into consideration "the time within which compliance 
75 

with emission standards... can be achieved" when setting its state goals. Commenters said as the 

D.C. Circuit recognized in 1973, whether a particular degree of emission reduction is 

"achievable" depends on whether the system of emission reduction on which it is based is 

available, and "the question of availability is partially dependent on 'lead time,' the time in which 

the technology will have to be available." Commenters said the regulations would also allow 

EPA to "specify different [state goals] or compliance times or both for different sizes, types, and 

classes of designated facilities..."; they would not, however, authorize EPA to specify different 

state goals for different compliance times, which is what EPA is attempting to do with its interim 

goals. 

Commenters added nor are interim state goals necessary under EPA's implementing regulations. 

Commenters said state plans under section 111(d) must include compliance schedules 

where "Compliance schedule" is defined to mean "a legally enforceable schedule specifying a 

date or dates by which a source or category of sources must comply with specific emission 

standards contained in a plan or with any increments of progress to achieve such 

compliance." Commenters said additionally, if compliance will take more than 12 months (which 

it would, under the CPP), state compliance schedules must include "legally enforceable 

increments of progress to achieve compliance for each designated facility or category of 

facilities." Commenters said the increments of progress in state plans would ensure that states, 

affected EGUs, and/or affected entities would stay on track to achieve required CO2 emission 

reductions. Commenters said nothing in section 111(d) or Subpart B, however, authorizes EPA 

to impose its own increments of progress up-front, in the form of interim state goals. 

Commenters added EPA's state interim goals may be unnecessary to some extent; EPA has 

asserted that states and affected EGUs are already undertaking many or most of the measures 

that make up EPA's proposed BSER. Commenters said EPA has said, for example, that 

"[a]verage deployment of RPS-supported renewable capacity from 2007-2012 has exceeded 6 

GW per year."; EPA reports that "[i]n 2012, RE accounted for more than 56% of all new 

electrical capacity installations in the U.S."; EPA also reports that, according to a study by the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "efficiency programs are 'posed for dramatic growth 

over the course of the next 10 to 15 years[.]'" Commenters said if these studies and projections 

are correct, states are moving towards increased RE and demand-side EE even without the 

proposed command-and-control goals of the CPP. 

Commenters asserted that the EPA's interim goals are unnecessary and prohibitively expensive, 

that many of the assumptions that underlie the establishment of the EPA's goal are unrealistic 

and/or inapplicable to Missouri, and that attempting to achieve the EPA's goals could have major 

adverse impacts on electric system reliability, as well as rates. Commenters urged the EPA to, at 

a minimum: (a) eliminate the interim goals; (b) give serious consideration to revising the longterm goals so that they are more practical and economically achievable; eliminate the unrealistic 

interim goals and focus on developing realistic long-range targets and timelines. 
76 

Commenters stated as a consideration for the electric cooperatives that the CPP abandoned the 

interim goal and rely only on the final goal. Commenters said this would allow for cooperatives 

to diversify their generation portfolio with additional NGCC, low carbon emitting and enhanced 

energy efficiency programs. Commenters said the additional time would allow for cooperatives 

to plan for the transition in a cost effect and strategic manner to better serve their member 

owners. 

The EPA has not provided a rational basis for imposing interim goals in advance of the final 

goal. The commenters stated that section 111(d) of the CAA does not mandate the schedule that 

the EPA has proposed. The commenters argued that the EPA's only justification for the interim 

goals are vague statements of urgency and assumptions about what the EPA believes states are 

capable of doing within the schedule that the EPA has set. The commenters urged the EPA to 

remove the interim goals from the rule. 

 

Comment 5: Stringency and Timing of Interim Target.

Response 5: See sections I.A. and V of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the proposal, EPA sets an interim 2020-2029 emissions target for each 

state, but allows states the ability to demonstrate compliance with the interim target averaged 

over the ten-year period. Commenters strongly supports the flexibility that averaging over the 

ten-year period provides. Commenters said to the extent the interim targets are retained in a final 

rule, commenters requested EPA retain the ability to demonstrate compliance based on a ten-year 

average; however, the interim targets EPA has proposed are aggressive and will nevertheless 

create a very challenging framework for many states, including Virginia, where the interim 2020 

intensity target is almost 70 percent of the 2030 target. Commenters said for 11 states, EPA 

assumes that over 75 percent of the reductions required by 2030 would be achieved by 2020, and 

on average across all states, two-thirds of all the proposed reductions occur by 2020; this 

schedule leaves only three years at the most after EPA approval of state implementation plans for 

electric generating companies to achieve aggressive emission reductions and states to make 

sweeping changes to their existing electric generating, transmission and distribution systems. 

Commenters said given the stringency of the interim goals, the proposed implementation 

schedule will force states to adhere to EPA's prescribed natural gas redispatch and coal unit 

closures to achieve compliance with the interim goals. Commenters said although EPA indicates 

that states may choose their own path for their compliance program, by selecting among the four 

BSER building blocks used to establish the state targets and other GHG-reducing options, it has 

proposed to make mandatory a minimum rate of progress or pace of implementation during the 

interim (2020-2029) period; this highly prescriptive implementation approach is unprecedented 
77 

under Section 111 and arguably contrary to EPA's own acknowledgement that the states have 

discretion to design their implementation strategy. 

Commenters stated in determining the final goal and the interim year annual rates, EPA assumes 

increasing renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) levels between 2020 and 2029 to 

reflect the gradual movement of states toward regional benchmarks. Commenters said ramping 

up RE and EE levels reduces the annual rates progressively, starting in 2017 and reaching the 

final goal in 2030 (or in some states earlier); by contrast, the coal plant efficiency improvement 

and there dispatch of coal to existing NGCC (in Building Blocks l and 2, respectively), remain 

unchanged between 2020 and 2029. Commenters said reductions related to both these building 

blocks jump to their final 2030 levels at the start of the interim period in 2020; in doing so, the 

EPA goal computation formula implicitly factors in all emission rate reductions associated with 

Building Blocks 1 and 2, which account for nearly 50 percent of the total national emission 

reduction in 2030 under the proposed rule, in 2020. Commenters said on average, about 67 

percent of all rate reductions happen by 2020, with the remainder taking place gradually between 

2020 and 2029. 

Commenters stated the level and compressed time associated with the interim targets will require 

states to begin taking action to reduce emissions before the interim period starts in 2020 in order 

to achieve the 10-year average interim emission rate; the near-term compliance challenge is 

compounded by the fact that state emission rate goals are predicated on states taking actions to 

reduce emissions before the interim compliance period starts in 2020 in order to achieve the 10-

year interim emission rate. Commenters said for example, EPA assumed that states will begin 

ramping up end-use efficiency programs and annual incremental renewable generation growth as 

early as 2017 in order to attain the annual levels of end-use efficiency and renewable generation 

included in setting the state emission targets; the viability of EPA's Proposed Guidelines depends 

on the increased availability of both natural gas and renewable energy, implying that new natural 

gas generating capacity will increase 20 percent to 22 percent by 2020 to replace retiring coalfired capacity under Option l, and stating that new natural gas generating capacity will increase 

nine percent relative to the base case in 2020 under Option 2. Commenters said EPA assumes 

that much of the shift in dispatch from coal to NGCC would occur before 2020; this assumes that 

adequate infrastructure to support coal unit retirements and increased utilization of NGCC units 

can be put in place within as little as two to three years. Commenters said most of the significant 

new renewable capacity will be constructed far from load centers because of the unique siting 

needs and sensitivities of large-scale wind and solar projects; timing for development of natural 

gas and electric transmission, natural gas storage, renewable and, nuclear generation, and energy 

efficiency deployment are not sufficiently accounted for. Commenters said ramping up both 

renewable energy and natural gas generation will require significant infrastructure 

improvements, most notably, more transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. Commenters 

said building this infrastructure will require many layers of permitting, design, engineering, 

procurement and construction as well as years of regulatory approvals, often at federal, state, and 

local levels. Commenters said it should also be noted that the building blocks for both energy 

efficiency and renewable energy assume that all states will adopt policies from a subset of states 
78 

selected by EPA, typified by higher rate environments and in many cases different utility 

regulatory models. 

Commenters stated generally, a large number of permits, consultations, and approvals are needed 

from multiple government bodies to get a new transmission line permitted and constructed; the 

timeline for a transmission project depends on completion of planning studies and technical 

analysis, real estate availability (negotiating rights-of-way or exercising eminent domain 

authority), procurement of long lead time equipment, environmental permitting requirements, 

public opposition, regulatory approval, and opportunities for tie-in outages. Commenters said a 

relatively simple project that will not traverse an environmentally sensitive area, require the 

exercise of eminent domain, or involve significant public opposition will take up to three years 

prior to completion of construction. Commenters said more complicated projects that will 

traverse federal lands, environmentally sensitive areas, or will generate public opposition may 

take as much as 10 years to complete; they also may run the risk of regulatory conflict where an 

action required pursuant to EPA regulations may run into regulatory delays from a sister federal 

agency. 

Commenters stated more broadly, the investments needed to comply with state plans will need to 

be approved by state public utility commissions, such as Virginia's SCC. Commenters said EPA 

should be mindful of the long-standing role of such commissions (more than 100 years in the 

case of the Virginia State Corporation Commission) in ensuring just and reasonable rates for 

electric utility customers. Commenters said it should not assume that plans drafted by state 

environmental regulators will be binding on public utility commissions who have different legal 

charges, including overall findings of projects being in the public interest and ensuring just and 

reasonable rates; this is particularly true of the "outside the fence" components of the four 

building blocks set forth in the draft regulation. Commenters said in Virginia and North Carolina, 

investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy are the province of state public utility 

regulators, not environmental regulators. 

Commenters stated if states decide to include changes in how electric generating units (EGUs) 

are dispatched in state plans, changes to existing market constructs may be necessary; the 

regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) will need 

significant time to work with stakeholders after state plans are finalized to determine what 

market rule changes may be needed. Commenters said the EPA proposed timeline appears to be 

inconsistent with the defined forward periods for capacity planning and does not allow sufficient 

time for permitting, design, engineering, procurement and constructing new resources. 

Commenters said for example, the PJM forward capacity auction is held approximately three 

years in advance of the need for the resource; the commitment of resources into the capacity 

market has already been established for calendar year 2017; the rationale being that adequate 

lead time is necessary to support the development of new generation (specifically new 

combustion turbines to plan for peak reserves in PJM) into the market. Commenters said changes 

to PJMs, or other RTOs/ISOs, market structure often require stakeholder involvement and FERC 
79 

approval, adding further delay to implementing potential changes that may come to rise from 

such a proposal. 

Commenters stated the proposed guidelines would require the states to develop and submit 

implementation plans by June 2016 with the option of requesting a one-year extension to June 

2017 if states can demonstrate the need for such an extension; although the additional year 

afforded the states to submit state plans is welcome, it still provides little time for states that do

not have sufficient existing renewable or energy efficiency programs already underway to get 

such programs developed, approved at the state level and implemented. Commenters said EPA 

itself assumes that states will need to begin implementing renewable and energy efficiency 

measures beginning in 2017 (at a time when some state plans may have just been submitted, still 

be awaiting EPA approval or, in the case of multi-state plans, still be in development) to ramp up 

to meet interim and ultimately final state emission targets. Commenters added the proposal does 

not take into consideration changes in the direction of a given energy efficiency program that 

may be necessary due to the introduction of new technologies or the degree to which specific 

measures are accepted by the market which, in turn, affects the amount of energy savings 

attributable to a program. Commenters said the plan does not take into consideration changes in 

the direction of a given energy efficiency program that may be necessary due to the introduction 

of new technologies or the degree to which specific measures are accepted by the market; in tum, 

these factors affect the amount of energy savings attributable to a program, or the findings of 

required measurement and verification measures. For these and the additional reasons stated 

above, commenters requested EPA to abandon the interim target concept in the final rule. 

Commenters said states should be able to choose a smoother reduction glide path that achieves 

the 2030 target without requiring a substantial portion of those reductions to occur prior to 2020; 

commenters requested that EPA grant additional flexibility by: 

-Allowing states the option to select compliance with EPA's proposed alternative 2025 target, but 

not establish any interim (2020-2024) target; 

-In the alternative, defer to the states to set their own interim goals and glide paths based on each 

state's ability to evaluate state-specific emission reduction opportunities during the interim 

period; or 

-Allowing an annual ramp up for their dispatch from coal to NGCC that is calculated based on 

the difference between 70 percent and the state's actual average historic NGCC capacity factor, 

instead of the option EPA has suggested in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA). 

Commenters stated to the extent EPA requires interim progress with either a 2025 or 2030 target 

to be monitored, commenters suggested EPA consider calculating interim year rates over the 

2020-2029 period that would decline at a constant annual rate equal to 10% of the difference 

between the baseline (2012) emission rate and the 2025 or 2030 target rate. Commenters also 

requested EPA retain the ability to meet any interim target based on a 10-year average. 
80 

Commenters said in addition, EPA should not dictate bi-annual compliance requirements that 

would trigger federal enforcement or corrective measures before the end of the 10-year interim 

averaging period. Furthermore, commenters requested EPA to provide states the opportunity to 

seek adjustments to the emission rate targets to reflect changing circumstances over time. 

Commenters also requested that the Agency allow states to revise and update their plans to 

respond to future developments such as the availability of newer and lower-emitting 

technologies, other abatement measures not originally contemplated by the state at the time the 

compliance plan was initially developed and submitted, impacts of extended nuclear unit outages 

or other potentially unforeseeable circumstances. Commenters said adding a process for states to 

seek and implement modifications to state plans would appropriately recognize that 

circumstances may change in the next 16 years and would allow EPA to retain approval 

authority. 

Commenters stated these alternative and more flexible approaches appropriately acknowledge 

that energy regulation and planning is essentially a state responsibility and that full consideration 

of the factors noted above cannot be reasonably achieved in the immediate term and will require 

a period of many years. Commenters said if the interim target is not eliminated, a more gradual 

compliance glide path to implement the required reductions would allow states to ensure that 

there is sufficient time to complete needed infrastructure development, including electric and/or 

gas transmission, and would obviate concerns regarding system impacts of abrupt changes to 

electric generating, transmission and distribution systems. Commenters said it would also allow a 

more rational, less burdensome and more cost-effective glide path for reductions. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed interim goals pose a "carbon cliff," a regulatory scheme that 

causes a sudden and severe reduction in carbon emissions beginning in 2020. Commenters said 

EPA does not discuss the interim goals at any great length in the proposal or in the State Plan 

Considerations TSD; the proposal merely states that the 2020-2029 interim goals are expressed 

as a 10-year average 

Commenters stated EPA's modeling forecasts significant coal plant retirements in Illinois (e.g., 

3.6 - 4.5 GW) before 2020, mainly due to MATS. Commenters said much of this modeling is 

flawed and needs to be re-visited; for example, EPA's Base Case model identifies the 

following facilities as retired in 2016: Newton, Wood River, Joppa, Hennepin, and Edwards 

Units 1 and 2; however, given the recent significant investment in emission reduction 

technologies, including mercury controls to comply with the Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standard 

("MPS"), there are no plans to retire these units in the near future (except Edwards Unit 1), as a 

result of MATS or otherwise. 

Commenters stated not only are the reductions required to meet the interim goals steep, but the 

compliance time is very tight; under EPA's schedule, states must submit complete plans by 2017 

or, if submitting a multi-state plan, 2018. Commenters said EPA expects to approve complete 

state plans within 12 months, but even if EPA meets this ambitious goal (given that states will be 

submitting plans nearly simultaneously), state plans will not likely become final until 2018 or 
81 

2019. Commenters said because interim goals are effective beginning in 2020, the stringent 

reductions require states to take significant steps towards meeting those goals before the state 

plan is even approved. 

Commenters stated EPA recognizes that renewable energy and energy efficiency measures 

cannot be implemented in significant amounts until after 2020; accordingly, to comply with the 

interim goals, forced retirement of plants may occur. Commenters said as EPA notes, roughly 46 

GW of coal plant retirements are expected as a result of other EPA requirements such as the 

MATS rule; as a result of the CPP, more will retire, and may do so before replacement power is 

available. Commenters said the industry historically retires units in a manner that does not 

jeopardize reliability, but early implementation of this rule may force companies to choose 

between complying with reliability requirements and complying with environmental 

requirements; reliability is not only a function of generation; transmission plays a large role as 

well; constructing transmission expansions or upgrades to new non-fossil units or NGCC units is 

time consuming and fraught with permitting, financing and locational difficulties; these cannot 

be solved by 2020. 

Commenters stated the interim goals must be eliminated in favor of allowing states to set 

achievable reasonable paths toward the final target rate; progress towards the final goal can be 

assured by requiring states to identify "objective criteria" demonstrating that progress is being 

made based on what is achievable in the state. Commenters urged EPA to eliminate the interim 

goals and rely on the proposed final goals only. Commenters said eliminating the interim goals 

allows the states flexibility to propose non-binding milestones geared to ensure progress, instead 

of EPA's proposed interim goals and compliance periods. 

Comment 6: Interim goals - timing 

Response 6: See sections I.A. and V of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should strengthen its proposal by ensuring that states meet their interim 

goals by not allowing beginning dates past 2020. 

Commenters added EPA should also find ways to encourage early actions up to the initial (2020) 

target date, and not create a perverse incentive for states and utilities to reserve RE and EE "low 

hanging fruit" until then, forgoing valuable pre-2020 emissions reductions. 

Several commenters requested a beginning date of 2025 for interim goals. 

Commenters stated establish 2025 as the first compliance year for the interim standards; this 

additional time would give states a reasonable timeframe to implement additional projects for 
82 

renewable energy and to implement effective energy efficiency measures. Commenters said this 

allows some portions of Building Blocks # 3 and 4 to be implemented, enabling better decisions 

to be made on natural gas dispatching or fuel conversion. 

Commenters stated the implementation of the rule would be greatly improved if EPA did not 

require compliance with the interim emission targets until at least the year 2025 or alternatively 

if EPA removed the interim emission targets from the program. Commenters said EPA's current 

proposal requires that state agencies submit their SIP by June 30, 2016 and allows for a one year 

extension to June 30, 2017 or to June 30, 2018 if a multiple state program is submitted. 

Commenters said EPA's proposal requires that the interim emission targets be met during the 

2020 - 2029 timeframe starting with the first compliance period of 2020-2021; thus, in some 

cases, the SIP's will be due in 2017 or 2018 with some emission reductions that are required as 

early as 2020. Commenters said this rule framework will result in states only essentially being 

able to try to implement Building Block # 1 (coal plant efficiency) and some semblance of 

Building Block 2 (change dispatch of electricity). Commenters were concerned that a number of 

states may just default to trying to change fuel types to natural gas in a haphazard fashion, which 

could lead to issues with natural gas availability and potential price increases; a potential price 

increase could coincide with a number of petrochemical projects coming on line (2018 - 2020), 

putting them in competition for the same natural gas resources. 

Commenters requested that the interim goal be eliminated, or at the very least, be delayed to the 

year 2025, with significantly less stringency compared to the final goal. 

Several commenters requested an extension for the interim goals. 

Commenters stated it is reasonable that additional electric transmission infrastructure will be 

needed to accomplish the requirements of the CPP proposed rule in light of the projected 

retirements of existing generating units; in the Southwest Power Pool footprint it takes up to 

eight years to plan, approve, construct, and place electric transmission facilities in service. 

Commenters said this eight-year planning and building cycle does not provide enough time to 

construct the electric transmission infrastructure needed to maintain reliability and meet the 

interim goal in the CPP by 2020; in other words, commenters asserted that the interim goals 

require a choice between meeting the CPP's proposed standards and maintaining reliability. 

Commenters said the current timeline in the CPP proposed rule does not provide enough time to 

accomplish both; because of the large magnitude of reduced carbon emissions required early in 

the 2020 interim goal compliance timeframe, commenters asserted that an extension of the 

interim goal is necessary. Commenter said an extension of the 2020 date would allow more time 

for constructing any needed electric transmission and generation infrastructure, which would 

allow reliability of the bulk electric system, an electric system that is central to this nation's 

economy and way of life, to remain intact. 

Comment 7: There is not enough time to implement the proposed interim emission rate goals. 
83 

Response 7: See sections I.A. and V of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated that there is not enough time to implement the proposed interim 

emission rate goals. 

Commenters added that for many states, the stringency of the interim limits would require most 

of the emission reductions required by 2030 to be achieved starting in 2020. Commenters said 

that EPA's assumptions supporting goal development and the Agency's subsequent IPM 

modeling supports this conclusion. Commenters stated that it will be impossible for some states 

to achieve these significant reductions in such a short amount of time - potentially as short as two 

years after a state has developed its plan. Commenters said that such reductions may require 

significant infrastructure development and, in all cases, would result in significant economic, 

social and political upheaval that EPA has not anticipated or taken into account in its proposed 

rule. Commenters added, obtaining the permits and building the infrastructure necessary to 

comply with the rule in 2020 may be impossible in many states. Commenters stated EPA's 

assumptions in setting the interim goals, including the Block 2 re-dispatch, the level of 

renewable energy and energy efficiency savings that are feasible, as well as the "at-risk" nuclear 

provision, are so aggressive that analysis by some states indicates there is no way to achieve the 

interim goals without near-term retirement of all existing coal-fired generation; in some states, 

most, if not all, retirements would need to occur by 2020. Commenters said this would result in 

the loss of thousands of jobs, threaten electric reliability, and increase electric rates by a 

significant amount. Commenters stated EPA has not adequately assessed these impacts. 

Commenters added that EPA will have a short span of only four years to implement major 

portions of the plan as required by the rule - including all critical phases of power planning, 

permitting, financing, plant design, engineering and construction and operational systems-testing 

and start-up. Commenters said several key facts support this point: 

-Achieving the required emission reductions will necessitate colossal investments in our 

country's energy infrastructure and core power generation supply systems. 

-Natural gas and nuclear generation capacity will require major, unprecedented expansion - even 

assuming we can count on the most optimistic forecasts for renewable sources. In the natural gas 

industry alone, enormous challenges exist for growing capacity; thousands of miles of antiquated 

pipelines throughout the country must soon be replaced to avoid serious harm to public health 

and safety; plus, a whole new generation of plants will have to be designed, developed and built. 

-Nuclear energy, while another vital part of our energy solution, faces difficult and time 

consuming barriers, not the least of which are licensing and permitting. 
84 

-Each of the various stages required for addressing these challenges will involve multiple years 

of planning, deliberation and review by numerous state and local governmental bodies, from 

state legislatures to utility commissions to local zoning agencies. 

Commenters added EPA's aggressive schedule of the interim goals would not provide enough 

time to build the necessary infrastructure needed to ensure grid stability and reliability to support 

the amount of renewable generation required to meet state targets over the next 5-15 years while 

continuing to provide safe and reliable electric service. 

Commenters added sufficient time is required to engage in rational planning, construction and 

integration of cost- effective resource and infrastructure solutions that maintain reliable and 

efficient delivery of electricity. Commenters stated EPA should allow states to submit plans for 

EPA's approval that specify the interim compliance objectives that best fit their circumstances. 

Commenters added the interim goals do not afford a proper glide path for the most cost effective 

implementation of the rule by 2030. 

Commenters added time is required to ramp up new programs and make program redesigns. 

Commenters stated pilot programs, used to gauge customer interest, market penetration rate, and 

the ability to make the program cost-effective long-term, are typically run for more than one 

year. Commenters said pilot programs serve an important function in the utilities' energy 

efficiency portfolios by exploring the feasibility of programs designed to increase market 

penetration of new technologies, reach underserved customer segments, and/or explore new 

distribution channels. Commenters stated given all of these factors, it is simply infeasible to 

conduct traditional deployment of the energy efficiency programs that would be required by the 

proposed rule under the extremely short timeline required by Rule 111(d). 

Commenters added EPA's interim goals are unachievable. Commenters said the Existing Source 

Proposal assumes that emission reductions can be achieved on a steady path beginning in 2020; 

it therefore proposes binding interim emission reduction goals based on a 10-year average 

emission rate from 2020 to 2029. Commenters said meeting those interim emission reduction 

goals requires extremely aggressive reduction efforts beginning in the very first year; any 

shortfall in reductions in the early years can only be made up by later-year emission rates that 

will necessarily need to be substantially below the average emission rate that EPA has set. 

Commenters said as a result, states might be required to achieve emission rates in later years of 

the interim period that are even lower than the final emission rate that EPA proposes would 

apply beginning in 2030, this simply is not feasible. 

Commenters added the proposed interim goal requiring states to meet 80 percent of the 2030 

target by 2020 is completely unworkable, especially given the lack of credit for early action; 

given the timeline of submitting a plan, and the reality of receiving timely USEPA approval of a 

plan, states will have no more than three years to meet the 80 percent reduction requirement. 
85 

Commenters said a more realistic approach would be to permit states to develop a state-specific 

"glide path" to reach their 2030 target. 

Commenters added substantially increasing natural gas infrastructure to meet the goals, which 

will require adding new interstate and intrastate pipelines, will require significant time periods 

and financial investments; adding pipeline capacity in time for the interim deadline is essentially 

impossible at this time. Commenters stated two new major interstate natural gas pipelines were 

announced this fall: the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to move gas from shale reserves in West 

Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to Virginia and North Carolina, and the Mountain Valley 

Pipeline to connect the Equitrans transmission system in West Virginia to the Transcontinental 

Pipeline in Virginia. Commenters said as proposed, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project would 

require three to five years for construction and operation, assuming no significant delays in 

acquiring rights of way for the route and equipment; at best, the project would be completed at 

approximately the same time as the interim deadline and not be likely to significantly contribute 

to measures needed to meet those goals. Commenters said the Mountain Valley Pipeline 

project has planned start of construction by 2016, with completion by 2019, assuming no 

significant delays in approval, rights of way, or construction; even with a current announcement 

of this project, the likelihood of its completion in time to support the interim deadline is 

extremely low. Commenters said the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline are 

best cases, since they are at least well along in the planning stage; any additional pipeline 

projects needed to meet requirements of the Proposal will be starting from this point forward or 

after state plans are crafted. Commenters said this means they would almost certainly be unable 

to come on line by the interim deadline and would more likely be completed several years 

thereafter; consequently, any interim goal requirements in the final Guidelines dependent on 

natural gas use and availability must be based solely on existing infrastructure and cannot be 

premised on construction of additional capacity since it could not be completed prior to the 

interim deadline. 

Commenters added increasing the renewable energy sources in a State within such a short period 

would be highly unlikely due to the time needed to receive required regulatory permits and 

authorizations, design, contract for, and install the necessary equipment. 

Commenters added often new transmission will be necessary to support added renewable energy 

sources; this takes years to plan and implement; in the East and Midwest, two recent examples of 

the time needed to add electric transmission lines occurred in: Pennsylvania - PPL Electric 

Utilities has proposed a new 500 kV line, due to regulatory delays, construction of the line is still 

ongoing, PPL now anticipates that the line will be completed and in service by mid-2015 - three 

years later than the original schedule; and Minnesota - ITC Midwest, a regional transmission 

company, has proposed a 345 kV electric transmission line, at best, the line will not be available 

for service earlier than 2018-2019. Commenters said as these examples highlight, existing 

transmission projects around the country take many years to complete, well beyond what could 

be reasonably expected to meet EPA's interim goal deadline; and these are electric transmissions 

projects that are well along in the planning and regulatory stages. Commenters said new 
86 

transmission needed to meet the requirements of the proposal could not be installed and operated 

until several years later and certainly not by 2020. 

Commenters added even relatively simple energy efficiency programs require extensive 

evaluation, planning, regulatory authorizations and permits, creation of financial incentives, and 

construction or installation of new equipment to be fully implemented; the energy efficiency 

programs of even the twelve best performing States have been in place for several decades and 

with three exceptions, none of them has achieved anywhere close to the 1.5% annual energy 

efficiency requirement EPA proposes. Commenters said a period of two and one-half years to 

ramp up the program, even allowing until 2025 as EPA suggests, is entirely insufficient to 

implement these build block components. 

Commenters added by imposing interim goals to be met by 2020, States, and the regulated 

entities under the Guidelines, will be required to achieve at least two-thirds of the reductions 

within at most two to three years after State plans are approved. Commenters said EPA claims 

states and the regulated community will have sufficient time to understand the requirements and 

begin implementing them, which apparently assumes they would take action prior to the state 

plans being finalized and approved; to justify this approach, EPA states that affected sources 

"will have knowledge of state requirements as they are adopted" and will therefore have more 

time to act. 

Commenters added the challenges confronting states are many, and EPA's proposal lacks the 

clarity necessary to guide the development and approval of state plans within the very aggressive 

time frame outlined in the proposal. Commenters said the CAA does not set a specific time for 

the submission of state plans, nor does it establish a rigid compliance deadline for the designated 

facilities that are to be governed by the plans; EPA should reassess its schedule, given the 

realities of the tasks it has set before the states. 

Commenters added EPA has assumed that all of the measures required under building blocks 1 

and 2, as well as initial steps to implement block 4 and ongoing renewable energy development 

efforts, can be completed by 2020, and that assumption significantly affects a state's ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 2020-2029 goal. Commenters said these assumptions are 

unfounded, and create a "compliance cliff" in many states, as additional coal generation is 

projected to retire, natural gas pipeline capacity is assumed to be constructed, and all of the 

transmission additions and mitigation necessary to accommodate these vast changes in the makeup of the bulk electric system cannot be completed within this time frame; the result is 

widespread concern over the integrity of the bulk electric system. 

Commenters added EPA has given no reasoned explanation of why it believes the transformation 

it seeks can be accomplished in less than five years after the final guidelines are published; its 

assumptions are inherently unreasonable because they are based upon significant changes in 

investments occurring without sufficient regulatory certainty to support those changes. 

Commenters said EGUs are in large measure regulated entities whose significant investments 
87 

(whether they be generation, transmission or distribution assets) are subject to the oversight of 

state regulatory commissions, and are regularly examined in careful detail so as to protect the 

interests of utility customers. Commenters said since this process of regulatory oversight and 

approval typically occurs at the time the assets are placed in service, utilities must be prepared to 

demonstrate that the investments were prudently made, or risk disallowance of recovery for all or 

a portion of the investment; therefore, until utilities are reasonably confident that the proposed 

investment is consistent with the contents of a state plan that will not be disapproved by EPA and 

replaced by a federal plan, they will have no incentive to take measures to implement these 

requirements. Commenters said EPA's proposal assumes that there will be as little as 6-18 

months between the final approval of a plan by EPA and the initial compliance date in 

2020; such a short period for implementation is arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful. 

Commenters added if EPA finalizes a proposal that includes all or significant portions of the 

building blocks, EPA should eliminate the interim goal and provide states with true flexibility to 

design a glide path toward compliance. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed interim 2020 standards are unachievable and will drive 

inefficient decisions; EPA proposes states achieve significant GHG emission reductions by 2020 

under an interim set of standards. Commenters said these interim standards should be not be 

finalized simply because they require too much too soon; by the time any GHG standards are 

finalized, there will be very little time to achieve the interim standards. Commenters said this 

will force states and utilities to make rushed and inefficient decisions; a single deadline that 

provides a long time for more rational and cost effective decisions should be implemented 

instead. 

Commenters stated the timeline to comply with the rule is effectively 2020, not 2030; for 

example, the interim target rate for Texas is 853 lbs CO2/MWh (a 33.6% reduction from its 2012 

base rate of 1284 lbs CO2/MWh) and the final rate is 791 lbs CO2/MWh (a 38.4% reduction 

from the 2012 base rate). Commenters said there is little difference between the stringency, and 

therefore, compliance obligations under the interim or final emissions target rates. Commenters 

said while the interim standards are averaged over the period of 2020 to 2029, states like Texas 

cannot delay compliance to later in the interim period; to do so would create a "bow wave" of 

burdens that would only magnify the already-crippling compliance impact of the Rule Proposal. 

Commenters added increases in renewable energy and energy efficiency are time delayed and do 

not help with compliance with the interim goal. 

Commenters added under the current schedule, final EPA approval of state plans will not occur 

until sometime between mid-2017 for single-state plans and mid-2019 for multi-state plans; yet 

the proposed targets for many Western states require large reductions by 2020, primarily due to 

the assumptions in Block 2 related to switching from coal to natural gas generation. Commenters 

said some states will find it difficult to meet their interim goal in 2020 and are concerned that 

such steep reductions early in the program could preclude opportunities to implement more cost 
88 

effective strategies that require more time to ramp up, such as expansion of renewable energy 

and energy efficiency programs; therefore, states need more latitude for establishing a path to the 

2030 targets. Commenters encouraged EPA to continue to work with our states to explore how 

more flexible and different milestones might better support the transition to a less carbon 

intensive electricity sector in the West by allowing adequate time for implementation of a wider 

range of strategies and programs that can be tailored to a state's unique circumstances. 

Commenters added the interim goals, referred to as "The Cliff," are unworkable in the limited 

amount of time between the release of the final rule and the start of the interim averaging period. 

Commenters said the time needed to have South Carolina's state plan approved at the Legislature 

(proceeding before federal approval) and to implement the components will not allow the 

Department enough time to meet the aggressive interim goal; a better approach would be to 

develop a glide path transition process where each state will monitor expected progress until the 

final goal deadline. 

Commenters added much of the expected reductions for CO2 emissions would have to occur by 

2020; commenters said South Carolina's concern is that this may not provide sufficient time for 

adequate implementation of the Distributed Energy Resource Program Act passed into law this 

year and that full operation of the under construction nuclear units at the V.C. Summer Plant may 

not occur before 2020. Commenters said South Carolina's interim reduction goal is 840 

lbs.CO2//MWh, to be reached in the period of 2020 - 2029; this is approximately a 47 percent 

reduction below the 2012 benchmark (1587 lbs.CO2//MWh); currently, 33 percent of South 

Carolina's electricity generation is from coal. Commenters said with questions concerning the 

state's renewable energy hurdles and the displacement of capacity from coal fired units by 

NGCC, there is concern that some existing coal plants could become uneconomically viable and 

lead to premature closures; this could impact both the baseload generation and the reliability of 

South Carolina's grid. Commenters said another possible impact of the interim goal could be a 

decrease in the state's flexibility of measures to meet the final goal, perhaps leading to higher 

costs to consumers for electricity. 

Commenters recommended the EPA eliminate the interim goal, and allow states to determine the 

best transition phase based upon the development of its own State Plan of action; Energy 

Coalition members and other stakeholders have discussed the energy planning processes already 

in place as a foundation to develop a plan to meet the state goal. Commenters said states could 

incorporate aspects of these processes, for example the Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs), in the 

progress reports that the EPA seeks in its proposed rule. Commenters said each state could 

monitor glide path progress, address any delays or deficiencies encountered, and provide clear, 

timely progress reports to the public and the EPA. Commenters said enabling states the ability to 

tailor their own glide-path would lead to a better and more economically beneficial plan based on 

each state's needs and potential resources. 

Commenters added the proposed rule sets an overly strenuous pace to achieve emission 

reduction goals; although states have until 2030 to comply with the rule's final emission goals, 
89 

Wisconsin's interim goal would effectively require the state to be over 87 percent of the way 

toward its final goal in the decade beginning in 2020. Commenters said while compliance with 

the interim goal would be measured on a ten-year average basis between 2020 and 2029, any 

under-compliance in the early years of this period would have to be compensated for by overcompliance in the later years. Commenters said since any given state plan may not be approved 

by EPA until as late as the middle of 2019, requiring such a significant emission reduction 

beginning only half a year later in 2020 is not realistic; even if it is possible to comply with the 

interim goal, this timeline may present technical challenges that will prevent the use of the most 

cost effective strategies. 

Commenters stated the proposed interim compliance period, which begins in 2020 and ends in 

2029, does not provide adequate time for compliance planning and implementation to avoid 

reliability problems, severely limits state flexibility, and would have the effect of causing suboptimal planning decisions as compared to merely having a 2030 final goal. Commenters said if 

the interim compliance period and resulting lack of flexibility drives a large amount of coal unit 

retirements by 2020, significant time is required to complete the planning, approval and 

implementation for replacement generation; upgraded and expanded transmission and 

distribution facilities; and new natural gas pipeline infrastructure that will be required to support 

the retirements while maintaining system reliability. Commenters said these changes will take 

years to plan and execute as they must be carefully implemented so as not to cause reliability 

problems and to minimize cost impacts to consumers; they simply cannot be accomplished 

before 2020, the start of the interim compliance period. 

Commenters added in its October 30, 2014 Notice of Data Availability ("NODA"), the EPA 

seems to recognize for the first time that the Proposed Guidelines' interim goals deny states the 

implementation flexibility and safeguards for reliability that the CAA requires; this result is the 

opposite of what the EPA states it intended to preserve in the Proposed Guidelines. Commenters 

said the Agency claims that its intent in proposing to require compliance with an interim goal is 

to "provide states with a reasonable glide path to compliance with their final goals by 2030;" yet 

the EPA fails to explain why interim goals are necessary to achieve the Proposed Guidelines' 

ultimate goal. 

Commenters added EPA believes that "some [Block] measures may take longer than 2020 to 

implement, while others can be, and are being, implemented more quickly;" stated another way, 

it appears that EPA believes if one Block's requirements are too burdensome, they can be offset 

by achieving compliance with another Block. Commenters said this is a false assumption that is 

particularly relevant in EPA's discussion of stakeholder comments proposing to allow credit for 

early CO2 emissions reductions; these early-action credits could be used to provide flexibility 

and defer additional CO2 reductions until later in the 2020-2029 interim period. Commenters 

said in GCLC states, however, the Rule Proposal's limits are so burdensome, so large, and with 

far-too-short a compliance timeline, it is highly like that none of the Blocks' targets will be met 

by 2020; this provides no individual Block excesses to be used for future offsets. 
90 

Commenters added as EPA has heard from many parties, the Proposed Rule's interim targets 

present a significant challenge for overall cost, economic disruption, stranded assets, and 

potentially electric system reliability. Commenters said the interim targets are based on the 

assumption that Blocks 1 and 2 can be fully implemented in 2020, which for many states is not 

realistic. Commenters said even under its current, very aggressive schedule, EPA will likely 

approve most state plans by 2017 to 2019 at the earliest, yet the plans will likely require states 

and utilities to undertake permitting changes, investments in new gas and transmission 

infrastructure, procurement of significantly greater amounts of firm gas supply, and other actions 

that will take several years to implement; moreover for some states - including Minnesota, North 

Dakota and South Dakota - Block 3 is also fully phased in by 2020, giving no gradual ramp-in. 

Commenters said for these and other reasons, NERC and several reliability regions (entities 

primarily responsible for ensuring electric system reliability) have studied the Clean Power Plan 

and found that stringent interim targets would likely have an adverse impact on reliability. 

Commenters added states with clean energy leadership histories have received more stringent 

final targets, and therefore more stringent interim targets; the three states in which Xcel Energy 

owns coal plants, Minnesota, Texas, and Colorado, have much more stringent final targets - 

41%, 38% and 35% below EPA's 2012 adjusted emission rate respectively - than the national 

average rate reduction of 19%. Commenters said the interim targets in turn are strongly related to 

the final targets; Minnesota, Texas and Colorado's interim targets are 38%, 34%, and 32% below 

their 2012 baselines. Commenters said these required reductions to interim targets are dramatic, 

and in some cases unworkable. 

Commenters added while it is true that the interim targets incorporate flexibility by allowing a 

ten-year averaging period, the flexibility is in reality quite limited; under the proposal, emissions 

in the early years cannot be much above the interim target value, or the later interim years would 

actually have to be well below the final target, effectively creating an interim target that is more 

stringent than the final target. Commenters added there are not many significant, cost-effective 

CO2 reduction opportunities outside the four Blocks that comprise BSER; in some states, the 

only viable way to achieve the interim targets may be premature retirement of much or all coal 

capacity, which will have implications for cost, stranded assets, and reliability. 

Commenters added it is true that ongoing emissions reduction efforts prior to 2020 will reduce 

emissions rates and reduce the gap between 2012 rates and the interim targets; in fact, Xcel 

Energy has one of the most robust ongoing emissions reduction trends in the U.S. by, for 

example, adding 40% additional wind capacity from 2014 to 2016 on top of our nation-leading 

wind portfolio; however, the current plans are not nearly enough to achieve the interim targets. 

Commenters added the Southwestern Public Service system in Texas vividly illustrates the 

significant timing problem with the interim targets. Commenters said the in-state Texas 111(d) 

equivalent emissions rate of the Southwestern Public Service (SPS) operating subsidiary is 

currently about 1,780 lb CO2/MWh; while 450 MW of additional wind energy in Texas is being 

added by the end of 2015 and also shifting dispatch to newer, more efficient natural gas units, by 
91 

2020 the emissions rate will be 1,670 lb/MWh, nowhere close to the Texas interim target of 853 

lb/MWh. Commenters said in fact, achieving that 853 lb/MWh rate, or anything close to it, is all 

but impossible for the SPS system in Texas in the few years before 2020. Commenters said this 

challenge is compounded by the very short timeline between a final EPA-approved state 

compliance plan (or federal plan) in 2017-2019 and the first binding target year of 2020. 

Commenters added the design of the interim compliance period, particularly the interim 10-year 

average goal, limits state flexibility; because the proposal front loads much of the emission 

reduction, states may be unable to achieve sufficient reductions early in the 2020-2029 interim 

period to meet the interim goals. Commenters said for Wisconsin, 87 percent of the emission 

reductions required to meet the 2030 goal will need to be achieved by 2020; there are a number 

of logistical challenges associated with achieving emission reductions by 2020; utility planning, 

engineering, acquisition of regulatory approvals, and construction are all needed to complete the 

type of infrastructure improvements (gas pipeline or electric transmission) that will be required 

in order to increase the utilization of natural gas combined cycle units enough to comply with the 

interim goals. Commenters said the time required for state legislative processes alone is 

problematic; for example, non-controversial legislation in Wisconsin takes about 27 months to 

pass; legislation necessary to facilitate a state plan is likely to be controversial, and consequently, 

is likely to take more than 27 months to pass. Commenters said EPA should phase in re-dispatch 

from affected steam generating units to NGCC units under Block 2 based on the extent to which 

additional infrastructure improvements are needed. Commenters said the phase-in would 

consider the amount of utilization shift that is feasible by 2020, and how quickly that amount 

could increase after 2020 to the full amount of NGCC utilization that could ultimately be 

achieved as part of the BSER. 

Commenters stated the EPA's proposed interim goals do not provide sufficient time to prepare 

for compliance. Commenters said EPA approval of state plans may be no sooner than 2017 for 

state-only and possibly as late as 2019 for multi-state regional plans. Commenters said EPA's 

proposal does not adequately factor in the schedule required to deploy additional energy 

resources and infrastructure (ex. heat rate improvements, additional renewables, natural gas 

pipeline, transmission). Commenters said EPA's proposal must contemplate potential impacts to 

regional energy markets and allow for a transition that avoids impacts to reliability and 

minimizes costs by not disrupting economic dispatch. Commenters said a realistic effective date 

for initial compliance requirements is needed to allow for permitting, regulatory approvals, 

project development and possible construction. Commenters asserted that it is imperative for 

EPA's final rules to provide for planning certainty in order to provide our utility customers with 

reliable and affordable service; the EPA's Clean Power Plan should recognize the nature of 

electric utilities investments that have long-term energy resource planning cycles covering 10-15 

year outlooks, broad system costs and long-lived asset lives. 

Commenters stated the interim goals are driven by EPA's estimates of what can be achieved in 

Building Blocks 1 and 2; however, these estimates are unachievable. Commenters said first, the 

heat rate improvement expected from Building Block 1 is unachievable because generating 
92 

companies have already made most of the possible heat rate improvements. Commenters said in 

Block 2, the emission reductions associated with dispatch of natural gas plants is based on 

fundamental errors (e.g., unrepresentative heat rates and use of nameplate capacity) and flawed 

assumptions (e.g., that adequate gas pipelines and electric transmission infrastructure exists to 

support NGCC capacity factors of 70%). Commenters said the CPP recognizes that the additions 

and transformations affected by Building Blocks 3 and 4 will be gradual and not achieved by 

2020, and the commenters' own analysis confirms that conclusion. Commenters said utilities are 

therefore left with limited options, e.g., retiring existing fossil units or curtailing operations, all 

before the end of unit's useful life and at significant cost to customers, or accelerating the 

addition of unneeded NGCC. Commenters added utilities may not be able to implement a 

retirement strategy for compliance in time to meet the 2020 goals because RTOs often require 

companies that wish to retire plants to keep them on line for reliability purposes while 

transmission or other solutions are developed. Commenters said as designed, the interim goals 

simply cannot be met and should be eliminated. 

Commenters recognized EPA's concern that elimination of the interim targets may result in less 

than its desired progress on emission reductions during the 10-year period leading up to 2030; 

however, EPA can ensure significant reductions by identifying and requiring state plans to 

include "objective criteria or milestones" that can be monitored and will provide real emission 

reductions during the 2020-2029 period. Commenters said this approach, which can be thought 

of as a "rate of progress" approach, would provide for consideration of the remaining useful life 

of existing generating resources, grid reliability and customer cost minimization, as required by 

the CAA. Commenters added this approach would result in plans filed by states that EPA could 

approve, thus minimizing the need for later enforcement. Commenters said this approach is 

consistent with EPA past practice; specifically, EPA has allowed states to utilize a rate of 

progress approach with respect to the Regional Haze program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and 

the NAAQS program. Commenters said such approach is equally appropriate here, where EPA 

has borrowed from the NAAQS program already. Commenters said any assertion that the CPP 

has to follow an NSPS model to be legal, EPA Legal Memo, pg. 8 et seq., is belied by the fact 

that EPA has used another model - the NAAQS model - for the CPP anyway. 

Commenters urged EPA to eliminate the rigid interim goals contained in the proposed rule and 

allow the states to establish the appropriate glide paths through their detailed state plans that will

achieve EPA's alternate 2030 goals, while considering their unique circumstances and the 

requirement to address remaining useful lives of the assets at issue; EPA is in receipt of a letter 

from Missouri's Governor, Jeremiah "Jay" Nixon, which supports flexibility with respect to the 

interim targets as well as addressing other issues supported in these comments. 

Commenters concurred with these recommendations. 

Commenters stated eliminating the interim goals allows states flexibility to develop plans that 

will ensure progress in the most cost effective and reliable fashion; eliminating the proposed 

interim goals mitigates legitimate cost and significant reliability concerns as well as the litigation

risks that all parties will face as a result of the rule. Commenters said as noted in Missouri 
93 

Attorney General Chris Koster's November 26, 2014, Comment Letter regarding the CPP, any 

GHG plan must ensure energy affordability and infrastructure reliability. Commenters said EPA 

knows how to assure that states demonstrate reasonable progress; it should do so here. 

Commenters stated the interim state goals as proposed in the Clean Power Plan, which would 

need to be met on average over the 2020 to 2029 time period, are very close to the final goals 

and would require near-term generation changes including replacing most if not all of the coal 

capacity in the state, enhancements to the gas transportation infrastructure, and transmission 

infrastructure development. Commenters said Arizona's interim goal of 735 lb CO2 / MWh is 

47% below its 2012 baseline emission rate; because Arizona's interim and final goals proposed 

are below the emission rate of even the most efficient natural gas generation, incremental 

renewable generation and energy efficiency over levels prescribed in the building blocks would 

be required to comply. 

Commenters stated it can take ten or more years to propose, design, finance, construct, litigate 

and then operate a new high voltage transmission corridor; as a result, EPA's interim goals 

beginning in 2020 are not achievable. 

Commenters stated eliminate the interim compliance goal. 

Commenters stated EPA's Clean Power Plan requires a 30 percent nationwide reduction in CO2 

emissions by 2030; the goal for Nebraska is 26 percent; compliance must start in 2020; the EPA 

has announced that a final rule will not be issued until June of 2015. Commenters said the Plan 

allows states to complete state-wide plans by 2016 leaving only a 4 year window for utilities to 

implement compliance measures; this timeframe is unworkable. Commenters said the interim 

targets in the Plan for 2020 should be eliminated and any plan should allow for states and 

utilities to adequately plan and prepare for future compliance. 

Commenters stated even though renewable generation has a more flexible siting process than 

NGCC, the 10-year timeline needed to put transmission in service under present rules does not 

mesh with the interim target. Commenters said given that states will submit plans in 2016 or 

2017, and the EPA needs an additional year to approve the states' plans, it will likely be 2018-

2019 before utilities will even know what they will need to do to comply - leaving a very short 

amount of time to plan, permit and construct necessary infrastructure prior to the interim period 

commencing in 2020. Commenters said this defies the empirical evidence of 10 years to 

commission just an EHV transmission line and likely just as long to traverse the same process for 

a new NGCC power plant with expansion of natural gas infrastructure. Commenters said most 

other utilities will also be engaging in the same process simultaneously, competing for the time 

and resources of the already overtaxed state and federal agencies that handle these processes, as 

well as the consultants and contractors who assist on such projects. Commenters said to properly 

plan for and complete the compliance effort required for a rule touching all sectors of the electric 

grid (i.e., electricity generation, transmission and consumption), commenters stated 

utilities needs longer than the two-to-four years to properly respond to an EPA-approved CPP 
94 

state plan. Commenters said eliminate the interim goals and allow states and utilities to focus on 

meeting the still challenging final goal. 

Commenters stated that there is not enough time to implement the proposed interim emission rate 

goals, especially additional nuclear generating units. 

Commenters added constructing and operating additional nuclear generating units would be 

impossible within the time periods in the proposal; at a minimum, a time period of more than ten 

years is required to plan and obtain financing, obtain federal and state regulatory authorizations 

for the project, construct the plant, and commence operation. 

Commenters added a current example is the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 project 

in South Carolina; the application was filed in May 2008, following several years of planning 

and coordination with the staff of the commission; however, engineering and construction delays 

have pushed the projected completion dates to early 2019 for Unit 2, with Unit 3 extended to 

early 2020. Commenters said the time period from filing of the SCPSC application in 2008 to 

projected completion will be eleven years for Unit 2, and twelve years for Unit 3; and these time 

periods do not include the several additional years needed to plan, engineer, and craft necessary 

regulatory applications prior to 2008. 

Commenters added Duke Energy currently has a two-unit nuclear project application pending 

before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that clearly demonstrates the extended time 

period necessary to license, construct and operate nuclear generating units. Commenters said the 

application for the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station near Gaffney, S.C., was filed with the NRC in 

December 2007, but the project has been repeatedly delayed; a final hearing on the COL 

application would not occur until 2016. Commenters said assuming the hearing occurs in 2016, 

the COL is issued by 2017, and construction commences immediately, the units would still not 

come into service until at least 2023-2025; consequently, they would not be available to provide 

non-GHG emitting generation until well after the 2020 interim deadline. 

Commenters added a recent example of lack of progress in adding nuclear (non-GHG emitting) 

generation is Duke Energy's cancellation of two proposed nuclear units, Levy 1 and 2, in Florida. 

Commenters said plans for the two units were announced in 2008, however the company 

cancelled the project last year based on the inability of NRC to issue the needed 

approval; demonstrating a typical time period required prior to issuance of regulatory approvals 

and start of construction - six years. Commenters said combined with the eleven and twelve year 

construction periods for the V.C. Summer project in SC, this illustrates that a time period in 

excess of fifteen years to bring on additional nuclear generation as contemplated in the Proposal 

is more realistic. 

Commenters added overall, the electric utility industry proposed more than two dozen nuclear 

reactors across the country, but only two major projects are under construction: one in Georgia 

and the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina; thus, the timeline in the Proposal for additional 
95 

nuclear generation to be added by States is entirely fanciful. Commenters said only nuclear units 

well along in the planning process or for which regulatory applications have been filed could be 

constructed and operated as part of a state plan prior to the 2030 final deadline. 

Comment 8: The EPA's interim goals: not enough time meet; goals front loaded; unrealistic; 

overly aggressive; create cliff.

Response 8: See sections I.A. and V of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated there is not enough time to implement the interim goals and that the 

interim goals are front loaded/unrealistic/ overly aggressive/create cliff. 

Commenters stated one of the many problems with the interim compliance period is the fact that 

the EPA has front-loaded the emission reduction goals by assuming that Building Blocks 1 and 2 

are fully implemented by 2020, and remain at that level throughout the 10-year interim 

compliance period; adding to this problem is the fact that the 2020 goals also reflect an increase 

in renewable energy generation and demand-side energy efficiency over the 2012 baseline, thus 

further lowering the 2020 state goals. Commenters said the consequence is that EPA is proposing 

that many states be required to achieve unrealistic CO2 emission reductions immediately. 

Commenters stated while under the Proposed Guidelines a state technically would not be 

required to fully achieve its 2020 interim goal, the more delay there is in meeting the front-end 

goals, the more aggressive the back end of the program would have to be for a state to be able to 

meet its 10-year average interim compliance goal; there will therefore be significant adverse 

consequences for a state that does not meet its 2020 goal; in other words, given the significant 

reductions required of many states in 2020, states will not have the option of starting slowly and 

working up to the final 2030 goal on their own pace given the requirement that they must meet 

their average 2020-2029 interim goal. Commenters said in fact, if a state were to fail in the early 

years of the interim compliance period to achieve its goals, it would have to actually exceed its 

final 2030 goal in the later part of the 2020-2029 interim period just to meet its 2020-2029 

average interim goal; this means that a state could achieve a rate lower than its final 2030 goal in 

2029, for example, yet still possibly be out of compliance because it may not have met its 10-

year average interim compliance goal. Commenters said therefore, rather than having a 10-year 

ramp-up period to the 2030 goals and providing states with flexibility in the design of their plans, 

the interim compliance period creates a 2020 compliance cliff for many states; given the fact that 

the measures required to achieve the 2020 goals cannot be implemented in many states by 2020, 

the 2020 goals for many states are simply unachievable. 
96 

Commenters stated EPA's decision to rely on nationally modeled capabilities to reduce emissions 

before 2020 results in a highly aggressive approach which fails to adequately account for 1) state 

specific factors, 2) the need to assure electric reliability or 3) to allow for an economically 

efficient transition from higher emitting resources to lower emitting resources. Commenters said 

frontloaded reductions required by the 2020 start of the program account for a significant 

percentage of the overall program reductions yet the availability of these reductions remain 

inadequately demonstrated to be achievable or administratively implementable by the state plan 

process. Commenters said while targets vary by state, the primary reduction opportunities that 

drive interim goal reductions are the switch from existing coal-based generation to natural gasbased generation under Building Block 2 and the 6% coal plant efficiency improvements. 

Commenters said the incremental natural gas required to produce this extra power works out to 

about 4.4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year; that would increase gas consumption in the power 

sector by just over half, compared to 2013, and boost total US gas demand by 17%. Commenters 

said to put that in perspective, US dry natural gas production has grown by 4.1 TCF/y since 

2008; this data suggests that the US power sector actions necessary to meet EPA's expectations 

would not only consume all natural gas production growth in the US but also directly compete 

with existing users of natural gas to make up the annual production shortfall of TCF. 

Commenters said this shortfall presumes no increase in manufacturing, commercial or residential 

demand for natural gas and, most importantly, no export of domestic fuel supplies. Commenters 

stated how exactly this transition will occur cannot be established without better insight into state 

plans but it is noteworthy that as recently as May 2013 NERC was calling for a comprehensive 

study of the potential impacts of increased reliance on natural gas electric generation on electric 

reliability and that the FERC continues to evaluate the linkage between electric reliability and 

increased reliance on natural gas. Commenters stated the early reduction requirements are 

expected far too soon and are unachievable; EPA should withdraw the interim targets altogether 

and allow the states to set their own glide path towards a 2030 compliance obligation based on 

inside the fence measures. 

Commenters added the Agency should eliminate the interim goals; in its current form, 

application of the interim goal front-loads the implementation requirements of the proposed 

emission guidelines and requires significant reductions by the year 2020, leaving only minimal 

additional reductions to be achieved in each subsequent year before reaching the state's 2030 

final goal. Commenters said the front-loaded nature of this goal stems in part from EPA's goal 

calculation methodology, which assumes that states will fully implement heat rate improvements 

under Building Block 1 and redispatch under Building Block 2 (the most impactful component of 

EPA's proposed BSER) by 2020, with only Building Blocks 3 and 4 increasing to the year 

2030. Commenters said in practice, the interim goal eliminates any implementation "flexibility" 

that EPA claims to have provided in the proposed emission guidelines. Commenters said the 

Agency should eliminate the interim goals altogether and allow states to demonstrate their 

progress toward achieving the 2030 final goal through the use of a "glide path" similar to the 

BART regulatory process; under such an approach, states would be expected to improve from 
97 

current emission levels to the 2030 final goal target level on a uniform rate of progress, but 

would have the discretion to deviate from this "glide path" where uniform progress would be 

impractical. Commenters said at the very least, EPA must ease the unachievable burden of 

complying with the states' interim goals by either (a) delaying the beginning of the compliance 

averaging period to a later year, (b) phasing in all of the Building Blocks and not just Building 

Blocks 3 and 4, in order to avoid creating a significant "cliff" in permissible emissions in 2020, 

and/or (c) taking some other measure to preserve state flexibility in implementing the emission 

guidelines. 

Commenters supported the elimination of the interim goals because they force an overlyaggressive compliance schedule; even assuming that state compliance plans can be submitted 

and approved in 2016 (which is impossible) utilities and cooperatives would have only three 

years to come into compliance otherwise it is not possible to meet the interim goals. Commenters 

said state compliance plans are much more likely to be approved in 2018 and beyond which will 

force immediate compliance; compliance, of course, becomes even more difficult in states with 

lower emissions rate goals. Commenters said EPA's suggestion that the interim goals could 

become more flexible based on infrastructure expansion requirements or book life of affected 

EGUs does not acknowledge that 2030 is the earliest that a compliance obligation can go into 

effect. Commenters said flexibility in the compliance schedule for interim goals does not change 

this fact. 

Commenters stated in setting the interim compliance period state emission goals, EPA has relied 

on unrealistic timing assumptions for the implementation of building blocks 1 and 2 that are 

unachievable by many states; for example, there are a number of important timing constraints 

that could substantially impair or preclude the implementation of the plant efficiency 

improvements required under building block 1 by 2020. Commenters said one important 

constraint overlooked by EPA is the obligation for EGU owners to obtain the necessary air 

permit authorizations in those instances where the efficiency improvement project may trigger 

NSR permitting requirements. Commenters added other important constraints that justify an 

extended implementation schedule include securing the financing and contractors to complete 

efficiency upgrades, and then phasing in those upgrades during available outage schedules. 

Commenters said a similar timing problem exists with respect to EPA's assumption that states 

can require the re-dispatch of existing NGCC capacity up to a 70% capacity factor by 2020; this 

is reflected by the fact that this re-dispatch from coal to NGCC generation cannot be realistically 

achieved in many states until there has been a substantial additional build-out of electric 

transmission infrastructure and natural gas pipeline capacity. Commenters said this development 

of additional transmission and pipeline infrastructure will likely take years to permit, finance, 

and construct. 

Commenters stated the timing assumptions used for determining when building blocks 1 and 2 

will be implemented are totally unrealistic; for example, EPA fails to take into account a number 

of important timing constraints that would substantially impede the implementation of the plant 

efficiency improvements required under building block 1 by 2020. Commenters said these 
98 

constraints include obtaining the NSR permit and PUC authorizations, securing the financing and 

contractors to complete efficiency upgrades, and then phasing in those upgrades during available 

outage schedules; similarly, requiring the re-dispatch of existing NGCC capacity up to a 70% 

capacity factor will likely require by 2020 in many states a substantially additional build out of 

transmission infrastructure and natural gas pipeline capacity. Commenters said this development 

of additional transmission and pipeline infrastructure will likely take years to permit, finance, 

and construct. 

Commenters stated EPA's approach is a dramatic departure from how EPA calculated the RE 

and EE components of the state goals under building blocks 3 and 4. Commenters said in the 

case of these building blocks, EPA has not assumed that states could implement all the RE and 

EE measures under building blocks 3 and 4 during the first years of the program; rather, the 

Proposed Rule has computed each state's goal based on a reasonable phase-in of the RE and EE 

measures over the entire 10-year interim goal period in recognition that states cannot 

immediately construct the infrastructure or implement the programs necessary to achieve the RE 

and EE goals of building blocks 3 and 4. 

Commenters stated EPA proposed its interim carbon emission rate goals as a means of assuring 

reasonable progress towards achieving the final carbon emission rate goal. Commenters said this 

is the only real purpose of the interim goals, but it is unnecessary. Commenters said as pointed 

out by EPA, utilities have been, and will continue to take actions every year to reduce carbon 

emissions; moreover, with a looming final carbon emissions goal, the utilities will be motivated 

to continue work towards achieving the final goal. Commenters said because the final carbon 

emission rate goal will be incorporated into the operating permits of the affected utilities, there 

will be sufficient motivation to assure compliance with the final goals by 2030; furthermore, the 

difference between the carbon emission reduction that would occur without interim goals and the 

carbon emission reduction that will occur with interim goals will do little to affect climate 

change, rendering the interim goals unnecessary. Because of these reasons commenters do not 

support the use of interim goals for achieving the desired outcome of the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters stated however, if EPA determines that interim goals must be used, at the very least 

EPA should allow the states to set the interim goals in order to establish a logical compliance 

trajectory for each individual state. Commenters said each state will have a better understanding 

of what actions will be necessary to achieve the final goals and the appropriate timing for 

achievement. For example, commenters stated they are currently pursuing actions with the state 

that will drastically reduce future carbon emissions, but due to certain requirements, these 

actions cannot be completed until the mid-2020s; this is exactly the type of information the states 

will have to use in setting more realistic and achievable interim targets. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed interim goals are structured such that the majority of the 

reductions have to occur very early in the compliance period. Commenters said a recurring 

concern raised by affected EGUs is their ability to design, procure, and install the necessary 

control equipment; develop new RE sources; and implement demand-side energy efficiency 
99 

programs in a timeframe that will allow for compliance with the rule. Commenters said others 

have noted the protracted timespan needed to construct new transmission pathways; for example, 

SPP notes: EPA has considered neither the cost nor the time required to plan and construct 

electric transmission facilities. Commenters said in the SPP region, as much as eight and a half 

years to study, plan for and construct new transmission facilities has been required. Commenters 

said compliance with the proposed CPP is impossible due to the transmission expansion that will 

be required and the time it takes to complete the required transmission expansion. Commenters 

said accordingly, in order to ensure reliable operation of the transmission grid and compliance 

with NERC reliability standards, EPA should eliminate the proposed interim goals applicable 

during the 2020-2029 phase-in period in favor of a single 2030 goal. Commenters said 

alternatively, EPA should reconfigure the interim goals such the majority of the requisite 

reductions can occur 5 to 7 years following EPA's approval of the state plan. 

Commenters stated the interim goals are excessively front-loaded and should be eliminated. 

Commenters said the Clean Air Act does not mandate any interim compliance goals; indeed, 

Section 111 contains no deadlines whatsoever; yet, EPA's proposal establishes "increments of 

emission performance" that begin with rolling two-year averages starting in 2020 and aggregate 

to an interim emission level that is averaged over 2020 through 2029. Commenters said setting 

an achievable deadline for any proposed rule under Section 111 should not be based on random 

deadlines, as EPA's current proposal is. Commenters said the initial interim compliance date of 

2020 is particularly aggressive in light of the considerable tasks that the state and electric 

generating sector must accomplish to meet EPA's deadlines. Commenters said numerous entities 

have concluded that EPA's proposed deadlines are simply unworkable; in its assessment of 

EPA's proposal, NERC, which is charged with monitoring and assessing the reliability of the 

nation's electricity grid, has explained that "[l]ong lead times for transmission development and 

construction require long-term system planning - typically a 10-15-year outlook." Commenters 

said based on this and other issues, "NERC is concerned that reliability-related enhancements 

may not be able to be completed for a 2020 implementation." Commenters said indeed, EPA 

itself has recognized the practical problems with its 2020 deadline; EPA's recent Notice of Data 

Availability ("NODA") identifies two significant issues that prevent states from meeting the 

2020 interim deadline that EPA proposed - the need for additional infrastructure and concern 

about stranded investments. 

Commenters regarding the development of the final goals, the commenters took special 

exception to the design of the proposed interim goals, which are unreasonable and potentially 

unattainable. Commenters said on a very practical level, the interim goals are largely 

unnecessary given the fact that all electric providers will have to make generation resource 

decisions during the 2020-29 period in order to meet the 2030 goals. Commenters said the 

interim period is sometimes referred to as a glide path, but the commenters saw it as more of a 

BASE jump in which there is a very fast and potentially dangerous fall before things level out 

into a gentle descent. 
100 

Commenters stated the glide path reflected by the interim goals developed by EPA for the years 

2020-2029 imposes a significant burden on many western states. Commenters said to 

demonstrate compliance, states must calculate the actual average emission rate from affected 

entities over this 10-year period; states have the discretion to determine the trajectory so long as 

the average rate is equivalent to the EPA interim goal. Commenters said beginning in 2022, each 

state would have to compare its actual achieved emissions to levels projected in the state plan; 

however, a significant challenge for some states arises from the fact that the required reductions 

associated with Building Blocks 1 and 2 (generation efficiency and redispatch from existing 

fossil steam generation to existing natural gas combined cycle) are assumed to occur by 2020 

resulting in a "compliance cliff" for states. Commenters said "Notably, the interim state emission 

rate goal is only slightly higher than the final emission goal, putting pressure on states to make 

significant progress toward the interim goal in the years prior to the compliance 

period." Commenters said therefore, planning, preparation and steps to achieve actual 

compliance must begin well before then; this is exacerbated by several factors: 

-The lead times required for regulatory review, negotiation and approval of resource decisions; 

-The lead times for project development (permitting and approvals needed to implement 

strategies), including infrastructure development; and 

-The potential need for new state authority to proceed with a CPP compliance plan (e.g., some 

states must pass legislation); 

Commenters said the nature and pace of these actions are not at the sole discretion of companies 

operating these systems, but rather a host of public and private stakeholders that will influence 

the state's strategy. Commenters said the compressed timeframe risks force a rush to find 

"whatever works" compliance options, rather than options resulting from thoughtful 

consideration of costs and risks. Commenters urged EPA to change the structure of the interim 

goal by allowing states to develop their own glide paths under the CPP that demonstrate 

continuous, reasonable and verifiable progress toward the 2030 goal; in this regard, delay would 

not be an option but states would be able to apportion the effort from 2020-2029 based on cost 

and risk to customers. Commenters said states would continue to operate within the structure of 

EPA's proposed guidelines, which already requires that states submit - and that EPA approve - 

plans that clearly set forth how to achieve the 2030 goal; upon approval, the plans become 

federally enforceable. Commenters said ultimately, if states cannot show reasonable progress 

toward the 2030 goal, consistent with the projected emission reduction glide path, EPA would 

have the authority to call for a state to correct its plan or issue a federal plan of its own. 

Commenters stated the emission rate targets are front-loaded, requiring a disproportionate 

percentage of emission rate reductions in the early years of the program; these unrealistic 

reduction rates do not account for the time needed to accommodate the infrastructure changes 

needed to achieve them. Commenters said development of new generation and transmission 

resources takes time; planning, design, siting, permitting, and construction can easily take as 
101 

long as a decade. Commenters said comparing the interim emission rate reduction in 2020 (from 

the 2012 baseline) to the final emission rate reduction required by 2030, total emission rate 

reductions that must occur between the 2012 baseline and the 2020 emission rate target reach as 

high as 90%. Commenters said the median reduction level is 66% for all states during that 

timeframe. Commenters said under EPA's second building block - prematurely shutting down 

coal-fired generation in favor of natural gas combined cycle generation, EPA's emission rate 

formula results in a 100% decrease in coal generation by 2020 in some states. Commenters 

added this premature shutdown of coal-fired generation will pose serious reliability risks to the 

electric grid and result in billions of dollars in stranded investment in expensive pollution control 

equipment that has been installed in order to comply with recent EPA regulations. Commenters 

urged the elimination of the 2020 targets. 

Commenters stated as a result of EPA's unrealistic implementation timeframes, the Proposed 

Rule establishes interim emission rate goals for many states that impose a compliance "cliff," 

requiring the achievement of very steep CO2 emissions reductions immediately at the start of the 

section 111(d) compliance program. Commenters said nationally, the reductions expected by 

2020 average to 75% of the total reductions required in the ten-year interim goal period. While 

the commenters supported the concept of a long-term (e.g., ten-year) compliance period for an 

interim goal, proposing that such substantial reductions be front-loaded to the first year of the 

interim compliance period fails to provide any meaningful flexibility. Many of the states in 

which commenters’ members operate illustrate the problem: Arizona is expected to achieve 94% 

of its interim goal by 2020; other states with significant cliffs include: Colorado (85%), Florida 

(86%), Georgia (88%), Oklahoma (86%), South Carolina (89%), and Texas (82%). These 

commenters members' states face the daunting task of achieving an enormous percentage of their 

interim CO2 emission goals by the start of the compliance program in 2020. 

Commenters stated the imposition of such a compliance cliff by a 2020 implementation 

milestone would likely have many adverse impacts, including the premature shutdown of many 

existing coal-fired EGUs in these and other states; with steep reductions in coal-fired generation 

imposed so quickly at the start of compliance program, there could be significant amounts of 

existing coal-fired capacity that would most likely not be operating, or be operating at greatly 

reduced levels, by 2020. 

Commenters stated forcing the premature shutdown of these existing coal-fired EGUs in 2020 

will result in billions of dollars in stranded assets and replacement power costs; notably, many of 

these units are not close to the end of their useful lives and, in many cases, the units have 

recently installed expensive pollution control MATS Rule and the Regional Haze Best Available 

Retrofit Technology requirements. Commenters said given that there has been insufficient time 

to recover the capital costs of these investments, consumers would likely incur higher electricity 

costs as a result of these stranded asset costs and from the purchase of replacement power. 
102 

Furthermore, the commenters were concerned about the increased reliability risks that may result 

from premature shutdown of many coal-fired EGUs. 

Commenters stated to address this problem and provide additional timing flexibility for the 

implementation of these stringent reduction obligations, EPA should build in reasonable phase-in 

periods for achieving the required emission reductions from building blocks 1 and 2, as 

contemplated in the October 28 NODA; as a general matter, this phase-in period should provide 

additional times for states to account for the significant regulatory, reliability, and capacity issues 

that will need to be addressed before they can fully implement building blocks 1 and 2. 

Commenters asserted that this outcome can be best achieved by giving each state the authority 

(subject to EPA approval) to set its interim CO2 emission rate goal based on an implementation 

schedule that is feasible; for example, each state should be allowed to propose a state-specific 

time schedule for implementing the building block measures used for computing the state's 

emission rate goal, based on its ability to install the control measures, the cost of compliance, 

impacts on reliability, and other relevant state-specific factors. Commenters said under this 

approach, the state would still achieve the final goal established by EPA based upon the four 

building blocks, but the stringency of the interim compliance period goal would be adjusted to 

reflect the state-specific schedule for implementation of the control measures within the state. 

Commenters said this would enable each state to develop a workable and reasonably achievable 

plan, with federally enforceable milestones, for implementation of the emission reductions 

necessary to meet the final goal; any state request to establish an alternate implementation 

schedule would be subject to EPA review and approval, and such requests should not be 

unreasonably denied. 

Commenters added the over-aggressiveness of the proposed 2020 interim goal is illustrated by 

the EPA's proposed goals for Florida and North Carolina; the 2020 goals for Florida and North 

Carolina account for 76 percent and 71 percent, respectively, of the total emission rate reduction 

requirement in 2030 relative to each state's 2012 baseline. Commenters said for each state, the 

majority of the 2020 reduction requirement is attributable to Building Blocks 1 and 2; setting a 

state's 2020 goal at a level that requires such a large percentage of a state's final 2030 goal is 

unreasonable and unachievable, especially given the exceedingly short time between state plan 

submittal and approval by the EPA, and 2020. 

Commenters stated the proposed interim and final goals established by EPA for Arizona place an 

unreasonable and inequitable burden on the state to achieve CO2 reductions; particularly 

problematic for Arizona is EPA's proposed interim goal. Commenters said the Proposed Rule 

would require Arizona to achieve nearly 90% of the state's 2030 goal by 2020 - more than any 

other state in the country; this is due primarily to EPA's assumptions regarding the application of 

Building Block 2 to Arizona. Commenters understood that EPA views Building Block 2 as a 

relatively easy way to achieve reductions in carbon intensity early in the program; where existing 

natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) generation is present and has a low annual capacity factor in 

2012, EPA assumes states can easily shift generation from their higher emitting coal and oil 
103 

generation to their lower emitting natural gas generation. Commenters said EPA calculated 

existing Arizona NGCC generation to be operating at an annual capacity factor of 27% in the 

2012 baseline year; due to this low capacity factor, EPA assumes that all existing coal and oil 

generation in the state can be replaced with existing NGCC generation by 2020. Commenters 

said this assumption presumes that Arizona will achieve approximately 80% of its 2030 goal by 

2020 from application of Building Block 2 alone - again more than any other state. Commenters 

said if EPA does not change its Building Block 2 assumptions for Arizona, the Proposed Rule 

will create significant economic impacts within the state and strain the reliability of the state's 

energy grid. 

Commenters asked why did EPA impose such an aggressive interim target on Arizona and did 

EPA consider allowing states to develop a more gradual and less economically disruptive 

approach to achieving reductions. 

Commenters stated the consequence of EPA's approach is that the interim goal imposes a 

compliance cliff requiring many states to achieve very steep CO2 emissions reductions 

immediately at the start of the section 111(d) program. Commenters said this is illustrated by 

Arizona, which must achieve 94% of the State's interim goal by 2020 under the Proposed 

Rule; Arizona is not the only state that faces an almost impossible task of achieving all of its 

CO2 emission reductions under building blocks 1 and 2 by the start of the program in 2020. 

Commenters stated this front-loading of the CO2 reduction requirements has the effect of 

requiring states to achieve, on average, 75% of their total annual reduction target in 2020. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed implementation schedule leaves states with insufficient time 

to meet their CO2 emissions reduction obligations imposed under building blocks 1 and 2; at 

most, states will only have two or three years to complete all of the measures (including major 

infrastructure improvements to generation and transmission infrastructure as well as increases to 

natural gas pipeline capacity) that would be necessary to achieve these ambitious reduction 

levels. 

Commenters stated the establishment of a 10-year averaging period for meeting the interim goal 

provides virtually no relief from compliance cliff created by building blocks 1 and 2; this is 

clearly illustrated by the fact that a state's failure to implement at least a substantial portion of 

these two building blocks will have no choice but impose more aggressive RE and EE 

requirements on the EGUs and other affected entities within its jurisdiction in order to make up 

for the shortfall in emissions reductions from blocks 1 and 2. Commenters said as a result, EPA's 

decision to frontload emissions reductions from these two blocks could lead to at best overly 

stringent RE and EE requirements and, more likely, result in the failure of states to meet their 

state goals despite best efforts and the imposition of very onerous compliance costs on affected 

entities and consumers within the state. 
104 

Commenters stated the currently proposed interim goals for Arizona are too heavily weighted 

toward the early years; EPA presumes that these goals can be achieved by re-dispatching all 

coal-fired generation in the state to NGCC units commencing in 2020. Commenters said this 

change is not achievable as envisioned by EPA; there are significant concerns regarding 

electrical reliability and infrastructure that prohibit the total re-dispatch of the coal-fired fleet to 

NGCC units by such an aggressive time. Commenters said if EPA is unwilling to allow the states 

to set the interim goals, EPA must be mindful of the fact that Arizona's utilities need a more level 

trajectory that provides additional time to fully prepare and respond in a reasonable fashion to 

the actions necessary to comply with any final goal. Accordingly, commenters supported 

changes to the Proposed Rule that make the 2020 to 2029 "glide path" more gradual, such as a 

phase-in of building block 2 as EPA presents in the October 2014 NODA. Commenters said EPA 

should take into account whether, and to what extent, additional infrastructure improvements, 

including natural gas pipeline expansion and transmission improvements, are needed when 

developing the goals for building block 2; such an approach would be consistent with the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation's ("NERC") conclusion that "more time would be 

needed in certain areas to ensure resource adequacy, reliability requirements, and infrastructure 

needs are maintained." 

Commenters stated the wide variation in the difference between the proposed interim and final 

goals on a national basis is arbitrary and capricious; as long as a state has prepared a 111(d) plan 

documenting compliance with a reasonable final goal, interim goals are unnecessary. 

Commenters stated under the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, Arizona would be required to 

reduce the carbon dioxide (CO2) intensity of its power generation fleet by approximately 47% by 

2020 and approximately 52% by 2030 in order to meet its goals. Commenters said Arizona 

undoubtedly faces one of the most aggressive reduction requirements of all states, driven by the 

application of the EPA's proposed building block approach to determining state-level emission 

goals. Commenters said the interim targets resulting from EPA's building blocks are 

unreasonable, are inequitable for Arizona, and cannot be achieved without major reliability 

concerns. Commenters said alternative interim and final goals that fully consider the remaining 

useful life of existing plants would achieve significant carbon reductions without jeopardizing 

grid reliability and result in a lower cost to ratepayers. 

Commenters added the interim goals provided to the states for implementation in 2020 are 

simply too steep to achieve without significant economic and electric system dislocation; 

certainly, the 2020 Illinois goal of 1366 lbs CO2/MWh is not a pro rata step toward USEPA's 

final 2030 goal of 1271 lbs CO2/MWh. Commenters said the 2020 goal is a 37% reduction from 

the baseline in Illinois and a 12% reduction from the baseline in Kentucky; clearly, USEPA must 

understand that IMEA will not know the actual compliance obligation and the means available to 

meet that obligation until the Illinois EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky have completed 

their state plans. Commenters said given the complications within Illinois alone related to its 

large amount of nuclear and coal generation, its relatively small amount of NGCC generation, its 

need to address a poorly-functioning renewable portfolio standard and the lack of any state 
105 

authority to order generation of any kind to be constructed, that the IEPA will need to seek 

legislation to implement any state plan. Commenters said this, along with the suggestion by the 

Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission before numerous venues that a multi-state, 

mass-based approach seems to be preferable to a rate-based, portfolio approach using the four 

building blocks, means more delay; this could leave only a two-year window between knowing 

the clear compliance obligations and the imposition of the 2020 goal. Commenters said given 

these facts, the 2020 goal would require somehow acquiring carbon-free offsets equal to 31% of 

IMEA's total energy requirements; but between 2020 and 2030, IMEA's offsets would actually 

go down (to about 28% of energy requirements) based in part on the mid-decade reduction of a 

power supply agreement consisting primarily of coal-fired resources. Commenters said from this, 

it should be apparent that the interim goal set for 2020 is too steep and that the rule should focus 

on the 2030 goal and provide states with the ability to phase in their carbon-reduction activities 

throughout that period. 

Commenters stated EPA's decision to enforce "interim targets" requires states to demonstrate 

specific and verifiable emissions reductions every year between 2020-2029, before the final 

compliance date of 2030. Commenters said for states that have a long way to go before they 

reach EPA's expected "rate of progress," these interim targets would require that a substantial 

percentage of the total expected emission curtailment occur before 2020. Commenters said for 

Indiana, EPA's proposed interim target accounts for approximately 80 percent of the total 

emissions curtailment the agency expects from the state; this is simply not feasible. Commenters 

said EPA has entertained the possibility that it may need to adjust the interim goals and/or final 

targets for some states; however, EPA officials have suggested that any petition for an 

adjustment has to take place during the comment period. Commenters said that expectation 

places a heavy burden on states to fully evaluate a number of very complex issues in just four 

months - well before they have a chance to craft a 111(d) Plan, gather data, or run into potential 

problems during the implementation process. 

Commenters stated the interim goals pose a "carbon cliff," a sudden and severe reduction in 

carbon emissions beginning in 2020. Commenters said the proposed rule would require a state 

plan to specify the average emissions performance over the 10-year interim plan performance 

period from 2020 through 2029; according to the methodology employed in the proposed rule, 

the majority of most states' carbon emission reductions must be achieved by 2020 in order to 

meet the rate-based interim goals; for example, EPA's proposed interim goal for Missouri of the 

ten-year average of 1,621 (pounds CO2 per net MWh) is a 17% reduction from the 2012 

emission rate of 1,963, whereas the final goal of 1,544 is a 21% reduction; Missouri and Illinois 

must meet, respectively, over 62% and 66% of the final 2030 targets by 2020. 
106 

Commenters stated the Goal Computation Technical Support Document ("TSD") reveals EPA's 

assumption that all of the carbon reductions from affected EGUs (i.e., blocks 1 and 2) must occur 

by 2020; the proposal also assumes that states will expand renewable (RE), and/or energy 

efficiency and demand response ("EE/DR") over time. Commenters said Appendix 4 to the Goal 

Computation TSD presents the interim and final state goals based on Building Blocks 1 and 2 

alone; the final goals in this chart are not as stringent as EPA's preferred final goals, which rely 

on all four building blocks. Commenters said the document notes "there is no difference between 

the Interim and Final rates through the first two building blocks as the increasing annual 

potential only applies to block 3 and block 4." Commenters said therefore, the proposal has 

designated 2020 as the "carbon cliff" by which time the states and affected EGUs must have 

already implemented strategies to reduce carbon emissions. 

Commenters stated Missouri's "cliff" in the proposed rule will force Missouri to adjust several 

key aspects of its Integrated Resource Planning (IRP), at great expense to its customers, in order 

to meet the requirements of the rule. Commenters said in order to achieve the rate-based interim 

goals, Missouri would need to immediately commence designing, permitting and constructing 

NGCC facilities. Commenters said Missouri's customer load forecasts do not support the 

construction of 600 MW of natural gas generation until 2034, coinciding with the retirement of 

two coal units; however, the CPP would accelerate the in-service date of planned NGCC 

resources by fourteen years, and those resources would need to be twice as large as currently 

planned (600 MW vs. 1,200 MW). Commenters said none of the 1,200 MW would be needed to 

serve customer loads. Commenters said the new NGCC units would also be required to run 

uneconomically at a 70% capacity factor solely to meet the interim targets in the proposed rule; 

for similar reasons, the retirement of the Meramec coal fired energy center would be accelerated. 

Commenters estimated that the interim goals will cause an increase in cost to its customers of 

approximately $4 billion dollars compared to the IRP approach; these consequences are illogical, 

counterproductive to environmental stewardship and not cost effective; this cannot be what EPA 

envisioned when the rule was proposed. 

Commenters supported the goal of diversifying the nation's generation fleet, however have a 

number of concerns with the proposed rule, but there is one particular aspect of the proposed rule 

that is particularly troubling; the interim goals. Commenters said the proposed rule sets both a 

long term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal to be achieved by 2030, and interim goals 

beginning in 2020. Commenters urged EPA to eliminate the interim goals, and allow states to 

file compliance plans that incorporate GHG reduction milestones that create a manageable glide 

path to the 2030 goal. Commenters asserted the interim goals are unnecessary to achieve the 

long-term GHG reductions proposed in the Clean Power Plan and create a host of problems that 

argue for their elimination. Commenters said the goals are too stringent; Missouri will need to 

achieve approximately 62% of its 2030 goal by 2020; that large a reduction effectively turns the 

requirement into a 2020 compliance deadline. Commenters said many other states are in the 

same predicament; some will have to achieve over 80% of their 2030 goal by 2020. Commenters 

said it is unreasonable to expect states to comply with such stringent targets on such short 
107 

notice; such drastic reductions will needlessly increase costs and will jeopardize the reliability of 

the grid. 

Commenters stated a flaw from the proposed regulations is the application of the interim goal 

and the subsequent glide path from 2020 to 2030. Commenters said the requirements proposed 

with the interim goal places many states, including Kentucky, in a position where most potential 

compliance measures must be implemented in 2020. Commenters said this "cliff" should be 

eliminated and the states should develop compliance plans for reaching a 2030 goal based on 

their specific circumstances. Commenters said based on the regulatory timelines for finalizing 

the regulations and gaining approval of state compliance plans, it is not possible to modify the 

infrastructure or build new facilities to meet a 2020 start date. 

Commenters opposed the inclusion of the interim goals for both the primary and alternate state 

goals because there is insufficient time to implement the interim goal and to meet the extremely 

high 2020 interim goal. Commenters said Nebraska would have to reduce its CO2 emission rate 

more than 50% by 2020 to have a reasonable chance to meet the interim goal without being 

faced with the potential problems of significant over control late in the interim period as the only 

means for achieving the final goal. Commenters said due to the minimal time between approval 

of a state plan and the beginning of the interim period, the interim goal is too stringent and 

unnecessary to achieve the final goal. 

Commenters stated EPA's Clean Power Plan requires a nationwide 30 percent reduction in CO2 

emissions by 2030, with interim compliance targets. Commenters said EPA's goal for Nebraska 

was set at 26 percent; however, the interim compliance targets are front-end loaded creating a 

fatal cliff for compliance by 2020. Commenters said a final rule will not be issued until June 

2015; it is likely that a State Implementation Plan will not be approved before June 2016; this 

leaves 4 years or less for utilities to implement compliance measures; this is simply not enough 

time for states or utilities to adequately plan and prepare for compliance and it is contrary to 

fundamental prudent utility planning. Commenters said the electric utility industry is currently 

making substantial capital investments in its existing electric generating fleet to comply with 

various recent and proposed EPA rules. Commenters were concerned that such short compliance 

deadlines may result in the premature shutdown of some of these generating units resulting in 

millions of dollars of lost or stranded investment. Commenters strongly urged the elimination of 

the interim 2020 targets. 

Commenters stated the interim goals proposed by the plan are too aggressive; the current 

proposed interim goal for Iowa of 1341 lb/MWh is only slightly higher than the final goal of 

1301 lb/MWH. Commenters said the interim goals assume that Building Blocks 1 and 2 can be 

implemented immediately after the rule is implemented, but prior to 2020; this is unrealistic. 
108 

Commenters asserted that the assumptions made for Building Blocks 1 and 2 are unrealistic for 

Iowa's municipal utilities; it is not possible or economic for Iowa's municipal utilities to retrofit 

their existing coal power plants to achieve a 6% heat rate improvement; any economic heat rate 

improvements have likely already been made. Commenters said Iowa's municipal utilities do not 

own any NGCC facilities, and cannot shift generation from their coal power plants to NGCC 

plants. Commenters said therefore municipal utilities will be relying on Building Blocks 3 and 4 

or other measures such as converting existing coal plants to natural gas, to achieve carbon 

dioxide reductions; these measures cannot be implemented immediately. Commenters added the 

rapid implementation required to meet the proposed implementation goal, is likely to be 

uneconomic. 

Commenters requested that the interim goal be eliminated, or at the very least, start no earlier 

than the year 2025 with significantly less stringency compared to the final goal. Commenters 

said as proposed, there is very little difference between the interim goal and the final goal. (In 

Iowa, the interim goal is 1341 lbs/MWh and the final goal is 1301 lbs/MWh.) Commenters said 

effectively, the EPA has set a 2020 compliance deadline with no appreciable phase-in. 

Commenters said the option offered by EPA to over-comply in later years to make up for lack of 

compliance in the early years is not realistic and may impose unnecessary costs and adverse 

effects on reliability that would most likely not be required if additional time were allowed to 

make necessary changes to the electric system. Commenters stated when requiring CO2 

reductions, EPA's rules should allow for implementation of the changes in ways that maintain a 

reliable, affordable electric system that can be sustained over the long term; for many utilities, 

and therefore states, compliance with the final goal will require more time than allowed by the 

interim goal. Commenters stated therefore, the interim goal should be eliminated. Commenters 

said the enforceable goal should start in 2030 with credit for early actions prior to that date. 

Commenters said credit for early action will provide an appropriate incentive for utilities to take 

actions to reduce their CO2 emissions and the carbon intensity of their generation fleet prior to 

2030. Commenters stated if EPA requires an interim goal in the final rules, the goal should start 

no earlier than 2025, and the level of the interim goal should be significantly less restrictive than 

the final goal to allow additional time for efficient, thoughtful planning and implementation of 

changes that will be required; this may lead to greater reductions in the long term if affected 

entities have more time for planning. 

Comment 9: The interim goals limit states' flexibility.

Response 9: See sections I.A. and V of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. The EPA is also finalizing a different interim compliance period of 

2022-2029 in this final rule. Moreover, changes in the BSER quantification approach result in a 

different relationship between interim and final goals than proposed. On average, there is a 

greater difference between the two in the final CPP than the proposed CPP due to changes in the 

deployment path of building block two and building block three. This change addresses some of 
109 

the commenters concerns regarding the limited difference between interim and final at proposal 

(e.g., Arizona). 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated that the interim goal limits state flexibility. 

Commenters added the interim goal deprives states of the flexibility to design their own 

compliance plans or choose the pace of reductions to respect state-specific conditions and 

circumstances. Commenters said in order to satisfy the 10-year average goal, a significant 

number of states need to achieve reductions before the start of the interim compliance period in 

2020. Commenters stated contrary to EPA's stated intent of providing states flexibility in setting 

2030 emission goals, the interim compliance average goal creates more compliance challenges 

than it solves. Commenters said the proposed interim average compliance period and goal would 

create unnecessary compliance challenges, limit state flexibility in designing compliance plans 

and impose unnecessary additional costs on electric customers. 

Commenters added even if state agencies can acquire the necessary statutory authority and 

somehow meet EPA's aggressive SIP submission deadlines - and assuming expeditious EPA plan 

approval - implementation of plans including most if not all four of EPA's building blocks will 

be difficult. Commenters said as an example, even increasing heat rate efficiency of individual 

generating units cannot be accomplished in a short period of time; attempting to meet the heat 

rate efficiency requirement for individual units will require engineering evaluation and design, 

and procurement and installation of parts and equipment. Commenters said completing this 

process for all affected generating units is very unlikely to be possible with a three-year or 

possibly shorter time frame, if plan submission or approval is delayed; and with several hundred 

units across the country engaged in the same process to improve heat rate efficiency at the same 

time will undoubtedly result in significant delays.

Commenters added even if individual States were able to adhere to the one-year plan submission 

deadline, and EPA approves plans within an additional year or by June 30 2017, barely two and 

one half years would remain prior to the 2020 interim goal deadline; meeting the 70% dispatch 

goal for natural gas-fired units is likely to require significant upgrades and modification of many 

such units to make them capable of operating at that level. Commenters said to the extent that 

this is required for many units within a State, completing the needed upgrades and modifications 

within the short two and one-half year implementation period is highly unlikely. 

Commenters added the tight timeframe for meeting the interim goals largely negates the 

opportunity for States to develop any reasonable alternatives to EPA's approach, thereby 

eliminating any flexibility for States and affected facilities; this will force shutdowns of many 

coal-fired power plants as the only means of achieving interim goals in such a short time frame; 

these plants will often have a useful life that extends well beyond the 2030 compliance deadline, 

and EPA's guidance must be revised in a way that assures the States and utilities have the ability 

to keep these plants economically viable. Commenters said some states will have little choice but 
110 

to shut down coal-fired capacity and dispatch natural gas (Building Block 2), as the expected 

ramp up and utilization of either Building Blocks 3 or 4 would occur too late to meet the 2020 

goal. 

Commenters added EPA suggests States should begin to ramp up energy efficiency requirements 

by 2017, States will be unlikely to have legislative authority in place for several of the building 

blocks and, at most, only have authority over building block 1; that leaves most States with only 

the option of forcing fuel switching from coal over to natural gas for base load power plant - 

assuming they even have the natural gas available and infrastructure in place to make such a 

sudden and dramatic change. Commenters said this would create complications of needing an 

uninterruptable supply of natural gas, pipelines and storage and enough sufficient available 

NGCC units to make up the difference in electric generating capacity. 

Commenters stated EPA's requirement for states to achieve such a significant portion (roughly 

60%-90%) of the required CO2 emission reductions early in the interim period defeats the 

intended purpose of providing states flexibility in achieving the required emission 

reductions; EPA should consider the full range of options to ensure that each state is given the 

optimum amount of flexibility in developing its preferred approach to achieving the 2030 target. 

Commenters stated the interim compliance average period deprives states of choosing which 

reduction actions and measures to pursue and how quickly to implement them, with negative 

consequences for costs to customers. Commenters said many states will have few options to start 

making reductions by 2020, which limits their ability to choose the reductions actions and 

measures that best reflect their specific circumstances and to implement them in a way that 

minimizes costs to customers. Commenters stated the interim goal limits the state's flexibility in 

determining how best to achieve EPA's ultimate goals, and in doing so, significantly increases 

costs to customers. 

Commenters added the interim target presents significant reliability and affordability issues; no 

consideration is given to the expected coal plant retirements. Commenters stated the proposed 

rule has an inadequate lead time for planning, siting, and constructing new electric and natural 

gas infrastructure; compliance with the rule will dramatically accelerate a fundamental shift in 

our generation fleet. Commenters said a reasonable path must be provided for infrastructure, 

policy, and institutional planning and development to avoid rate shock and capacity shortfalls 

that threaten reliability. 

Commenters stated as written, the vast majority of the emission reductions required of states by 

2030 - often 90% or more - will be required in the very first year of the rule; this creates several 

negative consequences: 1) It would give states and industry strong and legitimate reliability, cost 

and stranded asset-based arguments against the rule; 2) It would lead to rapid and widespread 

deployment of gas combined cycle power plants; this likely over-build of new fossil plants, with 

commercial lives of 30 or more years, will undercut the U.S. power sector's ability to achieve 

near independence from carbon emissions by 2050. 3) This over-build of new gas capacity 
111 

would freeze out clean new energy resources for a decade or more, undercutting the U.S.'s ability 

to achieve critical mid-century climate objectives. 4) Due to a high level of legal uncertainty, 

many states are unlikely to take costly steps to achieve the reductions until the legal status of the 

rule is clarified - late in this decade at the earliest - leaving little time for thoughtful 

implementation, even more drastic initial regulatory impacts and stronger grounds for concern, 

resistance and litigation of the rule and state plans. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule provides very little flexibility over when to actually 

achieve targets; this is because of two key features of the proposed rule; first, the interim goal, 

for many states, is a very high percentage of the total reductions required by 2030; second, the 

rule requires that the average of a state's emission performance in each of the years 2020-2029 

equal or exceed the interim goal. Commenters said the 10-year average requirement provides 

little timing flexibility, and precludes the benefits EPA intended it to confer on states. 

Commenters added the more Arizona relies on Building Blocks 3 and 4 to achieve compliance 

with the final goal of 702 lbs CO2/MWh, the farther it gets from compliance with the interim 

goal; conversely, if Arizona designs its program to comply with the interim goal, it ends up with 

a final rate that is far lower than necessary to comply with the final standard and ends up 

preserving a much smaller portion of its existing coal-fired generation resources. Commenters 

said Arizona has no flexibility to shift from one Building Block to another to meet its rate-based 

goal under the program as proposed. Commenters said the state cannot increase reliance on 

Building Block 1, because the rate-based goal assumes zero coal generation, and the interim 

goal, prevents Arizona from increasing reliance on Building Block 3 or 4 to preserve coal 

generation; if no coal generation remains in 2020, increasing the efficiency of coal units will 

obviously have no effect on Arizona's rate. Commenters said Arizona cannot increase reliance on 

Building Block 2, because the interim goal effectively requires the maximum redispatch 

possible. Commenters said Arizona is not the only state in this predicament; EPA's goal 

calculation spreadsheet makes it clear that a number of other states have goals that presume 

redispatch of all or a substantial portion of coal and OG generation to NGCC by 2 2020. 

Commenters added for some states, the presumption of 2020 implementation of Building Block 

1 may present a similar impediment to flexibility. Commenters said EPA therefore should 

eliminate, or adopt a different approach to, the interim goal. Commenters said if an interim goal 

is included in the final rule, it should provide a reasonable phase-in period for all Building 

Blocks; otherwise EPA will deny Arizona and many other states the flexibility it intended to 

include in the program. 

Commenters stated that it would be theoretically possible to redistribute reductions over the 10-

year interim goal compliance period in order to achieve the interim goal without overshooting 

the final goal. Commenters said the relief afforded by manipulation of the 10-year average, 

however, would be minimal. For example, commenters are aware of an analysis by Southwest 

Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) and Arizona State University which includes a compliance 

scenario that would purportedly preserve 35 percent of the state's coal generation in 2020, 25 

percent in 2030 while achieving the interim goal of 735 lbs CO2/MWh and a final rate of 692 lbs 
112 

CO2/MWh (thus overshooting the final goal by 10 lbs/MWh). Commenters said there are, 

however, a number of problems with this scenario; specifically, it assumes: 

-An implementation schedule for BB3 and BB4 that is far more aggressive than contemplated in 

EPA's BSER determination and that in ADEQ's view may not be achievable. 

-Compliance with a rate that is lower than the final goal by 2025. 

-Compliance with rates in 2026 through 2028 that are lower than the final 2029 rate. 

-Retirement of 65 percent of the state's coal fleet by 2020, including Unit 3 at Springerville, 

which has been in operation for less than 10 years, and Coronado Unit 1, which has recently 

undergone millions of dollars of pollution control upgrades. 

Commenters said if anything, the need to incorporate such aggressive and unrealistic 

assumptions in order to bring the interim and final goals closer together only serves to 

demonstrate the inflexibility inherent in the proposal. 

Commenters said the interim goal outlined for Arizona is simply unworkable and cannot be 

achieved. In addition to a more reasonable glide path, commenters asserted compliance with any 

rule must take into consideration disruptions in State and local economies and the increased cost 

to consumers. Commenters stated Arizona utilities should be provided sufficient flexibility to 

mitigate such disruptions. 

Commenters added the manner of demonstrating compliance with EPA's proposed interim goal, 

and the consequences of not meeting that goal, are not entirely clear. Commenters stated 

Colorado has already made binding resource decisions through 2020; taken along with the timing 

issues for developing and submitting state plans, meeting the interim goal in 2020 is extremely 

ambitious. Commenters added that the proposed emission reductions are front-loaded; for 

example, Colorado's interim goal is very close to the final goal (within 50 lbs/ MWh). 

Commenters stated the Clean Power Plan, as currently structured, fails to give sufficient 

recognition to significant differences in the ability of individual utilities and geographic regions 

to achieve the targeted interim reductions in greenhouse gas emissions within the timeframes 

established by the Plan. Commenters said as a practical matter, given current technology, the 

only way to achieve the EPA emission reduction targets while not jeopardizing the reliability of 

the electric grid may be to retire coal fueled generating capacity and replace much of that retired 

capacity with renewables, zero output nuclear generating facilities or comparatively low emitting 

combined cycle gas generation. Commenters said the efficiency of coal plants has improved over 

the years, but still lags behind gas fired generation. Commenters said allowing for greater 

compliance flexibility will still achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions with 

less risk to electric system reliability and with economic savings; for example, by making the 

interim target for Colorado the average of the 2012 calculation and the 2030 calculation, the state 

would have to meet the average reduction over the 10 years. Commenters said with a 2012 
113 

baseline of 1712 lbs/MWh and the 2030 target of 1108 lbs/MWh, the average reduction is 1410 

lbs/MWh; with an interim average goal of 1410 lbs/MW over the 10 years, this would provide 

Utilities the flexibility to plan additions, retirements and fuel switches in a staged manner. 

Commenters respectfully requested that in the final rule the EPA adopt a linearly declining 

emissions rate over the 2020-2029 time periods, with the compliance requirement to meet the 

average over the 10 year period; this allows flexibility to utilities and the states to meet the stated 

2030 goal in a gradual, flexible manner. 

Commenters stated in EPA's October 27, 2014, Notice of Data Availability (NODA), EPA 

requested comment on its 2020-29 interim targets; EPA notes that "[s]ome stakeholders have 

expressed concern that the goal setting methodology...requires states to achieve such a 

significant portion of the required CO2 emission reductions early in the interim period that it 

defeats the intended purpose of providing states flexibility in how they may achieve the required 

emission reductions." Commenters said this concern is absolutely true in Indiana, where the state 

will be required to achieve approximately 80 percent of its 2030 emission rate reduction through 

the 2020-2029 interim period; as structured, the proposed interim target will not achieve its 

intended purpose of providing states with flexibility in their "ramp-up" to the final target. 

Commenters said rather, the interim target is a cliff that leaves states and utilities without a 

logical glide path to achieve the final target. Commenters said EPA should remove the interim 

target from the Final Rule and allow states the flexibility to develop compliance plans most 

appropriate to achieve the 2030 final target. 

Commenters added the short time frame may also pose significant risks to electric system 

reliability; coal-fired generation may be forced to retire before replacement generation comes 

online. Commenters said as currently proposed, existing coal utilization will need to be 

decreased without confidence that other types of generation can fill the gap; new electric and 

natural gas transmission needed for reliability cannot reasonably be expected to be built by 2020. 

Commenters said for these reasons, the 2020 interim target generates significant electric system 

reliability risks. 

Commenters added the 2020 interim target also could unduly increase costs to consumers; for 

example, utilities may be forced to take actions such as prematurely retiring coal units that were 

recently retrofitted with pollution controls. Commenters said states should have the flexibility - a 

stated goal of the Proposed Rule - to craft compliance plans that address the unique challenges of 

individual utilities and consumers in an equitable, cost-effective, and risk-reduced manner. 

Commenters said the interim target speeds this process and forces states and utilities, faced with 

the threat of "corrective action," into the inflexible and intractable position of complying with a 

decade-long average emission rate amidst the complexity of a dynamic power market. 

Commenters encouraged EPA to alter or eliminate the proposed interim goals that are currently 

established as requirements under each state plan. Commenters said while it is clearly advisable 
114 

for states to demonstrate progress toward a 2030 final emissions goal, the current 2020 "interim 

goal" carries stringent caps that will negatively and fundamentally restrict the choices available 

to plant owners in meeting long-term goals. Commenters said limitations of the interim 

timeframe (2020) are evident in a number of sectors: 

1. Many coal EGUs have made significant capital investment in recent years, in large part to 

comply with EPAs Mercury Air Toxics rule among others, and installed emission reduction 

retrofits (scrubbers, etc.); in coal-intensive states such as Ohio, a 2020 interim goal leaves little 

room for compliance without converting plants to natural gas or shutting down, thereby leaving 

recent capital investments stranded; a phased in shift could mitigate the financial impact. 

2. Given the limitations of existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure in some areas, the 2020 

targets should accommodate different situations; New England states, for instance, remain 

disproportionately dependent upon fuel oil generation and face severe natural gas pipeline bottlenecks; the goal setting under Block 2, therefore should be apportioned to pre- and post-2020 

periods as the available infrastructure allows, and include a required infrastructure roadmap for 

pipeline build-out; this will allow proper long term planning and avoid poor short term 

compliance choices. 

3. Nuclear development is also constrained by a 2020 interim compliance deadline; this sector 

has the longest development horizon of available technologies, despite its zero emissions and 

reliability profile; without a smoother path to compliance, or some mechanism to account for 

future nuclear generation toward current goals (eg. "Mark-to-market" style approach), nuclear 

generation will be placed at severe disadvantage for the next thirty years. 

Comment 10: The interim goals limits state's flexibilities; cannot consider remaining useful 

life.

Response 10: See sections I.A. and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP, and section 5.11 

of this document, for the EPA’s response to this comment. In the final CPP, the interim 

compliance period begins in 2022. EPA has also incorporated a phase-in of deployment 

assumptions for building block two, which along with the building block three phase-in 

assumptions – provide for an interim goal that reflects a more gradual phase-in of the state goals 

for most states. See the CO2 Emissions Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP 

Final Rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the states do not have the flexibility that EPA claims and the interim goals in 

particular undermine the states' authority granted under section 111(d) to consider remaining 

useful life. Commenters said EPA has built into the interim goals its assumption that Blocks 1 

and 2 can be implemented by 2020; it would be mathematically impossible for Texas to comply 
115 

with the interim goal while allowing additional time for consideration of the units' remaining 

useful life beyond what EPA has assumed in setting the interim goals. Commenters said given 

the manner in which EPA has calculated the state goals, the states' consideration of remaining 

useful life of existing sources would have to made prior to establishing the state goals, not 

afterward. 

Commenters added this provision of section 111(d) also does not support the EPA's 

interpretation that the standard of performance can be applied on a system basis; Section 

111(d)(1) states that the EPA's rules shall permit the state "in applying a standard of performance 

to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, 

among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard 

applies." Commenters said this provision clearly states that any standard of performance 

established under section 111(d) be applied to an existing discrete stationary source of emissions; 

the EPA has applied its standard of performance to the electrical grid itself including facilities 

that are not only not subject to EPA's regulatory authority under section 111, but do not even 

meet the definition of a stationary source under the FCAA, i.e., "any building, structure, facility, 

or installation which emits or may emit any pollutant." Commenters said most forms of 

renewable energy, such as wind and solar energy generation, do not emit air pollution and 

therefore are not a stationary source and not subject to the FCAA; nor are non-emitting wind and 

solar power generation facilities part of the fossil fuel-fired EGU source categories the EPA has 

identified as subject to this rule. 

Commenters added EPA's emission guidelines are so stringent that they effectively preclude a 

state from considering the remaining useful life of a source. Commenters said states will have to 

achieve significant reductions even before 2020. Commenters said 47 percent of the required 

reduction for West Virginia would be required up front by 2020, clearly an impossible 

expectation. Commenters said if existing coal-fired EGUs cannot achieve the majority of the 

required reductions by 2020, they will have to realize significantly greater reductions in their 

emission rate to meet the interim goal, far greater than required to meet the final goal in 2030. 

Commenters said for West Virginia, which has no existing or under construction NGCC 

capacity, very little (0.17 percent) current EE reductions, and currently only two percent nonhydro RE, there is no scenario under which the interim goal can be met; the situation only gets 

worse when the State's inability to achieve a six percent decrease in the coal-fired EGU CO2 

emission rate as a result of heat rate improvements is considered. 

Commenters added the interim goals create a disincentive to invest in Building Block 

1; implementation of Building Block 1 is compounded by another issue: the interim target goals. 

Commenters said the USEPA calculated Nevada's interim and final goal by essentially closing 

Valmy and TSPP by 2020; by virtue of having two owners located in two different states, Valmy 

is subject to two different retirement schedules: retirement in 2025 by the PUCN and beyond 

2030 by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission; neither retirement schedule would allow Nevada 

to comply with the interim goal. Commenters added TSPP was only recently commissioned in 

2008; at the time it was commissioned, it was projected to operate for at least thirty years, and 
116 

possibly forty years; as one of the newer coal-fired power plants in the nation and one of the 

most highly controlled from an air quality standpoint, closure of that facility by 2020 would 

result in a significant stranded investment. Commenters added nevertheless, the only way that 

Nevada could meet the interim goal as currently calculated would be to require the closure of 

both of those facilities by 2020; continued operation of the Valmy and TSPP facilities would 

exceed the proposed goals. Commenters said it would not, then, make economic sense for those 

facilities to undertake the engineering analyses and permitting revisions that would be required 

to achieve any sort of heat rate improvement because they would have to shut down within a 

very short time after such improvements could be deployed. Commenters said they would not be 

able to recover their capital investments; if the facilities are retired on their normal schedules 

taking into account the remaining useful life of the plant, then Building Block 1 should be 

calculated on a plant- specific basis, rather than on a national average of aged coal-fired 

facilities. 

Commenters stated as proposed in the CPP, compliance with the interim state goals requires 

emission reduction to begin by 2020 and compliance is based on a 10 year average from 2020 to 

2029; EPA indicates that it has received several comments critical of and disputing the so-called 

"flexibility" of such an approach in that the forced retirements resulting from the CPP and other 

environmental laws could adversely impact the electrical systems ability to respond to extreme 

weather events like the 2014 polar vortex. Commenters said stakeholders also expressed 

concerns about how premature retirements would affect remaining asset value of existing coalfired generation and resulting stranded cost implications. Commenters supported the elimination 

of the interim targets to allow for cost-effective implementation of state and utility system 

compliance strategies. Commenters reiterated that the interim targets be eliminated and replaced 

with a rate of progress approach that includes both procedural and substantive criteria that states 

would be detail in their compliance plans to demonstrate a reasonable glide path to the 2030 

targets. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Rule's assumed implementation of the entirety of Building 

Block 2 (BB2) in 2020 deprives Arizona, of any meaningful flexibility in implementing the CPP; 

any change in the proposed balance between BBs 1, 2, 3 or 4 results in Arizona being unable to 

achieve the Interim Goal, or else results in Arizona greatly overshooting the Final Goal. 

Commenters said as a result, Arizona is basically locked into EPA's goal setting exercise, which 

requires the complete redispatch of Arizona's coal-fired EGUs to NGCC EGUs in 2020. 

Commenters reviewed EPA's Integrated Planning Model ("IPM") runs, which predict that the 

Springerville coal-fired EGUs will remain on-line under the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters concluded, however, that given the low utilization rates predicted by IPM for the 

Springerville EGUs, the more economically rational decision would be to shut down the 

Springerville plant. Commenters said Springerville is the only coal-fired EGU that EPA's IPM 

suggests would survive the Proposed Rule and the analysis concludes that it likely would not. 

Commenters asserted that its concern that the Proposed Rule would require the premature 

retirement of all Arizona coal-fired EGUs in 2020 is legitimate and well supported. 
117 

Commenters stated the stringency of the proposed rule's interim standards requires forced 

retirements of coal units by 2020 to determine the interim standard for each state, EPA assumed 

that all emission rate reductions from Building Blocks 1 and 2 could be achieved at the start of 

the ten-year interim compliance period. Commenters said as a consequence of this flawed 

assumption, for many states, almost all of the emission rate reductions that the Proposed Rule 

ultimately requires must be achieved in the first year of the ten-year interim compliance period. 

Commenters said Pennsylvania is left with little or no flexibility to determine a different 

compliance path to avoid the 2020 compliance cliff under EPA's proposed schedule for 

implementation. Commenters said EPA intends to finalize the Proposed Rule in mid-2015, which 

means that the earliest state implementation plans would be approved by EPA is mid-2017; at 

most, this schedule leaves 2-and-a-half years for electric generating companies to achieve 

aggressive emission reductions and states to make sweeping changes to their existing regulations 

and electric generation, transmission, and distribution systems. Commenters said given the 

stringency of the interim standards, the proposed implementation schedule will force states to 

rely on coal unit closures to achieve compliance. 

Commenters stated allowing states to develop their own glide paths would also allow states to 

take into account the remaining useful life (RUL) of existing assets in compliance planning, 

which is a fundamental responsibility of the state. Commenters said recognition of RUL 

provides states with the flexibility to recognize in their plans generation assets with significant 

remaining value, thereby reducing the overall cost of state compliance plans to the state's electric 

consumers; it also supports a more rational path to resource transition, protecting grid reliability 

as planning takes place for replacement energy infrastructure. Commenters said in proposing 

interim goals that effectively obligate the early retirement of coal resources in some states, EPA 

does not address the remaining useful lives of these resources; Section 111(d)(1) states that EPA 

"shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source under a 

plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the 

remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies." 

Comment 11: The EPA should eliminate the interim compliance goal and allow states to design 

their own glide paths and/or goals.

Response 11: The response to this comment is the same as the response to Comment 6 in 

section 4.2.1. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the interim compliance goal and allow 

states to design their own plans and goals. 

Commenters stated that rather than impose inflexible interim emission rate goals on the states, 

EPA should allow states to design interim plans that demonstrate credible pathways to 
118 

compliance in 2030. Commenters said EPA can, and should, use objective criteria to evaluate 

state plans and assess whether each plan demonstrates how the state will reduce its emissions 

and/or emission rate to achieve its 2030 goals. Commenters suggested two criteria be used to 

evaluate state plans: (1) procedural criteria, designed to ensure that the plans are credible and 

enforceable; and (2) substantive criteria, designed to ensure that the plans consider factors 

important to controlling greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions from the power sector. Commenters 

stated the criteria should serve as the basis for an inquiry into whether a state plan adequately 

demonstrates that it will lead to compliance, although a state plan need not include all of these 

elements; indeed, it would be inappropriate to require inclusion of all of the elements since they 

are not applicable to every state. 

Commenters said eliminating the interim targets does not mean that no actions will be taken by 

each state to reduce carbon emissions before 2030. Commenters stated on the contrary, each state 

would have the flexibility to determine the most cost effective and reliable way to achieve the 

2030 emission goals while outlining the meaningful reductions expected in each individual state 

plan's glide path. Commenters said EPA should allow states to adopt an approach in their state 

plans, based on objective criteria that deliver the desired reductions in a manner consistent with 

consideration of the remaining useful life of existing generating resources, grid reliability and 

customer cost minimization. Commenters said states would be required to demonstrate 

reasonable and verifiable progress toward the 2030 goal and could not delay taking action to 

reduce emissions. Commenters said States would demonstrate progress towards the 2030 goal 

consistent with their projected emission reduction glide path through the annual reporting of 

emission performance to EPA, taking corrective measures if needed to achieve the 2030 

emission levels. Commenters stated ultimately, if states are unable to show reasonable progress 

toward the 2030 goal, EPA, as set forth in the CAA section 111(d), still would have the authority 

to call for a state to correct its plan or to prescribe a federal plan. 

Commenters added there is a significant burden imposed by the interim compliance 

requirements: Projection of emission performance for nine two-year periods; Calculating and 

reporting of performance annually for ten years; and Comparison of performance to the 

projection annually for ten years with explanations and corrective actions, if needed. 

Commenters recommended that the interim compliance period and goal be replaced with a nonenforceable glide path. Commenters said the glide path approach has been used successfully in 

EPA's Visibility Improvement (Regional Haze) program. Commenters added the state-developed 

glide path would establish emissions performance targets that would be non-enforceable prior to 

2030. Commenters added comparison of one-year emissions performance to the glide path would 

be conceptually more straightforward than comparison of performance to cumulative multiyear 

averages as currently proposed. Commenters stated states would have the responsibility to make 

adjustments as required to stay on track to meet the enforceable 2030 compliance target. 

Commenters added EPA should apply the structure it has adopted within the regional haze rule 

(40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)) for ensuring reasonable progress; under the regional haze program 

adopted by EPA, the state, not EPA, is responsible for establishing the reasonable progress goals 
119 

as a part of its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and is directed to establish goals that 

represent progress without backsliding. Commenters stated the regional haze program allows the 

state to assess the cost of compliance, and then determine the rate of progress needed; the goals 

established by the state are not federally enforceable, but are considered by the Administrator 

and then approved when the Administrator evaluates the adequacy of the state's plan. 

Commenters stated alternatively, or as a part of allowing states to set their reduction goals, an 

interim goal that reflects an average emissions rate from 2012 to the final goal would more 

appropriately take into account the timing of measures to be implemented to achieve final 

reduction goals. 

Commenters added major transmission upgrade projects could take nearly the entire compliance 

time period to complete; this further supports a rationale for allowing states to set their own 

interim targets as a part of their planning process, as states would be in a better position to assess

state and regional infrastructure improvement impacts on interim compliance 

progress. Commenters added this approach also fully recognizes state energy planning processes 

in Clean Power Plan implementation. 

Commenters added for situations where states may fail to set a reasonable interim goal (or any 

goal at all), EPA could rely on their proposed interim target approach as a "backstop" to ensure 

reasonable progress on a state-by-state basis. Commenters suggested, at a minimum, EPA 

modify the 2020-2029 averaged interim target and instead identify a single-year interim target 

(e.g., 2025) level of performance; a reasonably set single-year target would avoid the problem 

identified above of having to offset performance above the interim target value with 

proportionate performance below the target value. 

Commenters added an interim goal of 70 percent of the proposed 31.5 percent overall emission 

reductions by 2020 is unattainable. Commenters said instead, there should be a glide path with 

reasonable further progress reports describing advancement toward meeting the final goal; it is 

reasonable to expect the reports be required by 2020. Commenters proposed that the pace and 

path be left to the state to decide, so long as it attains the final goal set forth in the rule. 

Commenters stated the interim target and mathematical averaging process that EPA proposes are 

unworkable; EPA should consider a mid-course review process with the states, similar to the 

regional haze rule, in order to assess progress toward meeting a final target. Commenters said 

experience with the acid rain program, the regional haze program, and other multi-year emission 

reduction programs indicates that emissions tend to be reduced on a glide path consistent with 

the availability of engineering, financing, and labor resources; the sharp energy market 

dislocations that EPA projects for 2020 could be mitigated by eliminating the numerical interim 

target in favor of a mid-course review process. Commenters said if an interim target is 

maintained in the rule, states should be responsible for setting their own individual targets, to 

reflect state-specific plans for compliance. 
120 

Commenters stated allow states to determine their own emission reduction trajectories to achieve 

the 2030 goals; states are best positioned to manage the transition of the generating fleet to meet 

the final goals established by the 111(d) regulation; the final rule should eliminate the interim 

goals and instead require states to propose emission reduction trajectories to EPA in their state 

plans. Commenters said giving states the flexibility to appropriately consider the costs (including 

costs resulting from significant job and other losses in communities that are often highly reliant 

on local power plants as economic engines), non-air environmental impacts, planned retirements, 

and the implications of a massive shift to different generating resources for much of the 

electricity supply provides a forum for properly recognizing early action to retire coal plants. 

Commenters stated EPA should reassess the 2020 and other intermediate goal requirements and 

allow states to develop alternative phased-in compliance timeframes that will ensure the final 

goals are met. Commenters appreciated the compliance flexibility that USEPA has built into the 

proposed rule, but noted that some emission reduction measures may take considerable time to 

implement (e.g. heat-rate improvements, re-dispatch, and the financing and construction of 

renewable energy sources); in addition, commenters are concerned with potential unintended 

consequences due to the requirements of the interim goals; specifically, they may lead to an 

overreliance on natural gas to meet the goals, thus foregoing other alternatives such as renewable 

energy or energy efficiency, which may take more time to develop, but could result in lower 

CO2 emissions. 

Commenters stated eliminate the interim emission targets and allow states to design a SIP that 

meets the emission targets for 2030 and beyond; this provides states additional flexibility and 

meaningful time to design an SIP that could contain all four of the Building Block principles. 

Commenters added States, not EPA, are in the best position to determine what is possible for a 

specific timeframe by working with the facilities under their jurisdictions; States can more easily 

take into account, for example, planned retirements and new builds, and can determine the 

timing of other actions that will be required in their state plans. Commenters said because of 

structural and legal considerations, some states will take longer for similar actions than other 

states; allowing states to determine their own glide paths will relieve EPA of a burden best left to 

states; it will be up to states, then, to justify the proposed milestones and their associated timing.

Commenters said approval of this type of plan could include consideration of planned activities 

outside of the Building Blocks used for goal setting. Commenters added averaging the emissions 

rates for the interim compliance period creates a very steep glide path between now and 2020 for 

most states. Commenters said alternatives offered in the NODA to accomplish smoothed glide 

paths are mainly premised on Building Blocks 1 and 2 without addressing the significant 

reductions required for Building Blocks 3 and 4; further, the options offered in the NODA may 

not accomplish the smoothing that has been requested. 

Commenters stated EPA could eliminate the interim goals completely, and simply require states 

to file and develop plans to achieve the 2030 goals with an emission reduction trajectory of the 

state's choosing. 
121 

Commenters stated EPA could revise its interim goals to provide a reasonable emission 

reduction trajectory, while granting states considerable deference to craft a different emission 

reduction trajectory. Commenters said EPA could authorize states to apply the elements of the 

BSER in establishing their own emission reduction trajectories, or it could allow states to make 

non-BSER based adjustments on the basis of reliability, cost, effectiveness and other 

considerations. 

Commenters stated the interim goal should be replaced with a milestone approach; commenters 

suggested the replacement of the interim goal with a milestone approach that is negotiated by the 

states and the USEPA during the planning process would allow for more measured and effective 

implementation, providing states with the ability to meet their electricity needs while continuing 

to ensure the safety and reliability of the grid, and compliance with overarching federal laws 

such as the ESA. Commenters said many of the measures identified under each of the building 

blocks are discrete events that will result in large reductions on timeframes that do not fit 

smoothly along a glide path; for example, as a coal-fired EGU is retired, significant emissions 

reductions will result, with the compliance pathway resembling a level plain with steep drop-offs 

rather than a gradually descending glide path. Commenters said state plans should include 

compliance milestone targets, rather than a glide path, that are aligned with integrated resource 

planning approvals, instead of an unachievable interim goal. 

Commenters added EPA's proposed schedule for implementing the rule leaves states with little 

or no flexibility to determine a different compliance path and avoid the compliance cliff; EPA 

intends to finalize the Proposed Rule in 2015, which means that the earliest state implementation 

plans could be approved by EPA is 2017 or 2018. Commenters said at most, this schedule leaves 

3 years for electric generating companies to achieve aggressive emission reductions and states to 

make sweeping changes to their existing electric generating, transmission, and distribution 

systems; given the stringency of the interim goals, the proposed implementation schedule will 

force states to adhere to EPA's prescribed redispatch and coal-unit closures to achieve 

compliance with the goals. Commenters said EPA should forego the interim goals and work with 

states to develop a glide path toward a legally defensible BSER taking cost and remaining useful 

life into consideration as required by the CAA. 

Commenters added there are two options for providing true flexibility when creating the State 

Plans. Commenters said the best option is the elimination of the interim goal; the State Plan 

already requires biennial reporting, which will provide the EPA with an updated measure of how 

the states are progressing. Commenters said there is no legitimate reason to force a state into 

having a pre-requirement when it already has a final goal to meet. Commenters said in order to 

meet the goal, states will need to reduce emissions over time; allowing states to determine the 

best path to do that will be in the best interest of the states and the ratepayers who ultimately may 

have to fund these changes. Commenters said the second option is to establish a glide-path 

towards the goal that will allow states to more effectively reach the target than if they had to 
122 

abruptly comply with a majority of the goal 10 years prior to the final goal; this would also allow 

states to take into consideration the remaining useful lives and book lives of coal plants that 

would reach the end of their book lives during the 2020-2030 time period. Commenters said the 

best option is to eliminate the interim goal, allowing a glide-path towards the end goal with 

biennial check-ins as required by the State Plan. 

Commenters stated EPA should not include the proposed interim goal in the final rule and should 

let States establish the 2030 glide path to allow adequate time to reliably achieve compliance. 

Commenters said this will provide states and affected electric utilities with the flexibility EPA 

wants to allow and provide a more reasonable timeline to achieve EPA's CO2 reduction goals 

and to develop plans that can be tailored to individual states and regional conditions. 

Commenters stated much like the Proposed Rule affords states flexibility to establish their own 

glideslope in their respective plans to demonstrate progress towards achieving the emission 

goals, EPA should allow the states to establish their own enforceable interim goals that will best 

position them for achieving their respective final emission performance goals. 

Commenters emphasized that these state-established interim goals would be enforceable, which 

means that the affected entities in a states would be required to adhere to the interim emission 

performance goals (i.e., through emission standards applying to such affected entities) to the 

same extent that they would have to adhere to federally-imposed interim goals. Commenters 

added EPA should require states to justify the projections underlying their interim goals, such 

that the goals set the states on a reasonable path to attaining the final goals. Commenters said if a 

state proposed an unrealistically high interim goal, with no clear path towards achieving the final 

goal, then EPA should find the state plan's interim goals to be deficient and require plan 

revisions. Commenters believed that incorporating flexibility would be more consistent with the 

value of cooperative federalism that undergirds the Proposed Rule generally. Commenters said 

under this approach, the interim goals established by a state would become enforceable elements 

of its plan and would be no less binding than the interim goals EPA would impose in the 

Proposed Rule, but would not dictate how and when states plot out their trajectory towards 

achieving their final goals. 

Commenters questioned the actual benefits that will be achieved by interim carbon intensity 

goals; however, at the very least, the states should be allowed to establish these goals. 

Commenters said allowing the states to set the interim goals is more consistent with the legal 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and because the states have a greater understanding of the 

specific state issues, they are better suited to establish interim goals to place each state on a 

successful path to achieve the final goal. 

Commenters stated remove the interim target goal deadlines and let states set the glide path to 

the final compliance date of 2030. 

Commenters stated EPA should allow states to determine their own glide paths, using 

milestones, for reaching the final goal, rather than setting out interim goals based on national 
123 

average assumptions. Commenters said states, not EPA, are in the best position to determine 

what is possible for a specific timeframe by working with the facilities under their jurisdictions; 

states can more easily take into account, for example, planned retirements and new builds, and 

can determine the timing of other actions that will be required in their state plans. Commenters 

said because of structural and legal considerations, some states will take longer for similar 

actions than other states. Commenters said allowing states to determine their own glide paths 

will relieve EPA of a burden best left to states; it will be up to states, then, to justify the proposed 

milestones and their associated timing. Commenters said approval of this type of plan could 

include consideration of planned activities outside of the Building Blocks used for goal setting. 

Commenters said averaging the emissions rates for the interim compliance period creates a very 

steep glide path between now and 2020 for most states. Commenters said alternatives offered in 

the NODA to accomplish smoothed glide paths are mainly premised on Building Blocks 1 and 2 

without addressing the significant reductions required for Building Blocks 3 and 4; further, the 

options offered in the NODA may not accomplish the smoothing that has been requested. 

Commenters stated many states have already undertaken actions that EPA anticipates, including 

plant upgrades, the building and increased use of natural gas-fired and renewable generation, 

transmission line construction, demand-side efficiency measures and other actions included 

within EPA's four building blocks. Commenters said because such actions come at significant 

cost to ratepayers, states will need to evaluate the potential economic and other impacts 

associated with additional near-term and often large-scale investments in their energy systems to 

determine how much additional cost ratepayers can absorb and how quickly. Commenters said 

only state economic regulators will have the information sufficient to determine the appropriate 

manner and timing of the further investments necessary to achieve EPA's 2030 carbon intensity 

target. Commenters said these difficult decisions are best made by the state within the broader 

context of assuring that a state's electricity supply remains affordable. Commenters said states 

are also best positioned, in conjunction with regional transmission entities, to determine resource 

adequacy implications of implementation timing; for example, states and regions are best able to 

assess: 

- existing natural gas transportation infrastructure (including, among other components, interstate 

and distribution pipeline, booster compressors, and storage capacity in a variety of geologic 

formations underground) as well as natural gas supply and market conditions to determine 

whether they would be adequate to support the 70% state-average capacity factor for existing 

NGCC capacity targeted by EPA; 

- existing electric transmission infrastructure to determine whether it would be adequate to 

support the apparently broad regional or inter-regional dispatched based substitution of NGCC 

generation and increased renewable generation contemplated by the CPP; 

- potential limitations on a state's ability to influence economic dispatch of generation to 

implement the CPP; 
124 

- the remaining useful life of existing coal-fired (and other) generation resources, particularly 

where affected sources have made significant investments in such resources to comply with other 

environmental regulations (e.g., MATS, CSAPR); 

- any legislation that may be required to implement the CPP; 

- the effect of anticipated load growth; 

- particular energy and environmental impacts; and 

- state-specific economic impacts of the interim path and timing. 

Commenters said therefore, consistent with the Congressional division of responsibility in 

sections 110 and 111, EPA should allow states to set the appropriate pace for implementation 

prior to the final 2030 performance targets; recommends that EPA allow each state to determine 

both the interim path and the interim timetable to meeting its 2030 performance goal. 

Commenters stated states should be able to choose a reasonable emission reduction glide path 

that achieves the 2030 goal; requiring that states demonstrate compliance with the 2030 goal 

through implementation of the EPA-approved plan, without reference to the proposed interim 

2020-2029 average goal, would give states flexibility to design workable compliance plans 

which establish reasonable compliance glide paths consistent with ensuring reliability and 

protecting consumer interests. Commenters said this would allow states to ensure that there is 

additional time to complete needed infrastructure development (including electric and/or gas 

transmission) in order to provide reliable power, and would obviate concerns regarding the 

system impacts of abrupt shifts in dispatch between existing coal- and gas-based units; these 

infrastructure developments continue to take more and more time as public opposition must be 

resolved prior to construction. Commenters said it would eliminate conflicts between the timing 

of the interim period and legislative calendars, market rules and utility investment schedules; it 

also would recognize and value reductions achieved since 2012, encouraging early action where 

possible. 

Commenters stated eliminating the interim compliance average goal does not require a 

fundamental altering of the proposed guidelines; instead, the proposed guidelines already are 

designed to allow states to develop their own compliance plans, and a description of the 

reduction trajectory to 2030 is a required element of state plans. Commenters said EPA can and 

should use the proposed approach to state plans to ensure that state plans and emission reduction 

glide paths are designed to meet - and do actually achieve - the 2030 goals. 

Commenters stated EPA should revise the proposed Rule to allow states to set the standard of 

performance individually for each unit in its jurisdiction and to abandon the interim goals 

altogether. The commenters said if EPA chooses to keep an interim goal, EPA must permit states 

to define a phase-in schedule for building block 2 based on infrastructure limitations; this is 

absolutely necessary to give states a fighting chance at trying to comply with the final rule. 
125 

Commenters stated EPA has proposed interim emissions goals that are so stringent that many 

states will be required to achieve most of their CO2 emissions reductions by 2020. Commenters 

said EPA's proposed timetable for the approval of state plans leaves states at most with two-anda-half years to implement required CO2 reduction measures; a task that will be extremely 

difficult or impossible to achieve without severe economic disruption. Commenters said EPA 

should give states discretion to develop individualized plans for the 2020-2029 time period that 

that is tailored to the respective state, and leads to achievement of the EPA 2030 goal on more 

manageable terms. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule includes a large amount of information and large number 

guidelines, many of which continue to lack clarity, which will potentially have a dramatic effect 

on each state and consumers. Commenters said it is important that a rule with this potential effect 

follow a timeline sufficient to develop clarity and a reasonably functional process for 

implementation. Commenters said as there is no statutory requirement that reductions be 

achieved on a particular schedule and to address concerns about the pace and timing of 

reductions, EPA could relax the schedule and still achieve the proposed reductions on a timely 

basis. Commenters said to provide the necessary relief, EPA should finalize the proposed 2030 

goals and allow increased flexibility for states to select the interim compliance goals and glide 

path timeline for meeting the 2030 goal. Commenters said should EPA deem it necessary to have 

a specific interim target, EPA should allow individual states to select the interim goal as long as 

they demonstrate compliance and meet either the final 2025 or 2030 emission rate goals at their 

discretion. Commenters said in providing this flexibility with the timeline, the EPA should allow 

states to use state-specific information regarding energy efficiency and estimated energy savings. 

Commenters said the EPA should allow states to include non-binding milestones as a means of 

measuring and ensuring progress toward the final goal, in lieu of interim compliance periods that 

serve as binding annual requirements. 

Commenters stated the ultimate objective of EPA's proposed CPP is for states to obtain their 

specified emissions intensity in 2030; however, EPA has established interim goals between 2020 

and 2029 that must be met (or federal action may be taken), even though the 2030 goal may not 

be in jeopardy. Commenters said complicating this matter is the fact that EPA set interim goals 

that are front-loaded, and state plan approval timelines leave insufficient time for action; 

furthermore, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data also shows that emissions 

can vary by more than 10% year to year for reasons outside the control of Electric Generating 

Units (EGUs). Commenters said the interim goal progress, established by each state or multistate compact, should not be over-ruled by EPA for a mere 10% deviation; such enforcement 

discretion should solely be with state regulators who are more familiar with state specific 

circumstances and planning. Commenters said federal enforcement, if any, should be reserved 

for gross deviations of any EPA approved plan or a state's seeming unwillingness to participate 
126 

in the process. Thus, commenters requested that EPA eliminate the interim federal goals and 

enforcement mechanisms, and allow states or multi-state compacts to develop their own 

emissions reduction trajectory within their individual plans; the request maintains the concept of 

the 2030 long-term federal goals, while supporting state specific planning scenarios and 

infrastructure development. 

Commenters stated in setting interim goals, the EPA assumes that heat rate improvement projects 

can be implemented by 2020; it is unlikely that heat rate improvement projects could be 

completed by 2020, given that a state-only plan may not be approved until 2018 and a multi-state 

regional plan may not be approved until 2019. Commenters said longer time periods for 

compliance provide for more flexibility in project management and cost control. Commenters 

said the projects that offer the greatest heat rate improvement potential are long lead time 

projects; if many parties across the country are attempting to accomplish similar projects during 

the same time period, there may be cost increases or scheduling concerns due to supply chain 

bottlenecks in obtaining equipment. Commenters recommended to eliminate the interim goal 

(2020-2029) and allow states to establish a state-specific glide path to the 2030 final goal. 

Commenters said if the interim goals remain, the EPA should allow states to determine a 

reasonable schedule for implementing heat rate improvement projects on a case-by-case basis. 

Commenters said at a minimum, as suggested in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA), the 

EPA should phase-in the Block 1 heat rate improvements for coal-fired power plants in the Best 

System of Emissions Reduction (BSER) goal computation calculation. 

Commenters stated in setting interim goals, the EPA assumes that 70 percent NGCC redispatch 

can be accomplished by 2020; this is not realistic if air, water or other permit amendments, or 

upgrades to natural gas pipelines and electric transmission facilities, are required to 

accommodate increased NGCC operation and changes to the operation of the electrical grid. 

Commenters said in some cases, NGCC dispatch of 70 percent may not be achievable due to 

physical site limitations or equipment design constraints. Commenters recommended to 

eliminate the interim goal (2020-2029) and allow states to establish a state-specific glide path to 

the 2030 final goal. Commenters said alternatively, EPA should allow states to determine a 

reasonable schedule and feasible level for implementing NGCC redispatch in their states based 

on the extent to which permit modifications and additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., 

natural gas pipeline expansion or transmission improvements) are needed to support increased 

use of existing NGCCs. Commenters said if the interim goals remain, then the commenters 

supported the suggestion in the NODA of phasing Building Block 2 in gradually over time by 

assuming a ramp up period. 

Commenters stated EPA should eliminate the proposed interim goals and allow states to 

determine an appropriate path to achieving compliance with the final emission rate goals in 

2030. Commenters said this would allow energy companies more time to bring on new 

generating resources, work to seek solutions to transmission and fuel supply issues created by 

operational changes, and/or implement conservation measures, and states to ensure there are 

adequate resources to meet state demand. 
127 

Commenters stated one necessary modification to the proposed rule is that it should delegate to 

states the complete authority to establish interim goals during the 2020-2029 glide path up to the 

EPA's final goal imposed in 2030. Commenters said this necessary change (addressed in the 

NODA) will address a major shortcoming of the rule as proposed, i.e. it will allow for the 

consideration of remaining useful lives as mandated by CAA Section 111(d)(1)(B). Commenters 

said it also allows the states to address many of the timing issues created by the rigid 2020 

interim goal that requires 80% of reductions be achieved in such a short time frame. Commenters 

said this will give the states the opportunity to consider the necessary time frame needed to plan, 

permit and build needed infrastructure required by blocks 2 and 3 as they establish milestones for 

utilities to meet during the glide path. Commenters said it also provides time to develop EE 

credit tracking mechanisms; most importantly, it allows states to work with the industry and 

other stakeholders to develop their plan to meet the 2030 final goal in a manner that reflects the 

nature of their existing fleet, their renewable potential, and allows for the most cost-effective 

approach to prevent economic chaos during the interim period. 

Commenters added many states face a dramatic drop from their 2012 emission rate to their 

interim goal; in South Dakota's case, this drop is from 1,135 pounds per megawatt-hour in 2012 

to an interim goal of 800 pounds per megawatt-hour or 85 percent of the overall reduction South 

Dakota is expected to achieve by 2030. Commenters said this occurs because for South Dakota, 

EPA's first three building blocks are assumed achievable immediately, or are fully ramped up, by 

2020. Commenters said states' 111(d) plans will be approved by EPA in 2017 to 2019; such a 

short transition from an approved plan to the first binding goal year is entirely inconsistent with 

utility investment planning. Commenters said in effect, states like South Dakota must achieve an 

emissions rate close to their 2030 target by 2020, and because doing so via the building block 

measures is not likely to be feasible in South Dakota, the only option to achieve the 2020 goal is 

likely to be premature retirement of the state's only coal-fired power plant. Commenters said this 

will lead to high costs, stranded assets, and reliability issues. Commenters said instead, EPA 

should: 1. Defer to states to set their own "glide path" to the 2030 goal; States can use existing 

resource planning processes to identify the most practical and cost-effective ways to reach the 

2030 goal; and 2. If state plans show a credible trajectory to the 2030 goal with reporting 

milestones and verifiable measures, EPA should not set binding interim goals. 

Commenters stated EPA's 2020-2029 interim goal and emissions rate glide path eliminates state 

flexibility and is economically burdensome to Utah and other states. Commenters said EPA has 

proposed an interim emissions goal for the state that is front-loaded and will require Utah to 

achieve over 75 percent of its CO2 emission rate reductions between the time the state's plan is 

approved by EPA and the first compliance year, 2020; the effect is to create a 2020 "compliance 

cliff" that will be extremely difficult to achieve. Commenters said the front-loading of emissions 

rate reductions means states will only have two or three years to implement the required CO2 

emissions reduction measures. Commenters said the implementation of EPA's compliance tools, 

including heat-rate improvements and redispatch, are costly, unrealistic and require more time to 

implement than is allowed under the proposed rule. Commenters said the proposed rule does not 

adequately address the time or cost of infrastructure needed to facilitate new power generation, 
128 

including natural gas and renewable power generation. Commenters said the EPA has also not 

addressed the particular challenges of developing new infrastructure in the West. Commenters 

said compared to other parts of the country, utilities in the West have large service territories 

with unique geographical challenges; federal lands cover vast portions of Utah and other 

Western states, triggering additional planning and permitting requirements under National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Commenters said the EPA has not presented any plan for 

addressing these issues. Commenters said EPA should give Utah discretion to develop a plan and 

emissions rate glide path for the 2020-2029 period that is tailored to the state's circumstances yet 

leads to achievement of the EPA 2030 goal. 

Commenters stated EPA has proposed interim emissions goals that are so stringent that many 

states will be required to achieve most of their CO2 emissions reductions by 2020. Commenters 

said EPA's proposed timetable for the approval of state plans leaves states at most with two-anda-half years to implement required CO2 reduction measures; a task that will be extremely 

difficult or impossible to achieve without severe economic disruption. Commenters said EPA 

should recognize Montana's discretion to develop individualized plans for the 2020-2029 time 

period that are tailored to Montana circumstances for achievement of any emission reduction 

goals. 

Commenters stated the EPA should allow states to establish interim compliance targets and a 

glide-path as a part of the state's State Plan filed for approval with EPA; no interim goal should 

be established by EPA. Commenters said EPA has repeatedly stated that its goal is to give states 

flexibility; the goals set for Arizona do not provide that flexibility; in fact, they provide Arizona 

with no flexibility as 90 percent of the goal must be achieved by 2020 in order for Arizona to 

meet the proposed interim goal. Commenters said removing the interim goal could restore some 

flexibility for Arizona. 

Commenters stated the current Interim Goal deprives Arizona of any flexibility in how it 

implements the proposed rule; Arizona has one choice only: the way that EPA has set forth the 

goal calculations; any change in the proposed balance between Building Blocks (BB) 1, 2, 3 or 4 

results in Arizona being unable to achieve the Interim Goal, or else results in Arizona greatly 

overshooting the Final Goal. Commenters said this effectively prevents from exercising any 

flexibility in shaping a compliance plan for the state and greatly increases the costs and 

reliability risks of the proposed rule. Commenters asserted that the appropriate solution is for 

EPA to direct states to prepare and submit a proposed Interim Goal, together with appropriate 

increments of progress, as part of the State Plan; an Interim Goal that reflects appropriate 

implementation time frames for BB1, BB2 and EPA's proposed approach to BBs 3 and 4, should 

be presumptively approvable. In addition, commenters recommended that EPA consider granting 

the states the ability to vary from the presumptively approvable goal if the state can identify 

specific transmission or infrastructure obstacles to achieving the presumptive Interim Goal in a 

timely fashion; upon State Plan submittal, EPA would review the State Plan, including the 
129 

proposed Interim Goal and increments of progress, and would approve the Interim Goal as part 

of Plan approval. Commenters asserted that this approach provides improved flexibility and 

recognizes, as does Section 111, that there may be state-specific issues that require final 

adjustment. Commenters asserted that if the changes outlined in this proposal are met, the goals 

established will be more consistent with the Clean Air Act than those established under the 

current proposed rule. 

Commenters stated the most appropriate solution to address the constraints imposed by the 

interim goal currently proposed for Arizona is for EPA, as contemplated and directed by 

Congress, to give Arizona the latitude to define and track its own progress towards the state final 

emissions rate goal. Commenters said rather than mandating an enforceable interim goal, EPA 

should give Arizona (and other states) discretion to develop an individualized plan that 

establishes programs and measures that set the state on an achievable compliance path to meet 

the established goals; in particular, EPA should allow each state to make its own determination 

as to which measures can be implemented on a time table that is manageable for the state but 

leads to achievement of the 2030 goals. Commenters said a state-based approach to interim 

progress aligns with EPA's acknowledgment that each state has a unique mix of energy 

resources; this action would provide states with the true flexibility contemplated by 111(d) and 

the ability to develop plans that more fully recognize an achievable path to 2030. 

Commenters urged EPA to eliminate the proposed interim goals and allow states to exercise the 

authority granted to them by Section 111(d) to set a graduated path for achieving compliance 

with the final 2030 emission rate goals. Commenters said the proposed interim goals are 

unnecessary to ensure that states take measurable steps to achieve reductions throughout the 

2020 to 2029 compliance period. Commenters said states have a strong economic incentive to 

gradually implement emission rate reductions and avoid abrupt changes in their electric 

generating, transmissions, and distribution systems, which would jeopardize grid reliability. 

Commenters said allowing states to phase in reductions gradually, rather than making sweeping 

and disruptive changes to the existing electric generating system, would provide Oklahoma with 

reasonable accommodations to complete necessary infrastructure improvements, including the 

construction of new generation resources, transmission lines and natural gas pipelines, as well as 

accommodate unit retirements or repowering and the installation of controls associated with 

Regional Haze requirements and MATS compliance. 

Commenters stated EPA's CPP proposes four 'Building Blocks' as a 'system of emission 

reduction' under its 'Option 1' approach; however, only the first Building Block can be applied to 

individual EGU sources subject to regulation under the 111(d) proposal; the other three Building 

Blocks are out of the control of any particular regulated source and are predicated on actions by 

others. Commenters said the Building Blocks used to develop the individual state goals are 

inappropriate and are, for Florida at least, based on inaccurate data. Commenters were concerned 

that because none of the Building Blocks is fully achievable in Florida, there is no margin to 
130 

make-up under one Building Block the amount to which Florida would fall short on another. 

Commenters said to determine the interim goal for each state, EPA assumed that all emission 

rate reductions from Building Blocks 1 and 2 could be achieved at the start of the ten-year 

interim goal compliance period; under BB 1, EPA assumed that each state's fleet of coal-fired 

generating units could achieve a six percent heat rate improvement and that the improvement 

would directly translate to a six percent reduction in net CO2 emission rate. Commenters said 

under BB 2, EPA assumed that states would be able to utilize existing and under-construction 

NGCC up to seventy percent of their capacity; neither of these is achievable, prudent or 

economically logical. Commenters said in contrast to its treatment of BBs 1 and 2, EPA assumed 

that emission rate reductions from BBs 3 and 4 would ramp up gradually throughout the ten-year 

interim compliance period. Commenters said as a result of EPA's assumptions regarding the 

implementation of BBs 1 and 2, the interim goals for many states are so stringent almost all of 

the required emission rate reductions required by the Proposed Rule must be achieved in the first 

year of the ten-year interim goal compliance period. Commenters said for Florida, EPA assumes 

76% of the total reduction required in 2030 would be achieved by 2020; if the structure of CPP 

withstands legal challenges and progresses under a building block regime, each state should be 

allowed to develop its own numeric goals based on what it determines is reasonable and 

achievable. 

Commenters stated as currently proposed, the 2030 final goal established by EPA will be 

challenging for states to meet; each state faces its own unique challenges with respect to 

generation mix, transmission infrastructure needs, natural gas supply constraints, market 

demands and limitations, and legal and political roadblocks, all of which hinder development and 

implementation of a state plan and achievement of the final goal. Commenters said EPA 

proposes an aggressive interim goal, which for Kansas is a rate-based standard of 1578 lbs 

CO2/MWh averaged over the years 2020- 2029. Commenters said compliance with the interim 

goal is almost as stringent as compliance with the final 2030 goal, which for Kansas is nominally 

1499 lbs CO2/MWh. Commenters said according to EPA's projections, Kansas would need to 

achieve over half of the required emissions reductions by 2020, a mere two to three years after 

approval of a state plan, and almost 90 percent of the required reductions by 2025. 

Commenters recommended that EPA eliminate the aggressive interim goals and allow each state 

to determine its own interim reductions and glide path toward achieving the 2030 goal and 

maintaining that final goal thereafter. 

Commenters stated the interim goal proposed by EPA is far too aggressive; Kansas is required to 

achieve 82 percent of its required reductions by 2020 in order for the state's utilities to meet the 

interim goal of 1,578 lbs CO2/MWh; the final goal for Kansas is 1,499 lbs CO2/MWh by 2030. 

Commenters said Kansas would have only a few years after approval of a state plan to achieve 

the vast majority of required emission reductions; ninety percent of the reductions would have to 

occur by 2025. Commenters said EPA should eliminate the aggressive interim goals and allow 

each state to determine its own interim reductions and "glide path" toward achieving the final 

2030 goal. 
131 

Commenters stated Washington State has some of the lowest carbon emissions in the country 

and the only coal plant, the Centralia Coal Plant located in Centralia, Washington, shuts down 

partially in 2020 and fully in 2025, but Washington cannot meet the 2020 goal. Commenters said 

EPA's interim goal for Washington State is too strict and would require too large of a reduction 

too quickly because application of EPA's building blocks would require the entire 1,460 MW 

Centralia Coal Plant to retire before 2020. Commenters said with a final rule and state 

implementation plan due out in 2016 or 2017 there is not enough time to comply with a stringent 

2020 requirement. Commenters said effectively the interim goal requires the State to make an 

81% carbon reduction of its total 2030 goal by 2020; this steep cliff caused by the interim goal 

does not take into account regional reliability issues or costs to consumers. Commenters said the 

only way Washington can comply is to completely shut down its only coal plant (the 1,460 MW 

Centralia Coal Plant) by 2020, earlier than planned. Commenters said the Northwest region that 

Centralia services is already expected to be 1,700 MW short of firm capacity by 2021 after 

Centralia's Unit 1 is retired; the interim goals would make the region short by an approximately 

730 more megawatts of capacity. Commenters said it is not realistic to expect that much new 

electric and fuel supply infrastructure can be constructed to meet this capacity shortfall in such a 

short timeframe. Commenters stated Washington State will not meet its interim and final goal 

until after 2026 when all Centralia units are shut down. Commenters said EPA has determined 

the 2030 target; therefore, commenters recommended that states should have broad discretion to 

set an interim goal to ensure the 2030 target is met and to also address regional reliability and 

cost issues. Commenters said EPA should allow each state to adopt their own unique emission 

glide path (rate or mass) that demonstrates ultimate compliance with the 2030 date, but takes into 

account reliability and cost, allowing for alternative interim targets and dates; this would provide 

states the flexibility to adopt binding interim reduction goals on a glide path that makes sense 

based on each state's unique balance of reliability and cost. 

Commenters said the time needed to plan and deploy the infrastructure necessary to support CPP 

compliance warrants the elimination of the interim target period it stipulated for 2020 through 

2029. Commenters said instead the EPA should defer to the states to establish measures needed 

to achieve the EPA's CPP 2030 target. Commenters said the EPA's current glide path is "front 

loaded" by requiring most states to provide the Blocks 1, 2 and 3 compliance by 2020 and 

enabling gradual deployment of efficiency measures through 2030. Commenters said this 

approach fails to recognize the time necessary to build out utility infrastructure necessary to 

achieve compliance with the CPP and ignores the ongoing integrated resource planning 

underway in Minnesota that has provided for early deployment and ongoing measures for 

Minnesota electric utility greenhouse gas emission reductions. 

Comment 12: Glide Path 

Response 12: In response to commenters’ concerns and EPA’s evaluation of building block 

potential in the final CPP, the interim period begins in 2022 and ends in 2029 (as opposed to 

starting at the proposed 2020 year). The EPA has provided illustrative emission values for the 

interim period steps of 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029 to show a gradual reduction 

strategy states may choose to attain the interim goal over the 2022-2029 period. The use of these 
132 

3 year, 3 year, 2 year rates over the interim period is discussed in Section VIII. Also, see 

sections I.A., V.A, and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed Section 111(d) rule requires states to comply with aggressive 

near-term emissions rate targets and to demonstrate compliance with those targets over the tenyear averaging period (2020-29) prior to the final compliance date of 2030. Commenters said the 

difficulty with this approach stems from the fact that EPA has set an interim goal that requires 

Utah to achieve a majority of the required emission reductions, 75 percent, by the year 2020. 

Commenters said this goal scenario looked at whether the design of a less stringent (flatter) goal 

trajectory could enable a longer transition period to meeting the interim goals while still 

providing a credible pathway to comply with the 2030 EPA emissions target for the state of 

1,322 lbs/MWH. Commenters said under the current compliance trajectory Utah would exceed 

the interim rate starting in 2020. Commenters said a less stringent Glide Path, created by 

assuming a straight-line trajectory between 2020-2030 would move the 2020 emissions rate 

target of 1,487 lbs/MWH out in time to 2023 and enable the state to be in compliance with the 

Section 111(d) interim standard through 2023, and provide an extended period for the state and 

affected utilities to implement measures while still being on a path to achieve Utah's 1,322 

lbs/MWH emissions rate target. 

Commenters urged EPA to provide states with additional flexibility to design a glide path to the 

2030 goal that delivers meaningful reductions on a timeline and in a manner that facilitates a 

least cost approach to the transition to a lower-carbon generation fleet and retains existing 

commitments to coal retirements. Commenters said such an approach can help mitigate concerns 

regarding an over-build of natural gas power plants as a response to complying with the 

regulation, but should not alter any state's obligation to make consistent progress toward, and to 

achieve, its 2030 emissions reduction goal. 

Several commenters said the EPA should eliminate enforceable interim goals from its proposal 

and preserve the discretion of the states to determine the most appropriate state-specific 

compliance approach and timeline. Commenters said providing the states with the flexibility to 

propose a more tailored glide path by taking into account the statutory factors such as remaining 

unit life, energy requirements, and cost, will substantially reduce overall compliance costs. 

Commenters said if states are provided greater control and flexibility, unit closures and other 

significant compliance measures, including potential replacement power, can be incorporated 

into a longer planning horizon that minimizes stranded costs and economic dislocation. 

Commenters said existing state or regional programs and requirements (e.g., integrated resource 

planning, energy efficiency programs) can provide objective criteria through which the EPA can 

monitor ongoing improvements and ensure that compliance with final emissions targets will be 

achieved. 
133 

Comment 13: The EPA should eliminate the interim goals and allow a phase in approach for BB 

1 & 2; rate of progress.

Response 13: See sections I.A. and V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. Per commenters suggestion, the EPA has introduced greater 

flexibility in the deployment of building block two. Additionally, the final CPP includes an 

interim period that starts in 2022. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should eliminate state interim goals or, if not, phase in building blocks 

1 and 2 over the entire compliance period. Commenters said as proposed, EPA assumes states 

can completely achieve building blocks 1 and 2 by the year 2020, which makes the interim goal 

for the early part of the compliance period (starting in 2020) unreasonably strict. Commenters 

said under the proposal, Wisconsin would need to achieve 40-50% of the state's total emissions 

reductions by 2020 - just a few years after state plans are due. Commenters said it is unrealistic 

to assume states and utilities can make these changes this quickly, and attempting to do so could 

negatively affect the reliability and cost of the electric system. Commenters said the 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the ISO that handles dispatch and 

reliability for the region, has also expressed concern that the interim goals as proposed would 

create resource inadequacy and reliability problems for the region. Commenters said while it is 

true that states have ten years to meet the interim goal, the likely impossibility of meeting it in 

the early years will require states to enact unreasonably strict limits in the latter years; in 

addition, assuming full compliance with blocks 1 and 2 by 2020 in calculating the goal entirely 

ignores the practical matter that plan development will require substantial time following EPA's 

final rulemaking; further, utilities will need ample time to seek construction permits from 

WDNR, authorizations by the PSCW, perform construction and demonstrate compliance with 

blocks 1 and 2. Commenters said EPA should eliminate the numerical interim goals and instead 

require states to demonstrate that they are making reasonable progress towards their final goals 

between 2020 and 2030; this approach would be similar to the state demonstrations of rate of 

progress (ROP) already required under other parts of the Clean Air Act and would rely on state 

determination of intermediate goals as part of their state plan. Commenters said alternatively, if 

EPA chooses to retain the interim goals, they should allow states to phase in building blocks 1 

and 2 over the 10-year compliance period; this would be consistent with the construction of 

building blocks 3 and 4, which are phased in over the compliance period, and would create a 

more realistic and achievable glide path for states to follow to reach their final goals. 

Commenters stated a reasonable phase-in period for reduced emission intensity at coal-fired 

EGUs and redispatch is needed. 

Commenters stated in establishing the proposed interim goals, the EPA's assumptions about the 

time needed to implement emission intensity reductions and redispatch (Building Blocks One 

and Two) are overly aggressive and may not be achievable in light of cost, transmission 

constraints, and reliability concerns. Commenters said the EPA proposes to calculate states' 
134 

interim emission goals based on the assumption that both Building Blocks One and Two can be 

fully implemented by the 2020 start date for the interim compliance period; thus, the EPA has 

effectively "front-loaded" the emission reductions that states are expected to achieve from these 

measures. 

Commenters stated the EPA's assumption that all emission reductions from Building Blocks One 

and Two could be implemented by 2020 does not account for a number of important constraints; 

for example, implementation of the equipment upgrades included in Block One could require an 

EGU to obtain or modify its state or federal permits, and could trigger NSR review in certain 

cases; moreover, the implementation of significant levels of redispatch from coal to natural gas 

facilities could require the construction of additional transmission and pipeline infrastructure that 

could take years to permit, finance, and construct; until such infrastructure is built, significant 

redispatch from coal to NGCC units could lead to weather-or transmission-related reliability 

concerns. 

Commenters stated because the proposed interim compliance target is computed as the average 

of the emission rates of each year in the 10-year interim compliance period, states that do not 

fully implement Building Blocks One and Two by 2020 will find it difficult if not impossible to 

meet their 10-year average emission target. Commenters said these states may find it necessary 

to impose more aggressive RE and EE targets on their EGUs or other entities or other measures 

outside of the BSER in order to make up for the shortfall in emission reductions from Building 

Blocks One and Two; consequently, for certain states-including those in which SCPPA owns 

generation assets-the EPA's decision to "front-load" emission reductions from Building Blocks 

One and Two could lead to RE and EE requirements that are far more stringent and costly than 

the EPA assumes, along with potential reliability, pipeline, and transmission constraints. 

Commenters stated in calculating other components of state goals, the EPA has explicitly 

assumed reasonable phase-in periods, in recognition of the fact that states cannot immediately 

construct the infrastructure or implement the programs necessary to achieve the EPA's RE and 

EE projections for 2030. Commenters said the EPA should likewise build in reasonable phase-in 

periods for Building Blocks One and Two that account for the significant regulatory, reliability, 

and capacity issues that will need to be addressed before states can fully implement Building 

Blocks One and Two. Commenters said in the alternative, the EPA should allow states to adjust 

their interim goal to account for the barriers, delays, and reliability concerns they may face in 

implementing Building Blocks One and Two. 

Commenters stated EPA's second suggested approach to addressing the problematic interim 

program targets "involves phasing in building block 2 over time, just as building blocks 3 and 4 

are currently phased in." Commenters said the imposition of 100% of the Block 2 reductions in 

2020 -even recognizing that EPA does not propose to specifically require the full extent of Block 

2 re-dispatch- represents a very large shift in the carbon intensity required of the generating fleet 

in one year, which is almost certain to result in significant price impacts in 2020 and possibly 

thereafter. Commenters said it is not specifically the Block 2 targets that are problematic, but 
135 

rather the sudden increase in NGCC dispatch vis-a-vis the current operating profile of existing 

NGCC facilities. Commenters said phasing in the Block 2 targets over time would be an 

effective way to reduce the sudden impact of significant re-dispatch to NGCC facilities. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed glide path for reaching the 2030 emissions rate target is 

overly restrictive; under the current proposal, the application of building blocks 1 and 2 are 

assumed to result in emission reductions equivalent to six percent improvement in coal plant heat 

rates and an increased utilization of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) resources to a 70 

percent capacity factor to occur by 2020. Commenters said in states with significant coal and/or 

natural gas resources, this results in a dramatic reduction in emissions that must be implemented 

by 2020. Commenters said since state plans may not be approved until as late as 2019, this 

potentially leaves a year or less to achieve these reductions. Commenters said requiring such 

dramatic emission reductions in such a short time period cannot be reliably or cost-effectively 

accommodated by the interconnected electric system. Commenters added for example, when 

applying building blocks 1 and 2 to Arizona's resources, all of the coal generation in Arizona, 

including PacifiCorp's Cholla Unit 4, is completely displaced by natural gas resources by 2020. 

Commenters understood EPA's stated intent that states are not obligated to apply building blocks 

1 and 2 in this manner and may choose to meet the interim goals in ways other than the 

immediate displacement of coal resources; however, given the way the interim goal is designed, 

with a 2020 start date and limited changes in reductions from year to year that do not reflect the 

step-change nature of resource development, it would not be possible to otherwise employ the 

heat rate improvement projects that are available or develop enough energy efficiency or 

renewable energy to allow the continued operation of certain coal-fueled resources. Commenters 

added as recognized by EPA, renewable resource development and energy efficiency programs 

take years to ramp up and develop; renewable resource development timelines in particular are 

significantly impacted by permitting and construction requirements. Commenters said this is 

particularly true in the Western United States with an abundance of federal lands and wildlife 

concerns; consequently, states such as Arizona are left with only one means (retirement of coal 

resources) to meet the interim goals. Commenters said these issues are complicated by the fact 

that many of the NGCCs in states bordering California were developed by independent power 

producers with long-term power purchase agreements with California utilities. Commenters said 

when coupled with the short compliance timeframe for emissions reductions associated with 

building blocks 1 and 2, states are left with no viable options to comply with the proposed 

interim goals. Commenters added EPA should remedy this situation by allowing states to 

develop their own compliance plan reasonable progress trajectories prior to 2030, or at a 

minimum, phase-in all of the tools it chooses to use for compliance over the entire 2020-2029 

compliance period, including heat rate improvements and increased utilization of natural gas. 

Commenters asserted the 2030 targets as currently proposed can be met and meaningful emission 

reductions achieved; however, commenters asserted EPA should consider removal of the interim 

targets or allow a phase-in of heat rate improvements and NGCC re-dispatch in a manner similar 

to the phase-in of renewables and energy efficiency, particularly in states where these two 
136 

components of BSER impact the ability of those states to ensure safe, reliable supplies of 

electricity at a reasonable cost. 

Commenters recommended introducing greater flexibility in the application of Building Blocks 1 

and 2 by eliminating the requirement that the full magnitude of emission reductions from these 

building blocks be achieved by 2020. Commenters said under the current proposal, the 

methodology for establishing the interim emission rate goal requires that emission reductions 

occur by 2020 that are equal to the BSER assumptions for heat rate improvements and increased 

utilization of natural gas. Commenters said in states with significant coal and/or natural gas 

resources, this results in a substantial step change in emission reductions required by 2020. 

Commenters said thereafter, emission reductions are assumed to occur through 2030 based on 

the BSER assumptions for further increased renewables and energy efficiency. Commenters said 

accordingly, though there is a "glide path" available for compliance from 2020 to 2029, in many 

cases this is preceded by steep emission reduction required by 2020. Commenters said such a 

sudden and steep transition from coal to natural gas-fueled resources has the potential to result in 

the costly and unnecessary stranding of assets and create system stability and reliability issues, 

and does not fully account for the remaining useful life of existing coal-fueled resources. 

Commenters said allowing states to phase in these components of BSER over the entire 10-year 

interim period would effectively mitigate the concerns identified above and establishes parity for 

the timing of requirements among the four building blocks. Commenters said such an approach 

could provide relief to states with significant reduction requirements by 2020, as currently 

proposed, without jeopardizing the ability of states to meet the final emission rate goals. 

Commenters said this approach would also allow states to take into account their unique 

circumstances, such as the timing of coal retirements, when proposing how they will meet the 

final goal. 

Commenters stated EPA should adopt a procedure for phase-in of Building Blocks 1 and 2 in 

state plans. Commenters said the proposed Clean Power Plan assumes that building blocks 1 and 

2 can be fully implemented by 2020. Commenters had two valid concerns with achieving 

building blocks 1 and 2 by 2020; improvements related to building block 1 are unit specific and 

may require significant capital investment; Building block 2 affects ongoing investment in 

pollution controls. Commenters said Colorado, and likely most other states, have experience 

developing plans to achieve a glideslope with milestones (for example, the Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan) or a future goal with measurable intermediate actions (for example, the 

Ozone State Implementation Plan); EPA should adopt one of these procedures for states to use in 

setting interim milestones for building blocks 1 and 2. 

Comment 14: Interim goals exclude emission reductions achieved before 2020; the EPA should 

allow credit for early actions.

Response 14: See section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response 

to this comment.
137 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed interim compliance average period excludes emission 

reductions achieved before 2020 and perversely limits state incentives for initiating earlier 

emission reductions. Commenters said EPA proposes to limit the reductions that can be included 

in state plans to those achieved during the interim period, but this means that states would not be 

able to include reductions that occur before 2020. Commenters stated in creating an interim 

compliance average measured over the period 2020-2029, EPA has created an arbitrary dividing 

line: planned emissions reductions that were "on the books" as of 2012 may not be counted, but 

the same reductions that were put "on the books" in 2013 or later would be counted. 

Commenters added the interim goal as proposed is troublesome in part because not allowing RE 

and energy waste reductions to count prior to 2020 has the perverse effect of delaying 

implementation of those programs, which can lead to fewer total tons of CO2 emissions being 

avoided. Commenters said when a state has shown success in reducing energy waste, and there is 

political and public willingness to continue these programs, establishing a future date to wait for 

credit dis-incentivizes the need to continue or expand these programs until a future year when 

credit can be taken; there should be some programmatic method to allow credit towards the 

program goals for permanent reductions achieved from 2012 to 2020. Commenters said in 

addition, to clearly articulating the date by which credit will be counted, it is essential that 

USEPA provide clarity on how credit will be determined in terms of calculating lifecycle savings 

and associated emission reductions for measures installed prior to 2020. Commenters said these 

emission reductions from EE programs should be shown to be permanent, recurring into the 

future, and contributing to CO2 reductions so long as the energy savings were quantified and 

verified through independent evaluation, measurement, and verification. Commenters said in the 

event that USEPA feels compelled to maintain an interim goal, 2025 would be more favorable 

than 2020, time is needed to make the proper adjustments and accommodation to shift generation 

to meet the US EPA required goals. 

Commenters stated with regard to the suggestion that early reductions could be used as a way to 

ease the 2020 - 2029 glide path, the EPA requests comment on a range of possible approaches to 

this type of credit for early action (79 FR 34918 - 34919). Commenters said in the first approach, 

full accounting of emission reductions continues to begin in 2020, but credit could be received 

for certain pre-2020 reductions that could be used to reduce the amount of reductions needed 

during the 2020 - 2029 period. Commenters said the EPA also requests comment in the proposed 

rule on a second approach in which states could choose early (e.g., pre-2020) implementation of 

state goal requirements, which could provide states with the ability to achieve the same amount 

of overall emission reductions but do so by making some reductions earlier (79 FR 34919). 

Commenters asserted that these approaches are too limited and should be expanded to better 

represent the progress already made by electric utilities to reduce CO2 from the power sector and 

to encourage further early reductions pre-2020. Commenters added, for the second option, while 

it is more realistic to assume that existing NGCCs are ramped up over time, this suggestion still 

leaves significant uncertainty of how this schedule would be developed and if the revised 
138 

approach will offer sufficient time. Commenters said this approach does not appear to recognize 

that certain existing NGCCs may have design, operational, or regulatory restrictions that need to 

be factored into the schedule. Therefore, commenters recommended that the EPA's final 

guidelines should eliminate the interim goal (2020-2029) and allow States to establish a glide 

path to the 2030 final goal to allow adequate time to reliably achieve compliance. Commenters 

said at a minimum, the EPA's Clean Power Plan should not require reductions any sooner than 

five years from EPA's final approval of a state plan (or regional plan). 

Commenters stated EPA calculated a 2012 emission rate for each state as part of the process to 

set the state-specific emission rate goals, but the interim average compliance period does not 

start until 2020. Commenters said EPA proposes to limit the reductions that can be included in 

state plans to those achieved during the interim period; this means that states would not be able 

to include reductions that occur before 2020. Commenters said for example, states that undertake 

EE measures in 2015 will only be able to include the reductions from five years of those 

measures' estimated 10-year reduction life; similarly, depending on whether a state chooses a 

rate- or mass-based approach, retiring coal-based units may have a limited impact on state 

emission rates, especially if EPA prohibits states from including reductions that were already on 

the books as of 2013 in state compliance plans. Commenters said in creating an interim 

compliance average measured over the period 2020-2029, EPA has created an arbitrary dividing 

line: emissions reductions achieved after 2019 count, but the same reductions achieved before 

2020 would not. Commenters said this penalizes states and EGUs that have taken early action to 

reduce emissions, creates disincentives for additional early action, is not required by the CAA 

and unnecessarily limits state flexibility in designing compliance plans. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule provides little or no incentive for states to implement 

emission reduction measures prior to 2020, since these measures would provide no compliance 

benefit until 2020. Commenters said in the case of energy efficiency projects, since such projects 

have a limited measure life, implementing energy efficiency projects before 2020 would reduce 

the total benefit received over the life of the project. Commenters recommended States should be 

allowed to bank credits from emission reduction measures implemented after 2012 and prior to 

2020; such credits could be in the form of either tons of emissions reduced or MWh of carbonfree generation. Commenters said states should be able to use such credits for compliance 

purposes beginning in 2020, and should be able to bank excess credits generated during a 

compliance period for use during a subsequent compliance period. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule is being interpreted as offering disincentives for action 

between now and 2020 by utilities and state regulators. Commenters said while the proposed rule 

clearly states that actions between now and 2020 would count toward compliance, it is not clear 

at all how that would happen, as there is no provision for banking credits for use during the 

compliance period. Commenters said EPA should maintain this early action incentive and make 

it more meaningful and clearer, especially if a utility pursues a compliance action that their state 

does not include in the final state plan. Commenters stated that utilities should be empowered to 

act to reduce emissions prior to the finalization of a state plan, even if that state plan does not 
139 

explicitly recognize the compliance option the utility chose to pursue. Commenters added EPA 

should also consider how to encourage early actions during the 2012 - 2020 period to reduce 

cumulative emissions and improve emissions performance. Commenters said EPA should also 

clarify that retirements occurring after the base year and before 2020 count toward compliance, 

regardless of the reason why the specific EGU is being retired; the focus should appropriately be 

on the fact that the specific EGU will no longer be emitting pollution. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed goal calculation methodology requires early-acting states to 

meet more stringent interim goals than states that have thus far made little or no investments in 

RE and EE. Commenters said the methodology further penalizes early-acting states by requiring 

them to meet the interim goals on a faster timeline than states that have not taken early action. 

Commenters added under the Proposed Rule, a state's 2029 RE target is determined by averaging 

the 2020 renewable portfolio standards ("RPSs") of states in the same region; for example, EPA 

set the North Central Region RPS goal at 15 percent: the average of the 2020 RPS goals for 

Illinois (16 percent), Michigan (10 percent), Minnesota (30 percent), Missouri (10 percent), and 

Wisconsin (10 percent). Commenters said EPA determined the constant rate at which each 

region would need to increase its RE generation each year to reach the regional RPS target if 

these rates were applied in the period from 2017-2029. Commenters said the constant rate of 

annual RE generation increase is called the "growth factor." Commenters said the growth factor 

for the North Central Region is six percent. Commenters said EPA applied the region's annual 

growth factor to each state's 2012 RE generation level to calculate a new level of RE generation 

for that state in the initial year of 2017. Commenters said this calculation was repeated for each 

year in the 2018 - 2029 period, such that the 2018 RE goal would be the 2017 RE goal multiplied 

by six percent, the 2019 RE goal would be the 2018 goal multiplied by six percent, etc. 

Commenters added using this regional annual growth factor methodology forces states that had 

high levels of RE during the baseline period to meet more stringent interim goals on a faster 

timeline; for example, Minnesota's maximum RE target (which, in this case, is the same as the 

2029 RE goal) is determined by multiplying the region's RPS goal (15 percent) by Minnesota's 

2012 total generation (52,194 GWh), which equals approximately 7,889 GWh. Commenters said 

even though Minnesota's 2012 RE generation (9,453 GWh) exceeds this goal, EPA added 7,889 

GWh to the denominator of Minnesota's BSER calculation beginning in 2020 and running 

through 2029. Commenters said if Minnesota's 2012 RE were less than the state's 2029 goal, 

Minnesota's annual RE goals would have been determined by multiplying Minnesota's 2012 RE 

by the region's annual growth factor (six percent) beginning in 2018 to determine Minnesota's 

RE targets from 2020 through 2029. Commenters said the growth factor would be utilized 

through 2029 unless Minnesota hit its maximum target in advance (at which point the growth 

factor would no longer be used). 

Commenters added with Minnesota's 2012 RE exceeding its 2029 goal, the annual growth factor 

does not apply; instead, Minnesota's 2020 RE goal is the same as its 2029 goal. Commenters said 

Minnesota has no cushion to minimize the impact of the other emission reduction measures on 
140 

which the state's goals were based, including the unrealistic plant efficiency upgrades and 

increased natural gas dispatch. Commenters said Minnesota's reward for early action on RE is a 

more stringent final performance goal for RE that must be reached by 2020. 

Commenters added similarly, existing EE was used in EPA's methodology to determine states' 

incremental and cumulative EE goals and the rate at which those goals must be achieved. 

Commenters said specifically, existing EE determines (1) how quickly a state will reach the 

proposed 1.5 percent annual EE improvement rate, and (2) a state's cumulative EE goal (because 

the cumulative EE goals depend on how quickly a state reaches the proposed EE improvement 

rate). Commenters said EPA assumes that states with higher historic annual incremental EE 

levels will reach the proposed 1.5 percent incremental improvement rate sooner than states with 

lower historic annual incremental EE levels, resulting in higher cumulative EE savings levels for 

early-acting states. Commenters said under Building Block Four, EPA added the cumulative EE 

savings levels to the states' BSER calculation denominators; a higher cumulative EE savings 

level results in a lower performance goal; this means that states that have historically high 

incremental EE levels are faced with more stringent final goals. 

Commenters added the states that have historically high incremental EE levels also face more 

stringent interim goals, which they will be unable to meet if they cannot attain the everincreasing incremental EE savings that EPA incorrectly assumes are achievable. Commenters 

said EPA assumes that states with higher historic annual incremental EE levels will reach the 

proposed 1.5 percent incremental improvement rate sooner than states with lower historic annual 

incremental EE levels. Commenters said states with existing EE incremental savings rates 

greater than one percent begin the performance period with a 1.5 percent incremental savings 

rate, while states with lower starting EE incremental savings rates have a longer ramp-up period. 

Commenters said if early-acting states are unable to continue increasing their EE savings by 1.5 

percent per year, they will be unable to meet their interim goals, which assume these constantly 

increasing EE savings. 

Commenters stated when the original RGGI Program began in 2009, a limited number of "Early 

Reduction Allowances" were credited into the Program as 2009 allowances; similarly, when the 

amended RGGI Program began in 2014, previously "banked allowances" were credited. 

Commenters recommended that EPA implement a similar crediting approach for early reductions 

under the CPP; allowing a limited amount of credit for early action would address stakeholder 

concerns about the potential "cliff" of required reductions beginning in 2020 and would 

recognize the imperative that BSER properly include early reductions; however, the overall 

stringency of the CPP in 2030 should not be weakened; thus, any credit awarded by EPA in 2020 

should be phased out by 2030, in a manner similar to application of the budget adjustments under 

the RGGI Program. 

Commenters supported EPA's suggestion to devise a scheme of early reduction credit for states 

that take early action; early reduction credits could provide an incentive for states to begin more 

concerted efforts to reduce carbon pollution sooner rather than later. Commenters said early 
141 

reduction credit could also eliminate the apparent disparities between the emissions goals set for 

early acting states and the goals set for states that have been less proactive. Commenters asserted 

that any early reduction credit scheme adopted by EPA should abide by the following principles: 

Use of early reduction credit should be limited to the state that created the credit; Early reduction 

credit should expire at the close of the Interim Compliance period to preserve national stringency 

post 2030; Credit for RE should promote renewable sources with minimal criteria and hazardous 

air pollutant emissions; and Credit for early and surplus redispatch to natural gas should only be 

based on measures that are federally enforceable and permanent and replace high carbon fuels 

with natural gas (e.g., burner replacement memorialized in a federally enforceable operating 

permit, unit retirement and/or replacement with new natural gas fired unit subject to a federally 

enforceable operating permit, federally enforceable operating permit requirements to co-fire gas 

up to a specified percentage of load at all times that a unit is operating; or a federally enforceable

annual capacity factor limit on amount of coal and/or oil that can be burned in a unit that 

converts to interchangeably fire natural gas). 

Comment 15: Interim targets for states that pursue multi-state, market-based approaches 

Response 15: See section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated there is not enough time to coordinate with partners in multi-state power 

grids. 

Commenters added states in regional power grids will not even know the final composition of all 

the state plans by 2020, when compliance with the interim goals begins. Commenters stated EPA 

vastly underestimates the complexity of the power system planning process and the time it takes 

for new infrastructure development. Commenters added that Texas's CREZ process took nearly 9 

years from concept to completion, with Texas in complete control of the execution of this 

process; transmission and natural gas pipeline planning, which can require approvals from 

multiple states and federal agencies, will take even longer. 

Commenters stated emission reductions from re-dispatch of the existing generation fleet 

comprise a large component of anticipated state and national emission reductions under the 

CPP; many states have expressed concerns about the timing of emission reductions from redispatch. Commenters said in particular, states have requested modification of the interim state 

targets in order to allow states more time to phase-in measures to re-dispatch the existing fleet. 

Commenters considered multi-state, market-based approaches to be the only means to efficiently 

achieve re-dispatch of generation. Commenters said recognizing that it will take some time for 

states that do not currently have carbon policies in place to coordinate and develop multi-state, 

market-based approaches, the commenters recommended that EPA signal flexibility for states 
142 

that pursue such an approach. Commenters said such flexibility could involve modification of the 

assumptions regarding the timing of emission reductions from re-dispatch in line with later 

phase-in of a carbon price under a multi-state program. Commenters said alternatively, EPA 

could establish a 'safe harbor' for compliance with interim targets for states that implement multistate, market-based approaches, in line with any guidance provided by EPA. 

Commenters asserted that providing this type of "carrot" in the final rule for states that pursue 

multi-state, market-based approaches will help encourage states to build multi-state alliances, an 

outcome the commenters asserted as strongly desirable and beneficial to all interests. 

Comment 16: The EPA should not assume that all efficiency improvements and emissions 

reductions can be implemented by 2020.

Response 16: In response to commenters’ concerns and further consideration, the interim 

period now begins in 2022 and ends in 2029. See sections V. and I.A of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should not assume that all efficiency improvements can be implemented 

by 2020. Commenters said EPA's assertion that all heat rate improvements can be implemented 

by that date is unrealistic because state plans may not be completed until 2018 or later, leaving 

little time for EGU owners to secure regulatory approval for any heat rate improvements or to 

secure financing and contractors to complete the work. Commenters said for example, the 

limited universe of remaining equipment upgrades that Santee Cooper could implement at coalfired units could increase those units' annual potential to emit other pollutants; because such an 

increase could trigger EPA's NSR process, Santee Cooper may be forced to undergo a costly, 

lengthy NSR process in order to achieve the additional heat rate improvements EPA requires in 

the target goal set for South Carolina. Commenters said EPA lacks any basis to assume that such 

a time-consuming process could be completed in time to meet the Proposed Rule's expectation 

that all heat rate improvements could be implemented and on-line by 2020. 

Commenters stated some coal states may be able to realize a significant portion of their emission 

reduction requirements before 2020, which would further minimize the first step by preachieving some of it; however, this is likely to only happen in states with a unique combination 

of features such as: 

-Coal plants that are at best marginally economic under forward prices for gas and power; 

-Less aggressive EPA interim emission reduction goals; 

-Capacity markets to support cost recovery for repowering competitive coal plants to low 

capacity-factor natural gas plants; 
143 

-Ample current and future reserve margins to allow retirements without jeopardizing reliability 

or (in cost-of-service regulated markets) requiring expensive additions to ratebase that would 

create unacceptable levels of rate increases ("rate shock"); and 

-A willingness to opt for a mass-based state plan under 111(d). 

Commenters added these conditions do not exist in number of coal states; indeed, a number of 

these states are likely to see increases in CO2 emissions between now and 2020, due to economic 

factors such as higher natural gas prices, economic growth and, potentially, from any nuclear 

retirements or extended outages in the intervening years. 

Commenters added for some states, significant interim emission goals may be correlated with 

higher power sector emissions before 2020; for example, states with large amounts of both 

combined cycle and coal plants have the largest emission reduction requirements from the EPA's 

second building block (gas re-dispatch); but such mixed generation fleets will exhibit a strong 

tendency to increase both coal MWH and CO2 emissions as gas prices recover, consistent with 

forward market curves and EIA projections, especially in competitive markets. Commenters said 

similarly, states with large amounts of nuclear power have a larger emission reduction 

requirement due to the proposed rules third building block, but may also be more likely to 

experience a prolonged nuclear outage, retirements or construction delays, both of which would 

cause fossil plants to run more and produce more CO2. 

Commenters added these CO2 emission drivers are primarily economic or market-based; by 

contrast, specific policy efforts to meet some or all of EPA's GHG emission requirements prior 

to 2020 are unlikely in a number of coal states, for the simple reason that may be unwilling to 

embrace costly measures to meet the EPA's requirements before legal challenges to the rules are 

resolved. Commenters said such resolution is unlikely before 2020, and may take even longer, 

leading to the potential need for dramatic reductions in the first years of the program but little 

time for states to develop effective policies. 

Comment 17: States cannot increase utilization of existing NGCCs units to 70 percent by 2020; 

BB2.

Response 17: The EPA has adjusted the start of the interim compliance period to 2022 in this 

final rule, and has incorporated a phase in of building block two deployment. Both of these 

adjustments address the concerns below about the immediate ramp-up assumed for NGCC in 

2020. The EPA does not believe any state needs to achieve reductions prior to the start year. 

See sections I.A., V.A., and V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
144 

Commenters stated the proposed interim average goal assumes that the full 70 percent utilization 

of existing NGCC units has occurred by 2020 and is held constant through the 10-year interim 

compliance period. Commenters said unlike RE and EE measures, increased NGCC utilization is 

not phased in over the interim average compliance period; therefore, in order to meet the 

proposed goals, states must achieve the full magnitude of the reductions associated with this 

significant dispatch change starting in 2020. Commenters added for states in which increased 

utilization of existing NGCC units drives the stringency of the emission rate goals, this means 

that the majority of compliance must be achieved before 2020. Commenters stated EPA asserts 

that the interim period is a "10-year ramp-up period," but instead of allowing states to phase-in 

reductions, the 2020 interim average goals create an emission reduction 'cliff' for many states. 

Commenters stated the currently proposed interim goals for Arizona are too heavily weighted 

toward the early years and cannot be achieved through the re-dispatch of all coal generation in 

the state to NGCC. Commenters said though a specific resolution is not known at this time, 

Arizona would have to add new generation, transmission, natural gas capacity or combination 

thereof, which could not be achieved by 2020, the date at which the EPA assumes re-dispatch of 

all of Arizona's coal units. Commenters said Arizona's utilities need a more reasonable trajectory 

that provides additional time to fully understand the implications of the proposed rule and to 

assist the state to develop and implement an appropriate plan. 

Commenters stated Mississippi's interim goal is 732 lb/MWh and the final Goal is 692 lb/MWh; 

this means that in achieving the interim goal, Mississippi will account for over 90% of its 

reductions toward the final goal. Commenters said this is achieved based on the assumption that 

all of the measures proposed in Building Block 2 can be accomplished in a short period of time; 

this is not the case. Commenters said several of the utilities in Mississippi have long-term power 

and fuel contracts requiring continued operation and utilization of fuel; in addition, facilities such

as Mississippi Power's Plant Daniel and South Mississippi Electric Power Association's Plant 

Morrow, have recently installed new or upgraded pollution control equipment to meet the 

requirements of the MATS rule. Commenters said shutting these units down in such a short time 

period and switching to other generators would result in stranded assets and increased cost to 

consumers. Commenters urged the removal of the interim goal. 

Commenters stated it is difficult to imagine that the Interim goals could be met by 2020 in a 

sustainable manner. Commenters said using the results of Ohio EPA's regression analysis, it is 

estimated that such generation from all natural gas-fired units combined would not be realized 

until 2025. Commenters said if the 2012 contribution of NGCC generation to total natural gas 

generation (81%) and the results of the regression analysis are considered, projects that U.S. 

EPA's desired 1,444 TW-h from combined cycle units would not be realized until 2034. 

Commenters said U.S. EPA's goal setting for NGCC units goes well beyond what the Ohio EPA 

analysis asserted is technically feasible; commenters urged U.S. EPA to examine fully the 

historical growth of natural gas, understanding that such growth is reliant on adequate 

infrastructure development. 
145 

Commenters stated it is not clear that the dramatic increase in utilization of existing NGCC units 

by 2020 envisioned by EPA can be achieved. Commenters said EPA incorrectly assumes that 

current natural gas infrastructure is sufficient to support this dramatic increase in the utilization 

of existing NGCC units. Commenters said under EPA's proposed guidelines, existing pipeline 

infrastructure would need to be expanded in a short time frame; however, it take years to 

complete contracts and additional three to five years to permit and build new pipelines. 

Commenters said although the FERC is the lead federal agency for approving interstate natural 

gas pipelines, these new pipelines often require approvals from other federal agencies. 

Comment 18: The proposed interim goals will not jeopardize t electricity reliability. 

Response 18: See section I.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. See the Resource Adequacy Technical Support Document. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters were concerned about the impacts on reliability and the timeline associated with the 

interim goals in the CPP proposed rule. Commenters were concerned that: 1) the EPA 

inadequately considers electric transmission facilities in establishing the timeline for the interim 

goals in the draft CCP; 2) the energy efficiency assumptions relied upon in the CPP are 

unrealistic and not sustainable; 3) the CPP's utilization of a 70% capacity factor for combined 

cycle units is unsound; 4) the CPP's failure to consider the availability of the materials and labor 

for constructing the electric transmission and generation infrastructure required to comply with 

the CPP proposed rule; and 5) the short time frame to meet interim goals by 2020 risks the 

reliability of the bulk electric system. 

Commenters stated under the current rule, substantial emission reductions must occur by 2020 to 

meet Wisconsin's interim goal; Wisconsin utilities and ratepayers have already made investments 

in generation and transmission to improve reliability and reduce emissions. Commenters said the 

steep emission reductions required by the 2020 interim goal limits the time available to plan, 

permit, and construct infrastructure and upgrades, in addition to forcing inefficient retirements. 

Commenters said given that the rule will not be finalized until June 2015 with state plans due 

June 2016 at the earliest, accomplishing a significant amount of the required emission reductions 

prior to 2020 may have system reliability consequences. 

Commenters were concerned with the reliability impact of the USEPA's proposal given the 

stringency of the interim goal. Commenters said the USEPA states that the "IPM model is 

specifically designed to ensure generation resource adequacy" but also, "assumes that adequate 

transmission capacity exists to deliver any resources located in, or transferred to, the 

region." Commenters stated they do not equate resource adequacy with reliability and cannot 

support at this time the USEPA's assumptions regarding the adequacy of the transmission system 

to support its resource adequacy position. Commenters noted that the Western Electricity 
146 

Coordinating Council (WECC), the reliability organization for the Western Interconnection, has 

only begun to complete an assessment of reliability impacts of the proposed rule. Commenters 

said the WECC noted in its "EPA Clean Power Plan, Phase I- Preliminary Technical Report" 

dated September 19, 2014 (WECC Report) that "[c]omprehensive analyses, considering 

[Remedial Action Schemes], voltage stability, and path rating impacts, among other reliability 

aspects, are still needed to finalize any conclusions around system reliability." Commenters said 

WECC cannot completely and accurately address its concerns about the Clean Power Plan's 

impacts on reliability until states have selected their compliance plans, which creates a chickenand-egg situation. 

Commenters added the WECC stated some of its concerns about continued reliability in the 

WECC Report; first, since the current electric system was designed to deliver energy from 

existing resources, changing the location, size and type of generation may make delivering 

power to local load a challenge; path ratings may also be affected; a second concern is that the 

location of replacement resources may not have transmission infrastructure available; siting and 

construction of generation and transmission resources is a long process and could delay 

implementation of state plans; third, changes in the types of generation resources that are being 

used may require changes in operating practices and procedures, and changes in how existing 

generation is used. Commenters said these changes all take time to implement; to do so by 2020 

is unreasonable, and could have significant negative consequences on system reliability. 

Commenters stated the North American Electric Reliability Corp (NERC) has recently issued a 

report that cautions the EPA to consider delaying the interim goal deadline of 2020 "The 

proposed timeline does not provide enough time to develop sufficient resources to ensure 

continued reliable operation of the electric grid by 2020," according to the report. "More time for 

implementation may be needed to accommodate reliability enhancements." Commenters said 

EPA should carefully evaluate the effect of the Rule on electric grid reliability prior to rule 

promulgation; the rule comes on the heels of an economic recession that started in 2009; the 

additional assets to meet the state goal require significant capital expenditures in order to achieve 

interim goals in 2020 and a final goal in 2030. Commenters said EPA should refrain from 

imposing such an aggressive state goal and timeline because such an action would harm the 

economy during recovery from a recession; EPA should remove the interim goal, impractical 

deadlines should not be used to rush forward a program of this magnitude and complexity; the 

unintended consequences need to be vetted, analyzed, and mitigated. 

Commenters stated the interim standards proposed by EPA cannot be met while maintaining 

reliable service in the Entergy region; the interim goals should be removed from the Proposed 

Rule. Commenters said alternatively, the interim goals should be phased in over a reasonable 

timeline, or EPA should allow each state the flexibility to determine its own glide path to the 

final goal. 

Commenters added EPA's Proposed Rule would require Entergy's generation portfolio, and its 

operations as a whole, including transmission, distribution, and energy efficiency programs, to 
147 

change dramatically in a very short time period; notably, the potential impact on the generation 

portfolio would affect not only Entergy's coal plants, of which it has relatively few, but also its 

steam oil/gas units, which provide a critical reliability role in the Entergy system. Commenters 

said the Proposed Rule develops two types of state emission rate goals, "interim" goals for the 

years 2020 through 2029 and "final" goals for 2030. Commenters said the formula EPA uses to 

calculate these goals implies that all emission rate reductions from Building Blocks 1 and 2 

would be realized by 2020 - the start of the interim period - or soon enough after 2020 to allow 

the state to meet the interim goal as an average between 2020-2029. Commenters said because it 

is highly unlikely that most states, including Entergy's utility states (Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas), will be able in later years to have an emission rate significantly lower 

than the very stringent interim targets, the Proposed Rule essentially has "front-loaded" the 

reduction requirements; this requires a steep decline in state emission rates in the first years of 

the interim period in states that already have invested in efficient, low emitting NGCC capacity. 

Commenters said according to the EPA modeling, several of Entergy's fossil units that are 

important to reliability would close by 2020 in order to comply with the Proposed Rule. Several 

commenters have explained in detail the infeasibility of complying with the interim standards as 

they are set in the Proposed Rule; through its "Portfolio Transformation" initiative, Entergy, 

since 2005, has purchased nearly 3,345 MW's of NGCC rated capacity in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Arkansas, where Entergy operates five electric utility companies; in total, 13,074 MWs of 

installed NGCC rated capacity exists in these three states. Commenters said it is largely for this 

reason that Building Blocks 1 and 2 make up 77% to 84% of the emission rate reductions called 

for in EPA's proposed emission rate goals, in turn causing this "2020 cliff" scenario. 

Commenters said for Louisiana, the proposed re-dispatch of NGCC capacity results in an abrupt 

54% reduction in coal fired and oil/gas capacity, for Arkansas a 64% reduction, for Mississippi a 

100% reduction, and for Texas a 52% reduction. Commenters said the resulting 2020 interim 

standards in the Proposed Rule are extremely aggressive, and EPA has not met its obligation to 

demonstrate that it is feasible to meet them - in particular, that they can be met while also 

meeting FERC and NERC reliability requirements. 

Commenters stated for states to comply with EPA's proposed 10-year average goal, many states 

must achieve the majority of emission reductions by 2020. Commenters said achieving the 2030 

goals would require significant changes to the interconnected power system and the way that it 

operates; these changes in the manner in which power is generated, transmitted and consumed 

must be done in a way that maintains operational reliability and provides consumers with leastcost power. Commenters said this would be accomplished by eliminating the interim goals and 

allowing states to establish a glide path to 2030 compliance. 

Commenters stated EPA's primary attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of the Proposed Rule is 

the agency's IPM modeling of the year 2020, which purports to illustrate an achievable 

"snapshot" of compliance with 2020 requirements. Commenters do not assert that EPA's IPM 

modeling reflects a realistic picture of an electric grid that can maintain required reliability 

standards, partly because its representation of the electric system does not capture all 
148 

transmission constraints and operational requirements; the closure of so many units necessary to 

grid operations by 2020 is not feasible. 

Commenters stated EPA's IPM modeling forecasts that by 2020 there will be 3,974 of MW rated 

coal capacity retired in Arkansas, 3,045 MW of rated coal capacity retired in Louisiana, 2,519 

MW of rated coal capacity retired in Mississippi, and 8,728 MW of rated coal capacity retired in 

Texas. Commenters said even a cursory inspection of EPA's IPM 2020 modeling shows that the 

results are not viable; to meet the 2020 standards, EPA's IPM shows closing or not operating a 

large number of steam gas units that play a critical reliability role on the system because they are 

in transmission constrained areas and five baseload coal units. Commenters said several 

independent studies, including one undertaken recently by MISO regarding voltage and local 

reliability ("VLR"), confirm that the operation of these units is required to meet reliability 

requirements, and that the units cannot be shut down, and reliability maintained, without billions 

of dollars in transmission investments, which would take far longer to plan, site, and construct 

than the few years that would be available between final approval of state 111(d) plans (2017 at 

the earliest) and 2020. 

Commenters stated to demonstrate the infeasibility of EPA's IPM results, and, by extension, the 

infeasibility of the 2020 interim goals, the commenters ran their own transmission-constrained 

dispatch models assuming the closure (or non-operation) of the plants consistent with EPA's IPM 

2020 compliance modeling and the commenter's load forecasts from the 2013 business plan; the 

results were unambiguous - not only could the system not be operated in compliance with 

reliability requirements, but involuntary curtailments (rolling blackouts) would be required on a 

routine basis. Commenters' modeling of EPA's compliance scenario shows that it would result in 

a shortage of generation in place to serve load, causing rotating black outs on the system for 

approximately 100 days a year, even in "normal" weather conditions, likely during the winter 

and summer months. 

Commenters stated this level of service interruption is approximately 1000 times higher than the 

NERC planning standard for interruption of service due to insufficient bulk system facilities 

(generation transmission). Commenters said the NERC standard is "one day in 10 years," 

meaning that system operators and load serving entities should have sufficient generation and 

transmission in place so that service interruptions due to lack of available generation are 

extremely rare; this standard does not cover outages caused by local distribution failures, storms 

that temporarily disrupt transmission, or similar incidents. Commenters said removing the 

generation that EPA's IPM says can be taken out of service would result in electric service 

interruptions - even with all other generation, transmission, and distribution facilities in place 

and operating properly - and would violate federal standards. 

Comment 19: Regional Effects
149 

Response 19: The interim period now begins in 2022 and ends in 2029. See sections I.A, V.A., 

and VI.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the WECC has begun a phased study process to analyze potential impacts of 

the Proposed Rule to the western electric generation and transmission industry. Commenters said 

preliminary WECC results indicate that states' decisions made regarding compliance with the 

CPP can "drastically impact grid operations, system resiliency, and potentially, compliance 

opportunities for a neighboring state." Commenters said the WECC has stated that its analyses 

will continue throughout 2015. Commenters said the EPA should take advantage of such 

regional analyses to appropriately modify the interim goal structure. 

Commenters stated the RTOs and ISOs will need time to determine any necessary market rule 

and system changes; obtain state and federal approvals, including FERC approval; and reliably 

implement the required changes. Commenters said in RTO/ISO markets, the stakeholder process 

can take six to eight months, even on an expedited basis; FERC approval can take as long as a 

year or more, and implementation cannot start before final approval. Commenters said even on 

the most expedited basis, RTOs and ISOs would have very little, if any time, to make market 

changes before 2020. 

Comment 20: Interim compliance average period is inconsistent with state planning processes. 

Response 20: The interim period now begins in 2022 and ends in 2029. See sections I.A, V.A., 

and VI. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed interim compliance average period is inconsistent and 

incompatible with state planning and legislative processes and planning. 

Commenters added although state plans are due in mid-2016, EPA has offered states the option 

of seeking an additional year (for an individual state plan) or two (for multistate 

plans). Commenters stated additional time to create workable state plans is a welcome flexibility; 

however, this extension conflicts with legislative schedules in many states. Commenters said 

several states already have noted that their legislatures do not meet every year and that the 

relevant future sessions are out of sync with the proposed timing for submission and approval of 

state plans. Commenters stated to the extent that states need to pass new legislation to ensure that 

all elements of compliance plans are enforceable, the legislative calendar in some states will be 

an impediment to both ensuring that compliance plans are completed on time and allowing key 

compliance measures to reduce emission rates to move forward before 2020. 
150 

Commenters stated EPA should eliminate the proposed interim goals in its Final Rule. 

Commenters said the first interim year is currently 2020, which establishes an unrealistic 

timeframe for developing and implementing individual state plans. Commenters said the Final 

Rule is expected to be promulgated in June 2016 after which time states will have two years to 

develop individual state plans (or three years for multi-state plans). Commenters said if a state 

plan is submitted in June 2018, EPA is expected to take at least one year to review and grant 

approval; a state's best case scenario would be to obtain approval by June 2019, thus giving it 

less than eighteen months to comply with the interim goals. Commenters said in the event EPA 

required alterations to a state's plan, approval and compliance would be further delayed by 

another round of state revisions and EPA review likely extending into 2020. Commenters said 

most states (including North Carolina) will be required to undertake statutory revisions and 

initiate state rulemakings to implement portions of their state compliance plan. Commenters said 

North Carolina does not have a full-time legislature and it is likely that the legislature will have 

adjourned for the year prior to EPA approval of North Carolina's compliance plan in 2019. 

Commenters said the resulting state rulemakings will require drafting and vetting, public notice 

and comment, consideration by the promulgating regulatory body and review by the Rules 

Review Commission; it is extremely unlikely that these state legislative and regulatory processes 

could be completed prior to the interim goal. 

Commenters stated implementation of the plan could take longer than projected making the 

interim 2020 reduction goals for Texas unattainable, primarily because it may be necessary for 

Texas to pass legislation to implement necessary reduction programs, and the 2015 Texas 

legislative session will end before the proposed rule is finalized. 

Commenters stated that while TCEQ, as the Administrator of Texas's air quality program under 

the CAA, would be responsible for submitting any State Plan and monitor compliance with 

same, it would clearly need the assistance of the PUCT and possibly the RRC. 

Commenters contended that EPA has failed to address the extensive level of coordination among 

state agencies that would be necessary to implement this rule. Commenters explained that the 

coordination among Texas state agencies that will be required by Rule 111(d) would also require 

changes to Texas law and such laws could not be amended until 2017 at the earliest. 

Commenters added that the additional state laws required to implement Rule 111(d) in Texas 

would in turn almost certainly require the adoption of new or amended rules by each affected 

state agency, including TCEQ, PUCT, and possibly the RRC and would almost certainly require 

interagency contracts or agreements between these agencies. Commenters concluded that EPA's 

compliance deadlines, particularly its interim compliance deadlines, do not account for the time 

needed for state agency coordination (and the associated costs) required by Rule 111(d). 

Commenters added that Rule 111(d) will also require extensive coordination with FERC to 

ensure that all entities (both inside and outside of ERCOT) comply with existing FERC 

reliability standards. Commenters added that this is a potentially significant aspect of compliance 

that EPA has not addressed in the proposed rule. Commenters explained that because Rule 

111(d) will almost certainly impact grid reliability in Texas and throughout the nation, the 

compliance obligations of Rule 111(d) may conflict with the compliance obligations of entities 
151 

subject to FERC reliability standards. Commenters added that EPA has also failed to address the 

cost and time implications for states and utilities in coordinating with FERC to implement Rule 

111(d). 

Commenters urged EPA to ensure that final rule will not compromise the thorough review of 

Minnesota's Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Process, with its due consideration of reliability 

and rate impact. Commenters explained that Minnesota's regulated utilities file a biennial IRP 

that evaluates the utility's projected load growth and the least-cost mix of demand and supplyside resources for that utility's service area over the 15-year planning period. Commenters added 

that review of the IRP is a transparent process: the utility's modeling is tested and alternative 

scenarios are modeled, and the public and affected organizations and customers have the 

opportunity to question and comment. Commenters concluded that the IRP process has been 

highly successful, allowing long-term planning to meet several legislative directives aimed at 

increasing energy savings, renewable energy, including solar energy, and greenhouse gas 

reduction. Commenters expressed concern the proposed rule would interfere with the IRP 

process and that the interim targets in the proposed rule could require steps that are not the most 

cost-effective for their state for meeting the goal and assuring the reliability of the system. 

Commenters added that the interim goal fails to account for the manner in which large energy 

generation shifts occur and is at odds with Minnesota's energy planning. Commenters concluded 

that adding flexibility into the interim compliance level is essential for Minnesota's least-cost 

compliance. 

 

Comment 21: Interim compliance average period is inconsistent with utility investment 

decision-making. 

Response 21: The interim period now begins in 2022 and ends in 2029. The EPA has included 

illustrative interim period statewide emission values for the periods of 2022-2024, 2025-2027, 

and 2028-2029 to show a gradual reduction strategy states may choose to attain the interim goal 

over the 2022-2029 period. See sections I.A, V.A., and VI. of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the interim compliance average period is inconsistent with utility investment 

decision-making. Commenters said it takes years for electric utilities to plan, gain approval for 

and build infrastructure and other supporting projects, which includes new efficient fossil-fuel 

plants; unit-level efficiency retrofits; new transmission lines to mitigate plant closures and to 

bring new energy sources to the grid; and a host of other compliance activities. Commenters 

stated companies generally will not commit to make large financial investments - nor will state 

PUCs approve such investments - prior to final, EPA approved state plans which could be well 

into 2018 or 2019. Commenters said this uncertainty will challenge states' ability to meet and 
152 

demonstrate compliance with the interim average emission rates starting in 2020. Commenters 

stated EPA's assumption that states can take significant steps to reduce emissions in advance of 

the start of the interim compliance period is thus inconsistent with its own regulatory timeline, as 

such the interim compliance goal does not take into account this lead time necessary to achieving 

reductions. 

Commenters stated because the capital investment and operational changes required to comply 

with the Final Rule cannot occur overnight, the interim goal has the potential to drive 

uneconomic actions by a state. Commenters stated North Carolina will be required to meet 

approximately 71% of its final goal by 2020 in order to utilize the glide path toward 2030 

compliance; achieving 71% compliance by 2020 is both impractical and unrealistic and 

eliminates much of the flexibility that EPA claimed to incorporate into the rule. Commenters 

said in the event a state falls behind its interim goal targets in the first five years, it is possible 

that the state would have to meet an emissions target in the closing years of the interim period 

that is more stringent than the final emissions target. Commenters said the stringent nature of the 

interim goal would force states like North Carolina to prematurely close generating units to meet 

the interim goal, resulting in stranded assets. Commenters said in North Carolina, such early 

retirements would likely occur at plants where significant investment has been made in 

environmental and emissions upgrades over the past decade; this would be economically 

wasteful of ratepayer funds and penalize states that have recently invested capital to reduce coal 

plant emissions. Commenters said states should be allowed to establish their own glide path and 

the Proposed Rule should focus solely on achieving full compliance by 2030 and sustaining 

compliance thereafter. 

Comment 22: Interim compliance average period is inconsistent with market schedules.

Response 22: See section I.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed interim compliance average period is inconsistent with market 

schedules. Commenters added similarly, for states that participate in competitive wholesale 

markets, the timing of state compliance plans does not account for already scheduled capacity 

auctions. Commenters stated because units that are selected in these auctions are expected to be 

available to provide power in the relevant timeframes, decisions about which resources will be 

required to be available in 2020 will be made early, before the first set of state plans have been 

submitted to EPA. Commenters said this will complicate state planning as it may limit reduction 

options available before 2020. 
153 

Commenters were concerned about EPA's assumption that market power will be freely available 

post-2020, as the Clean Power Plan will substantially disrupt existing generation and market 

patterns. 

Comment 23: Interim compliance period creates compliance uncertainty because the electric 

utilities and the regulatory officials will not know the amount of reductions needed each year to 

stay on target. 

Response 23: The interim period now begins in 2022 and ends in 2029. The EPA has included 

illustrative interim period statewide emission values for the periods of 2022-2024, 2025-2027, 

and 2028-2029 to show a gradual reduction strategy states may choose to attain the interim goal 

over the 2022-2029 period. See sections I.A, V.A, and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the 2020-2029 averaging period creates compliance uncertainty because the 

electric utilities and the regulatory officials will not know the amount of reductions needed each 

year to stay on target; it would be helpful if EPA developed an accounting framework that 

applies in each state for making projections and measuring progress toward meeting the targets. 

Comment 24: Alternates for Interim Goals 

Response 24: For renewable generating sources built after 2012, the generation from that 

capacity in a future compliance year will be eligible to count towards the state plan compliance 

demonstration as discussed in section VIII. 

In response to the interim period, EPA is defining a Best System of Emission Reductions based 

on reduction potential, and as discussed in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD – it has 

determined that the building block technologies have reduction potential in these early years.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Long-term IRP 

Commenters stated every two years, each investor-owned utility in Idaho must develop a longterm IRP describing how the utility plans to serve its customers' expected electrical needs over 

the next 20 years; the required IRPs are informed by detailed analyses of existing and new 

supply-side and demand-side resources, load-to-resource balancing under multiple resource 
154 

portfolios, risk analyses and regulatory compliance scenarios. Commenters said these 

comprehensive IRPs are developed with input from stakeholder groups and ultimately reviewed 

and acknowledged by the Idaho PUC. 

Commenters stated because the utilities' IRP planning processes produce resource acquisition 

plans that are designed to comply with all state and federal regulations, the EPA should consider 

utility IRPs as a reasonable and more efficient alternative to the interim goals. Commenters said 

under an IRP-based alternative to the EPA's proposed interim goals, the state would demonstrate 

progress toward the 2030 emission goals by providing utility-specific plans to serve future 

customer demands in a manner that complies with all the EPA regulations. 

Use renewable energy 

Commenters asserted that EPA should abandon the interim 2020-29 goals altogether in the final 

rule, at the very least the rule should allow states to use 2013-19 renewable energy to show 

compliance with the interim goals. Commenters said such a provision would provide a tangible 

reward to leaders who have promoted the use of renewable energy, while maintaining the 

stringency of the final requirements. 

EPA Should Replace Interim Targets With Periodic Review 

Commenters stated another consideration would be for EPA to replace the interim goals with a 

less formal periodic review; the 2020 "interim" goals are misleading, as the impact occurs by 

2020; this means that a state's changes and results need to start well before 2020 in order to hit 

the interim goal-even with averaging all the preceding years. Commenters said this is an 

unnecessary hurdle that will only create more paperwork for the states at a time when they 

should be focusing on meeting their end goals. 

Milestone Approach 

Commenters stated replacing the interim goal with a "milestone approach" discusses the fact that 

much of the carbon reduction must be done with retirement of large EGUs. Commenters said 

other building blocks can be applied to reduce carbon emissions gradually; these include energy 

efficiency and renewable energy increases, increasing the use of more efficient gas units, 

decreasing the use of coal units over time, etc. Commenters said it's not essential to wait for a 

coal unit to retire to step down carbon emissions. 

 

Comment 25: Interim Goals - Timing for Tribes and Territories. 

Response 25: This final CPP rule affords sources, states, and tribes the flexibility to comply 

with their subcategory-specific emission performance rates through a variety of mechanisms that 

may or may not include changes to generation levels at particular EGUs. For instance, the 
155 

Bonanza unit has the flexibility acquire emission reduction credits (either from EGUs located on 

its lands or elsewhere) to demonstrate compliance with the emission rate. 

See sections I.A. and III.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated, in regards to the supplemental proposal, the time remaining and complex 

jurisdictional issues surrounding the Bonanza Unit cannot be resolved and a plan developed and 

implemented by 2020. Commenters said the Ute Tribe of the Uintah-Ouray Reservation is a very 

small entity with extremely limited resources; the Tribe does not have and has not applied for 

Clean Air Act regulatory authority, and has little in place as infrastructure to support its own 

environmental regulatory administrative authority. Commenters said EPA Region 8 has issued 

all federal permits pertaining to Clean Air Act in the past. Commenters said it is unlikely that the 

Tribe will have sufficient time and resources to develop a carbon dioxide plan; EPA will most 

likely be called upon to do so. 

Commenters stated, in regards to the supplemental proposal, Deseret sells a significant portion of 

the output from the Bonanza Unit 1 under terms of long-term power purchase agreements that 

predate any contemplated carbon dioxide standard. Commenters said the terms of those 

arrangements do not, in several important instances, allow or permit Deseret to pass through or 

recover increased costs associated with or arising on account of compliance requirements under 

the Supplemental Proposal. Commenters said these contracts include at least one very large, 20-

plus year contract in the amount of approximately 100 MW of power tied to Deseret's Bonanza 

unit. Commenters said this agreement will not expire until September 2024, well into the 

timeframe set for compliance with the Interim goal under the Supplemental Proposal. 

Commenters urged EPA to demonstrate the intended flexibility built into the provisions of 

111(d) by commencing the Interim compliance period for the Bonanza Unit 1, and therefore the 

Uintah-Ouray reservation no sooner than 2025, and to defer the commencement of the Final 

Goal compliance period until 2035. 

 

Comment 26: Comment suggesting that interim year rates for the years 2020 through 2029 

should decline at a constant annual rate equal to one-tenth of the difference between the 2012 

and 2030 rates.

Response 26: The EPA is finalizing interim rates that reflect a phase-in of building block two 

and a revised building block three. The result is more of a “glide path” on average for states. In 

this final rule we are providing for increased flexibility to allow states and regional planning 

groups to establish glide paths for their interim goals and toward meeting the final 2030 goal. 

We are also requiring “check-in’s” that analyze plan performance during interim timelines and 
156 

may trigger corrective actions to bring plan performance back to the glide path slope, as 

necessary. Yet we are not requiring that a particular glide path follow a set slope, but rather that 

the plan outline the steps and goals, including indicators and timelines, such that an effective 

plan arrives at the set goal when the interim end is reached. In other words, reductions may be 

greater during the early portion of a particular interim, or toward the end of that interim, 

depending on the particulars of the plan. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that another option for addressing stakeholders' concerns about the potential 

challenges associated with achieving all of the reductions that states may need to obtain as early 

as 2020 is recalculating the interim state emission goals (i.e., not just the dispatch building block 

but the entire interim goal calculated using all four building blocks) and spread the emission rate 

reduction requirements more evenly across the interim years. The commenters stated that one 

approach for effectuating this change would be for EPA to calculate only two rates -a final goal 

in 2030 and a comparable composite in 2012. The commenters suggested that interim year rates 

for the years 2020 through 2029 would decline at a constant annual rate equal to one-tenth of the 

difference between the 2012 and 2030 rates. The commenters stated that this would be a 

relatively simple and straightforward, but potentially effective approach to avoid potential 

problems that affected EGUs and states may have achieving compliance with front-loaded 

interim emission targets relatively soon after their SIPs are approved by EPA. 

Comment 27: Comment supporting interim goal and glide path, and suggesting use of a 10-year 

averaging period in the final rule. 

Response 27: The EPA thanks the commenters for support of the interim goal and glide path 

approach to meeting the final goal. We are finalizing this rule with one interim period beginning 

in 2022, and retaining the final goal period of 2030. As such we expect the interim period and 

the associated 3-year, 3-year, 2-year steps, combined with other planning flexibilities afforded to 

state and regional planning groups, will provide for a proactive approach to achieving 

meaningful GHG reductions and effectively manage the complex matrix of decisions in doing so.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Referring to EPA's request for comment on the 2020 to 2029 glide path in the NODA (79 FR 

64548), commenters suggested a milestone approach for measuring progress during the years 

preceding the 2030 goal. The commenters stated that a milestone approach would allow for 

stepped reductions in a manner that comports with the Nevada Public Utilities Commission's 

integrated resource planning (IRP), would give states greater flexibility in meeting their final 

goals, and would create meaningful targets that take into account planned retirements of coalfired EGUs. 
157 

If, however, the EPA adopts a 10-year averaging period in the final rule, then the commenters 

indicated that they would prefer a modified interim period that accounts for a phase-in schedule. 

The commenters stated that a phase-in schedule would provide time for infrastructure 

improvements that would support increased existing natural gas-fired generation as well as 

modifications that would minimize stranded investments. The commenters noted that a milestone 

approach based on the IRP process would involve measured decision making taking into account 

various stakeholder interests, including inter alia individual states, tribes, utilities, and ratepayers. 

The commenters noted that such a process is more likely to result in targets that address 

stakeholder concerns, such as infrastructure improvements, stranded investments, continued 

safety and reliability of the grid, and overarching federal laws such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Comment 28: States should be able to define a glide path that does not necessitate 2-year 

increments of performance. 

Response 28: See response 27 above.

 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that the EPA is proposing states can create their own glide path during the 

interim period; however, the EPA is proposing under 40 CFR 60.5815 that states develop 

increments of emission performance on a 2-rolling calendar year period for the interim period 

(2020 to 2029). Given the numerous references to flexibility and the EPA's understanding that 

many factors influence the ability to achieve the interim goal, commenters expressed concern 

regarding a 2-rolling calendar year increment of performance. Commenters disagreed with the 

necessity for such frequent milestones to be achieved in the interim period, especially given the 

implications being proposed relevant to corrective measures and potential penalties or 

implications for not meeting these 2-year increments of performance. Commenters stated that 

essentially the EPA is turning a 10-year interim compliance period into a 2-year compliance 

period. 

Commenters disagreed with the necessity for increments of emission performance on a 2-rolling 

calendar year period for the interim period (2020 to 2029) while post 2030 is based on a 3-year 

period. Commenters argued that states should be able to define a glide path that does not 

necessitate short 2-year increments. Second, commenters disagreed with the need for final goal 

performance checks beyond the final determination of compliance with the 2030 goal. 

Commenters stated that the proposal implies 3-year performance checks would continue 

indefinitely into the future. Commenters stated that the EPA is also proposing an option where, 

in addition to submitting a plan demonstrating emission performance through 2030, states would 

be required to make a second submittal in 2025 showing whether their plan measures would 

maintain the final-goal level of emission performance over time; if not, the state submittal would 
158 

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

that level of performance over time. [79 FR 34905] Commenters disagreed with this approach 

and stated that these proposed demonstrations go far beyond necessity and the intended scope of 

a Section 111(d) plan and even far beyond the scope of plans under Section 110. 

 

 

 

4.3 ALTERNATE GOALS 

Section 4.3 covers public comments related to the proposed alternate final and interim goals. 

4.3.1 Alternate Final Goals 

Section 4.3.1 covers public comments related to the proposed alternate final goals including the 

stringency, achievability, state’s authority to develop, and the timing. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: Support for Alternate Final Goals

Response 1: The EPA is not finalizing the alternate goals in the final rule. Please see section V 

of the preamble for the final BSER determination. Please see sections VI and VII of the 

preamble for the final emission performance rates and statewide CO2 emission performance 

goals. 

The alternate proposed goals reflected a different set of building block assumptions on which 

EPA took comment. The final rule can inherently only have one set of building block 

assumptions, so the Agency is not finalizing alternate goals. However, the comments on the 

alternate goals still informed the final source category rates and quantification of BSER. For 

instance, the proposed goals were based on a 6% heat rate improvement, and the alternate goals 

were based on a 4% alternative assumptions. Although there are no “alternate goals” in the final 

rule by the nature of it being final, the final heat rate improvement assumptions more closely 

resemble those presented in the alternative goals at proposal. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
159 

Several commenters approved the alternate goals as an available regulatory option. 

Commenters added that allowing the alternate final goals with the proposed goals would allow 

maximum flexibility in adopting either goal and its associated timeline. 

Commenters requested that states have the flexibility to select between EPA's proposal and 5-

year option in their state plans. 

Commenters added the Alternative Approach more accurately reflects the emission reduction 

and deployment potential of renewable energy than the RPS Approach. 

Commenters added EPA has proposed two formulations of the BSER as alternatives for use in 

state emissions limit target setting; each recognizes the reality of the interconnected nature of the 

electric system, which enables lower or zero CO2 emitting sources to substitute for the higheremitting affected sources, thereby reducing CO2 emissions from the affected sources 

overall. Commenters said EPA's first approach relies on a combination of building blocks 1 

through 4. Commenters said the second alternative BSER approach offered by EPA, identified as 

consisting of building block 1 coupled with "reduced utilization" of the designated facilities, is 

grounded more closely in EPA's statutory authority to direct emissions reductions from the 

affected sources. Commenters said this "reduced utilization" BSER is also simpler, more 

transparent, and easier to comply with, because CO2 emissions reductions at the designated 

facilities (caused by reduced utilization of those sources) can be readily and directly measured, 

reported and enforced. Commenters said the alternative formulation of BSER under which 

building blocks 3 (low-or zero-emitting generation sources) and 4 (energy efficiency) reduce 

utilization of higher emitting affected sources is within EPA's authority. 

Commenters added natural gas re-dispatch, energy efficiency measures and increased reliance on 

zero or near-zero emitting renewable energy generation costs are clearly "reasonable" as they are 

already in widespread use; including them in the BSER will provide indirect incentives for 

further innovation in these CO2 reducing technologies - precisely the kind of technological 

innovation leading to decreased costs associated with pollution control that the standard setting 

process is intended to yield. 

Commenters added the concept of "reduced utilization" of the regulated sources is not new, but 

has long been recognized as a pollution control measure under the Clean Air Act; for example, 

the plain text of the 1990 Acid Rain provisions includes the reduced utilization language, as well 

as references to energy efficiency, showing that Congress clearly intended that pollution controls 

of the kind contemplated by EPA as the BSER in this rule could "reduce utilization" of existing 

EGUs, even to the point of unit retirement. 

Commenters added the alternative "reduced utilization" BSER is a simpler formulation; on the 

implementation side, it is the CO2 reduction associated with reduced utilization of affected 

sources that can be most simply, easily, and accurately quantified, tracked, monitored, and 
160 

enforced; such reductions also are squarely within the control of the affected sources and owners 

and operators would not have to rely on participation of non-regulated entities. 

Commenters respectfully requested that, if a Clean Power Plan is to be pursued, a more 

rationally established compliance horizon and carbon emission rate should be provided for 

Virginia to allow flexibility for the Commonwealth to meet the EPA's goals of reducing carbon 

output while imposing only reasonable costs on customers; the alternative carbon emission rate 

of 1,216 that EPA presents for Virginia, for example, would achieve a substantial carbon 

emission reduction for existing fossil-fuel units in Virginia without compromising reliable and 

affordable electric service to Virginia's citizens and businesses. 

Commenters stated in this proposal, EPA has requested comment on an alternative set of statespecific goals with a less stringent application of the same BSER with a shorter timeframe; 

commenters support this alternative approach because it provides a more realistic and achievable 

goal. 

Commenters support providing the option of complying with less stringent alternate state 

goals. Commenters said the alternate goals should reflect what can realistically be accomplished 

and what would ensure equity among the states; the alternate goals would involve fixing the 

errors and revising the assumptions found in the current computations of what reductions can 

theoretically be achieved under the four building blocks to incorporate what actually and 

realistically can be accomplished. Commenters said the alternate state goals would provide the 

states with less stringent BSER requirements and an accelerated implementation time frame. 

Commenters stated as compared to the proposed goals for Indiana, the less stringent alternative 

goals would mitigate the adverse economic consequences of compliance and are more 

appropriate. 

Commenters stated Oregon is among the leading states in energy efficiency policy and 

investments, and PGE, their customers, and their partner, the Energy Trust of Oregon are leaders 

within Oregon at capturing energy efficiency. The commenters said the proposed method of 

determining BSER from energy efficiency does not match our current practices or our 

understanding of the leading policies that have been demonstrated to acquire the most significant 

savings over time. Commenters said the final Clean Power Plan should adopt the alternate 

energy efficiency approach outlined in the proposal which assumes that states can achieve 1.0% 

annual incremental efficiency, approximating the cumulative level of savings achieved by 

leading states in 2012. 

Commenters stated EPA can capitalize on the changing landscape of energy markets by 

shortening and advancing the rule's compliance schedule while committing to issue updated 

performance standards that will take effect in 2026. Commenters said the rule currently is 

scheduled to take effect in 2020, but there is no reason that the leading states cannot submit plans 

by 2016, with approval in 2017 and a phased-in compliance schedule beginning in 2018. 
161 

Commenters said an accelerated schedule will both reward states that have and plan to adopt the 

kinds of policies that will achieve significant CO2 reductions while motivating the less-inclined 

states to draft an approvable plan, lest they be subject to an EPA-issued federal plan. 

Commenters stated EPA should then be in a position to commence an internal review of the rule 

by 2020-21, with a proposed revision of the performance standards issuing in 2021-22 and a final 

rule scheduled for 2022-23. Commenters said States would have up to two years to submit 

revised plans, allowing for a compliance period for the updated standards commencing in 

calendar year 2026. Commenters said by adopting this accelerated schedule and committing to 

an 8-year review (similar to the 111(b) approach), the agency can ensure that the emission 

reductions required in the second half of the next decade are sufficiently stringent and that the 

rule remains maximally effective. 

Comment 2: Support for Alternate Final goals; with modifications.

Response 2: The EPA is not finalizing the alternate goals in the final rule. However, we are 

incorporating feedback received on the alternate goals into the final BSER quantification. Please 

see section V of the preamble for the final BSER determination. Please see sections VI and VII 

of the preamble for the final performance rates and statewide CO2 emission performance goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters support the alternate goals, but recognize it needs modifications. 

Commenters stated the 5-year option has some merit, because it takes a slightly more realistic 

approach to Best System of Emission Reduction, however: EPA's calculation methodology 

penalizes states with under-construction nuclear and takes away state flexibility in meeting the 

compliance goal; and the 5-year option requires "too much, too soon" with the interim goal, and 

by requiring heat rate improvements, natural gas dispatch changes and energy efficiency targets 

prior to the rule taking effect in 2020. 

Commenters stated the Alternative Approach, when adjusted to adequately capture the 

contributions from solar, would most effectively capture the emissions reductions achievable 

through application of the BSER to affected EGUs. Commenters stated the Alternative Approach 

is more accurate because it does not rely on one policy to determine the solar potential in a state, 

as the RPS approach does; thus the Alternative Approach would set a more realistic expectation 

of the amount of solar growth feasible that will create a balanced energy portfolio in each state. 

Commenters added the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) engaged with ICF to run the 

Integrated Planning Model (IPM (registered sign)), the same model that EPA uses, to reproduce 

EPA's RE Market Potential run based on the below solar energy recommendations, using up-todate cost and performance assumptions for renewable energy technologies. Commenters stated 

the resulting national target for renewable generation nearly doubles from EPA's estimate, 
162 

growing from 524 TWh in 2030 to approximately 973 TWh in 2030. Commenters said this 

clearly demonstrates that significantly higher levels of renewable energy are both technically and 

economically achievable, compared to the levels proposed in either of EPA's target-setting 

approaches. Commenters concluded based on these results, EPA should strengthen the 

contributions of renewable energy in its target-setting to accurately reflect the full potential that 

these technologies can have in reducing dangerous carbon pollution from the electricity sector. 

Commenters added the EPA should reconsider NGCC capacity factors for states, like Minnesota, 

with higher RE potential to reflect the role played by NGCC in backing up RE 

generation. Commenters added if EPA uses the Alternative RE approach in the final rule, where 

expected RE generation is substantially increased for many states in EPA's determination of 

BSER, the reliance on a 70% NGCC capacity in building block 2 target-setting calculations for 

Minnesota and other states with similar generation profiles should be reconsidered. Commenters 

said EPA's current assessment of NGCC in building block 2 may overlook the role NGCC units 

have in support of wind and solar power; Minnesota relies on NGCC units to provide energy 

during peak consumption periods, and in part as backup for wind energy. Commenters said 

Minnesota is concerned whether existing NGCC, run as base-load plants with capacity upward of 

70%, could additionally fulfill their existing role in supporting RE generation and peak load 

service. Commenters said with current RE generation of about 10,000 GWhr, it might be 

reasonably expected that with whatever role NGCC plays in backing up its wind resource, under 

the alternative RE approach that expects Minnesota's RE generation to increase to 18,647 GWhr, 

Minnesota's reliance on its existing NGCC capacity to back up RE will increase. Commenters 

said Minnesota recommends that if EPA finalizes the alternative RE approach, it re-visit NGCC 

capacity factors on a state-by-state basis to refine state targets. 

Commenters stated the agency has solicited comment on an alternative compliance period ending 

in 2025, with interim goals applying between 2020 and 2024. Commenters urged EPA to adopt 

the shorter time frame with two additional features. Commenters said first, EPA should advance 

the compliance schedule to begin as early as January 2018, rather than 2020. Commenters said 

second, the agency should engage in a continuous internal review of the rule during the 

compliance period and should commit to issuing a revised set of emission guidelines that would 

take effect in 2026. 

Commenters added under either the 2025 or 2030 formulation of the rule, states are expected to 

cut their CO2 emissions according to the levels provided under Building Blocks 1 and 2 in the 

first year of compliance, while Building Blocks 3 and 4 require incremental cuts spaced out over 

the remainder of the compliance period; what this means is that the substantial majority of 

reductions occur early on in the compliance schedule, while later years contribute relatively little 

in the way of emission cuts. Commenters said they approve of the agency's decision to require 

steep cuts early on, commenters believe that RE and EE - which are phased in more slowly under 

Blocks 3 and 4 - will provide much greater opportunities for emission reductions than the rule 

currently anticipates. Commenters said renewable technologies in particular are rapidly dropping 

in price, whereas fossil fuels will become increasing expensive between now and 2030. 
163 

Commenters said between now and 2020, it can be expected that the changing economics of the 

electricity sector to make RE investments significantly more attractive across the board, 

including in states that are currently resistant to these innovations. 

Commenters stated EPA has asked if less stringent goals should be promulgated with a 2025 due 

date. Commenters said there may be some merit in this approach if it is coupled with a 

commitment to revisit the entire program in 2020 to release 2030 goals that will inevitably be 

more strict that the 2030 goals now proposed. 

Comment 3: The EPA's alternative goals like the proposed goals are flawed and unworkable.

Response 3: The EPA is not finalizing the alternate goals in the final rule. Please see section V 

of the preamble for the final BSER determination. Please see sections VI and VII of the 

preamble for the final performance rates and statewide CO2 emission performance goals.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated EPA is also soliciting comments on state goals that are higher CO2 

emissions rates but the interim goals will have to be met from 2020-2024 and the final goals in 

2025. Commenters said for Kentucky, the alternate limits are 1,951 lbs/netMWh interim and 

1,918 lbs/netMWh final. Commenters said this alternative approach identifies the "system of 

emission reduction" as including, in addition to Building Block 1, the reduction of fossil fuelfired EGUs' mass emissions achievable through reductions in generation of specified amounts 

from those EGUs. Commenters said under this approach, the measures in Building Blocks 2, 3 

and 4 would not be components of the system of emissions reductions, but instead would serve 

as bases for quantifying the reduction in emissions resulting from the reduction in generation at 

affected EGUs. Commenters said this alternative approach contains a more aggressive 

compliance timeline that the primary CPP option and the lack of projected RE and EE in the 

compliance calculation for a portfolio approach will result in a significant increase in cost and 

forced retirements. Commenters said like the primary proposal, EPA's alternative goals do not 

create a workable framework; the proposed alternative does not provide relief from the 

devastating financial impacts. Commenters said basing the calculations on net versus gross 

emission, the alternative goals include the same unrealistic concept that all facilities (or any 

EGU) can get a six percent heat rate reduction in addition to the projects that have already been 

completed; coal-fired plants are still left having to make the same kind of reductions in capacity 

factor to achieve these rates. Commenters said the goal calculation is fatally flawed no matter 

which Building Blocks are or are not included. 

Commenters stated in the CPP Proposal, EPA developed an alternate set of goals reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks but a shorter implementation period; the alternate 

final goals represent emission performance that would be achievable by 2025, after a 2020-2024 

phase-in period, with interim goals that would apply during the phase-in period on an average 

basis as States progress toward the final goals. 
164 

Commenters opposed EPA's alternative set of goals for the same reasons raised with respect to 

the Proposal; in particular, the shorter timetable may present deadlines that will not be feasible; 

however, EPA should allow the states to choose between whether they will implement the 

proposed or alternative goals. Commenters said states have a better understanding regarding 

which standard(s) and deadline(s) they would be more likely able to meet, and should, at a 

minimum, have the requisite flexibility to choose which of the two plans they prefer 

implementing. Commenters urged EPA to extend the schedule for states to meet the alternate 

final goal to no earlier than 2030 while eliminating the interim goals and allowing states to 

determine the emission reduction trajectories that work best in meeting their final goals in the 

most equitable, cost effective and efficient manner possible. 

Commenters stated EPA also solicited comment on the combination of Building Blocks 1 and 2 

only as the basis for BSER. Commenters said this is not EPA's preferred alternative, and EPA 

states that the proposed combination of all four building blocks is capable of achieving greater 

reductions in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs at a lower cost. Commenters said the fatal flaw 

in EPA's analysis, is the use of Building Blocks 2, 3 & 4, which impose obligations on sources 

not within the relevant subcategory and which are not part of the physical affected source as 

defined in EPA's proposed NSPS for coal-fired EGUs and IGCC units. 

Commenters stated if EPA insists on retaining Block 2 as part of its BSER determination, EPA 

should also consider as an alternative approach the use of Blocks 1 and 2 only in the goal 

calculation (and the only two elements of the BSER). Commenters said under construction 

nuclear, new nuclear, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures that fall within Blocks 3 

and 4 would be available in the suite of measures States could use to comply with the derived 

CO2 performance standards. 

Commenters stated EPA is also soliciting comments on alternative state goals at higher CO2 

emissions rates, but interim goals will have to be met from 2020-2024 as will final goals in 2025; 

for Indiana, the alternate interim limit is 1,715 lbs/netMWh and the alternate final limit is 1,683 

lbs/netMWh. Commenters said this alternative approach identifies the "system of emission 

reduction" as including, in addition to Building Block 1, the reduction of fossil fuel-fired EGUs' 

mass emissions achievable through reductions in generation of specified amounts from those 

EGUs. Commenters said under this approach, the measures in Building Blocks 2, 3 and 4 would 

not be components of the system of emissions reductions, but instead would serve as bases for 

quantifying the reduction in emissions resulting from the reduction in generation at affected 

EGUs. Commenters said this alternative approach contains a more aggressive compliance 

timeline than the primary CPP option and the lack of projected RE and EE in the compliance 

calculation for a portfolio approach will result in a significant increase in cost and forced 

retirements. Commenters said like the primary proposal, EPA's alternative goals do not create a 

workable framework; the proposed alternative does not provide any relief from the significant 

cost and reliability impacts that are detailed above. Commenters said basing the calculations on 

net versus gross emissions, the alternative goals include the same unrealistic concept that all 

facilities (or any EGU) can obtain a six percent heat rate reduction over and above heat rate 
165 

reductions already obtained by projects that have been completed, and that are not credited by 

the CPP. Commenters said coal-fired plants are left having to make the same kind of reductions 

in capacity factor to achieve these rates; the goal calculation is fatally flawed no matter which 

building blocks are or are not included. 

Commenters said while the alternate state goals are slightly less stringent than the goals included 

in the proposed rule and would be implemented over a shorter time period, the commenters are 

equally concerned about the feasibility and impact of the rule should the EPA adopt the alternate 

state goals. 

Commenters added NRECA has provided numerous reasons detailing that the interim 2025 

compliance option and 2030 compliance building block goals are unachievable; each building 

block goal is based on flawed assumptions without which the building block goals are not 

achievable for numerous States. Commenters said the five-year alternative building block goals 

are no more achievable for similar reasons; they certainly cannot be rationally strengthened. 

Commenters added the alternate goals suffer from the same fundamental flaw as the proposed 

goals: they are based on an unlawful BSER determination; a standard of performance under 

section 111 must be achievable by individual regulated sources based on measures that the 

source's owner can integrate into the design or operation of the source itself; Building Blocks 2, 

3, and 4 are inconsistent with this requirement. Commenters said simply lowering the targets of 

the various Building Blocks doesn't change this fact. Commenters said the alternate goals also 

suffer from the same challenge as the proposed goals in that the interim compliance period, 

which begins in 2020, does not allow enough time between state plan approval and 2020 to 

develop and implement a compliance strategy to avoid stranded investments and potential 

reliability problems. Commenters said the EPA should not finalize any guidelines that are based 

on a BSER determination that includes Building Blocks 2, 3, and 4, regardless of the level of 

stringency of any of the Building Blocks; if, however, the EPA does proceed with finalizing 

guidelines that are based on a BSER determination that includes Building Blocks 2, 3, and 4, it 

should finalize goals for 2030 and 2025 without an interim compliance periods, and let each state 

select whether it will plan to meet a 2030 goal or a 2025 goal. 

Comment 4: Oppose alternative goals; shorter timeframe exacerbates problems with achieving 

goals. 

Response 4: See response 1 above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated EPA proposed an alternate set of emissions goals and has asked for 

comments on the appropriateness of the alternative goals. Commenters stated they do not support 

the adoption of any of the alternative interim or final goals for Arizona. Commenters said most 

of the problems associated with achieving the Arizona goals proposed by EPA surround the short 
166 

duration for their achievement; an even shorter time period to achieve the goals, albeit somewhat 

higher, would only exacerbate these problems. 

Commenters stated the agency is also requesting comment on an alternative option, a 5-year 

period for compliance, in combination with a less stringent set of CO2 emission performance 

levels. Commenters said it is unclear, in the provided text, why the EPA decided to consider this 

shorter compliance period and corresponding less stringent performance levels. Commenters said 

a shorter compliance period seems unlikely to make it any easier for states to implement their 

programs to comply with this rule. Commenters said a shorter compliance period may have 

exactly the opposite effect in many states, even if the performance levels specified are less 

stringent. Commenters considered this alternative an unnecessary distraction and urge the EPA 

to cease any further consideration of it. 

Comment 5: Oppose Alternate Final Goals, Support Proposed Final Goals.

Response 5: See response 1 above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters opposed the less stringent alternate goals and support more aggressive 

proposed goals. 

Commenters stated that EPA's approach is conservative and, when combined with the flexibility 

afforded to states to use additional advanced energy technologies in compliance plans, shows 

that the state targets are technically and economically easy to meet; there is, therefore, no basis 

for EPA to adopt less stringent goals. 

Commenters said according to the information provided by EPA, there has already been a 15.7 

percent reduction by the year 2012, and the 30 percent reduction can be achieved with existing 

technology. 

Commenters stated the state of Hawaii has implemented EE/RE programs and is in the beginning 

stage of implementing Hawaii's GHG Rules that impact large stationary sources. Commenters 

said the state-specific detailed planning, public review, and early implementation of these 

programs will enable Hawaii to establish a rational and well documented CO2 emission rate goal 

in its 111(d) state plan for existing power plants. Commenters said that this state specific 

approach provides the best way to execute a GHG program "consistent with a vibrant and 

growing economy and reliable, affordable electricity to support that economy." Commenters 

stated they do not support the "alternate interpretation that the BSER includes, in addition to 

building block 1, a component consisting of reduced generation from higher-emitting affected 

EGUs" because (as will be documented below) the associated state specific economic impacts 

have not been performed by EPA in the development of the proposed Plan. 
167 

Commenters stated the alternative option of a 5-year period for compliance time with a less 

stringent set of CO2 emission performance levels is the opposite of what needs to be done in the 

interest of the American people and the global population; compliance can happen within the 

time period proposed in the Clear Power Plan, and the plan should incorporate the most stringent 

carbon pollution reductions as are feasible within the existing proposed compliance time period. 

Commenters stated U.S. EPA is proposing two options for goals; first, is the preferred option 

which is an interim goal applied on a cumulative or average basis during the 2020 to 2029 with 

the final goal achieved in 2030. Commenters said for Ohio, the interim goal is 1452 (adjusted 

output-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MW-h) with a final 2030 goal of 1338. 

Commenters said as an alternative option, U.S. EPA is proposing a less stringent goal, therefore, 

less time is provided. Commenters said interim goals are applied from 2020 to 2024 with a final 

goal in 2025. Commenters said for Ohio, the interim goal is 1588 (adjusted output-weightedaverage pounds of CO2 per net MW-h) with a final 2025 goal of 1545. Commenters said 

ultimately in 2025, the alternative goal would lead to a 23% reduction in CO2 over 2005 levels, 

compared to the 29% reduction anticipated for the 2030 preferred goal. Commenters added 

although this alternative is a less stringent target, nevertheless, it also cannot be achieved in 

Ohio. Commenters said the U.S. EPA believes evidence that one or more of the individual 

building blocks is not achievable is not sufficient to cause re-evaluation of the goal unless the 

state demonstrates that increased control of another building block is not feasible. Commenters 

have serious concerns with the achievability of each individual goal, or the combination of, in 

the State of Ohio. 

Commenters stated the proposed goals reflect EPA's quantification of the state's average 

emission rate from affected EGUs that could be achieved by 2030 and sustained thereafter, with 

an interim goal that would apply over a 2020-2029 phase-in period, through implementation of 

BSER based on all four building blocks. Commenters said EPA indicates it is also taking 

comment on a second set of state-specific goals that would reflect less stringent application of 

the same BSBR, in this case by 2025, with interim goals that would apply over a 2020-2024 

phase-in-period. Commenters said Tennessee's goals on this shorter time period are 1,363 

lbs/MWh (interim and 1326 lbs/MWh (final). Commenters said EPA indicates that the interim 

and final goals, as promulgated in the final guidelines, will be binding emission guidelines for 

state plans. Commenters stated they generally support the longer time frame because it appears 

to allow for more planning and implementation time.

Commenters added the State of Montana prefers EPA's primary proposal of an interim average 

goal extending from 2020 to 2029 and a final goal beginning in 2030 over the alternative 

proposal of an interim goal extending from 2020 to 2024 and a final goal beginning in 2025. 

Commenters said the longer timeline for compliance provides greater flexibility while also 

delivering greater carbon emission rate reductions that will further promote a more sustainable 

society and generate greater environmental benefits. 
168 

Commenters added climate change is an important environmental issue; the opportunity to 

achieve reductions from power plants, which emit one third of the greenhouse gas emissions 

nationwide, is very important; the proposed regulation includes an option for a less stringent 

target. Commenters supported the more aggressive target of 30 percent reduction from the 2005 

baseline by the year 2030; according to the information provided by EPA, there has already been 

a 15.7 percent reduction by the year 2012, and the 30 percent reduction can be achieved with 

existing technology. 

Commenters added under Option 1 (EPA's preferred option), EPA is proposing an interim goal 

for each state for the phase-in period from 2020 to 2029 and the final goal that applies beginning 

in 2030; EPA proposes, for comment, a set of alternative goals (State Emission Target Option 2) 

with a final goal in 2025 based on less stringent building block targets. Commenters preferred 

that EPA adopt State Emission Target Option 1 since it would result in earlier and greater overall 

emissions reductions than State Emission Target Option 2. 

Commenters supported EPA's compliance Option1; Option 2, which proposed a shorter 

compliance time frame with a less stringent emissions reduction standard, offers less opportunity 

for job creation. Commenters said while the Clean Power Plan calls for significant reduction 

goals, it is important to keep in mind that the more ambitious and flexible the standards, the 

greater the potential opportunity for innovation and economic growth. Commenters said some 

stakeholders point to the potential for achieving even stronger reductions, than those currently 

proposed, through increased investment in renewables and energy efficiency; which will have 

direct benefits for small business owners and operators. Commenters said importantly, more job 

opportunities are created under EPA's preferred Option 1 proposal; therefore, the commenter do 

not support consideration of Option 2, which proposes a shorter compliance time frame with a 

less stringent emissions reductions standard and therefore less opportunity for job creation. 

Commenters favored Option 1 over Option 2; even at the 2025 time point, Option 1 calls for a 

larger reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than Option 2. Commenters said even those 

reductions anticipated under Option 1, will not be sufficient to provide adequate protection of 

human health and the environment; additional reductions will be needed. Commenters said 

Option 1 has additional benefits that also protect health in that the reductions in the emission of 

SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 will be greater than achieved under Option 2. 

Commenters disagreed with the Alternative State Goals in the Draft Rule on Table 9.15 because 

EPA has determined that the Draft Rule demonstrates compliance with the requirements of 

Section 111(d) as the "best system of emission reduction...adequately demonstrated." 

Commenters said the alternative goals are not justified and would not make as much progress 

toward carbon reduction as possible. 

Comment 6: Alternate final goals should not be less than NSPS; the alternate goal is not.

Response 6: See Response 1 above 
169 

As discussed elsewhere in this document and the preamble, the NSPS 111(b) rates and the 111(d) 

rates are not comparable as the latter reflects reductions in generation levels. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated any carbon emission rate adopted for Virginia must be higher than 

what is required for new units. Commenters noted, for example, that EPA provides an alternative 

carbon emission rate of 1,216 pounds of CO2/MWh for Virginia, which is calculated "before the 

introduction of nuclear, renewable, and [energy efficiency] into the denominator" of EPA's 

calculation. Commenters said a carbon emission rate of 1,216 would be a substantial reduction 

for existing fossil-fuel units in Virginia, as it is more than 16% lower than Virginia's rate in 

2012, and more than 40% lower than Virginia's rate in 2005; however, this alternative rate, along 

with a more reasonable compliance horizon, would address most of the cost and reliability 

concerns identified herein. Commenters said certainly, the final carbon emission rate should be 

no lower than the 1,100 pounds of CO2/MWh the EPA has set for new gas generation using the 

best available control technology; of course, because of the Commonwealth's substantial 

investment in and production from zero-carbon nuclear generation, Virginia's entire generation 

fleet would, in reality, emit carbon at a rate far lower than the EPA contemplates for either new 

or existing fossil-fired generation in Virginia. 

 

Comment 7: Alternate Final goals - BB1 4% HRI

Response 7: See response 1 above. In regards to the final rule heat rate improvement 

assumptions, commenters may see EPA’s response in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD and in 

preamble section V.C 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated U.S. EPA is proposing an alternative to the 6% HRI proposal; 

specifically, U.S. EPA is alternatively proposing a 4% HRI as a "reasonable minimum estimate 

of the technical potential" for HRI on average across affected coal-fired steam EGUs. 

Commenters stated they do not believe U.S. EPA's approach of setting a nationwide average of 

potential HRIs at either 6% or 4% is appropriate or within U.S. EPA's role under the CAA. 

Commenters wished to emphasize, just as the S&L Study indicated, the best method for 

determining the ability for HRIs at individual facilities is through site-specific evaluations. 

Commenters said the analysis presented by U.S. EPA applied proposed methodologies and 

proposed HRIs from the S&L Study. Commenters said heat rate improvement projections should 

be based on what has been done and what could be done at individual coal-fired units as well as 

empirical data on HRIs that can be adequately demonstrated to be the direct result of a specific 

project or best-practices methodologies. Commenters said U.S. EPA's assumption that each 

individual coal-fired EGU can obtain a 4% HRI from best practices based upon an examination 

of historical heat rates of the entire fleet and an additional 2% for equipment upgrades based 
170 

upon an ill-applied study does not indicate technical feasibility is possible at the individual units.

Commenters said the inaccuracies and challenges demonstrate that only heat rate studies 

performed on a unit-by-unit basis conducted in direct consultation with on-site operators with 

knowledge of individual unit operations will be productive. 

Comment 8: Alternate Final Goals - BB2 65%

Response 8: See Response 1 for a clarification on why alternate goals are not part of the final 

rule package. 

However, the EPA used comments on the alternate goals such as the one below to inform its 

final BSER quantification. The interim period now starts in 2022 and EPA has phased in 

building block two consistent with the commenters suggestion. See section V.D of the preamble 

for a response to how combined cycles may operate at 75% utilization. 

EPA notes, that the final rule assumption of 75% utilization is based of summertime net 

dependable capacity instead of nameplate. The 75% utilization value that the commenters are 

referencing below is based on nameplate capacity and would consequently reflect a higher 

generation total for the building block than 75% utilization of summer capacity.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated U.S. EPA is proposing as part of the alternative set of goals a less 

stringent target of a 65% average utilization rate; and then U.S. EPA goes even further to request 

comment on raising the rate to 75%. Commenters wanted to point out again that in the state 

driven compliance IPM run, U.S. EPA could only show achievement of a 64% utilization rate. 

Commenters did not agree that 75%, 70% or 65% is technically or economically achievable 

given the analysis and method U.S. EPA has used to establish feasibility of these various levels. 

Commenters stated in the proposal, EPA also solicits comments on an alternate 65 percent 

utilization rate, noting that 16 percent of NGCC plants had utilization rates over 65 percent in 

2012; however, none of the issues identified with respect to the 70 percent utilization assumption 

are ameliorated with a 65 percent utilization rate. Commenters said again, EPA applies this 

assumption in isolation from other assumed building blocks; EPA does not address the 

possibility/likelihood that an increase in variable renewable generation may actually counter 

increasing the utilization rate of existing NGCC fleet to the levels desired in order to balance the 

integration of new renewable generation onto the grid. Commenters said increased cycling of 

NGCC units to accommodate renewable would decrease efficiency of those units and increase 

CO2 emissions. Commenters said implementation of the 65 or 70 percent NGCC dispatch 

requirement would require states to put an emissions cap on individual coal units in order to 

move those units ahead of coal in the dispatch queue (environmental dispatch); this could cause 

additional coal units to become uneconomic and to shut down, especially those in competitive 

energy markets; it may also cause coal unit curtailment without regard to reliability needs, which 

could result in reserve margin risks, and cause some coal units to run at reduced, less efficient 

loads, which creates more/additional CO2 emissions. Commenters said it could lead to fuel 
171 

diversity issues, making ratepayers more susceptible to natural gas fuel spikes, particularly 

without substantial investments in new natural gas pipeline infrastructure. Commenters said 

whether the system as a whole can operate with most NGCC facilities operating at a 65 or 70 

percent capacity factor within less than five years as implied by the state goal calculation is very 

uncertain. Commenters said transmission constraints limit the ability to re-dispatch the fleet. 

Commenters said natural gas availability, particularly during the winter heating season, can limit 

the ability to re-dispatch the fleet. Commenters said the choices that states make in developing 

their compliance plans may limit the ability to re-dispatch the fleet; also, economics drive the 

dispatch of individual power plants. Commenters said without drastic changes to market rules to 

run some NGCC facilities out of merit, economic fundamentals may prevent NGCC facilities 

from achieving an average capacity factor in the range of 65 to 70 percent. Commenters said to 

the extent this forced dispatch to natural gas approach is retained, we request that EPA allow 

states to ramp to a 70 percent capacity factor in order to allow more time to put into place the 

transmission and pipeline infrastructure necessary to support this level of utilization and allow 

time for the markets to institute dispatch rules which will allow for this level of utilization. 

Comment 9: Alternate Final Goals - BB4 1% 

Response 9: The EPA is not finalizing the alternate goals in the final rule. Please see section 

V.A. of the preamble for discussion of the proposed Building Block 4 and sections VI and VII of 

the preamble for the final performance rates and state goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated the EPA invites comment on whether a more stringent incremental 

goal could be set for demand-side electricity programs. Commenters encouraged the EPA to 

consider setting the goal for annual incremental electricity savings from 1 percent to 1.5 percent 

in states where the average kilowatt-hour usage per consumer per month is significantly higher 

than the national average. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposal includes two options for setting the EE goals or mandates, 

using 2012 data as the baseline: Option 1) 1.5% "goal" starts in 2017 and continues thru 2030 

and beyond, or Option 2) achieve 1.5% in 2020 and then a "goal" of 1.0% after that thru 

2025. Commenters did not support either option to its fullest; while both options will flatten the 

utility's load curve, given the reality of the challenge of actually achieving energy efficiency, it is 

more appropriate that the alternative approach offered by Option 2 be adopted (or that it be 

lowered further). Commenters said because the supposition that 1.5% savings can be achieved 

each year is inaccurate, it is preferable that the alternative which aligns more closely with actual 

achievable results is employed by EPA. Commenters said in the end, EPA should re-evaluate the 

methodology and assumptions used to calculate block 4 savings in each state, and should adopt a 

less aggressive and more realistic approach. 

Commenters stated EPA should adopt an alternative option for energy efficiency which uses a 

more realistic goal that reflects the actual level of performance that is achievable, such as the 
172 

0.7%. Commenters said the alternative Option 2 suggested by EPA provides for a 1.0 % annual 

incremental savings to calculate state goals which is admittedly closer to the actual level of 

performance that is achievable (0.7%), and reflects a goal setting process more closely aligned 

with actual conditions, but it is still too high. (Option 2 also uses the 0.15 % per year level for the 

pace at which incremental savings are increased from their historic levels.) Commenters said 

using an alternative which sets the initial EE savings at 0.7% in 2020, and then requiring it be 

maintained at 0.7% through 2025 and beyond (along with the incremental 0.15% annual 

increase), this approach is preferable to the flat 1.5% goal which the commenters have 

established is not achievable. Commenters said EPA should use the alternative approach to 

calculate a more rational goal for states. 

 

Comment 10: Let states have option to plan for 2025 or 2030

Response 10: The EPA is not finalizing the alternate goals in the final rule. Please see sections 

I.A and V of the preamble for the timing of the final emission performance rates and statewide 

CO2 emission performance goals.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters recognized that EPA desires to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as 

possible, which drove both the interim goals and the final alternative state goals for 2025. 

Commenters said while North Carolina contends that the final alternative state goals suffer from 

the same legal and technical deficiencies as the Proposed Rule, the final alternative state goals 

for 2025 should be left in place as an incentive to encourage states to achieve compliance earlier. 

Commenters said states should have the option to plan for compliance with the 2025 or 2030 

state goal. 

Commenters stated in the proposal, EPA includes and requests comment on a set of state-specific 

alternative emissions rate goals and related building block goals that would be achieved in a 

shorter time frame of five years instead of the proposed rate over ten years. 

Commenters applauded EPA for including these alternative goals, which may turn out to be 

more reasonable and achievable at less overall cost; however, as is the case with much of the 

Proposed Emission Guidelines, more time is needed for Virginia to fully assess the benefits and 

impacts of the alternative goal. Commenters recommended that EPA allow individual states to 

select the approach that is most suitable and beneficial given state-specific circumstances in the 

final rule. Commenters believed this flexibility should be provided to states that have already 

achieved significant reductions in their carbon intensity and which have more substantial 

reduction requirements 

Comment 11: Exclude the Technical Potential Benchmark from the Alternative Approach and 

Rely on the IPM Model Results with Modifications; Solar.
173 

Response 11: See response 1 above.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated within the Alternative Approach, the current proposed rule first 

establishes a technical potential benchmark that is used in combination with an IPM projected 

market potential. Commenters did not support the inclusion of the technical potential benchmark 

in setting a state's target; instead, the commenters recommended that EPA rely solely on the IPM 

model when applying its Alternative Approach. 

Commenters added as the EPA notes in its proposal, applying NREL's technical potential for 

solar in each state to determine the state goals has limited value. Commenters said that the 

technical potential is arbitrary because it shows the solar capacity that could be built in a given 

state without recognizing real-world limiting factors such as economic growth and grid 

constraints; therefore, the EPA should not rely on NREL's technical potential for setting state 

goals. 

Commenters added the EPA should solely rely on the IPM model for setting the state targets. 

Commenters said unlike the technical potential, the IPM model takes into account the cost of 

building renewable generation, as well as grid conditions in each state and a number of other 

factors; in addition, the IPM model considers the resource potential that is considered by NREL's 

technical potential. Commenters believed that with the correct solar data inputs, the IPM model 

provides a realistic projection of solar energy potential at the state level that can be relied upon 

for setting state goals. 

Commenters added there is precedent to rely solely on the IPM model for setting the renewable 

targets in each state under the Alternative Approach. Commenters said the EPA currently uses 

the IPM model to analyze the impact of air emissions policies on the U.S. electric power sector 

such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power 

Plants; therefore, there is precedent to rely solely on the IPM model for setting the renewable 

targets in each state under the Alternative Approach. Commenters said the EPA also notes that 

"for the development of its latest power sector modeling platform, EPA has increased its external 

engagement with state air quality planning officials, power company representatives, regional 

transmission organizations, and others who have provided input on the data, assumptions, and 

structure of EPA's Power Sector Modeling Platform v.5.1," which shows that the model includes 

feedback from a variety of stakeholders, and can be used reliably to set the state targets for 

compliance. 

Comment 12: Tribes & Territories - Support for Alternate Final Goals
174 

Response 12: EPA has shifted to a regional subcategory-specific framework for this final rule. 

Consequently, all fossil steam sources receive an emission rate of 1,305 lb/MWh. For 

states/tribal lands that only have fossil steam sources – this becomes their goal emission rate. 

Because state goals are based off adjusted baseline generation levels, the conversion to mass 

reflects generation from all units operating (or assumed to operate) in the baseline, and 

retirements (or generation reduction) after the baseline period will help the state/tribe move 

towards its final mass goal. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated in the Supplemental Proposal, EPA solicits comment on alternate 

goals that would reflect a shorter compliance deadline but a less stringent application of the 

building blocks; for the Navajo Nation, EPA seeks comment on a proposed final goal of 2,034 

lb/MWh that would apply in the year 2025, and an interim goal of 2,035 lb/MWh that would 

apply over a 2020-2024 phase-in period. 

Commenters supported adoption of the alternate goal approach for sources on the Navajo Nation; 

any CO2 reductions that are required by the BART rule for NGS will have to take place by 

December 31, 2019, and FCPP has already reduced CO2 emissions significantly. Commenters 

said they are working closely with the Navajo Nation and APS to explore opportunities to use 

emissions reduction credits associated with EGU retirements or curtailments in a regional trading 

program to generate funds to spur green energy and low-carbon energy development on the 

Navajo Nation and to potentially facilitate state goal compliance. Commenters said if higher 

alternate goals are finalized by EPA and then converted to mass-based goals, it will improve the 

likelihood that a viable trading program or a multi-jurisdictional arrangement can be developed 

that would benefit all parties. Commenters encouraged EPA to work closely with the Navajo 

Nation to establish mutually acceptable alternate CO2 emission goals that will benefit the Navajo 

Nation while also providing sufficient flexibility for the owners of NGS and FCPP to continue to 

operate the plants. 

Commenters encouraged EPA to adopt the alternative emission rate goals (2,035 lbs/MWh 

interim; 2,034 lbs/MWh final) for the Navajo Nation for tribal & territories supplementary rule. 

Commenters said there is no difference in the environmental benefit between the proposed goals 

and the alternative goals as all the emission reductions are driven by other regulatory programs. 

Commenters said there is, however, a potential difference in the economic benefit from 

application of the alternative goals through participation in a multi-jurisdictional plan. 

Commenters said from a cost-benefit perspective, the alternative goals are clearly superior. 

Commenters stated EPA identified alternate final goals for Indian country that reflect less 

stringent application of the four building blocks and a higher emission rate that would be 

achieved earlier: by 2025, after a 2020-2024 phase in. Commenters supported EPA offering an 

alternative final goal that can be complied with earlier; the commenters would like the flexibility 
175 

to select which goal it ultimately complies with and would like additional time to make that 

determination. Commenters said providing additional time to sort out the future operation of 

plants and flexibility in consideration of an alternate final goal would be helpful. Commenters 

said in light of the fact that Building Blocks 2 and 3 do not practically apply to the Navajo 

Nation (and the Navajo Nation believes that Building Block 4 should not be applied as EPA 

proposed), once the BART-related issues at NGS are resolved, the power plants on the Navajo 

Nation may be in a position to act toward an earlier final carbon emission goal in exchange for 

additional flexibility in the emission goal beyond what is contemplated in the Supplemental 

Proposed Rule. Commenters would like to engage EPA in discussions on what might be possible 

with regard to a final emission goal or other incentives for early compliance under a scenario 

where reductions are achieved prior to 2020. 

4.4 COMPUTATION PROCEDURE 

Section 4.4 covers public comments related to the computation procedure of the final and interim 

goals, including BSER factors, data used, calculation, alternative approaches, treatment of data 

years, and other computation comments. 

4.4.1 BSER factors informing state emission rate goals 

Section 4.4.1 covers public comments related to the individual building blocks and their 

interaction with each other in relation to the state goal. 

This section contains significant overlap with the building blocks discussed in Preamble Section 

V, RTC Chapter 3, and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. Where the commenters were 

focusing on the building block quantification and analysis, the EPA refers to those respective 

sections. Where the commenters were focusing specifically on the manner in which the building 

blocks are treated in goal computation, the EPA tries to address that through responses in this 

section 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: General support for BSER approach for calculating goals. 

Response 1: The EPA appreciates the general support for the BSER approach for calculating 

goals. Based on comments received and as discussed in the preamble section V, the EPA is no 

longer including demand-side energy efficiency as part of its expression of the BSER. However, 

mitigation measures of this nature may still count towards compliance. 
176 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Several commenters stated EPA's inclusion of the system-wide approach to compliance is 

fundamental to increasing the use of clean energy technologies and substantially lowering 

emissions; without this, the states would have fewer options for compliance and less flexibility. 

Commenters said utilizing a diverse portfolio of clean energy options available for compliance 

will make the US economy stronger, reduce emissions and increase resiliency. 

Commenters stated when calculating Oregon's BSER and the rate goal, EPA properly accounted 

for all energy efficiency investment in Oregon including energy efficiency investments made on 

the systems served almost solely by hydroelectric power. 

Comment 2: Difficult to comment/ overall concerns, the EPA should reevaluate its BSER.

Response 2: The expression of the BSER has been modified from proposal to reflect 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates that are more consistent with prior EPA 111(d) 

rulemakings and comments suggesting such an approach. This addresses the commenters 

concern that generators of the same subcategory receive similar incentives regardless of the state 

in which they are located. 

Based on comment, nuclear generation (including under construction) is no longer incorporated 

into quantification of the BSER. Discussion of how and when nuclear generation can be used in 

compliance is found in section VIII of the preamble. 

Please see section V of the preamble and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for more 

information regarding the building blocks. 

After the initial quantification of BSER subcategory-specific emission performance rates, EPA 

further test the feasibility and compliance costs of meeting the BSER emission reductions using 

its comprehensive power sector modeling platform. The IPM model is a well-established 

established model including millions of variables and constraints reflecting fuel markets, 

emissions markets, electricity markets and the interaction of all three. It is a least-cost linear 

programming model that optimizes the method for meeting energy and peak demand 

requirements of the modeled time horizon. EPA disagrees with the comment that it did not test 

or recognize the constraints of the power sector when evaluating its BSER – both the building 

block analysis described in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD and the power sector modeling 

used to evaluate the final rates reflect a very robust assessment of system-wide impacts and 

costs. See the Regulatory Impact Analysis for more information and the EPA Power Sector 

Modeling Documentation for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
177 

Commenters stated even with the clarifications provided by EPA's October 2014 Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA), the structure of the Proposed Rule is such that meaningful comments 

require unique knowledge of each state's compliance plan and predetermination of the reasonable 

achievability of EPA's modeled emission performance requirements. Commenters said without 

knowing the structure of the State Implementation Plan, the FPSC cannot address the 

achievability of EPA's proposed emission performance requirements through EPA's best system 

of emission reduction (BSER) approach or any other compliance approach with certainty. 

Commenters stated EEI members companies have identified a range of technical concerns with 

each of the four Building Blocks that comprise EPA's proposed BSER. Commenters stated EPA 

overestimated the potential CO2 emission reductions that could result from each of these 

Building Blocks. Commenters said in addition to specific issues with EPA's analysis of potential 

reductions from each Building Block, any assertion of the achievability of the proposed state 

goals is undermined by the fact that EPA ignored the interactions between and among the 

Building Blocks and state-specific constraints when assessing the reduction potential of each 

Building Block, and, consequently, proposed state emission rate goals may not be achievable. 

Commenters stated prior to promulgating a final rule, EPA should, at a minimum reconcile the 

extensive legal and technical issues that a have been identified regarding their interpretation, 

evaluation, and determination of the BSER. 

Commenters stated the Agency's emissions limitations on individual states vary widely and are 

based on complex and detailed assumptions that may not reflect reality, what is achievable, or 

even what is within EPA's authority to regulate. Commenters said EPA must better explain and 

disclose the underlying assumptions and data that serve as the foundation for these binding 

targets. Commenters said EPA has failed to date to address these issues, provided little to no 

information regarding what authority it was relying upon to institute such outside the fence 

expansive regulatory targets, nor how it intends to proceed if it does not approve of individual 

state implementation plans. 

Commenters stated throughout the proposed guidelines, EPA acknowledges and references the 

vast amount of change occurring within the electric industry today due to a variety of factors, 

including transformative state policies and significant utility investments; in developing BSER, 

required by Section 111 (d) of the CAA, EPA specifically explains that each of the technologies 

and measures chosen are being utilized throughout the country within the electric system. 

Commenters were concerned that EPA has taken the fact that some states and/or utilities have 

invested in certain technologies and/or measures, concluded that they are equally applicable 

everywhere and applied the entirety of its BSER to every state, requiring emissions reductions 

representative of all the technologies and/or measures (set at best practices levels) from all states 

in the form of mandatory state goals. Commenters said the result is that, for the most part, each 

state's mandatory goal represents a level of emissions reductions built from the application of 

each and every component of the system with no analysis by EPA as to whether that actually 

makes any sense or is economically reasonable for each state. Commenters added then, in a few 
178 

circumstances, EPA requires some states to achieve higher emission reductions, due to the 

specific choices made by those states and utilities, than other states, but doesn't otherwise adjust 

the state's goal to reflect the reality that states and utilities have made different policy and 

investment choices. 

Commenters said EPA's application of its proposed BSER to states reflects the inequity that is 

created by the agency's failure to develop a BSER that is as dynamic as the electric system, 

reflecting a myriad of state policies and utility investment choices; for example, state goals for 

Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina reflect a significant amount of emissions reduction 

required from the application of "under-construction" nuclear units within EPA's System that are 

not yet complete. Commenters said EPA determined that these units are technologies that should 

be included within the System, but only applied the representative emission reductions to these 

three states. Commenters said on the other hand, EPA determined the growth of renewable 

energy generation is a measure that should be included within BSER, but that particular measure, 

and the associated emission reductions, should be applied to every state; therefore, states such as 

Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and others that invested heavily in a 

resource that is readily available in these states, have state goals that reflect emission reductions 

associated with the growth of renewable energy generation that they have already met or 

exceeded. Commenters said every other state, including Tennessee, must make additional 

investments to grow this resource. Commenters said the application and results make evident that 

EPA's proposed System does not reflect the dynamic, varied nature of the electric system and 

may not, for some states, be achieved at a reasonable cost; in particular, the mandatory nature of 

the state goals make EPA's proposed guidelines particularly troublesome. 

Commenters recommended EPA reevaluate its BSER, taking into consideration the specific 

comments provided below and revise the System accordingly, or publish the final guidelines 

with state goals as presumptive values, for which states can request modification during the state 

planning process in their respective plans. 

Commenters stated EPA's approach for determining state-by-state CPP targets ignores ownership 

rights in generating resources. 

Commenters stated EPA should not compel regulated sources to provide for deployment of 

additional BSER measures to compensate for measures that are demonstrated to have been set 

too stringently as indicated by exceeding of EPA's cost effectiveness criteria. 

Commenters stated EPA should provide additional justification for the appropriate assignment of 

cost effectiveness for setting BSER target stringency for the states. 

Commenters stated the weaknesses in the analysis cannot be ignored. Commenters said a better 

strategy for EPA is to (1) get the analysis right and (2) be technology neutral and not appear to 

endorse subsidies for any specific resource, as it did in the case of nuclear power. 
179 

Commenters stated inclusion of non-fossil resources in the BSER formula leads to state targets 

that diverge more than when an average fossil rate is used as the starting point; if states develop a 

flexible rate-based policy approach and their neighboring state has a very different target level, 

there is a possibility that generators of the same type on either side of a state border would face 

different compliance costs. Commenters said this kind of competitiveness issue could lead to 

environmental leakage, but it would be reduced if the starting point for developing the state 

standards was a fossil rate. 

Commenters stated the EPA's definition and use of the BSER to set state goals proposes a system 

of compliance that is intrinsically inflexible. Commenters stated the dynamics of compliance, 

under circumstances of any unplanned shortfall in the non-emitting resources required for 

compliance, force an additional curtailment of covered fossil output, creating a further reduction 

in supply and forcing states to increase imports or reduce exports. Commenters stated this creates 

the risk of multi-state compliance failures that could disrupt interstate power flows. 

Commenters stated EPA states, "We consider our proposed findings of the BSER with respect to 

the various building blocks to be severable, such that in the event a court were to invalidate our 

finding with respect to any particular building block, we would find that the BSER consists of 

the remaining building blocks. The state goals that would result from any combination of the 

building blocks can be computed from data included in the Goal Computation TSD and its 

appendices using the methodology described in the preamble and that TSD." Commenters added 

the state's target must be adjusted commensurate with the elimination of the percentage 

contribution to the target should a court invalidate one or more of the building blocks. 

Commenters stated if Building Block 4, Energy Efficiency, is vacated, Kentucky's target of 

1,763 lbs CO2/MWh should increase to reflect only the effect of Building Blocks 1, 2 and 3; 

assuming that the loss of one or more of the building blocks can be made up by the remaining 

building blocks is not appropriate and should not be employed by EPA as a backstop. 

Commenters said there are real technological limitations to each of the building blocks, and these 

limitations cannot be dismissed. 

Commenters stated the methodology used in developing the proposed goals is atypical of an 

emission rate calculation and the building blocks used to establish the goals are highly 

questionable. Commenters said a typical emission rate calculation will involve the total mass of 

emission divided by total generation; the CPP emissions standard is calculated as the ratio of 

expected future emissions after implementing the assumed building blocks, divided by the sum 

of fossil, renewable, new or "at risk" nuclear, and generation avoided through energy efficiency. 

Commenters said the CPP emissions standard represents neither the fossil fleet emissions rate 

nor the emissions rate of the entire generation fleet. Commenters said the resulting measure is 

used only as a way of setting a state goal and incorporating the benefits of activities "outside the 

fence" of EGUs. 
180 

Commenters stated EPA's "building blocks" analysis of the "best system of emission reduction" 

is not based on accurate or reasonably demonstrated assumptions in Wyoming and is not 

consistent with the realities of the electric grid. 

Commenters stated, the methodology for determining the BSER should be carefully examined to 

ensure that it is firmly based on realistic assumptions for implementation and achievement of 

emissions reductions. 

Commenters stated, U.S. EPA has proposed BSER as the measures discussed above under each 

of the building blocks and states they "have been "amply" demonstrated via their current 

widespread use." [79 FR 34835] Commenters have pointed out several flaws in U.S. EPA's belief 

that many of these measures have been "amply demonstrated." Commenters said, U.S. EPA set a 

BSER on a broad basis by averaging across multiple units, then applying said average to 

individual units. Commenters said, this ignores the purpose of BSER. Commenters said, this 

analysis is unwieldy, unfair and inaccurate when applying broad averaging to individual units 

within a state. Commenters said, as an example, as a deregulated state, the analysis of HRI 

performed at individual coal-fired power plants units is performed radically different than in a 

regulated state. Commenters said, in Ohio many of the coal-fired power plants have already 

made notable improvements that are ignored in U.S. EPA's nationwide BSER determination. 

Commenters said, by abandoning U.S. EPA's traditional method for requiring controls on 

individual units, U.S. EPA is forcing states to expand the regulation to entities that do not even 

have emissions like RE or EE. Commenters said, in addition, this method ignores cost 

assessments and technical feasibility in the rulemaking process and, instead, forces states to 

make BSER determinations with an ultimate goal already predetermined. 

Commenters stated, having the ultimate goal already predetermined is not the intent or correct 

method for a BSER analysis. Commenters said, U.S. EPA is required to consider technical 

feasibility, costs, size of emission reductions and technology promotion as part of BSER. [79 FR 

34835] It is Commenters' believed that U.S. EPA has ignored this requirement by applying a 

BSER that does not take into account HRIs that have already occurred but yet are assumed to be 

able to be achieved again, by requiring an increase in emissions from NGCC with the assumption 

it will reduce emissions from coal-fired units, and establishing a BSER based on outside-thefence requirements to further reduce coal-fired units generation (EE/RE). Commenters said, 

further, it should be noted that U.S. EPA never provided any analysis to show it is adequately 

demonstrated that states can meet the goals for individual building blocks in combination. 

Comment 3: BSER Building Block Application and Interaction 
181 

Response 3: The EPA agrees with the comment that it should consider ways to quantify the 

regional impact of building block 2 across state lines. As explained in preamble section V and 

VI, it has incorporated a regional building block framework for all building blocks in the final 

rule based on comment. 

The flexibility of the emission rates embodied in both the subcategory-specific emission 

performance rate and the state goal does not constitute a limit on generation from existing 

sources. The EPA believes that the metrics and flexibilities of this final rule do not restrict load 

growth in existing sources as suggested by the commenters. 

The final BSER quantification does capture the interactive effect of all three building blocks. 

Moreover, the EPA tested the resulting rates through its IPM power sector modeling tool to 

further verify the viability of BSER and the aggregate effect of the three building blocks. 

EPA does not believe that a reduction in utilization of the fossil steam fleet as a result of building

blocks two and three would inherently result in a reduction in efficiency of the fossil steam fleet. 

The EPA analyses suggest that the fleet will reduce fossil steam generation by operating some of 

the older, inefficient units less and operating some of the more efficient units more relative to 

2012 levels. This would potentially lead to increased efficiency in the operating coal fleet, not a 

decrease. As discussed in Chapter 3, the existing fleet is still expected to operate at a high 

utilization level of approximately (e.g.,>65%) over the programs interim period and 2030. EPA 

believes it is conservative in continuing to assume the historical baseline average coal fleet 

emission rate as its baseline emission rate in a scenario where building block two and three are 

expected to reduce generation. Moreover, the less efficient units are generally more likely to 

retire or reduce generation, meaning the remaining fossil steam generation would actually have a 

lower emission rate on average (not a higher one). 

EPA agrees with the commenters that the NODA approach to building block three where the 

incremental RE generation offsets baseline generation on a 1-for-1 basis – holding all else equal 

– would result in a more stringent quantification of BSER (i.e., a lower rate). As explained in the 

October 2014 NODA, this is consistent with feedback that the proposed treatment of only adding 

the block three generation to the denominator understated its potential. 

As explained in section V, EPA has taken a regionalization approach to the building blocks in 

this final CPP rule which reduces the disparity between some state emission rate goals that 

existed at proposal and noted by comments below. This is consistent with the comment that 

EPA should consider ways to utilize the potential of natural gas generation to displace coal 

generation so that the building block more equitably reflects emissions performance 

improvement opportunities across states. 

EPA’s quantification of BSER does recognize the interaction of the building blocks. The 

comment below suggests that applying building block one first (heat rate improvement) and then 

building block two causes the building blocks to contradict each other. However, this sequence 

respects the interaction of the building blocks, rather than interfere with it. See section VI of the
182 

final rule preamble for discussion of the subcategory-specific emission performance rates and 

how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the methodology for calculating state goals is applied consistently across all 

states, but it leads to real differences in emissions targets across states. Commenters said for 

building block 1, EPA should allow states to demonstrate pre-base-year heat rate improvements 

secured through specific plant upgrades, technologies, or new plant construction, and provide 

data on other plant changes that have affected net heat rates, so that EPA can use this information 

in determining improvement potential for that state. Commenters said for building block 2, EPA 

should consider ways to utilize the potential of natural gas generation to displace coal generation 

so that the building block more equitably reflects emissions performance improvement 

opportunities across states. Commenters said in designing the standards, EPA should consider 

ways to avoid incentivizing natural gas generation and overbuilding infrastructure at the expense 

of other cost-effective, lower carbon resource alternatives. Commenters said if at-risk nuclear 

remains in the calculation of state goals, and a state's nuclear plant shuts down at the end of its 

license term, or due to safety reasons, the EPA should consider allowing measures to adjust a 

state's goal or budget appropriately, after considering the availability of other zero carbon 

resources. Commenters said EPA should take a consistent approach toward the carbon intensity 

of resources when establishing state goals and when assessing compliance. 

Commenters stated within each state, each utility's CO2 emissions should be evaluated against 

the building blocks based on the ability of each utility to implement those building blocks within 

its own system. Commenters said in the event that a state has excess credits, those should be the 

property of the utility and available for it to use toward compliance in another state. 

Commenters stated the goal setting and interim targets proposed by EPA do not properly take 

into account all relevant factors that are impacted by both BSER and non-BSER components. 

Commenters said under the Proposed Rules, the state's goals are based on EPA's assessment of 

the amount of emissions that can be reduced at existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs through 

application of the BSER. Commenters said the proposed goal for California, in adjusted 

megawatt hour (MWh)-weighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs, is 556 pounds per megawatt hour (lbs CO2/MWh) for 2020-2029, and 537 lbs 

CO2/MWh for 2030 going forward. Commenters said California would have to meet both the 

interim and final target in order to comply with the EPA's mandate, utilizing the four building 

blocks that reflect BSER. 

Commenters stated the state goals, and in particular the interim 2020 and final 2030 targets, 

should be reviewed in light of the fact that EPA's assessment of the state-specific requirements 
183 

and the totality of the circumstances faced by each state is incomplete and would adversely 

impact some states; for example, California already has aggressive emissions reduction goals 

that are implemented through economy-wide measures. Commenters said one such goal is 

increased electrification of the transportation sector; California's goal for electrification of the 

transportation sector will result in increased electric demand, which increased demand is not 

specifically recognized as part of EPA's calculation of California's reduction targets. 

Commenters said the determination of state targets also appears to be devoid of an analysis of 

state's industries, and how increased electrification of industries (such as ports and railways) will 

impact electric generation from existing facilities. Commenters added it appears that the statespecific targets do not account for potential load growth that will be met by existing resources, 

rather than new facilities. 

Commenters stated the record appears to assume - but does not demonstrate - that all load growth 

in California would be met by new generation, and as such, the California target set by EPA may 

be too stringent in light of California's ambitious electrification goals. Commenters stated 

without supporting data, it is not reasonable to assume that all load growth will be met by new 

generation. Commenters said EPA's assessment does not appear to fully consider the 

ramifications of increasing generation from existing efficient and low-emitting resources, and 

rather appears to contemplate that increased demand due to population growth (or other factors) 

would be addressed through new facilities, or can be offset by energy efficiency measures as the 

Proposed Rule implies. Commenters said the record does not support a conclusion that these 

increases can be met my energy efficiency savings or new facilities, and EPA should review and 

revise the state targets in light of these variables. Commenters said the Proposed Rule has the 

potential to adversely impact reliability in several regions, including the west. Commenters said 

the timing of the interim goal has the potential to further restrict the ability of utilities to ensure 

the efficient operation of the electric grid; as such, EPA should reevaluate the level of the interim 

goal, and adjust the extent to which states are required to "front load" reductions. Commenters 

said revising - or potentially eliminating - the interim targets will enable states and their regional

partners to develop the gas and electric infrastructure that will be necessary to ensure sufficient 

electric generation resources in their optimal locations. 

Commenters stated the proposed guidelines do not include adequate information as to how EPA's 

proposed BSER functions as a whole system. Commenters said EPA proposes the building 

blocks as a system, but provides calculations that do not illustrate how the blocks may interact 

with one another. Commenters said in some scenarios, the blocks will actually work against one 

another; utilities will improve heat rate at coal affected EGUs and then be forced to re-dispatch 

some of that generation to NGCC affected EGUs. Commenters said the result will likely be that 

some of the improved heat rate will be lost at the affected coal EGUs. Commenters said failure to 

consider these interactions between the blocks, artificially inflates the actual reductions that may 

be technically feasible or achievable at a reasonable cost and forces to states to evaluate these 

interactions on their own or otherwise over comply to ensure compliance with the state goal. 

Commenters recommended EPA evaluate these interactions and correct the proposed BSER to 

account for the interplay between blocks. 
184 

Commenters stated EPA generally overestimates the possible reductions available from the 

Building Blocks, resulting in state goals that may not reflect the reductions that are achievable. 

Commenters said in setting the state goals, EPA simply added the estimated potential reductions 

from each Building Block. Commenters said this is the largest overarching flaw in EPA's 

methodological approach to BSER and the proposed state goals. Commenters said because the 

Building Blocks are part of the interconnected power system, they need to be evaluated jointly, 

taking into consideration their interactions in the context of that system. Commenters said EPA 

did not consider these interactions, which tend to limit the reduction potential of each when 

compared to EPA's assessment of the Building Blocks in isolation. Commenters said if EPA 

relies on the interconnected power system as the basis for the BSER determination, the Agency 

cannot ignore these interactions when projecting the reductions achievable through each of the 

Building Blocks. Commenters said the Agency should consider them before finalizing the statespecific emission rate goals; EPA should consider any state-specific issues identified in state 

compliance plans and adjust final state goals if necessary. 

Commenters stated EPA has stated that the four building blocks may be used in any combination 

(or none) by states to comply; however, EPA's own modeling, along with independent analysis, 

shows that most states will be heavily dependent on implementation of all four building blocks in 

order to meet their goals. Commenters said because states will be simultaneously dependent on 

all four building blocks, EPA must take into consideration the effects of each building block on 

the other building blocks. Commenters said for example, increasing the capacity factor of the 

NGCC fleet to 70% under Building Block 2 will inevitably reduce the capacity factor of the coal 

fleet, which in turn will degrade the efficiency of the coal fleet in direct conflict with Building 

Block 1; EPA has not accounted for that adverse impact. 

Commenters stated in its October 30 NODA, EPA proposed taking a similar approach for 

Building Blocks 3 and 4 as it did for Building Block 2, which will only lead to tighter standards; 

that is, in the original CPP proposed rule, renewable energy and energy efficiency are added to 

the denominator (MWh), but no corresponding adjustment is made to reduce the generation and 

associated emissions from other fossil sources (as was done with Building Block 2). Commenters 

said this resulted in a higher BSER rate than the two approaches EPA suggests in the October 30 

NODA. Commenters said EPA is now proposing two approaches for adjusting down the fossil 

generation and emissions offset by renewable energy and energy efficiency, one is based on a 

pro-rata share of all fossil generation and the other starts with the highest emitting sources (i.e., 

steam); both approaches would lead to more stringent emission rate standards relative to the 

original methodology. Commenters provided a simplified example: 

-In the current approach, if coal has a 2,000 lb/MWh emission rate and 2012 generation was 10 

MWh and the renewable and energy efficiency building blocks add 5 MWh of zero emission 

generation, the BSER standard would be 1,333 lb/MWh (i.e., 10 MWh x 2000 lb/MWh plus 5 

MWh x 0 lb/MWh)/15 MWh). 
185 

-Under the October 30 NODA approach, similar to Building Block 2, the emission and 

generation of the fossil (in this example coal) would be reduced; so, the calculation becomes 

2,000 lb/MWh for 5 MWh of generation (10 MWh of coal reduced by 5 MWh of non-emitting) 

and 5 MWh of non-emitting generation; under this approach, the BSER becomes 1,000 lb/MWh 

(i.e., 5x2000 + 5x0)/10); under this approach, total generation is equivalent to the historical level 

and forces energy efficiency and renewable energy to supplant fossil generation. 

The commenters said as shown in the simplified example above, EPA's updated proposed 

methodology would result in a more stringent standard. 

Commenters stated in determining what level of RE deployment is achievable by states, EPA did 

not consider the system and reliability implications of adding a substantial amount of RE 

generation; similarly, EPA did not consider how the integrated power system would affect the 

achievability of the proposed RE goals. Commenters said EPA's failure to fully consider the 

electric system as a whole when setting state RE targets undermines the reasonableness and 

achievability of these goals. Commenters said this failure could result in overall emission 

increases, even if states satisfy their compliance obligations. 

Commenters stated variable RE resources could also be supported by existing simple-cycle CTs, 

which would need to operate at higher utilization rates. Commenters said because CTs are less 

efficient than NGCCs, this could increase overall CO2 emissions and hamper states in their 

efforts to meet their overall emission reduction goals. Commenters said EPA does not appear to 

have considered these potential impacts and outcomes when calculating RE potential. 

Comment 4: Building Block ordering can affect contributions to the target rate

Response 4: In this final rule, as discussed in section VI, order of the building block 

calculations in the equation does influence the final goal as building block two and three both 

compete for replacement of fossil steam. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated a common point of confusion is in analyzing the relative contribution of the 

individual Building Blocks used to create the EPA target rate by state; because the EPA target 

rate is a fraction (i.e., lbs/MWh) the contribution of each Building Block to making up the target 

rate depends crucially on the order in which the Building Blocks are added. Commenters said as 

a result, if the computation is performed by first removing heat rate improvement (BB1), then 

natural gas re-dispatch (BB2), renewables and nuclear (BB3), and energy efficiency (BB4) in 

that order, the results will be different than if the computation were performed by first removing 

BB4, then BB3, BB2, and BB1. Commenters provided its own assessment of the impact of each 

Building Block by state that provides data that is comparable across Building Blocks and does 

not depend upon the ordering. Commenters said this is done by removing one Building Block at 
186 

a time from EPA's computation, calculating the new target rate (and hence the difference), then 

adding that Building Block back in, before removing the next; in this way, the impact of each 

Building Block on the target rate is computed from the same baseline (the EPA target rate), and 

are thus directly comparable; any progressive one-by-one approach does not have this property 

and will tend to exaggerate the impact of the Building Blocks removed last in the calculations. 

Example of How Building Block Ordering Affects Contributions to the Target Rate 

From the EPA provided spreadsheet '20140602tsd-state-goal-data-computation.xlsx' the 

following can be computed for 2030 that make up the calculation for the target rate in 

Pennsylvania. 

CO2 emissions: 210,942.6 million lbs 

Covered fossil generation (BB1&2): 142.52TWh 

Expected renewables generation for Pennsylvania (BB3): 35.33TWh 

Existing nuclear generation (at 6% credit - BB3): 4.48TWh 

Energy efficiency (BB4): 18.19TWh 

EPA's target rate can then be written down as 

Target rate = (210942.6)/(142.52+35.33+4.48+18.19) = 1052 lb/MWh. 

Suppose you consecutively remove BB1, BB2, BB3, and BB4 in that order. As you remove each 

building block, the target rate changes as shown below 

Rate - BB1 = (220849.4)/(142.52+35.33+4.48+18.19) = 1101 lb/MWh. 

Rate - BB1 - BB2 = (231891.6)/(142.52+35.33+4.48+18.19) = 1156 lb/MWh. 

Rate - BB1 - BB2 - BB3 = (231891.6)/(142.52+18.19) = 1443 lb/MWh 

Rate - BB1 - BB2 - BB3 - BB4 = 231891.6/142.52 = 1627 lb/MWh. 

Now suppose you instead consecutively remove BB4, BB3, BB2, and BB1 in that order. As you 

remove each building block, the target rate changes as shown below 

Rate - BB4 = (210942.6)/(142.52+35.33+4.48) = 1157 lb/MWh. 

Rate - BB4 - BB3 = 210942.6/142.52 = 1480 lb/MWh. 
187 

Rate - BB4 - BB3 - BB2 = 220881.4/142.52 = 1550 lb/MWh. 

Rate - BB4 - BB3 - BB2 - BB1 = 231891.6/142.52 = 1627 lb/MWh. 

Now compare the incremental contribution of each building block to the target rate using the two 

methods. 

Commenters said this example demonstrates that ordering is important; a change in ordering can 

change the impact of a single building block by more than 50%; furthermore, calculating the 

numbers by removing Building Blocks in order like this creates a bias towards those Building 

Blocks removed last; the example calculations are all computed off a common base - the EPA 

target rate - and are thus comparable. 

Commenters stated that the EPA should clearly state the priority order of preference for GHG 

reduction efforts. The commenters suggested the following prioritization: conservation, 

efficiency, distributed generation, renewables (industrial scale), and cleaner fossil fuels. The 

commenters added that the most environmentally protective energy is that energy that is not 

used. 

Comment 5: Conflicts between results and purported BSER elements 

Response 5: The IPM compliance scenario is not intended to replicate each of the individual 

building blocks, but rather a least cost compliance scenario to comply with the state goals. 

Because the EPA was conservative in its replacement assumptions at proposal (as pointed out by 

commenters), the model was able to realize greater reductions per same amount of MWh by 

capturing the replacement effect of incremental RE to reduce fossil generation below historical 

levels of incremental RE and EE generation. Moreover, the modeled compliance scenario also 

reflects non-BSER on-the-way reductions that represent alternative compliance mechanisms 

(e.g., scheduled retirements) and therefore lessen the amount of building blocks observed in the 

model. 

The EPA did receive significant comment on its building block three assumptions and has 

revised those as discussed in section V of the preamble and in the GHG Mitigation Measures 

TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated from the IPM results that are publically available, there are considerable 

inconsistencies between the modeled outcomes and what EPA has suggested as the BSER for the 

"building block" approach to calculating state goals. Commenters said as a prominent example, 

EPA concludes that the existing NGCC fleet will only achieve annual capacity factors of 50-57 

percent while the BSER determination suggests that 70 percent capacity factor is achievable. 

Commenters said as the IPM model is a least-cost optimization, the fact that NGCC units do not 
188 

reach 70 percent capacity factor in aggregate suggests there are unaccounted for significant 

economic and or physical barriers to increased utilization; this calls into question the robustness 

of EPA's initial BSER determination. 

Commenters stated another example of an inconsistency between the IPM modeled outcomes 

and building block determinations is in the deployment of renewable energy resources. 

Commenters said EPA's modeling suggests a relatively small amount of new renewable energy 

development; for wind energy, the dominant source of renewable energy additions, there is only 

an 11 to 12 percent increase in generation in the policy cases for Option 1, as compared to the 

base case. Commenters said additionally, the renewable energy capacity additions appear to be 

centered in a few select states and regions, which is contrary to the view that renewable energy 

additions are cost effective across all states. Commenters said in light of these inconsistencies, 

EPA should revise its BSER determination to reflect the amounts of renewable energy that are 

economically justified. 

Comment 6: BB1 Heat Rate Improvements 

Response 6: The EPA has taken into consideration the comments and is promulgating a final 

CPP rule with a BSER premised on a reduced heat rate improvement assumption of 2.1%, 2.3% 

and 4.3% for the Western, Texas, and Eastern Interconnection respectively. The EPA’s BSER 

quantification does not assume that individual units will all make heat rate improvements of this 

level, but that on average the coal fleet is capable of improving their efficiency relative to 2012 

baseline levels by this amount. Please see section V.C. of the preamble for more information 

regarding building block one and heat rate improvement. Also see Chapter 2 of the GHG 

Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA solicits comment on increasing the technical potential for heat rate 

improvements from equipment upgrades incremental to the best-practices opportunity from 2 

percent to 4 percent. Commenters said the most effective of these upgrades are already in place 

and that a 2 percent improvement overall is an overly-aggressive target. Commenters said EPA 

solicits comment on increasing the technical potential for heat rate improvements through the 

adoption of best practices from 4 percent to 6 percent; commenters said the most effective of 

these practices are already in place and that the proposed additional 4 percent improvement is not 

achievable. Commenters said EPA should work with states to determine the proper efficiency 

improvement potential since EPA's analysis does not properly capture the heat rate 

variability and some states such as Florida may be outperforming others since they have 

incentivized these improvements for decades. Commenters said these specific examples illustrate 

that EPA's assumptions regarding additional heat rate improvements are flawed; therefore, if 

supported by a state evaluation of heat rate improvement potential, the Block 1 reduction 

calculations should be adjusted to reflect an accurate potential heat rate improvement, if any. 
189 

Commenters stated a 6 percent improvement in coal plant heat rates is not reasonable for 

Arizona's plants, commenters recommended that EPA reduce Building Block 1 to 1 percent. 

Commenters added not all of the measures identified by the Sargent and Lundy report are 

available to every coal unit, and the installation of some measures would be mutually exclusive 

of others for some units. Commenters performed a high-level assessment of the possible 

efficiency improvements that could be realized at coal units from all of the measures outlined in 

the 2009 Sargent and Lundy report. Commenters said some of the improvements are not 

practical units (such as installing variable fan drives for induced draft fans and lowering air 

heater outlet temperatures); some would not result in efficiency gains (such as changing the 

bottom ash sluicing systems). Commenters' assessment determined that if all of the items 

identified by Sargent and Lundy's report that could be implemented, the average heat rate 

improvement would be 2% to 4%. 

Commenters were concerned that HRI measures made at coal-fired utilities prior to 2012 cannot 

be considered and are not taken into account by U.S. EPA. Commenters stated that the coal fleet 

in Ohio is highly efficient when compared to the nationwide coal fleet. Commenters examination 

of gross heat rate data for the nation-wide coal-fired units, using data available from the Clean 

Air Markets Database showed of the top 10% of units in terms of efficiency (88 units), Ohio 

utilities represented 13 of these, or 15%. Commenters said similar representation was observed 

in 2013 data. Commenters said nationwide in 2012, gross heat rate was 10,352 BTU/kW-h. 

Commenters said although Ohio utilities had 19 units with heat rates greater than this average, 11 

of those units are to retire in 2015. Commenters urged U.S. EPA to develop options that would 

allow states to take credit for these retirements. Commenters said in U.S. EPA's GHG Abatement 

Measures TSD [Page 2-18], it is stated that the gross heat rate of the nationwide study group is 

9,754 BTU/kW-h; following U.S. EPA's goal setting procedure, a 6% reduction in this value 

would yield a reduced nationwide gross heat rate of 9,169 BTU/kW-h. Commenters' analysis 

demonstrated that the 2001 to 2012 average gross heat rate of Ohio's coal-fired fleet is 9,788 

BTU/kW-h. Commenters said accounting for shutdowns due to the MATS rule, Ohio's 

remaining coal-fired fleet would have a gross heat rate of 9,287 BTU/kW-h; this calls into 

question whether Ohio's coal-fired EGU fleet could achieve a further 6% reduction, when U.S. 

EPA's analysis yields a similar value of 9,169 BTU/kW-h. Commenters added furthermore, 

given the variability of heat rates, it is likely that in some future years, Ohio's coal-fired fleet 

could potentially meet or exceed U.S. EPA's goal. Commenters recognized that some units may 

be able to take some steps to increase heat rates marginally; commenters do not believe that 

Ohio's post-MATS-compliance fleet, which will continue to operate in a competitive market, 

will be able to realize a further 6% reduction as envisioned by U.S. EPA. Commenters also 

wished to emphasize, as Sargent & Lundy also emphasizes, that "installation of additional 

pollution controls such as that required by regulations including BART, MATS, etc. will 

decrease the heat rate efficiency of any unit as compared to its heat rate efficiency before the 

installation." Commenters said a blanket, nationwide approach to setting the BSER is not 

appropriate for all units, and the results of the commenters' analysis further reinforces the 
190 

position that any HRI goals should be based on a unit-by-unit analysis of past and potential 

future HRI projects. 

Commenters stated in the proposed regulations, the EPA assumes that a total of 6% heat rate 

improvements for coal facilities can be achieved through best practices that account for 4%, and 

equipment upgrades that add another 2%; where calculations were based on an average for all 

existing coal facilities. Commenters said such calculations would be of limited value when 

applied to individual coal facilities in Nebraska or elsewhere, especially those that may have 

already experienced upgrades. Commenters said also, Nebraska's utilities have already 

implemented changes necessary to achieve the highest efficiency from many of their coal 

generation facilities. Commenters asserted the 6% heat rate improvement is not realistic; to be 

achievable and meaningful, improvements should be tailored to individual facilities. 

Commenters recommended a state's goal should be modified if sufficient evidence exists to 

demonstrate that a fossil facility cannot obtain a 6% heat-rate improvement because of efficiency 

measures already undertaken, i.e., operational before the beginning of the rule's baseline data 

period. 

Commenters recommended a state's heat-rate efficiency target should take into consideration the 

nature of the fossil fuel stocks used and available in the state and the extent to which those fuels 

allow for the safe application of alternative methods of consumption for purposes of heat-rate 

improvement. 

Commenters stated heat-rate and efficiency improvements made on fossil-fuel generating units 

in 2012 and beyond should be considered and counted in the rate and goal calculations; any site 

improvements or modifications made after the available data used in the goal calculation should 

be eligible for compliance consideration. Commenters said no matter what baseline data is used 

for the goal calculation (2012 as proposed by EPA, or a ten-year or longer period as we suggest 

in this communication), any heat-rate improvements made to existing units during or after the 

first year of the baseline data period should be counted for compliance. 

Commenters stated the goal calculation should be modified if sufficient evidence for a specific 

site shows that a 6% heat-rate improvement is not attainable due to improvements already made 

at that site; specifically, Montana's 2,100 MW Colstrip facility, the second-largest coal-fired 

power plant in the West, is in this situation. Commenters said the facility's operator, PPLMontana, has made several improvements over the past 10 years that have increased efficiency 

of the plant by approximately 5%; these upgrades include 3-4% improvement in efficiency 

resulting from using a new blade design in the turbine rotors, allowing the plant to use the same 

amount of steam flow to generate more electricity; a 1% gain from boiler upgrades; and a 0.5% 

upgrade resulting from cooling tower and fan improvements. Commenters said those projects do 

not leave many heat-rate improvements available for the site. Commenters emphasized that 

certain efficiency improvements that hold promise in one region of the country may not work in 

another region; for example, drying moisture out of coal to improve the efficiency of combustion 
191 

will not work for Colstrip because de-moisturized Powder River Basin coal, the fuel for 

Colstrip's generation, becomes highly combustible. Commenters said experiments at Colstrip 

with de-moisturized coal have resulted in spontaneous combustion events. Commenters said after 

consideration of the efficiency improvements already made at Colstrip, as well as the particular 

combustion characteristics of the plant's fuel stock, it becomes apparent that only 1-2% in 

efficiency gains are available at the facility and that the achievement of a 6% increase in 

efficiency is not a realistic expectation. 

Commenters stated Georgia has already performed all the efficiency improvements that are cost 

effective and do not expose a possible New Source Review (NSR). Commenters stated on 

the Northside Units 1 and 2, $26M was spent on turbine upgrades yielding approximately a 1.2% 

improvement in efficiency; the only possible upgrades remaining for these units are not currently 

cost effective. Commenters said there may be some room for a 1-2% increase in efficiency 

available for SJRPP 1 and 2 units, but those improvements are not currently cost effective, and 

are at risk of triggering an NSR review. Commenters said Georgia Power's Scherer 4, has 

received significant efficiency upgrades in the process and deploys the best available control 

technology (BACT). 

Commenters stated the risk of an NSR review has historically been the single major driver 

preventing even cost effective efficiency upgrades from being implemented; should maintenance 

or upgrades to a unit result in a net increase in emissions by virtue of an increase in output or in 

unit use, the unit would be subject to NSR. Commenters said at this time no guidance has been 

given by EPA on how it intends to apply NSR provisions should an improvement in efficiency 

mandated by the CPP result in an actual increase in total emissions due to increased capacity or 

increased usage. Commenters said it is not prudent for any utility to proceed with an upgrade that 

could trigger NSR without assurances (i.e. inclusion in the CPP rulemaking) that the rule driving 

the upgrade will in fact exempt the resultant upgrades from NSR; no such assurances have been 

given in the proposed NSR. 

Commenters stated a more significant hindrance to implementing Building Block 1 than NSR is 

the practical impact of implementing Building Block 2, the re-dispatch of coal-fired generation 

toward gas. Commenters said any attempt to implement Building Block 2 will result in both a 

reduced average load factor on the solid fuel EGUs, and an increase in the number of starts; both 

of these actions result in a decrease in overall efficiency which certainly exceeds the 1-2% 

improvement that may be available, and is likely to exceed even the 6% efficiency called for by 

Building Block 1. Commenters said reduced load operation and increased starts will negate any 

improvements to overall unit efficiency, and the total net unit CO2 emission rate (lb/MWh) will 

increase. 

Commenters stated it is not at all reasonable or even possible to achieve the Florida State 2020-

2029 or 2030 average emission goals for CPP regulated units even with all building blocks 

implemented. Commenters stated facilities can only achieve this goal by effectively retiring all 

solid fuel units and building gas units that are subject to Section 111(b). Commenters said since 
192 

the CPP in effect (though not in the rule) mandates forced closure of coal units, Building Block 1 

is rendered completely ineffective, impractical, irrelevant and unnecessary; it only exists to give 

credence to the desired appearance that this rule does not in fact force closure of coal units 

(though it does in practice). Commenters said Building Block 1 at a more realistic rate of one to 

two percent might be viable if BB 2 were abandoned. Commenters said BB1 is the only one of 

the four BBs that is effective at the "source" EGU. 

Commenters requested that EPA consider the following and adjust building block 1 in the goal 

computation procedure accordingly: 

-An EGU's heat rate is not constant; heat rate varies with such parameters as process design, 

equipment design, maintenance, cleanliness, weather conditions, fuel energy content, fuel 

delivery, process water temperatures, and cooling water temperatures; heat rate improvements 

are not uniform or universal; what works for one EGU may not work for another. 

-Heat rate improvement projects are limited for new and well-maintained units; some units have 

been proactively engaged in heat rate improvement efforts, including implementation of best 

practices, yet they receive no credit for these efforts prior to 2012 according to EPA's Clean 

Power Plan; for these units, it will not be economically or technically feasible to achieve an 

additional 6% improvement; heat rate improvement projects are not permanent; performance 

deteriorates over time due to age and operation of the unit. 

-New Source Review (NSR) rules discourage utilities from larger, more significant, efficiency 

improvement projects; a major impediment to the type of boiler or turbine upgrade projects that 

could achieve significant heat rate improvements is the fact that they would likely trigger a Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) review as part of a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit process; if a plant were not yet equipped with a Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) unit to control NO x, a heat rate improvement project that might cost $5 

million could turn into an SCR project for NO x reductions with a price tag of $100 million; 

smaller scale heat rate improvement projects that would not trigger a BACT review would not be 

able to achieve the 6% goal contained in this building block. 

-Heat rate improvements made at coal-fired EGUs will be offset by dispatch changes 

implemented pursuant to building block 3, re-dispatch of electricity production to new renewable 

resources; EPA's proposal is aimed at reducing utilization of fossil-fuel fired EGUs, particularly 

coal-fired units; increased re-dispatch to renewable energy providers, inherently variable 

resources, will result in coal-fired units cycling up and down and running at minimum loads for 

which they were not designed; this will have an adverse effect on heat rate. 

Commenters recommended that EPA should make two modifications to the proposal with 

respect to building block 1; first, EPA should adjust the heat rate improvement goal to within a 

range of 1% to 2%; several utilities have made cases demonstrating achievable heat rate 
193 

improvements in the range of 0.8% to 2%, additional to what they have already implemented but 

for which they do not receive credit in the proposed rule. 

Commenters stated EPA did not consider the punitive impact on auxiliary power and the net 

basis for heat rate and CO2 emissions in selecting CO2 goals; between 2002 and 2012 a total of 

120,000 MW of capacity have been retrofit with FGD, and 140,000 MW of capacity with SCR. 

Commenters said in 2015 about 955 coal-fired power plants will be operating - of which perhaps 

520 are larger than 200 MW. Commenters said among the larger units, 192 have retrofitted one 

or more of SCR and FGD process equipment. Commenters added, the retrofit of either FGD or 

SCR process equipment can at times be accompanied by a change in fuel properties, also affects 

plant heat rate; these actions - undertaken to comply with EPA regulations - are not considered in 

EPA's supporting materials. 

Commenters stated Building Block # 1 in the Clean Power Plan focuses on affected units and 

heat rate improvements in those affected units. Commenters stated Streeter Station Unit #7 is 

listed as an affected unit; it is currently operated as a peaking unit, with operation as a coal fired

unit limited to peak demand periods only during a maximum of a few weeks during the heat of 

summer and a few weeks in the winter. Commenters said given the few run hours on this unit, 

the cost estimates of heat rate improvements and the likelihood of incurring additional 

environmental regulations (New Source Performance Standards), a heat rate improvement on 

Unit #7 would not be feasible. 

Commenters stated in calculating the proposed state goals, EPA did not account for the fact that 

future emission control projects at any coal-fired EGU could cause the unit's heat rate to 

increase. Commenters said beyond section 111, other provisions of the CAA will require some 

existing coal-fired EGUs to install additional controls that will increase those units' net heat rates

in ways that are not reflected in the 2012 generation data that is the basis for EPA's proposed 

state goals; for example, many existing coal-fired EGUs will be required to install additional 

emission controls in order to comply with the 2012 MATS Rule; others will be required to install 

further retrofits to comply with regional haze requirements; EPA is currently considering 

revisions to the NAAQS for ozone, which could result in more areas being designated as 

nonattainment and having to impose more stringent emission limits. Commenters said it is 

obligated by state implementation plans to install emission controls at several coal-fired EGUs, 

including the installation of SCR and mercury control technologies; the addition of these new 

emission control measures, and the auxiliary loads they require for operation, will make it more 

difficult (if not impossible) to achieve the heat rate improvements proposed by EPA. 

Commenters stated in November 2012, GVEA entered into a Consent Decree with EPA to install 

certain emission control equipment on Healy Unit 1 and Healy Unit 2 to enable returning Healy 

Unit 2 to service. Commenters said as an element of this Consent Decree, GVEA is obligated to 

install additional air pollution control equipment; this equipment, while reducing nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, consumes additional energy. Commenters said this 

additional energy consumption results in a less efficient heat rate and an increase in the CO2 
194 

emission rate on a pound per net megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) basis. Commenters said independent 

of this decrease in heat rate efficiency, GVEA has already taken steps to improve the efficiency 

of Healy 1 and 2 as a cost savings measure. 

Commenters stated an issue with the heat-rate improvement section of the goal calculation 

relates to the installation of pollution control equipment required under other air quality rules. 

Commenters said a specific example of this can be seen at the Big Stone plant located in South 

Dakota and co-owned by Otter Tail Power, Montana-Dakota Utilities, and North Western 

Energy. Commenters said in order to comply with EPA's Regional Haze Rule for South Dakota, 

Big Stone is in the process of installing upgrades to its Air Quality Control System, at a cost of 

nearly $400 million; however, in addition to requiring a significant capital cost, those hazereducing upgrades will also require approximately 8 MW of the plant's production. Commenters 

said this "parasitic load" means that a portion of the plant's power production - and associated 

carbon emissions - no longer serve consumer load but will be used in compliance of an EPA rule. 

Commenters said while one EPA rule has the effect of increasing the plant's rate of carbon 

emissions output per unit of customer-consumed energy, the proposed section 111(d) rule 

requires significant reductions in that same pollution metric. 

Commenters stated EPA determined the fleet-wide potential for the two types of HRI using 

fundamentally different analyses; both of these approaches are flawed, resulting in overly 

optimistic projections for fleet-wide HRI that may result in state emission rate targets that are 

unachievable. Commenters said EPA should revise the HRI goals for any state that can show that 

EPA's assumptions about HRI potential are flawed with respect to the existing fossil-based units 

in that state. 

Commenters asserted that co-firing might be viable to extend the useful life of a coal plant or as 

a compliance bridge until a new NGCC unit can be built, or could provide incremental CO2 

reduction required for compliance assurance. Commenters advocated that co-firing evaluations 

remain available to states and affected entities as potential compliance options, however it must 

not be relied on as an element of BSER or an additional Block in interim or final goal setting. 

Commenters stated that while U.S. EPA is proposing BSER as all four building blocks, they are 

also inviting comment on BSER as a combination of Building Blocks 1 and 2 citing "it involves 

only affected EGUs and generation from affected EGUs". [79 FR 34878] The commenters 

believed BSER should be based on only inside-the-fence application. The commenters also 

believed BSER should apply directly to the affected EGU and not be a system comprised of 

multiple affected EGUs and "entities." The commenters stated that it is unlawful for U.S. EPA to 

develop a BSER that requires emission increases from existing NGCC units. 

The commenters noted that U.S. EPA continues to cite concern that HRIs at coal-fired EGUs 

might make them more competitive and they will therefore increase their generation making 
195 

them less effective at reducing CO2 emissions; the "rebound effect." The commenters stated that 

U.S. EPA uses this to further justify increased utilization of NGCC, which the commenters noted 

increases their CO2 emissions. The commenters stated that they had difficulty with U.S. EPA's 

concern regarding a potential "rebound effect." Unfortunately, the commenters stated that due to 

the nature of this proposal, U.S. EPA has found themselves in a position where such a ludicrous 

concern is worthy of consideration. The commenters stated that they can think of no other federal 

or state regulatory requirement that requires significant monetary investment in a control strategy 

that reduces emissions (such as HRIs) coupled with an expectation that the investment should 

result in reduced operation. In general, the commenters stated that the principle behind 

investment in control is that more efficient and well controlled facilities will operate more than 

less efficient and controlled facilities. The commenters noted that under Building Block 1, U.S. 

EPA is requiring investment of potentially millions of dollars to make coal-fired EGUS more 

efficient. The commenters noted that however, coupled with Building Block 2, these same EGU 

owners are instructed to operate less, or in a cycling manner, which in turn reduces the efficiency 

of these units. The commenters stated that this is counter to basic engineering principles and 

common sense. The commenters stated that this is not the manner in which Section 111(d) is 

intended to be implemented. The commenters stated that the "rebound effect" should not be a 

consideration under this proposal and the commenters believed that this is another reason why 

this proposal needs to be completely reconsidered. The commenters noted that U.S. EPA also 

acknowledges it is less cost-effective to implement Building Blocks 1 and 2 together than to 

implement Building Block 1 alone. The commenters stated that by reducing overall generation 

from coal-fired EGUs the combination of Building Blocks 1 and 2 also has the potential to raise 

the cost of the portion of the overall emission reductions achievable through heat rate 

improvements relative to the cost of those reductions if Building Block 1 were implemented in 

isolation. The commenters believed that this is an additional reason why increased utilization of 

NGCC is not appropriate as the BSER. 

Commenters presented a table (Table 1) and stated that their coal-fired EGUs did co-fire with 

natural gas (most notably at Hudson Unit 2) and given the amount of natural gas fired at their 

three coal-fired steam units the coal emission rate for New Jersey calculated by EPA is not a true 

emission rate for coal-fired generation only. Commenters referred to a spreadsheet titled "tsdplant-level-data-unit-level-inventory", where EPA included all of the CO2 emissions and net 

generation from their coal-fired EGUs in 2012 regardless of the fuel burned at the time. 

Commenters stated that it appears that EPA calculated the coal-fired EGU emission rate in 

Building Block 1 using the total 2012 data from these units. Commenters stated that they 

calculated a true annual, average coal-fired generation emission rate for their units based on the 

CEMS data for the hours when coal was burned at each facility. Commenters stated that Table 2 

summarizes the analysis with the data EPA included in its spreadsheet titled "tsd-plant-leveldata-unit-level-inventory." (Table 2) Commenters stated that the inclusion of natural gas cofiring in the coal emission rate puts the New Jersey coal EGUs at a disadvantage because EPA is 

seeking an additional six percent heat rate improvement on units that have lower emission rates 

because of this co-firing and therefore, EPA must recalculate New Jersey's coal emission rate 
196 

based on the hours when the units fired coal only and then apply the proper heat rate 

improvement target to this value. 

Commenters stated that at a minimum, if a state can demonstrate that HRI projects already have 

been implemented at in-state affected coal-based EGUs, EPA should recalculate that state's 

emission rate goals accordingly. 

Comment 7: Building Block 2 considerations that the EPA should take into account. 

Response 7: The EPA agrees that using a net summertime capacity metric instead of a 

nameplate capacity for building block two can help control for some of the weather-based 

generating potential across different regions. This final rule relies on net summertime capacity 

for building block two as described in section V.D of the preamble. 

As explained in section VI of the preamble and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD, the EPA has adjusted its treatment of the Deer Creek NGCC facility and 

other NGCC units that came online in 2012 to better reflect a full year of operation. 

The EPA disagrees with the comment that the proposal or final rule would require all fossil 

steam generation in the state of Arizona shut down. See the final Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

CPP Final Rule. 

The EPA disagrees that the building block two potential should be assessed assuming a 1,000 

lb/MWh emission rate. Section V of the preamble explains the relationship between 111(b) and 

111(d) and why they are different. When assessing reduction potential of building block two, to 

assume all NGCC generation would emit at 1000 lb/MWh would be analogous to assuming that 

they emit more than current average levels. This assumption is inconsistent with the notion of 

the BSER to identify emission reduction potential. 

The EPA has taken into consideration the comments and is finalizing a BSER premised on a 75 

percent capacity factor using net summertime capacity. Please see section V.D. of the preamble 

and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD for more information regarding the building block two 

and re-dispatch from steam EGUs to NGCC Units.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated much of Florida has a climate that is humid sub-tropical or tropical; EPA 

determined the BSER for re-dispatch by ascertaining the top 10% of highest utilized NGCC 

facilities, which resulted in the setting of the BSER at 70% of nameplate capacity. Commenters 

asked if EPA has considered whether summer capacity better reflects the actual generating 

capacity of affected facilities, and whether a determination of the 90th percentile of NGCC 

capacity factors should be based upon net summer capacity. 
197 

Commenters added in justifying the need for revised building block 2 calculations based on 

power system dynamics, fuel switching infrastructure time frames, and reliability issues, several 

factors can complicate the construction of additional NGCC capacity: 

-Lengthy time lines in siting and permitting new energy infrastructure, which can take up to 10 

years or more if it is on federal lands. 

-The regulatory complexities of siting a new energy facility in non-attainment areas, which 

would require emission offsets. 

-Recent modeling has indicated that if all existing Arizona coal capacity is retired in 2020 it 

would affect both the reliability and load serving capability of the state's transmission system. 

-EPA has simplistically assumed uniformity across RTOs, without considering intra-company, 

intra-regional dispatch that does not compromise a company and RTO's ability to meet its load. 

Commenters stated EPA should work with states to adjust building block 2 targets based on 

these factors or any other factors deemed reasonable by a state. Commenters said for example, in 

South Dakota, there is one NGCC - Deer Creek station (owned by Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative) - which commenced commercial operation in August 2012 and had a 1 percent 

annual capacity factor; in EPA's goal setting methodology for building block 2, Deer Creek is 

ramped up to a 70 percent capacity factor, requiring South Dakota's lone coal-fired unit (Big 

Stone) to reduce operations to an annual capacity factor of 23 percent; however, EPA fails to 

consider that the Deer Creek and Big Stone plants have different owners and are located in 

different RTOs (Big Stone in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Deer Creek in 

the Southwest Power Pool, beginning in 2015) and serve different loads. 

Commenters stated EPA errs in assuming that natural gas dispatch could be carried out at the 

levels assumed in the BSER, and in combination with the other elements of the BSER, achieve 

the overall level of emission reductions required for compliance under the rule, without 

rendering excessive numbers of existing coal plants uneconomic, and thus creating severe 

problems for reliability, high electricity prices, and distorted market outcomes - including the 

construction of excessive and unnecessary amounts of new natural gas plants. To correct this 

error, commenters recommended that EPA phase in the gas redispatch amount in equal 

increments across the entire 10 year period from 2020 to 2029. 

Commenters stated Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants may have fuel transportation, 

transmission limits or emission limits that prevent them from running at 70% capacity factor as 

projected by EPA in setting state goals. Commenters recommended that EPA review and 

recalculate the assumptions as appropriate for Block #2. 

Commenters stated EPA's assumed redispatch of all coal and oil generation to NGCC must be 

modified. 
198 

 Commenters stated some individuals have argued that efficiency improvements cannot be 

achieved at coal plants in North Carolina if these plants are also being re-dispatched to natural 

gas under Building Block 2 and therefore operating at lower capacities. Commenters said this 

argument conflates the building blocks used to create North Carolina's target with the options 

available for compliance; in reality, increases in generation from other electricity sources - 

including and exceeding the limited increases envisioned by EPA's building blocks - will allow 

older and less efficient coal units to retire. Commenters said it is therefore mistaken to assume 

that inefficient coal plants will continue to operate at a low capacity and inhibit North Carolina's 

ability to reach its target. 

Commenters stated these comments are applicable to Building Block 2, re-dispatch of 90% of 

coal-fired energy to natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC), and operation of NGCC at a 

minimum capacity factor of 70%. Commenters stated it should be possible to operate the 

existing NGCC unit consistently at an average capacity factor of 70% when coupled with market 

purchases of NGCC energy adequate to allow solid fuel units to be seasonally idled; it may be 

more difficult, or may not be possible at all, to achieve a capacity factor over 70% without 

opportunity purchases, or without construction of another combined cycle natural gas unit 

(which is not otherwise planned). Commenters said the key to higher NGCC capacity factors has 

been shutdown of solid fuel units in the shoulder months, and the commenters' lone NGCC unit 

does not provide enough capacity or energy by itself to achieve that goal. 

Commenters stated keeping in mind that the goal of operating NGCC units at a capacity factor of 

70% is to re-dispatch 90% of the energy produced from solid fuel units to gas-fired NGCC units, 

the commenters have shown that operating a NGCC unit at these capacity factors may be 

possible, but doing so will not achieve the goal of re-dispatching 90% of coal-fired energy to gas. 

Commenters said for example a system (by 2020) is expected to be comprised of approximately 

48% coal and/or petcoke fired steam units, 16% natural gas fired combined-cycle units, 5% 

Nuclear (PPA not ownership), 25% simple-cycle gas fired peaking units, and 6% other units 

(primarily distillate fired CTs), on a capacity basis. Commenters stated as the system only has 

one third the natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC) capacity as solid fuel, it will not be 

possible to displace 90% of coal-fired energy by re-dispatching existing NGCC units. 

Commenters said it is not possible to displace 90% of solid fuel generation by re-dispatch using 

existing and planned (none planned) NGCC units by 2030. 

Commenters cannot expect to achieve 90% re-dispatch from coal to gas without constructing 

new gas-fired NGCC units under 111(b); even in that case, technical issues remain. Commenters 

said first, the replacement generation must be located at or near existing coal-fired sites in order 

to minimize local transmission impacts such as load and voltage issues. Commenters said 

second, there is not currently adequate gas transmission capacity into Northeast Florida to 

support the quantities of gas required for such an operation, either on a firm or non-firm basis, 

and extensive electric transmission upgrades would also be required. Commenters said in order 

to support construction and operation of an adequate amount of new NGCC units under 111(b) to 

achieve 90% re-dispatch, there must be extensive improvements made to local gas delivery 
199 

infrastructure as well as to the gas transportation infrastructure; the commenters said EPA has 

considered none of this. 

Commenters stated for purposes of setting state goals the state may rely on the ISO to forecast 

the impact of re-dispatch from coal units to combined cycle units. Commenters said the ISO is 

the regional modeling expert and is in the best position to forecast generation re-dispatch in the 

region taking into account unit characteristics, transmission congestion and losses, and market 

prices. 

Commenters stated if NGCC units are re-dispatched to a capacity factor of 70 percent, as 

assumed by the EPA, the role of these units will essentially shift from load-following, 

intermediate resources to baseload resources; however, the need for load-following resources 

will not be eliminated as a result of the rule. Commenters said if anything, the need for loadfollowing resources will increase due to the increase in renewable penetration assumed in 

Building Block 3. Commenters said if NGCCs become baseload resources, the intermediate load 

role will likely be taken up by a combination of coal units operating at reduced loads and/or 

simple cycle peaking units operating at increased capacity factors. Commenters said both of 

these actions could result in higher emissions from coal units that would now be load-following 

and operating at a lower capacity and therefore have reduced efficiency (higher heat rates). 

Commenters stated in regards to the question of whether decreasing the ability to quickly ramp 

NGCCs up or down adversely affects intermittent renewables on the system, simple cycle 

combustion turbines (CTs) could supplant NGCCs for providing quick ramp up capability when 

needed. Commenters said simple cycle CTs are less efficient and more expensive to run than 

NGCCs, but if located in the appropriate electrical location they should be able to provide 

ramping capability. Commenters added all intermittent resources added to the system since 2011 

required to become dis-patchable intermittent resources, will be expected to respond to dispatch 

signals and move in the direction (up or down). 

Commenters stated EPA does not appear to have conducted sufficient analysis of the ability of 

the existing natural gas pipeline system to support increased utilization of NGCCs. Commenters 

said based on 2012 data, re-dispatching Wisconsin NGCCs to 70 percent would result in an 

increase in statewide gas consumption of approximately 24 percent. Commenters said page 3-26 

of "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing 

Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants" projects a 4 

to 8 percent increase in pipeline capacity by 2020, suggesting existing infrastructure is not 

adequate. 

Commenters said additional natural gas storage may also be needed if simple cycle CTs start to 

be relied on significantly more because of the rule changes; this is especially true if the need 

grows in the winter. Commenters said currently, storage for Wisconsin's needs is available for 

purchase at a reasonable price, but the pipeline transportation to deliver it is not always available 

without very significant costs. 
200 

Commenters stated Wisconsin is 'geologically challenged' in that it does not have suitable 

geologic formations for natural gas storage fields, and is heavily reliant on storage fields in lower 

Michigan, and on the interstate pipeline necessary to move the gas from storage to Wisconsin 

when needed. Commenters said it is likely that as new NGCCs come on-line, and existing 

NGCCs operate at higher capacity factors, there will be more competition for limited storage and 

transportation capacity. Commenters said it is not clear that the EPA analysis has taken note of 

these types of concerns about the availability of storage and associated interstate delivery 

capacity. 

Commenters stated it is unclear that NGCC re-dispatch to a utilization rate greater than 70 

percent could be fully implemented by 2020 in all cases, particularly if air permit or other 

operational amendments or upgrades to natural gas pipelines and electric transmission facilities 

are required to accommodate increased NGCC operation. Commenters said the EPA should 

allow states to determine what level of re-dispatch is feasible and the reasonable schedule for 

implementing NGCC re-dispatch. Commenters said alternately, as is the case with the treatment 

of renewables and energy efficiency, the EPA should assume a ramp-up period for implementing 

re-dispatch. 

Commenters stated assuming that the permits are revised and infrastructure accommodates base 

load operation, the commenters asserted a 70 percent capacity factor may be reasonable under 

anticipated unit availability and market conditions; however, EPA's analysis should be based on 

the net seasonal capability that has been demonstrated to be achievable (instead of nameplate 

capacity) to avoid overestimating the potential for re-dispatch. Commenters added, EPA should 

allow states to adjust goals for units with design or other constraints that prevent achieving the 

70 percent capacity factor. 

Commenters supported that a state should be allowed, but not required to include new NGCC 

units in its state plan, allowing the units to be included in the state's compliance calculations 

under Section 111(d). 

Commenters implemented a switch over to NGCC, on which the proposed budgets heavily rely, 

even before 2012, the year utilized as the budget baseline. Commenters said an analysis of the 

2012 baseline emission and generation figures for the two City of Tallahassee NGCCs 

demonstrates that EPA is dictating that each utility go far beyond even a switchover to natural 

gas. Commenters said CO2 Emissions from Hopkins and Purdom from both NGCC and OG 

Steam for 2012 total 1,195,479 tons. Commenters said generation of the two facilities total 

2,425,470 MWh, producing an average emission rate for the two facilities of 985.77 lbs / MWh; 

yet, the interim and final budgets for Florida are 794 lbs/MWh and 740 lbs/MWh respectively. 

Commenters said in order to meet these goals, the utilities of Florida must average this rate; 

some may be higher, which means some must be even lower than the goal. Commenters said this 

leaves only the highly uncertain options of energy demand reduction and alternative energy as 

sources of reduction or else enter into a trading program and purchase reduction credits. 
201 

Commenters said they have significant concerns over EPA's concept, formulation, and 

application of Building Block 2 in determining each state's goal rate. Commenters said the first 

question this approach raises is whether redispatch of power production from one type/group of 

facilities to a potentially unrelated group of facilities may be considered BSER; putting aside 

both that fundamental question and the disparate effect of Building Block 2 on the goal rate 

among different states, commenters asserted that EPA has underestimated the challenges that the 

redispatch approach presents. Commenters said few, if any, states have an actual excess of clean, 

reliable natural gas combined cycle ("NGCC") unit capacity that is sitting idle and simply 

awaiting this redispatch; increased utilization of modern NGCC production to replace older 

power sources is likely to continue; however, EPA grossly underestimates the complexity of the 

power system in assuming that redispatch represents an opportunity for states to quickly (i.e., by 

2020) and easily achieve significant CO2 emission reductions. Commenters were concerned with 

building block 2, such as the limitations of existing infrastructure, which are discussed in the 

Notice of Data Availability. Commenters said many of the "underutilized" natural gas-fired units 

in Oklahoma were operated at a unit capacity factor of 0.25 or less during 2012, because they are 

older, less efficient, and less reliable; several of these units have been kept available for use only

in extraordinary circumstances. Commenters added state producers maintain reserve units to 

stabilize grid current when renewable energy generation is unavailable. Commenters said these 

Combined Cycle units, along with any that are more than 30 years old and/or have a 2012 CO2 

emission rate of greater than 1,000 lbs/MWh should not be included in the Building Block 2 

portion of the goal calculation. 

Commenters stated the proposed methodology, as it is currently applied to South Dakota, 

produces flawed targets that must be adjusted; for example, applying building block 2 in South 

Dakota under the proposed methodology results in Big Stone Plant, the state's only coal-fired 

EGU, having to operate at a 23% capacity factor, forcing the state's only coal unit to be offline at 

least half the year. Commenters said this also assumes that the ability to redispatch resources 

under building block 2 is technically feasible as applied to South Dakota, which is incorrect. 

Commenters stated EPA's Building Block 2 calls for increased dispatch of natural gas facilities 

vis-a-vis coal-fired plants. Commenters said this likely would lead to fewer hours of dispatch and 

more cycling at plants, and as a result lower efficiency and increase the plant's average CO2 

emission rate. Commenters said base-load plants operate most efficiently when run closer to its 

peak capacity. Commenters said efficiency is lost when the plant is forced to stop and start in 

response to dispatch instructions. Commenters said to the extent that EPA's regulations add 

additional cost to operations and make it costly to run relative to plants fueled by natural gas, the 

number of startup and shutdown events will increase and the plant will run at reduced load levels 

for longer blocks of time; this leads to a higher average heat rate and a higher average CO2 

emissions rate than during base load operations. 

Commenters stated over the course of the past several months, many states have questioned EPA 

concerning their ability to utilize new NGCC units to meet 111(d) goals for compliance beyond 

the "111(b) differential" purportedly available under the proposed rule. Commenters said the 
202 

reasoning for fully using new NGCC generation is simple: in the face of decreased coal-fired 

generation and increased (intermittent) renewable electric generation sources, fossil fuel 

generation needs to be available for dispatch to provide critical reliability of electric service. 

Commenters proposed that EPA allow any EGU whose CO2 emission rate is lower than a state's 

goal be factored in to the state's rate calculation for compliance purposes. 

Commenters stated when EPA contemplated the re-dispatch of all the state's coal-fired 

generation to NGCC, EPA must have incorrectly assumed a command and control authority of 

the state utilities over the merchant plants within Arizona. Commenters said there are currently 

five merchant power plants located within Arizona that control over 6,550 megawatts of 

generation capacity; the reality is that the merchant plants are free to establish power purchase 

agreements (PPAs) with whomever they want. Commenters said the energy from these units may 

or may not be available for use within Arizona; in fact, some of the merchant plants already have 

long-term PPAs to supply their energy outside of Arizona. Commenters said the potential 

unavailability of this generation creates an additional deficit for meeting Arizona's energy needs. 

The commenters said the most reasonable choice to overcome this deficit is to use some of the 

existing coal-fired generation within Arizona. 

Commenters stated Arizona's proposed final goal is 702 lb/MWh; when running in their 

optimum condition and under prime operating scenarios, NGCC units operate at a much higher 

carbon emission rate than 702 lb/MWh. (Even EPA acknowledges in its Section 111(b) rule for 

new units that a new NGCC unit cannot be expected to have less than 1,000 lb/MWh.) 

Commenters said thus, a likely scenario is that an existing merchant-owned NGCC unit 

operating under prime conditions would emit approximately 198 lb CO2/MWh more than the 

Arizona goal. Commenters said to complicate matters, this same merchant generator could be 

running this EGU for the purposes of selling the energy outside of the state of Arizona; thus, 

under the Proposed Rule, which requires carbon emissions from EGUs to be counted in the state 

in which they are generated, Arizona would have to account for these merchant emissions when 

evaluating compliance with its 111(d) plan, making it unduly difficult for Arizona utilities to 

comply. Commenters said under this scenario, Arizona would be penalized for carbon emissions 

without reaping the benefit of having re-dispatched a coal-fired EGU emitting an estimated 

2,200+ lb CO2/MWh to a lower-emitting NGCC unit; in this scenario, the state would have to 

add the carbon emissions from the coal-fired EGU to serve its domestic load to the carbon 

emissions from any NGCC units generating electricity for out-of-state consumption to calculate 

compliance. Commenters recommended that the EPA include a provision in the final rule to 

account for such interstate transfers such that the generator's home state is not harmed. 

Commenters stated that it is unreasonable for EPA to assume without analysis that the average 

CO2 emission rate for NGCC units in a state will be identical before and after application of the 

proposed BSER. Commenters stated that under Building Block 2, the Agency expects states to 

increase utilization of NGCC units to provide more base load generation. Commenters added 

depending on the design of these units, increased utilization may actually increase the overall 

fleet's average CO2 emission rate. Commenters said many of the NGCC units that have 
203 

historically operated at lower capacity factors than EPA's target level of 70 percent may have 

done so because they operate more efficiently at those levels than when serving base load. 

Commenters stated in order to develop a defensible goal calculation methodology, the Agency 

must use realistic CO2 emission rates for affected EGUs that reflect the impact of all four 

building blocks on those units' operations and emission rates. 

BB2 should not be less than new NSPS 1000 

Commenters stated the EPA maintains that these proposed emission rates can be met over the 

lifetime of a modern, high efficiency NGCC facility; however, it should be noted that the 

emission rate used in the state goals for Florida is significantly below the proposed emission 

standard for both categories. Commenters said the emission rate in the state goal may not be 

representative of the current NGCC fleet, which already shows historical exceedances, in future 

years due to efficiency deterioration from the age of the unit and high ambient temperatures in 

Florida. Commenters added these emission standards are based off historical data that does not 

reflect the proposed re-dispatching to current NGCC units in the proposed rule. Commenters said 

if generation is re-dispatched to these units, their efficiencies may deteriorate at a faster rate due

to increased utilization in order to meet demand requirements. 

Commenters stated using an existing source representation of BSER that is significantly more 

stringent than that proposed as new source BSER under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act is 

illogical and does not align with the intent of the statute. Commenters said for consistency and 

integrity of both proposals, the EPA should utilize a NGCC emission rate no lower than 1,000 

lb/MWh under Building Block 2; it would be even more appropriate to determine the rate based 

on the existing fleet heat input - utilizing 1,100 lb/MWh for those NGCC units with a capacity of 

850 MMBtu/hour or less. 

Commenters stated they understand that the EPA did not validate the nation-wide assumptions at 

the plant level; however, these examples show why it would be inappropriate to base a statespecific limit, derived from unit-specific actual data, on nation-wide assumptions. Commenters 

are not suggesting that the EPA go through the vast effort to change the model to plant-specific 

calculations; instead, commenters suggested that Building Block #2 can be both simplified, align 

with other existing EPA initiatives, and lead to a more appropriate result by using a NGCC 

emission rate of 1,000 lb/MWh (gross) for all NGCC units with a capacity greater than 850 

MMBtu/hour, and an emission rate of 1,100 lb/MWh (gross) for all units with a capacity of 850 

MMBtu/hour or less. Commenters added to what is suggested here, it would be appropriate to 

adjust the emission rate up accounting for the use of net generation-based factors in the proposed 

Clean Power Plan, as compared to gross generation-based rates in the NSPS. 

Commenters stated Building Block 2 may have only limited usefulness in Nevada for meeting 

the goals under the proposed rule; Nevada's load profile is unique; electricity demand is 

relatively low during the winter months but increases substantially during the summer months. 

Commenters said during peak summer hours, replacing energy from coal-fired EGUs with 
204 

energy from NGCC EGUs will require Nevada utilities to secure additional resources to replace 

the coal capacity. Commenters said resource adequacy levels in Nevada are developed based on 

meeting peak load plus providing a level of reserves for contingencies such as forced outages of 

generation equipment. Commenters said if coal-fired EGUs are to be displaced by NGCC EGUs, 

this essentially means that coal-fired EGUs must be shut down; Nevada's coal-fired EGUs are 

not designed to operate in a "stand-by" mode; in fact, none of the coal-fired EGU capacity in 

Nevada has a hot stand-by feature, and the coal-fired EGUs were not designed for cycling. 

Commenters said the coal-fired EGUs in Nevada take from 8 to 24 hours to get up to full load; if 

the coal-fired EGUs are shut down, then this will affect the level of resources that need to be 

secured for peak purposes, as the level of reserves will be reduced by the level of coal capacity 

that is shut down. Commenters said because of these limitations, the utilities in Nevada would 

have to find replacement capacity to serve as reserve if Nevada is to meet its interim and final 

goals. Commenters recommended adjusting the goal calculation to account for utilities that have 

summer peaking requirements and cannot retire generation capacity without securing additional 

capacity to ensure reliability during peak demand times. 

Commenters stated there are many ways to reduce peak load on the demand side of the equation: 

distributed generation can pick up a significant portion of peak load, as can new energy 

efficiency and employing energy storage technology. 

Commenters stated when determining reductions available to states from Building Block 2, EPA 

should consider a state's potential for reducing emissions by redispatching not only to existing 

NGCCs located within the state, but also to NGCCs located in other states that are electrically 

interconnected with the state; because redispatch can and will be performed on a regional basis, 

even states with little or no under-utilized NGCC capacity may still be able to realize substantial 

emissions reductions through redispatch. Commenters said reductions in carbon emissions 

achievable through regional redispatch can be allocated among states in the region based upon a 

rational criterion such as historic generation, cost, or accepted modeling protocols, as EPA has 

done in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR") and other rules governing the electricity 

sector. 

Commenters added when determining reductions available to states from Building Block 3, EPA 

should ensure that a state's goals are matched to the means available to comply with those goals. 

Commenters said for example, if EPA continues to allow states to demonstrate compliance 

through renewable energy credit ("REC") programs that allow the purchase of RECs from any 

other state, then EPA should modify emissions targets for Building Block 3 to reflect that 

possibility of compliance. Commenters said currently, the emissions targets are premised on 

renewable generation presumed to be available within state borders; but states that themselves 

may lack the conditions for robust renewable generation may nonetheless be able to carry out 

substantial emissions reductions in Building Block 3 by buying RECs produced by renewable 

facilities in other states. Commenters said Building Block 3 should also account for states' ability 

to buy clean energy credits produced by nuclear and hydropower facilities with regard to both 

goal-setting and compliance calculations. 
205 

Comment 8: Appropriate to treat Building Block 2 reductions differently than reductions 

achieved by Building Blocks 3 and 4 

Response 8: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that incremental building block three 

generation would not replace fossil steam generation. The EPA received significant comments 

suggesting that as RE generation levels increase well beyond historical levels, it will have a 

significant impact on generation from existing fossil sources. This is supported by the EPA 

power sector modeling and is described further in preamble section V.E and the GHG Mitigation 

Measures TSD. In regards to the relationship between natural gas generation and increased 

renewable generation see Section V.D or the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated to the extent that NGCC units are able to provide the same essential 

reliability services that are provided by existing coal-based units, it is appropriate to assume that 

generation from existing NGCCs could replace generation from coal-based steam EGUs in the 

proposed goal computation equation; because RE and EE cannot provide the same services, EPA 

should not use a goal-setting calculation that assumes that these measures can replace fossil 

MWh on a one-for-one basis. Commenters said accordingly, it is appropriate to have different 

approaches to the different Building Blocks when calculating the state goals, as this recognizes 

that different generation sources can and do play different roles in the reliable operation of the 

interconnected power system. 

Commenters added the proposed approach to the numeric goal calculation is consistent with how 

utilities forecast load; as in the proposed numeric calculation, incremental RE and EE serve to 

meet (or avoid) load growth, avoiding new generation and the related emissions. The 

commenters said in the Mass-Based Equivalents TSD, in which EPA implemented the alternate 

approaches to the numeric calculations discussed in the NODA, EPA assumes the opposite - that 

"incremental resources under building blocks three and four replace historical generation from 

affected fossil fuel-fired sources and those incremental resources are therefore unavailable to 

meet new demand for electricity." Mass-Based Equivalents TSD at 6 n.20. Commenters said this 

approach is not consistent with utility operations, in which incremental RE and EE are used to 

reduce future demand and emissions, not reduce historic demand and emissions. Commenters 

said proposed applicability requirements would exempt existing and new simple-cycle CTs that 

sell less than one-third of their potential output to the grid. Commenters said if simple-cycle CTs 

alone were required to support the reliable integration of renewable generation into the grid, 

many of these units likely would exceed this one-third sales limit, subjecting them to standards, 

at least for new units, with which they cannot comply. Commenters said it is not clear how 

renewable generation could be integrated into the grid under such regulatory conditions. 
206 

Comment 9: The EPA Should Look Beyond State Borders When Calculating Reductions 

Achievable from Dispatch to NGCC Units in Building Block 2 and From Zero-Carbon 

Electricity Generation in Building Block 3.

Response 9: The EPA agrees with the comment. As described in preamble sections V and VI, it 

has defined and quantified the BSER in this final rule in a manner that takes into account the 

regional interconnectivity of the grid. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's Goal-Setting NODA also addresses, among other things, the following 

two issues related to the calculation of emissions goals: first, whether states that have little or no

under-utilized NGCC capacity could nonetheless shift some minimum amount of generation to 

NGCC plants, even if such plants are located in other states; and second, whether EPA should 

calculate a state's potential for reducing emissions through renewable electricity by calculating 

regional potential reductions, and then allocating those reductions to states within each region. 

Commenters said while these issues relate to different building blocks in EPA's calculations, 

they are nonetheless related; both issues stem from the more general question of whether state 

goals should reflect emissions reductions that can be supported only by measures within a state's 

borders (e.g., redispatch, zero-carbon electricity production, and energy efficiency ), or instead 

whether state goals should - consistent with the interconnected, interstate nature of the electricity 

system - reflect emissions reductions supported by measures that can be taken regionally. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Rule limits emissions goals to measures that can be undertaken 

within a state's borders; limiting future emissions reductions to those within a state border does 

not fully reflect a state's potential to economically reduce emissions. Commenters said for 

example, under the Proposed Rule, for states with little or no under-utilized NGCC capacity, the 

emissions goals reflect little or no emissions reductions achievable through Building Block 2 

(redispatch), even though those states may well be able to achieve emissions reductions by 

relying upon redispatch from affected EGUs to NGCCs located in other states. Commenters said 

likewise, for Building Block 3, the Proposed Rule sets emissions goals based upon a state's 2012 

renewable generation, scaled up over time using regionally-calculated growth factors; that is so 

even though a state may be able to achieve emissions reductions by relying upon renewable 

generation constructed in other states; in fact, the growth factors are based upon RPS programs 

that expressly allow reliance on renewable generation constructed in other states. 

Commenters stated the state-bound approach taken in the Proposed Rule artificially and 

unrealistically limits the reductions that can be achieved by Building Blocks 2 and 3; for 

example, Pennsylvania's emission goals reflect redispatch from its coal plants to the 10 GW of 

NGCC capacity located within the Commonwealth, but they ignore the reality that Pennsylvania 

is interconnected with New Jersey. Commenters said EPA projects that after implementation of 

the Proposed Rule, New Jersey's NGCC fleet will have a capacity factor of only 44 percent, far 

below the 70 percent used as the ceiling for Building Block 2; New Jersey's NGCC fleet - which 

is dispatched by the same grid operator as Pennsylvania's coal fleet - could absorb approximately 
207 

13 million MWh from coal units in neighboring states. Commenters said if Pennsylvania coal 

generation were shifted to New Jersey NGCCs until those units reached 70 percent capacity, the 

net emissions from the two states would be reduced by nearly eight million short tons of CO2 per 

year. 

Commenters stated in the Goal-Setting NODA, EPA proposes alternative methods of calculating 

emissions rate goals that more closely conform to the integrated, interstate nature of the 

electricity system; the final rule should account for emissions reductions that can be achieved 

through measures taken beyond a state's borders. Commenters said for example, as just 

discussed, coal-fired generation located in one state can often be displaced by under-utilized 

NGCCs located in another state. Commenters said setting state goals to reflect the potential for 

redispatch to NGCCs located in other states not only would be reasonable, but failing to account 

for such potential could significantly underestimate the degree of emissions reductions 

achievable through the BSER, which, as EPA has explained, takes into account the interstate 

nature of the electric industry. Commenters said likewise, EPA should set state goals to account 

for a state's ability to reduce emissions through reliance on zero-carbon generation located in 

another state; doing so would be consistent with EPA's apparent intention that states be able to 

demonstrate Building Block 3 reductions through the purchase of credits from other states. 

Commenters stated in the electricity system, the location of the resource that displaces or avoids 

emissions reduction is not determined by state boundaries, but instead is dictated by market 

forces, chiefly cost. Commenters said emissions goals reflecting the reductions achievable in that 

"best system of emission reduction" should, therefore, reflect the full amount of reductions that 

can occur in an interconnected region. Commenters said in determining the boundaries of the 

relevant region, it would be natural for EPA to adopt the boundaries of existing ISOs and RTOs, 

as those grid operators control dispatch within their territory. Commenters said in areas of the 

country not governed by an ISO or RTO, power flows are managed within "control areas" that 

similarly can span state lines. 

Commenters stated in determining the emission reductions that can occur within a region due to 

redispatch from coal to gas, and then apportioning those reductions to states within that region, 

EPA could rely upon a version of the Integrated Planning Model ("IPM") that it has already 

developed and used in similar contexts. Commenters said IPM models areas within ISOs and 

RTOs as sub-markets; the model would allow EPA to project where emissions reductions occur 

in the interconnected electricity system, and EPA could easily formulate state goals based upon 

that modeling. Commenters said this approach would be very similar to the way in which EPA 

calculated total allowable emissions from each state in the CSAPR based on the state's ability to 

achieve highly cost-effective emissions reductions, and approximated an allocation based on 

cost. Commenters said EPA could also use a simpler allocation system, in which the total 

emissions reductions in a region is apportioned to the constituent states based on historical 

generation (e.g., MWh produced in 2012), electricity load (e.g., MWh consumed in 2012) or 

historic emissions (e.g., CO2 tons emitted in 2012). 
208 

Commenters said reductions based on renewable generation also should be determined by 

looking beyond state borders; although the Proposed Rule formulates state goals based upon 

renewable generation located within the state, it appears to contemplate allowing states to 

demonstrate compliance through RECs purchased from other states. Commenters said a state's 

emissions goals should be consistent with the means available for compliance; thus, if EPA 

continues to allow states to demonstrate compliance using RECs generated in other states, then 

EPA should set state emissions reduction goals consistently. Commenters said those goals should 

reflect states' ability to comply by purchasing RECs from other states, and they should include an 

allocation of potential renewable generation across states capable of supporting it through the 

purchase of RECs. 

Commenters said at a minimum, EPA should set state emission reduction goals for renewable 

generation based on the reductions that can be achieved within a region, using the same regions 

proposed here for Building Block 2 - i.e., regions that reflect the boundaries of existing ISOs and 

RTOs or "control areas." Commenters said this approach reflects the reductions achievable 

through the "best system of emission reduction" taking into account the interstate nature of the 

electric system; moreover, a regional approach encourages regional compliance, reducing the 

risk of "double counting" renewable energy credits by ensuring that renewable generation is only 

counted once. 

Comment 10: Building Block 3 Renewable Energy

Response 10: The EPA agrees with the commenters that we should account for the replacement 

potential of historical fossil generation levels with building block three. We also agree that we 

should factor in the regional connectivity of the grid when assessing reduction potential. The 

EPA has taken into consideration the comments and is promulgating a final rule that relies on a 

revised building block three. Please see section V.E. of the preamble for more information 

regarding the building block three and renewable energy. 

In regards to the fossil leverage factors, the EPA recognizes commenters concern that as 

proposed compliance with the state goal emission rate required significant additional action from 

in-state generation sources if the state fell short of its RE or EE potential. The EPA feels it has 

addressed this in multiple ways in this final rule: 1) BB4 is no longer part of the BSER 

quantification, 2) the regional nature of the building blocks (and compliance opportunities) no 

longer limit states to in-state generation, 3) the flexibilities provided through subcategoryspecific emission performance rates and the mass-based state goals can reflect reduction 

potential that may not inherently manifest itself on a state emission rate goal demonstration. 

This final rule does not include any existing RE in the quantification of the BSER.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
209 

Commenters stated both existing and new renewables should receive regionalized treatment in 

any goal setting methodology. Commenters stated whatever final specific methodology is 

adopted by EPA, the goal setting methodology should reflect the reality of the existing 

regionalized renewable energy contracts, transfers and markets that exist in New England and 

New York that result in new and existing renewable projects including wind, hydroelectric and 

biomass serving regional load and regional customers outside of Maine. 

Commenters stated EPA has developed the BSER baseline and formula by including all the 

renewables located within each state when developing that state's target, but in many instances 

another state may be claiming the output or credit for that development and be buying the energy 

and/or hold the renewable energy certificates (RECs) associated with generation. Commenters 

stated EPA is also considering tracking ownership of renewables in rate-based approaches using 

RECs, which could be from in-state or out-of-state generation. Commenters added EPA should 

create greater consistency between the BSER formula structure, current state renewables 

tracking, and planned compliance tracking. Commenters stated the simplest way would be to 

consider only new RE generation and not include existing RE generation in the BSER baseline. 

Commenters said this allows EPA to avoid allocating generation from existing renewables in the 

BSER formula, which may be located in one state with output claimed by another state. 

Commenters said looking forward there would be no concern about using RECs for tracking 

generation whether from in-state or out of state generation, if the formula is no longer based only 

on in-state generation; it also avoids the problem of including in-state generation in the 

determination of a state's target when the state does not receive the output of generation 

delivered to and utilized by another state. 

Commenters stated there are implications of including all non-fossil resources if plants 

retire; including total generation and emissions from all sources in the BSER formula, including 

all nuclear and hydro. Commenters stated this approach would deliver a lower emissions 

standard; while this would create an incentive to keep non- and low-emitting resources running 

and force any retirements to be replaced with resources of similarly low emissions, commenters 

are concerned that the approach would impose an unfair burden on states that face retirements 

and thus incentivize the continued use of nuclear plants that may be unsafe. 

Commenters added while there are legitimate reasons to include renewables in the BSER 

calculation, especially those developed in response to RES/RPS requirements which were 

implemented to address emissions goals, it is simpler to treat all resources with the same 

emissions profile the same. Commenters stated this allows EPA to be technology-neutral and not 

have to classify resources by type or category, which would be inevitably contentious and timeconsuming. Commenters said for example, existing wind (100% included), hydro (0% included), 

and nuclear (5.8% included) are all treated differently in the BSER formula; again, if the existing 

resources are excluded from the BSER formula, EPA can credit all new non-emitting resources 

in the same way going forward and avoid concerns about inconsistent treatment. 
210 

Commenters added including non-fossil resources in the BSER formula leads to more disparate 

state targets than if an average fossil-only rate is used as the starting point; of greater concern are 

the distortions such inclusion would create during compliance: if states develop a flexible ratebased policy approach and their neighboring state has a very different target level, there is a 

possibility that generators of the same type on either side of a state border would face different 

compliance costs. Commenters stated this kind of competitiveness issue could lead to 

environmental leakage, which would be solved if the starting point for developing the state 

standards was a fossil-only rate. 

Commenters added the EPA should employ a formula that fully reflects the potential for zeroemitting resources and demand-side efficiency to reduce emissions from fossil generating units; 

this will be achieved by basing targets on the use of available Block 3 and Block 4 resources to 

displace the highest-emitting fossil units (generally coal-fired power plants) first. Commenters 

stated this approach will achieve the greatest emission reductions from the available resources 

and thus comports with the Act's mandate to base standards on the best system of emission 

reduction. 

Commenters added in the goal-setting equation, EPA correctly accounted for the displacement 

effect of the resources in Block 2 (natural gas units) but failed to correctly account for the effect 

of the resources in Blocks 3 and 4; for Block 2, EPA accurately reflected the fact that the 

increase in generation from natural gas units can achieve a corresponding decrease in generation 

(and emissions) at coal-fired steam power plants, but EPA failed to apply this approach for 

Blocks 3 and 4. Commenters stated the original proposal's state target calculation formula simply 

adds additional renewable energy and energy efficiency megawatt-hours to the denominator of 

the formula without reducing generation or emissions at fossil-fuel fired plants. Commenters said 

as a result, under the proposed formula, Block 3 and 4 resources do not reduce generation or 

emissions from affected units; rather, they simply result in a somewhat lower state target based 

on the dilution effect of dividing a fixed amount of carbon pollution by a larger number of 

megawatt-hours. Commenters said this fails to achieve EPA's stated objective to consider the 

ability of the Block 3 and 4 resources to "reduce, or avoid, generation from all affected EGUs on 

a state-wide basis." 

Commenters added EPA must ensure that the approach to attributing emission reductions from 

renewable resources for compliance is consistent with the treatment of these resources when 

setting the state-specific emission goals. Commenters said if a state cannot use certain RE 

generation for compliance, that generation should not form part of the basis for that state's 

emission rate goals; put another way, EPA assumes that each state's 2012 RE production is 

relevant in determining a state's potential for future, additional RE generation because EPA 

based the states' RE compliance goals, in part, on the level of in-state RE generation in 2012. 

Commenters said If EPA finalizes guidelines that allow for states to use out-of-state RE 

generation for compliance, the Agency must recalculate state goals to reflect where this 

generation was used for compliance in 2012, not where it was produced. Commenters said it 

would be unfair to base a state's goals on RE generation that will be used by another state for 
211 

compliance as it overestimates the potential for RE deployment in that state for compliance 

purposes. 

Commenters asserted that the approach used by EPA to calculate the contribution of renewables 

to the state goal is flawed; Existing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that were mandated 

through legislative action that are not capacity-based were used to calculate regional "averages" 

for RE generation. Commenters said these averages were used to determine the generation level 

and required growth factor to attain that level; the growth factor was then applied to each state in 

order to calculate the target RE generation as a percent of total generation. Commenters said the 

percent of total generation was then capped to not exceed the regional average. Commenters said 

it is more appropriate to use a weighted average, so as not to create unattainable goals based on 

the RPS averages, where many of the states with high RPS contribute much lower amounts of 

energy to the grid, such as Maryland or Washington D.C. Commenters also asserted that the 

quantification of RE generation needs to include cost factors, availability during critical periods 

of energy demand, land use and environmental impacts, and effects on reliability of the electric 

grid due to meteorological variability. 

Commenters added EPA should value incremental renewable energy generation and energy 

efficiency in Building Blocks 3 and 4 in terms of the CO2 emissions they avoid by displacing 

existing fossil fuel generation. Commenters said currently, EPA values them only as additional 

megawatt-hours ("MWh") of generation, and fails to account for or require displacement of 

existing fossil fuel-fired generation, an approach inconsistent with the BSER rationale. 

Commenters added assure that the renewable energy and energy efficiency assumptions used to 

set state targets are realistic with little uncertainty in their attainment; this would help avoid 

shortfalls with multiplier effects, but would still be subject to risk from non-delivery in the short 

term. Commenters said allowing states to bank "over generation" of energy efficiency and 

renewable energy would help avoid future shortfalls and their negative consequences. 

Commenters added include safety values to limit the reductions in covered fossil output if/when 

there are shortfalls in BB3 + BB4 output could help keep compliance problems in one state from 

propagating to other states through the power market. 

Commenters added longer averaging periods for compliance provide only limited value under 

most circumstances; deficits in BB3+BB4 deliveries must be fully covered by subsequent "over 

deliveries" to comply with the target over the averaging period. Commenters said given the lead 

times for adding more renewable energy or energy efficiency, this is unlikely to be possible with 

a three-year averaging period, and in any case requires over investment creating an eventual 

surplus of energy efficiency or renewable energy in the long term. 

Commenters added the structure of EPA's goal setting equation using the building blocks creates 

inconsistencies for states that fail to meet targets under building blocks 3 or 4 (i.e. a shortfall of

renewable energy or energy efficiency). Commenters said the inability of a state to meet its 
212 

required renewable and energy efficiency targets requires a reduction in fossil emissions from 

affected sources in order to meet the state emission reduction target; however, the algebra of the 

target setting equation produces a multiplier effect that the commenters terms a "Fossil Leverage 

Factor" (FLF) for each state. Commenters said most states (more than 30) have FLF above 1.0 

for both interim and 2030 targets, which means that more fossil generation will need to be 

curtailed than the shortfall of renewable generation or energy efficiency achieved for a state to 

meet its target. Commenters said this idiosyncrasy in the calculation causes a multiplier effect for 

shortfalls in achieving building blocks 3 and 4 that offers additional challenges to states in 

developing compliance plans. Commenters recommended that the state targets for building 

blocks 3 and 4 are developed with clear certainty in the ability of states to achieve these goals, 

and that safety valves are provided where circumstances beyond a state's control prevent states 

from achieving their renewable and energy efficiency targets. 

Commenters added under the proposed Carbon Emission Guidelines each state will only receive 

credit for electric energy generated using renewable resources if the renewable energy is 

consumed within that state; this policy negatively impacts states that already re, or are striving to 

be, net exporters of renewable energy. Commenters said states that provide renewable energy to 

other areas of the country or a region should receive some credit for energy created in that state 

but exported to other areas. Commenters said if the EPA determines it is necessary to credit 

states for only that electric energy that is consumed within each state, then the EPA should at the 

very least treat carbon emissions similarly and count only those carbon emissions against a state 

that are actually generated in that state. Commenters asserted the EPA's formula allowing only a 

small percentage of credit for electricity generated by nuclear facilities and no credit for existing 

hydro-electric facilities is not based on sound reasoning and should be amended to provide full 

credit for electricity generated by nuclear facilities. Commenters said there are two nuclear 

generating facilities operating in Nebraska, and several hydro-electric facilities; if the EPA is 

truly interested in protecting the environment by limiting carbon emissions, the current formula 

providing only nominal credit for electricity generated by nuclear facilities, and no credit for 

hydro-electric facilities, flies in the face of that goal. Commenters said nuclear and hydro-electric 

facilities produce no carbon emissions and have proven to be a safe, clean, and reliable method 

for meeting the baseload generation needs for electric consumers. Commenters urged the EPA to 

revise its proposed guidelines so that full credit is provided toward compliance goals for 

electricity produced by nuclear generation facilities. 

Commenters stated EPA must provide clear, consistent treatment of renewable energy generated 

in one state, but sold or consumed out of state. Commenters said EPA's decision to set goals 

based on renewable generation, but leave to the states the allocation of credit for that generation 

for compliance purposes, will promote disharmony, rather than cooperation, among the states, 

and incite economic protectionism. Commenters said it also penalizes states that export 

renewable energy, by building into their goals exported renewable energy that cannot be counted 

toward compliance because it is not consumed in-state. Commenters said for all purposes, goal 

setting and compliance, EPA must assign credit for renewable generation to either the state in 

which the resource is physically located or credited to the state where the generation is utilized. 
213 

Commenters stated under the proposed guidelines' primary approach to determining RE baseline 

and target goals, EPA relies on state RES requirements to create regional RE targets that are then 

applied to individual states. Commenters said this approach may overestimate what is achievable 

in some states, particularly those that do not have existing RES mandates; in addition, EPA 

misuses state RES programs by failing to recognize RES design elements that reduce the amount 

of in-state generation necessary for compliance. Commenters said EPA fails to adjust state RES 

goals to reflect the fact that generation from existing biomass and hydropower generation cannot 

be used for compliance under the proposed 111(d) guidelines. Commenters said although the 

baseline year penalizes actions taken by EGUs to voluntarily reduce carbon emissions prior to 

2012, RE projects developed prior to 2012 are used to lower the state emission rate target. 

Commenters added the EPA's calculation of RE assumes all electric service providers are subject 

to that states' RES; for example, the MO RES is only applicable to investor owned utilities 

(IOU's), and as such, municipalities and cooperatives are not subject to the standard. 

Commenters said the EPA calculated its RE targets based upon a broad stroke of applicability. 

Commenters stated Oklahoma is and will continue to be a leader in wind power development and 

generation; in addition to federal wind generation tax credits, Oklahoma has offered generous tax 

reductions/credits to companies as an incentive to develop wind generation in the state. 

However, commenters have significant concerns regarding EPA's concept, formulation, and 

application of Building Block 3 in determining each state's goal rate. Commenters said there are 

additional concerns over how the Proposed Rule addresses incorporating, tracking, and crediting 

renewable energy ("RE") into and through a state plan; the proposal would require each state to 

develop and implement a complex plan based in part on conjecture as to future technical 

development, policy decisions, and economic conditions that will determine the future of RE. 

Commenters stated the Building Block 3 component used in setting each state's goal rate should 

better reflect these considerations: Step 4b (renewables) should provide for adjustments to the 

2020 - 2029 existing and Incremental RE values for each state, to account for the likely 

significant differences between EPA's 6- to 15-year projections and actual conditions. 

Commenters said unless and until Congress renews the wind generation tax credits that were in 

effect in 2012, the renewable energy goals that assumed high levels of wind growth for the years 

2014 through 2030 should be greatly reduced. 

Commenters stated the final rules should assume emission reductions occur at affected EGUs in 

a state as a result of renewable generation in that state no matter whether or not energy 

production at affected EGUs is actually offset by renewable generation, and EPA should define 

simple methods for calculating those assumed reductions. 

Commenters stated the method used to calculate state-specific renewable energy ("RE") is 

flawed and unworkable for many of the states in which Entergy operates. Commenters said 

under the proposed method, EPA averages the individual state 2020 Renewable Energy Standard 

requirements within each of six EPA-determined regions and then sets a regional renewable 

target for 2029 equal to this average; EPA then calculates a regional annual growth rate for RE 
214 

generation that is required for the state to reach the regional target; EPA then applies that growth 

rate to each state's level of 2012 RE generation. Commenters said EPA's state-specific RE goals 

assume states start increasing RE generation in 2017 and continue increasing RE generation 

every year through 2029. 

Commenters stated the second component of Block 3 is renewable energy generation; in its 

proposed approach, EPA assumed that each state could increase its use of renewable energy 

resources to a level consistent with renewable portfolio standards ("RPS") in its region. 

Commenters said EPA took this approach for two reasons: First, states that have adopted an 

RPS, like North Carolina, have set state RPS requirements taking into account issues like 

feasibility and costs, so these state policy decisions serve as a sound basis for the EPA 

targets; second, renewable resource development potential varies by region. Commenters said 

EPA's decision to adopt a regional approach based on existing legal obligations of neighboring 

states ensures that the renewables target reflects regional availability of renewable energy 

resources; in short, states have already decided that these investments are feasible and costeffective based on each state's access to renewable energy in its region. 

Commenters stated to develop the renewable generation component of Block 3, EPA first 

quantified the level of renewable generation in each region in 2012, prior to implementation of 

the RPS; next, EPA estimated the average of the state RPS percentage requirements for 2020 in 

each region and multiplied it by total 2012 generation for the region; finally, EPA computed a 

regional growth factor that would be necessary to bring the region from the 2012 starting level 

up to the average regional RPS requirement in 2020. Commenters said for the Southeast region, 

the regional growth factor is 13% per year; for purposes of Block 3, North Carolina is part of the 

Southeast region, which also includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South 

Carolina and Tennessee. Commenters said because North Carolina is the only state in the region 

with an RPS, EPA based the Southeast regional average on North Carolina's RPS goal. 

Commenters said for the Southeast region, EPA calculated a renewable energy goal of 10% of 

total 2012 generation by 2029; this amounts to 11.7 million MWh (11,668,176 MWh) of 

renewable generation, which lowers North Carolina's target emission rate by 165 lbs/MWh. 

Commenters said the EPA then claims to build incentives to encourage each state to reduce its 

carbon-intensive fuels. Commenters stated the EPA applies its building blocks to create the final 

carbon goal that it imposes on the states. Commenters said specifically, through the state budget 

rate-reduction calculation, the EPA encourages the 'grid' (i.e., state resource planners and, 

ultimately, state legislatures) to use more low- or zero-emitting generating resources. 

Commenters stated, however, that not all zero-emitting resources are treated equally under the 

CPP. Commenters said in fact, the EPA's methodology favors wind and solar. 

 

Comment 11: The EPA should reevaluate the BB3 BSER calculations regarding nuclear 

generation.
215 

Response 11: The EPA has taken into consideration the comments and is promulgating a final 

rule that quantifies the BSER in a form that does not incorporate under construction and at risk 

nuclear units. These units are not included in the subcategory-specific emission performance 

rate or state goal calculations. Please see section V of the preamble for more information 

regarding the building block three and nuclear generation.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA proposed as part of Block 3 that states with nuclear generation be 

eligible to receive credit for the carbon savings associated with keeping 6% of "each state's 

historical nuclear capacity" in operation. Commenters said EPA's 6% assumption is based upon a 

percentage of total U.S. nuclear power generation that EPA deems to be at risk of retirement. 

Commenters said EPA should reevaluate the BSER calculations regarding states with nuclear 

generation that is not "at risk," as the national percentage is not a uniform national trend and 

EPA's standing assumption creates a compliance risk for those states. 

Commenters stated EPA's final version of the Clean Power Plan should allow states to equitably 

credit nuclear generation under construction the same as renewable energy and energy efficiency 

to the advantage of the consumer; commenters further supported the inclusion of both new 

nuclear generating units and uprating of existing nuclear generating units as components of state 

plans and factored into state compliance; they should not be included in determining the state 

carbon intensity goal. 

Comment 12: The EPA should reevaluate the BB3 BSER treatment of hydropower 

Response 12: The EPA agrees with the commenters that existing hydropower should be treated 

equally in both the quantification of BSER and in compliance. This final rule, as explained in 

sections V.E and sections VII and section VII does treat them equally. 

The EPA disagrees that South Dakota was unfairly penalized at proposal for its hydro power. It 

was not factored into the state goal calculation at that time. However, the EPA believes its 

treatment of BB3 in this final rule obviates the disagreement by shifting to a regional assessment 

of incremental RE potential. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated if EPA chooses not to allow existing hydropower to count toward complying 

with a state's goal, EPA should also remove hydropower as a component of the state's total 

generation when calculating the required amount of renewables in Building Block 3. 

Commenters supported efforts by the State of South Dakota to receive credit within the Clean 

Power Plan for the abundant, clean hydropower that presently exists within the state; while the 

proposed rule's preamble states that existing hydropower is excluded from 2012 generation for 
216 

purposes of RE generation potential, EPA's calculation methodology actually penalizes South 

Dakota for its exceptionally well-developed hydropower sources. 

Comment 13: BB4 Energy Efficiency EE

Response 13: The EPA has taken into consideration the comments and is not promulgating a 

final rule that includes building block four as part of the BSER. Please see section V.A. of the 

preamble for more information regarding the building block four and demand-side energy 

efficiency. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated there are errors in block 4 goal calculation. 

Commenters added EPA inaccurately calculates the transmission and distribution line loss by 

dividing the total supply of electricity less direct use energy by retail sales using information 

from the EIA's United States Electricity Profile 2010' this results in EPA's proposed line loss of 

7.51%. Commenters stated calculating line loss by dividing estimated losses by total supply of 

electricity using information from the EIA's United States Electricity Profile 2012 table on the 

supply and disposition of electricity, provides a more accurate and timely reflection of the line 

loss. Commenters said this calculation results in a United States line loss of 4.955%. 

Commenters noted that the EPA assumed a 7.51% transmission and distribution loss for a 

scaling factor nationally, but EIA indicates great variability in state-by-state T&D losses between 

1990 and 2012 (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3). Commenters asked how 

the EPA arrived at 7.51% and why did EPA use a national loss rate. 

Commenters added EPA has failed to adjust total retail sales to remove zero CO2-emitting 

generation; zero CO2-emitting generation would presumably grow annually as each state 

approaches the renewable energy percentage deemed achievable by EPA. Commenters stated 

adjusting for the growth in zero CO2-emitting generation results in the Block 4 goal 

determination being different in each year, as the number being added to the denominator of 

EPA's equation would decrease each year to account for the corresponding increase in renewable 

energy being developed in accordance with Block 3. 

Commenters stated the EPA's methodologies for evaluating energy efficiency in the BSER rely 

on NEMS forecasts, based on the AEO2013 reference scenario for future electricity 

consumption. Commenters said EPA quantifies energy efficiency contributions in the BSER - 

and by which state plans could potentially claim credit for energy efficiency - is based on the 

AEO2013 reference scenario. Commenters said in its process for determining the BSER, the 

EPA matches each state to one of the NEMS Electricity Market Module ("EMM") regions; next, 
217 

the EPA calculates the baseline future electricity sales for each state by taking its 2012 actual 

sales and compounding them by the average annual growth rate over the period 2012 to 2040 

from the matched EMM region, as projected in the AEO2013 reference scenario; thus, in the 

BSER, energy efficiency potential is measured against baseline projections from the AEO2013 

reference scenario. Commenters stated for over a decade, NEMS has significantly overestimated 

national electricity sales. 

Commenters stated that a 1.5 percent EE growth rate is unsustainable for purposes of the 

Proposed Carbon Rule; thus, for the purpose of goal setting, the commenters propose that EPA 

lower the efficiency reduction level to 0.6 percent per year for those states with EE programs 

already in effect. Commenters said if the carbon goal is set using a realistically achievable EE 

percentage, then there is more flexibility for states to actually utilize Building Block 4 as a 

carbon abatement measure. Commenters said the current Proposed Carbon Rule with EE savings 

of 1.5 percent per year presents challenges for states with existing EE programs and in essence 

creates a de-facto requirement effectively eliminating all flexibility related to Building Block 4. 

Commenters asserted that if EPA decides to base the goals in its final rule on the inclusion of 

Building Block 4, it should do so based upon an EE goal of 0.60 percent per year, rather than 1.5 

percent per year. 

Commenters recommended that EPA reduce the target annual EE goal to 0.6 percent per year. 

 

Comment 14: EE programs energy star 

Response 14: The EPA appreciates the comments regarding energy efficiency programs and 

Energy Star, however the promulgated rule does not include a building block four as part of the 

BSER. Please see section V.A. of the preamble for more information regarding the building 

block four and demand-side energy efficiency.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated industrial energy consumption in the United States represents nearly 45 

percent of the total energy usage and is predicted to increase to over 48 percent by 2020 

according to the EIA's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook. Commenters asserted an integral element 

of reducing carbon emissions is energy conservation. Commenters proposed that EPA take a 

stronger position on energy efficiency and should allocate more resources to expand the Energy 

Star program and work collaboratively with the US Department of Energy. Commenters said 

these programs have collectively been underfunded and even had funding reduced while 

simultaneously representing some of our best energy and greenhouse gas reductions. 

Commenters said EPA and DOE need to become serious about energy efficiency; this program 

results in a reduction in carbon emissions while improving the efficiencies of operations and the 

use of energy. 
218 

Comment 15: Importance of Rigorous EM&V in Energy Efficiency Goal-Setting

Response 15: The EPA appreciates the comments regarding energy efficiency and EM&V, 

however the promulgated rule does not include a building block four as part of the BSER. Please 

see section V.A. of the preamble for more information regarding the building block four and 

demand-side energy efficiency. See Section 5.3 of this document for more discussion and 

response to comments on EM&V. Also see section VIII of the preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated quantifying the results of state efficiency programs is crucial not only in 

assessing state compliance efforts, but in determining whether the formula upon which state 

expectations are based is appropriately incorporated into in the Best System of Emissions 

Reductions ("BSER") formula. Commenters stated the MWh of savings from efficiency 

programs are not subjected to metering as are the other generation-related factors incorporated 

into the BSER; therefore the system whereby the savings are quantified must be rigorous at a 

high level of confidence. 

Commenters stated in the goal-setting context, rigorous EM&V will ensure that any standard 

derived from the results of existing state programs is credible; if the goal-setting methodology 

relies on efficiency programs with weak EM&V protocols, there is a risk that the formula will 

project efficiency savings that will be difficult to achieve when stronger EM&V protocols are 

applied during compliance. Commenters said as with all the other building blocks, the stringency 

of the standards used in goal-setting must match the stringency of the compliance expectations, 

or distortions will result. Commenters said the EPA must establish robust EM&V guidelines 

against which the results of state efficiency programs should be measured in order for their 

efficiency-derived MWh to be counted for compliance. 

Comment 16: BB3 RE in/out of state renewables

Response 16: See section V.E of the preamble for a discussion of changes to BB3 in the final 

rule. These changes reflect the regional nature of RE when quantifying subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates and state goals. Section VIII also explains how compliance and state 

plans accommodate the location versus use discrepancies in generation technologies. In this 

final rule, existing RE generation is not credited to a state goal (or the subcategory) performance 

rates, so its location versus use issue is obviated through this change. For incremental RE 

assumed in building block three, the EPA now takes a regional perspective instead of a statespecific definition of identifying and assigning renewable potential. These changes were made, 

in part, to address the commenters concerns. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said in many states, the state policies that have delivered the most development and 

generation from new renewable energy have been state renewable energy or portfolio standards 

(RES/RPS). Commenters said these standards have been increasing over time and have led to the 
219 

development of significant new renewable resources, particularly wind and solar; however, while 

these state policies require an increasing percentage of the electricity delivered in the state to be 

from renewables, most of these state policies do not require the generating resource to be located 

in the state. Commenters said many states have developed or purchased large quantities of wind 

generation to satisfy the RES/RPS requirements in other states; reflecting this market reality, 

EPA has proposed that credit for the emission reductions driven by renewable energy 

deployment be assigned to the purchaser of the renewable energy credit (REC), which 

commenters supported. 

Commenters added state 2012 emission rates under the proposal reflect in-state renewable 

energy - although the entities holding the RECs associated with that renewable energy may be 

out of state. Commenters said EPA should address consistency between the BSER formula 

structure, current state renewables tracking, and planned compliance tracking. Commenters said 

while there are other ways this could be done, the simplest way would be to consider only new 

renewables generation and not include existing generation in the BSER baseline. Commenters 

said this allows EPA to avoid allocating generation from existing renewables in the BSER 

formula; looking forward there would be no concern about using RECs for tracking generation 

whether from in-state or out of state generation. 

Commenters stated under PA's AEPS program, credits from facilities located anywhere in PJM 

which includes parts of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina; however, 

these states are not within the same NERC region as PA under EPA's regional approach. 

Commenters said it should be noted that, in the latest AEPS compliance period, 41% of Tier I 

credits are from states located in regions outside of EPA's East Central region; consequently, 

credits received from these states could not be considered in meeting PA's BB3 standard. 

Commenters said EPA should consider allowing credits derived from facilities located in these 

states to be utilized under the BB3 construct to meet the EPA CO2 emissions targets. 

Commenters stated the EPA proposes to exclude renewable energy imports into PJM which 

offset generation within PJM; this exclusion of RE imports penalizes states that have designed 

their RPS programs so as to include utilization of out-of-state renewables. Commenters said RE 

imports into PJM is effectively displacing fossil energy thus lowering GHG emissions as 

effectively as in-state renewables. Commenters said EPA should modify its requirements under 

BB3 to give credit to out-of-state renewables with due consideration paid to avoidance of double 

counting. 

Comment 17: The EPA should use a more gradual glide path in applying BSER.

Response 17: The EPA agrees with the comment and has incorporated deployment assumptions 

in its building blocks that result in interim rates that reflect a more gradual glidepath on average 

relative to the final goals (from both the final subcategory and state goals perspective) for this 

final rule. See section V of the preamble for a discussion of these building block changes. See 

sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble for discussion of the subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates and state goals, respectively.
220 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated BSER, as applied to states, is inconsistent across building blocks with regard 

to when states may need to ramp up measures over time. Commenters said this application is 

problematic and it is unclear what impacts that may have, both to the electric system and to 

state's flexibility to comply. Commenters said while the proposed guidelines set state renewable 

energy generation and energy efficiency targets according to a gradual "glide path" approach 

over time, the application of BSER requires immediate and constant reductions for building 

blocks 1 and 2 as well as for building block 3 (nuclear generation) at a specific point in time. 

Commenters said for various reasons, measures within buildings blocks 1-3 may not deliver, at a 

date certain, in whole as the applied BSER assumes. Commenters recommended EPA use a more 

gradual "glide path" in applying BSER, in its totality, to states to set state goals. 

Comment 18: States with combined-cycle gas and thermal fossil power plants have unfair 

application of BSER. 

Response 18: See section V of the preamble for a more detailed explanation of how the EPA’s 

quantification of the BSER in this final rule addresses the regional potential to reduce fossil 

steam generation in these fossil steam intensive states. The EPA made changes to its BSER 

quantification that reflected greater offsetting impact of incremental gas and incremental 

renewable generation in fossil-steam intensive states.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the Proposal's application of the BSER may unfairly discriminates against 

states with large amounts of both combined-cycle gas and thermal fossil power plants. 

Commenters said while some degree of differentiation between states resource mixes may be 

reasonable to expect in 2030, it would be both more reasonable and more equitable in setting 

final 2030 goals to anticipate increased penetration by then of low and no carbon resources in 

those states with large amounts of coal but relatively few natural gas power plants, and to reduce 

the redispatch component in states with large amounts of both thermal and combined-cycle fossil 

generation. 

Comment 19: The EPA should consider the design life; useful life in the final goal calculation. 

Response 19: The EPA provides significant flexibility for states to assign reduction potential in 

a manner that compensates useful remaining life in a manner that the state best sees fit. The 

revised approach to quantifying the BSER in this final rule distributes reduction potential across 

states more than the proposed approach and does not necessitate the shut-down of any particular 

unit. See section 5.11 of the RTC for more discussion on this.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated final goals should allow existing EGUs to operate for their design lives 

including useful life extensions from environmental and other upgrades in order to avoid 
221 

significant stranded investments and to avoid serious reliability issues, or the final goal date 

should be extended. 

Commenters requested EPA permit states to adjust their goals in accordance with legal and 

practical necessity, and in consideration of the remaining useful life of existing sources. 

Comment 20: Cooperative; BB 2 & 3 unrealistic; affect reliable service.

Response 20: Neither the proposal nor the final rule require any specific units to reduce their 

generation. These sources may still avail themselves of credits from other lower emitting 

sources as a means of demonstrating a rate that complies with a subcategory-specific emission 

performance rate or a state goal. Moreover, the state has the ability to assign reduction burden 

and corresponding rates in a manner it sees best fit for demonstrating aggregate compliance with 

the CPP reduction expectation.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated because of their location far from other sources of generation, and because of 

the unique cost constraints faced by many rural electric cooperatives, gas-fired and RE sources 

are often unavailable; this makes the emission reductions that EPA assumes can be obtained 

from Building Blocks 2 and 3 unrealistic. Commenters said if rural electric cooperatives retire 

coal units to achieve the CPP's CO2 goals, the inaccessibility of NGCC and RE sources will 

make it difficult, if not impossible, to continue to provide reliable service to their members. 

Comment 21: Establish each state's standard based on what the state can achieve at each EGU 

Response 21: The final rule defines the Best System of Emission Reductions equally for all 

EGUs of the same subcategory. Because these EGUs can take advantage of reduction measures 

already occurring or scheduled to occur, those EGUs located in states that are achieving 

reductions in a reference scenario will be able to take advantage of those reductions when 

demonstrating compliance with this rule. The EPA’s analysis suggest that the distance between 

reference case and the final state goal for these “leading” states is generally less than it is for the 

more emissions-intensive states.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated many states have implemented measures to decrease reliance on fossil fuel 

generation, including retirement of coal plants, implementation of demand-side management and 

energy efficiency programs, and adoption of renewable energy portfolio standards. Commenters 

said the extent to which a state has implemented such measures directly affects the amount of 

additional measures the state can implement going forward. Commenters said when a state has 

already implemented the "low hanging fruit" in many of these areas, it is inappropriate to assume 

that a state (or other states) can continue implementing additional measures at the same or higher 

rate as part of a "one size fits all" standard. Commenters said North Carolina already has the 

most efficient coal generation fleet in the United States and has lowered its CO2 rate in recent 
222 

years. Commenters said the Proposed Rule should establish each state's standard based on what 

the state can achieve at each EGU. 

Comment 22: Tribes & Territories - Building Block 1 

Response 22: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP and see section V.C. of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for more information about Building Block 1. As described in 

section VII of the preamble, Puerto Rico is not included among the areas for which EPA is 

finalizing goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated on the Supplemental Proposal, EPA required a 6% heat rate improvement 

(HRI) to the coal-fired EGUs located in Puerto Rico, assuming that it will directly translate to a 

6% reduction in the net CO2 emission rate; EPA also calculated an alternative goal, applying a 

4% HRI to the affected EGUs. Commenters said the proposed 6% improvement consists of a 4% 

improvement by implementing "best practices" to reduce the hourly heat rate and a 2% 

improvement by implementing equipment upgrading. Commenters said based on this, the 

adjusted results issued by EPA for building block 1 are 2,083 lbs/MWh for the 6% HRI for 2030 

and 2,127 MWh for the 4% HRI for 2025. Commenters said in Puerto Rico, there is only one 

coal-fired facility that is operated and maintained by AES-Puerto Rico, LP (AES-PR); AES-PR 

is located in the Guayama municipality, at the south coast of the Island; therefore, in the case of 

Puerto Rico, building block 1 only applies to the AES-PR generating units 1 and 2. Commenters 

said these EGUs have a generating capacity of 227 MWh each, and commenced their 

commercial operation in 2002. Commenters asserted that AES-PR will implement most of the 

best practices and equipment upgrades necessary to comply with the Mercury and Air Taxies 

Standards (MATS), and that its EGUs heat rate will be impacted upon completing the 

operational changes to the existing air pollution control system (dry electrostatic precipitator), 

which will be required to comply with this new regulation; in synthesis, the precipitator will be 

required to operate at higher levels of auxiliary power in order to increase the filterable 

particulate matter (PM Filterable) collection efficiency, resulting in a higher net heat rate. 

Commenters said there is a potential for the activities described in building block 1 not to 

contribute in achieving the proposed goal for Puerto Rico. 

Comment 23: Tribes & Territories BB2

Response 23: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP and see section V.D. of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for more information about Building Block 2. EPA relies on 

a regional approach to identifying reduction potential in this final rule, meaning even states or 

areas of Indian country with affected EGUs that do not have NGCC units within their 

jurisdiction may see an impact from building block two. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
223 

Commenters agreed, in regards to the supplementary rule for tribes and territories, with EPA 

that application of building block 2 for the Navajo Nation results in no change to the emission 

rate goal as there are no natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units on the Navajo Nation 

available for re-dispatch. 

Commenters stated the Supplemental Proposed Rule also correctly acknowledges that the Navajo 

Nation does not currently employ natural gas combined cycle units ("NGCCs"); therefore, as 

EPA asserts, building block 2 does not result in any adjustment to the emission rate goals for the 

Navajo Nation. 

Comment 24: Tribes & Territories - BB3

Response 24: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP and see section V.E. of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for more information about Building Block 3. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the Supplemental Proposal, application of building block 3 to the Navajo 

Nation results in no reduction in the emission rate goal; this is because the methodology calls for 

multiplying a growth factor to the baseline renewable energy capacity in the area as of 2012, and 

that baseline is zero. Commenters said EPA asks for comment on an alternative methodology, 

co-proposed for U.S. territories, where the 2012 renewable energy capacity baseline is set at 0.37 

percent of the total electricity generation. Commenters supported EPA's application of the 

building block as proposed in the Supplemental Proposal and opposes any adjustments or 

alternatives to the methodology aimed at increasing the stringency of the emission rate goals. 

Commenters said the potential adjustment identified by EPA for building block 3 would apply a 

false value to the calculation, arbitrarily using data associated with another jurisdiction. 

Commenters said the potential adjustment for which EPA seeks comment would represent a 

change to the methodology used for all the states, with no basis other than a desire for greater 

stringency. Commenters added, as stated in the Supplemental Proposal and identified by the 

Navajo Nation, the identified adjustment for re-calculating the building block 3 contribution to 

the emission rate goal results in an amount of renewable generation that equals a "significant 

portion of the area's electricity demand"; such a result would be nonsensical in terms of 

developing a compliance plan (i.e. it would require the majority of energy demand on the Navajo 

Nation to be served by renewable generation without back-up power generation sources). 

Commenters added the Navajo Nation had zero renewable generation in the 2012 baseline year; 

therefore, EPA's proposed application of an annual growth factor to the Navajo Nation's baseline 

renewable energy ("RE") generation - an approach consistent with the Clean Power Plan's 

methodology for building block 3 - results in no adjustment to the emission rate goals. 

Comment 25: Tribes & Territories - BB4 
224 

Response 25: The EPA is finalizing this rule to not include BB4 in its quantification of the 

BSER. See section V of the preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the Supplemental Proposal, application of building block 4 to the Navajo 

Nation results in little reduction in the emission rate goal; this is because the methodology relies 

on demand-side energy savings based on sales, and the amount of electricity sales on the Navajo 

Nation is significantly lower the energy generation from NGS and FCPP. Commenters said EPA 

asks for comment on whether the methodology should be adjusted in order to achieve a larger 

reduction in the emission rate goal from this building block. Commenters said as with building 

block 3, the commenters opposed any adjustments or alternatives to the methodology for 

building block 4 aimed at increasing the stringency of the emission rate goals. Commenters said 

EPA did not even identify a specific potential adjustment for building block 4, which reinforces 

the arbitrary nature of any such adjustment. Commenters said any adjustment would represent a 

change to the methodology used for all the states, with no basis other than a desire for greater 

stringency. 

Commenters added the energy efficiency goal in building block 4 of 9.15 percent by 2029 for the 

Navajo Nation is overly aggressive. Commenters said using state data to develop goals relating 

to energy consumption on the Navajo Nation does not make any sense given the significant 

difference in energy availability and consumption patterns between the states and the Navajo 

Nation. Commenters said energy consumption on the Navajo Nation needs to increase in the 

future to support much needed economic development.

Comment 26: BSER 

Response 26: See sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final 

CPP for more information about the final performance rates and state goals and how they were 

calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated when determining BSER, it is the EPA's responsibility to identify what 

emission reduction systems exist and how much they reduce air pollution in practice. 

Commenters said this allows the EPA to identify potential emission limits for the purpose of 

evaluating each limit in conjunction with its costs and benefits. Commenters stated the Proposed 

Rule does not prescribe a particular technological system that must be used to comply with a 

New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). Commenters said however, by departing from the 

power plant 'fence line' in determining 'best', the modeling technique used to identify reductions 

for CO2 was flawed in that it had to arbitrarily stretch an identified 'best' measure to match with 

states that had already spent effort to appropriately reduce CO2 emissions. Commenters stated in 

glossing over prior actions taken to reduce CO2, the EPA effectively ignores the situational 
225 

increase in compliance costs with the proposal and sets each building block measure at a level 

that is too stringent to reflect practical reality.

Commenters stated while actions such as increasing energy efficiency can improve 

environmental outcomes, there is an optimal investment point over which further investment in a 

particular measure becomes uneconomical, even in the context of compliance. Commenters said 

because Minnesota and commenters' organization's members have undertaken programs to 

reduce CO2 related emissions, they are potentially forced to spend more than other entities that 

may be regulated under this rule 

4.4.2 Data used 

Section 4.4.2 covers public comments related to the data used to develop the proposed emission 

goals. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: Data Errors 

Response 1: In regards to the Ohio comment, the EPA has addressed unit-level concerns and is 

only accounting for the Dresden NGCC facility once. As described in Section V of the 

Preamble, BB4 is not part of BSER in the final rule. 

In regards to South Carolina comment, as explained in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and 

Goal Computation TSD for Final CPP, the EPA did not adjust the baseline based on scheduled or 

planned retirements. The EPA is using net summertime capacity to account for the weatherbased generation limitations described by commenters. As described in Section V of the 

Preamble, BB3 assumptions have been revised. See the EPA’s Resource Adequacy and 

Reliability TSD of the final CPP. 

In regards to Ohio/Kentucky/Wyoming comment, the EPA continues to list the nameplate 

capacity reported in the 2012 EIA-860, but relies on net summertime capacity to account for the 

weather-based generation limitations and its building block two calculations. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated there are unit data errors and Building Block assumption errors; the unit data 

errors are simply oversights by EPA. The commenters for example, units that do not meet EPA's 
226 

applicability criteria are included. The commenters said there are also Building Block 

assumption errors, such as projecting infeasible heat rate improvements. 

Commenters stated EPA bases its proposal on flawed information and assumptions for the four 

building blocks that are the basis for each state's emissions target. 

Commenters stated on March 19, 2014, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works Minority issued the report: "EPA's Playbook Unveiled: A Story of Fraud, Deceit, and 

Secret Science." The commenters said this report documents the extremely disturbing 20 year 

saga of the use of severely flawed particulate matter (PM) and ozone science; this is the same 

science that was crucial in the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the 2010 / 2013 Social Cost of 

Carbon. The commenters said this science has been used to justify this rule; the House Science, 

Space and Technology Committee conducted a thorough two year investigation of the use of 

secret science by EPA that resulted in an August 2013 subpoena of EPA. 

Chairman Smith: "In September 2011, the EPA's then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy 

committed to make the data sets available to the Committee. Even though Ms. McCarthy now 

leads the agency, she has yet to provide the promised data to the Committee. This subpoena 

could have been avoided. Unfortunately, we've been put in this position by an agency that 

willfully disregards congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. After two 

years of failing to respond, it's clear that the EPA is not going to give the American people what 

they deserve - the truth about regulations. The EPA should not base its regulations on secret data; 

by denying the Committee's request, the agency prevents Congress from fulfilling its oversight 

responsibilities and denies the American people the ability to verify EPA's claims. The EPA's 

lack of cooperation contributes to the suspicion that the data sets do not support the agency's 

actions. The American people deserve all of the facts and have a right to know whether the EPA 

is using good science." The commenters said in the EPA's March 2014 response, the 

EPA admitted that EPA does not have the data. 

Ohio (OH) 

Commenters have identified several errors in Ohio's goal computation, including the doublecounting of an existing NGCC unit as a new NGCC unit and several discrepancies between CO2 

emissions reported to EIA and the Clean Air Markets Database; U.S. EPA's use of nameplate 

capacity, rather than the more appropriate summer capacity, in the re-dispatch calculations; and 

the inclusion of 6% "at risk" nuclear capacity. 

Commenters asserted that the percent of Ohio's in-state generation for EE should be 85.1%, and 

not the 85.97% used by U.S. EPA in the Goal Setting TSD example. The commenters said the 

85.97% number cannot be replicated using the EIA data cited by U.S. EPA. The commenters 

said Ohio's 2012 total retail sales were 152,456,864 MW-h, from EIA annual retail sales data; 

Ohio's in-state net generation in 2012 was 129,745,731 MW-h, from EIA annual generation 

data; thus, Ohio's percent generation is 85.1%. 
227 

South Carolina (SC) 

Commenters reviewed the data for South Carolina and found the following errors in the EPA's 

data and key assumptions: 

1. Santee Cooper Power Utility's Jefferies Plant, which is closed, was included in the EPA 

computations for South Carolina; the final rule should reflect this change in the data. 

2. For Building Block 2, the EPA used the boiler nameplate data, which is not the actual capacity 

that these units can achieve; the actual capacity for a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) unit 

can be affected by ambient temperature, humidity and availability of fuel. The 

commenters suggested that the EPA consider defining a unit's CO2 emissions based on the 

appropriate actual generation. The commenters said potential alternate sources for this data are 

the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) standard term "Dependable 

Capacity" number for a unit, or US Energy Information Administration 860 data. The 

commenters said these data are based on figures a unit can actually deliver in terms of generation 

during a certain time of year, which accounts for variances in temperature, air pressure, etc. The 

commenters also suggested the EPA consider the use of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

data for more accurate CO2 emissions for units subject to this proposed rule; data accuracy is a 

concern for the commenters and is the foundation of developing an achievable and approvable 

state compliance plan. 

3. Building Block 3 as proposed sets an inaccurate renewable portfolio standard (RPS) target. 

The commenters said a recently published document by The North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) "Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan, Initial 

Reliability Review, November 2014" identified an inaccuracy pertaining to the Southeast 

region's RPS target. The commenters said the EPA should look to the State of North Carolina to 

better understand their existing RPS. Further, the commenters agreed that the EPA's assignment 

of this RPS target, based on a single state's RPS, is not the best mechanism for setting a target for 

multiple states grouped into a region. 

4. Energy Coalition members have indicated that the EPA's computation involves many longterm assumptions made by the EPA. The commenters said the ability to achieve the state 

reduction goals can be influenced by many outside factors, including the status of the national 

and state economy and even weather. The commenters said while the interim phase time period 

of ten years may provide some flexibility, the load growth assumptions made by the EPA are 

very critical. The commenters said utility IRPs provide some long-term projections; however, 

South Carolina stakeholders have indicated that for critical issues such as load growth 

projections may be reliably calculated for only 2-3 years into the future, even when taking into 

account many of the same assumptions the EPA used. 

Ohio/Kentucky 
228 

Commenters stated there are errors (in some cases material errors) to the IRP model data posted 

on the docket; specifically, the IPM run file named "Option 1 Regional" posted on the docket 

have errors describing OVEC units. The commenters said these units include: 

I. Column P (EMF Controls) - The data in this column incorrectly lists Fabric Filters as a control 

technology installed on Clifty Units 4, 5 and 6, as well as Kyger Units 1 and 5; neither facility 

has fabric filters and there are no plans to install them. 

II. Column BJ (Capacity) - All six units at Clifty Creek are listed as 196 MW; the net maximum 

MW number OVEC reports to EIA and NERC is 200 MW for these units. 

III. Column BJ (Capacity) - Kyger Creek there are material errors; Unit 1 is listed as 445.635714 

MW (the reported net maximum MW for this unit and the other 4 Kyger units is 199 

MW/each); Units 2, 3 and 4 are listed as 189 MW each-off by 10 MW each from the reported net 

Maximum number reported to EIA and NERC; Kyger Creek Unit 5 is listed as 120.15 MW; in 

total, Kyger's capacity is listed as 1,132.79 MW while the actual number should be 199 MW net 

for each, for a total of 995 MW-a difference of 137.79 fewer MW than the plant can generate. 

The commenters said the heat rates for "summer" and "winter" are the same for our units when 

they should not be; due to thermal/condenser back pressure issues during the summer, both 

plants normally show a heat rate that is approximately 3% lower in the summer. 

 

Wyoming (WY) 

Commenters stated EPA's information in the document "Wyoming: Goal Setting Comments for 

Proposed Clean Power Plan" is in error. The commenters said the document identifies the 

capacity of Black Hills Power's CPGS combined cycle units as 220 MW; however, the units' 

output capacity is actually 95 MW. The commenters said Air Quality New Source Review 

(NSR) Permit CT-12636 lists the units as 100 MW based on maximum design. The commenters 

said the Wyoming Industrial Siting permit lists the units as 95 MW, which is based upon as-built 

performance. The commenters said the discrepancy is due to different operating capacity at high 

altitude; the actual name plate capacity of the CPGS combined cycle units is 100 MW; however, 

in Cheyenne, WY (elevation approximately 6,000 feet) the combined cycles achieve a 95 MW 

net output. The commenters said to compare, the combined cycles in Pueblo, CO (elevation 

approximately 4,000 feet) achieve 100 MW net generation output; these are the exact same units 

operating in two different environments, impacted by elevation and air density, both of which 

reduce output. The commenters said EPA may not rely on incorrect information to establish 

regulations; the calculation of Wyoming's goal should reflect the 95 MW capacity for CPGS. 

Comment 2: The EPA should show data; verify data used to calculate promulgated goals. 
229 

Response 2: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule. The eGRID data used to inform the 

subcategory-specific emission performance rates and state goals is based on EIA generation data 

and reported emissions data to EPA. The link provided in the comment may reflect a summary of 

that data, but is not the source of the data. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA at a minimum should select a representative basis for the final 

guidelines, and present the information, data, sensitivity analyses, and a complete set of 

background information, and allow an opportunity for public comment on the proposal. 

Commenters asked where the source data for the table showing 2012 emissions, electricity 

generation, and emissions per MWh rates, along with the 2030 goals (available here: 

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/where-you-live) come from. The commenters 

were surprised to see a data table published without any source information and has been trying 

to recreate the historical emissions rate (lbs/MWh) for each state using data available from the 

EIA (emissions by state, electricity generated by state), but have not been able to reproduce the 

numbers. 

Commenters stated the Useful thermal output (UTO) for cogeneration is calculated in the 

appendix worksheet based on the EAF; the EAF values are given in the worksheet, but EAF is 

not defined and is also described as the EIA ratio; the commenters could not locate any more 

information in the documentations for the Clean Power Plan; can EPA provide information to 

clarify this portion of the plan. 

Commenters stated prior to finalizing the Proposed Rule, the EPA should verify the data upon 

which the goals are based 

Comment 3: Difficult to evaluate; most readily available information, not the most appropriate; 

with regard to achievability, the need for accurate data and appropriate assumptions. 

Response 3: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the Final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that some criteria about which EPA specifically enquires, i.e., "total 

electricity sales in each state in 2012" and "total generation in each state in 2012," can only be 

evaluated if we know how EPA proposes to use the criteria in question. The commenters said for 
230 

example, total state RE generation is the wrong standard for an RPS theory if a substantial 

portion of that generation is exported; further, the standard should stem from intrastate retail 

sales of RE, and not from gross intrastate MWh sales, which is a larger and different number. 

Commenters are concerned that EPA's approach is being driven by the most readily available 

information, not the most appropriate. 

Commenters stated, the EPA's Clean Power Plan proposal to regulate utility emissions reductions 

"beyond the power plant fenceline" is both precedent-setting and far-reaching making its 

implementation highly complex. Commenters said, to be successful, accurate data and 

appropriate planning assumptions need to be factored into the EPA's BSER analyses. 

Commenters said, this recognition is critical to establishing technically sound and feasible state 

level CO2 reduction goals that will be achievable in the final Clean Power Plan rule. 

Commenters stated, EPA has not clearly or adequately established a set of limits that represents 

BSER for existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs (e.g., the standard that EPA would apply to a facility 

under a Federal Implementation Plan or FIP). Commenters said, once such limits are established, 

nothing should/would prevent EPA from allowing the states the flexibility in achieving 

comparable emission reductions by applying the strategies contemplated under the building 

blocks. Commenters said, if EPA believes that the rule must set a goal rate based on a set of 

building blocks, it is critical that both the national/regional basis and the state-by-state 

application of each separate building block goal calculation be reasonably attainable, while 

assuring continued reliability of the power sector. Commenters understood that, as EPA has 

stated numerous times, states do not have to achieve the per-block goals, and that the states may 

use any combination of measures to achieve the overall (and interim) goal by the end of the 

compliance period. Commenters said, this does not diminish the importance of EPA's basis, 

assumptions, data, and calculations for each building block used to determine the states' goals. 

Commenters said, if any one part of the calculation is inappropriate, the goal is likely 

unachievable and does not represent BSER, either nationally or for a particular state. 

Commenters stated, EPA has asserted that each of the individual building block targets assigned 

to states are based on "reasonably achievable rather than maximum performance levels." 

Commenters were concerned that, as with its proposed rule for new power plants, EPA is basing 

enormously impactful mandates on technology assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated as 

achievable at a reasonable cost and in some cases achievable at any cost. Commenters said, 

detailed analysis must be undertaken and made available to the public. 

Commenters stated, EPA's "building blocks" analysis of the "best system of emission reduction" 

is not based on accurate or reasonably demonstrated assumptions and is not consistent with the 

realities of the electric grid. 

See Section V of the preamble 
231 

Comment 4: Utility plans to retire existing coal-fired units 

Response 4: In regards to Georgia comment, as explained in the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for Final CPP, the EPA did not adjust the baseline based on 

scheduled or planned retirements or gas conversions. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Georgia Power has already made decisions to retire a number of its oldest, 

dirtiest and least economic coal-burning units. The commenters said the Georgia Public Service 

Commission ("PSC") has approved these retirements as prudent economic decisions that are in 

the best interests of the utility's customers. The commenters said the units for which retirement 

decisions have already been made include: 

- Plant Branch. Georgia Power has received PSC approval to retire all four of its coal-burning 

units, totaling 1,750 MW, at this facility near Milledgeville, Georgia; all four units will cease 

operation by April 2015; in 2012, the Branch units accounted for 2,099,279 MWh of generation 

that produced nearly 2.4 million tons of CO2 emissions. 

- Plant Yates Units 1-5. Georgia Power has received PSC approval to retire five of its coal-fired 

units, totaling 680 MW, at this facility near Newnan, Georgia; the five units will cease operation 

by April 2015; in 2012, these five units accounted for 698,523 MWh of generation that produced 

over 900,000 tons of CO2 emissions. 

- Plant Kraft Units 1-4. Georgia Power has received approval to retire these four units, totaling 

334 MW, by April 2016. In 2012, these units accounted for 625,568 MWh of generation that 

produced over 500,000 tons of CO2 emissions. 

- McDonough Unit 1. Georgia Power has retired this unit, totaling 299 MW, which in 2012 

produced 41,375 MWh of generation and over 55,000 tons of CO2 emissions. 

The commenters said the electric generation and carbon emission levels from these units were 

included in Georgia's baseline emissions rate; however, EPA did not include the planned 

retirements of these units when calculating Georgia's emissions rate target. The commenters said 

collectively, these units accounted for more than 3.4 million MWh of coal generation in 2012; 

applying these retirements to EPA's emissions rate calculation lowers Georgia's emission rate by 

32 lbs/MWh or 4 percent of the 2030 target reduction. 

Comment 5: Planned gas conversions

Response 5: See response 4 above. 
232 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Georgia Power has received PSC approval to convert two to other coalburning units at its Plant Yates (totaling 808 MW) to run on natural gas; the PSC approved the 

conversions, which will take effect by April 2015, on economic grounds. The commenters said 

the efficiency of converted units typically pales in comparison to new or existing NGCC units, 

and therefore is not particularly cost-effective as a strategy for lowering carbon emissions. The 

commenters said nevertheless, Georgia may rely on the Yates gas conversions for compliance 

purposes, and compared to the coal generation they replace, the converted units will produce 

lower carbon emissions. The commenters said in 2012, Yates 6 and 7 were responsible for 

1,673,942 MWh of generation and 1.7 million tons of carbon emissions; the units ran at a 

capacity factor of 24 percent. The commenters said there is no public information regarding how 

frequently these units will run in the future or at what rate they will emit carbon; however, 

assuming they retain their current capacity factor and produce carbon emissions at a rate of 1200 

lbs/MWh, the conversions will reduce Georgia's 2012 emission rate by another 25 lbs/MWh or 3 

percent of the target reduction. 

Comment 6: Planned renewable projects

Response 6: In regards to Georgia comment, as explained in the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for final CPP, the EPA did not adjust the baseline based on 

scheduled or planned renewable projects. See section VIII for discussion of how renewable 

energy projects can be used in state plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in 2012, Georgia's existing non-hydropower renewable generation made up 3 

percent of all generation, equivalent to 3,278,536 MWh; however, this total does not reflect 

significant new levels of renewable generation - mostly solar, but also wind - that Georgia Power 

is in the process of adding to its energy mix. The commenters said through its Advanced Solar 

Initiative and related programs, Georgia Power is on pace to add more than 900 MW of utility 

scale and distributed generation solar to its supply portfolio by 2016. The commenters 

added earlier this year, Georgia Power entered its first-ever wind deals, under which it will 

import 250 MW of cost-effective wind generation, along with associated renewable energy 

credits (RECs), from facilities in Oklahoma. The commenters said the agreement is for a 20-year 

term, commencing in 2016; the PSC has or is in the process of approving these programs as in 

the best interests of Georgia Power customers because they will provide benefits in the form of 

cost savings and fuel diversity. 

Commenters stated although the precise capacity factors associated with these projects are not 

publicly available, it is reasonable to assume a 20 percent capacity factor for the solar 

installations. The commenters said for the wind agreement, an approximate capacity factor can 
233 

be inferred from the utility's statements; Georgia Power has stated that the project is sufficient to 

power the equivalent of 50,000 homes. The commenters said the average Georgia home 

consumes 13,176 kWh per year; the amount of electricity consumed by 50,000 such homes 

equates to 658,800 MWh; dividing that figure by 8,874 hours and by 250 MW yields a capacity 

factor of 30 percent. The commenters said assuming a 30 percent capacity factor, these deals will 

result in 658,800 MWh of renewable generation. The commenters said combined, the above 

renewable generation projects will provide over 2.2 million MWh of generation; if applied to the 

existing level of renewable generation in Georgia's 2012 baseline, the result is a reduction of 68 

lbs/MWh, or almost 9 percent of the target reduction. 

Comment 7: Planned energy efficiency

Response 7: See preamble section VIII for a discussion of EM&V and use of demand-side 

energy efficiency measures for demonstrating compliance.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Georgia's largest investor-owned utility, Georgia Power Company, operates 

eight certified demand-side management programs: five residential and three commercial. The 

commenters said by 2017, these programs are expected to achieve annual incremental savings of 

364,508 MWh and cumulative savings of 1.4 million MWh. The commenters said EPA assumed 

that states that are net importers of electricity will receive credit for only a portion of their energy 

efficiency investments; thus, using EPA's approach, as a net electricity importing state, Georgia 

receives credit for 88 percent (its share of in-state generation) of its energy efficiency 

investments. The commenters believed that EPA should not use that discount for importing states 

like Georgia; nevertheless, even if Georgia can credit only 88 percent of these additional savings, 

if they are added to the 2012 energy efficiency levels, the effect is to lower Georgia's emission 

rate by 6 lbs/MWh. 

Comment 8: Improperly used nameplate capacity, use nominal capacity 

Response 8: See section V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. EPA relies on net summertime capacity for this final rule quantification of 

building block two. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters suggested that EPA may consider using monthly capacity profiles or some 

combination of monthly and annual capacity profiles to calculate building block 2 to 

appropriately accommodate peak hour demand without jeopardizing Arizona's electric system 
234 

reliability. The commenters said as EPA calculated the average capacity factor for states using 

nameplate capacity, commenters also suggested that recalculate these averages using nominal 

unit capacities; this is a more realistic method as nameplate capacity is based on manufacturer 

ratings at standard temperature and pressure. The commenters said the nameplate capacities do 

not reflect real world capacity ratings which are typically ten percent less than nameplate, 

especially at elevated temperatures when demand is highest; furthermore, operation is based on 

factors that are used to calculate nominal capacity, so capacity factor calculations should be 

made using nominal capacity to compare apples to apples. 

Comment 9: The EPA should use net generating capacity instead of nameplate capacity. 

Response 9: The EPA relies on net summertime capacity for building block two in the final rule. 

See section V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA improperly relied on nameplate capacity to determine the level of 

existing NGCC capacity to be available for re-dispatch to displace coal and oil/gas-fired steam 

EGU generation. 

Commenters added that a more realistic measure of unit generating capacity is net capacity. The 

commenters said net capacity reflects the maximum output that generating equipment can supply 

to system load, and it is typically lower than nameplate capacity because it reflects capacity 

reductions due to electricity use for station service or auxiliary loads such as emission control 

technology. The commenters explained, net capacity for a unit may differ significantly between 

periods of peak summer and winter demand, reflecting the effects of ambient temperature and 

other factors on unit capacity. The commenters stated net capacity is a better indicator of the 

amount of NGCC capacity available for re-dispatch purposes because it reflects the amount of 

energy that these units will actually be able to supply to the power grid in Building Block 2. 

Commenters stated in order to support the levels of re-dispatch assumed in EPA's proposed state 

goals, NGCC units would have to operate at statewide average capacity factors in excess of 80 

percent and above - much higher than the already-inflated utilization level of 70 percent that 

EPA assumes causing many NGCC units to have to operate at even higher annual capacity 

factors. The commenters said correcting for these inflated values to use net capacity would 

significantly increase the state emission goals. The commenters stated EPA did not acknowledge 

the implications of its use of nameplate capacity rather than other capacity measures, despite the 

fact that an accurate assessment of the existing NGCC capacity actually available for re-dispatch 

is essential to developing an achievable emission guideline using EPA's building blocks. The 

commenters stated EPA should use net capacity when analyzing and applying Building Block 2 

in order to reflect more accurately existing NGCC generating capacity and the level of NGCC 
235 

utilization that would be necessary to compensate fully for displaced generation from other 

sources. 

Commenters stated using nameplate capacity results in EPA adding an erroneously high level of 

gas fired generation into a state's goal calculation, thereby excessively reducing the amount of 

coal fired generation included in determining a state's goal. The commenters said it is important 

to recognize that NGCC nameplate and net generation also can be reported including the 

additional generating capacity derived from the firing of duct burners, which are designed for 

and typically used to provide temporary power augmentation, but are not always economical to 

operate because of their higher heat rate. The commenters said typical design practice does not 

consider power augmentation modes as continual duty. The commenters said the result of 

improperly using nameplate capacity and considering the additional power augmentation from 

the firing of duct burners is the proposal of state goals that are more restrictive than can be 

justified by EPA's data and are likely impossible for many states to meet. The commenters said 

Table 1: NGCC Capacities and Generation, page 69 illustrates the difference in generation at a 

70% annual capacity factor between nameplate and summer net capacity for seven example 

states. The commenters said the difference in generation represents the excessive level of NGCC 

generation that EPA has assumed can be generated by operating at a 70% annual capacity factor 

under Building Block 2 for those seven states by using nameplate capacity instead of summer 

net. 

Commenters stated the EPA assumed that existing natural gas combined cycle ("NGCC") units 

can be dispatched with a 70% capacity factor; the commenters had concerns with the 

achievability of this assumption; the ability to run NGCC units at 70% has not yet been studied; 

therefore, the reasonableness of this assumption is unknown. The commenters added it is 

unknown whether there is sufficient electric transmission and gas infrastructure in place to 

operate these units at that level; to help put this in context, in 2013 gas units in the SPP footprint

operated at around a 28% capacity factor, which is well below the 70% assumption used by the 

EPA in the CPP proposed rule. The commenters said the EPA used the nameplate capacity of 

NGCC units to make this determination instead of using the net dependable capacity, which 

would be more indicative of the actual capabilities of NGCC units. 

Commenters stated in calculating the energy that would be produced by the operation of NGCCs 

at a capacity factor of 70 percent, EPA used the nameplate rating of the NGCCs, rather than the 

net capacity at which the units can actually operate. Commenters stated the nameplate capacity 

can vary significantly from a unit's actual net capacity; the total average net capacity of 

Wisconsin's NGCC units is approximately 9 percent lower than the total nameplate rating used 

by EPA in its calculation. Commenters stated EPA should use an average of the summer and 

winter net capacity ratings rather than the nameplate capacity to obtain a more reasonable 

estimate of average annual net capacity of an NGCC unit. The commenters said the same EIA860 database that EPA used to find nameplate capacities also provides summer and winter net 

capacity ratings, as reflected in EPA's NGCC Capacity by Age spreadsheet. The commenters 

said for Wisconsin, making this switch and using the average of the summer and winter net 
236 

capacity ratings in the goal-setting calculation makes the state's interim and final goals 

approximately 3 percent less stringent. 

Commenters stated in the eGRID baseline data for 2012, EPA used the EIA860 nameplate 

capacity rating (in MW) by generator as the basis for any capacity factor or energy production 

computations; nameplate capacity represents the design gross capacity of the generator before 

any internal plant usage (auxiliary power) is deducted, and does not correctly reflect a unit's true 

capacity due to various operational restrictions, whereas the net capacity represents the value 

after auxiliary power is deducted. The commenters said net capacity is what a unit can supply to 

the electrical grid; there is also a seasonal component to net capacity, with summer net capacity 

being lower than winter net capacity, but both typically are lower than nameplate capacity - and 

occasionally significantly lower. The commenters said EPA is using net generation (in MWh) as 

the input for emission rate calculations on a lb/MWh-net basis. 

Commenters recommended that EPA use the average seasonal capacity for NGCC generation 

rather than the nameplate capacity when redispatching the NGCC generation; for Arizona, this 

would be 9,626 MW. 

Commenters stated EPA's analysis assumes the capability of the combined cycle resources based 

on capacity values from the 2012 eGRID report; these capacity values are facility nameplate 

capacities, which do not accurately represent the actual net capability of these resources. The 

commenters said actual net dispatchable capacity is generally less than facility nameplate 

capacities, and sometimes significantly so, due to the turbine/generator generally being sized 

larger than the balance of the plant equipment. The commenters said as proposed by the EPA, for 

the reasons discussed above, the amount of NGCC energy that can be used to offset other 

affected generation is significantly overstated. 

Commenters evaluated how Utah's 2030 emissions rate goal would change if EPA used net 

operating capacity for both coal and NGCC units; three different assumptions of operating 

capacity were evaluated using data reported by SNL: Summer operating capacity; Winter 

operating capacity, and; Average annual operating capacity. The commenters said the effect of 

using operating capacity is to first reduce the number of MWH that are re-dispatched from coal 

to NGCC; this in turn raises the Utah 2030 EPA emissions rate goal. The commenters said in the 

case where summer net operating capacity is assumed the 2030 EPA emissions rate goal 

increases from 1,322 lbs/MWH to 1,348 lbs/MWH. The commenters said the 2030 EPA goal 

increases to 1,335 lbs/MWH if net winter operating capacity is used and 1,342 lbs/MWH if the 

annual average net operating capacity is used to calculate the 2030 target rate. The commenters 

said in all cases, changing the assumptions for NGCC capacity from nameplate to a net operating 

capacity number raises the EPA 2030 emissions rate goal for Utah and reduces the 2030 

compliance gap the state would have to cover in its state 111(d) implementation plan. 

Commenters stated EPA used nameplate capacity as a means to determine capacity factor 

achievability at NGCC units; however, nameplate capacity does not represent how the unit 
237 

actually performs and can perform; it does not take into account the effect of climate, pollution 

controls, or other factors on operations; therefore, EPA's analysis relying on nameplate capacity 

is in error and overestimates the capacity and abilities of NGCC units. The commenters said by 

looking only at nameplate capacity, and not looking at the net effect of the variables reducing 

available load, EPA is basically making the equivalent assumption that a large truck with a 200 

horsepower engine will have the same speed and performances as a small sedan with a 200 

horsepower engine. The commenters said engine (or for NGCCs, nameplate generator size) is 

only one component of determining performance. The commenters said summer and winter net 

capacities are a far more accurate basis to determine actual capacity factors at NGCC units; this 

data is easily available from the U.S. EIA, despite EPA's claims that these "data are not reported 

for the fleet." 

Commenters stated the configuration of Front Range is two combustion turbines powering one 

steam turbine (commenters included a diagram). The commenters said EPA uses the nameplate 

capacity to determine redispatch potential for NGCC units; in the case of Front Range Power 

Plants, the two combustion turbines have a nameplate capacity of 154 MW each and the steam 

turbine has a nameplate capacity of 233 MW. The commenters said based on this information, 

EPA incorrectly assumed that Front Range Power Plant has a total capacity of 541 MW. The 

commenters said full capacity of the generator driven by the combustion turbine cannot be 

achieved at the altitude of Front Range, about a mile above sea level, and is further degraded in 

typical summer temperatures. The commenters said the capacity of the steam turbine relies on 

output from the combustion turbines, and it too cannot physically attain nameplate capacity. The 

commenters said capacity varies with temperature and has different summer and winter values. 

The commenters said for simplicity, we recommend relying on the highlighted numbers, the 

average of summer and winter capacity; the Capacity for Front Range Power Plant Must Be 

Corrected to 480 MW. 

Commenters stated the data that the EPA has used to generate the proposed emissions rate of 740 

lbs CO2/MWh for the state of Florida is flawed; EPA has used nameplate generation capacity 

ratings, when in actuality either summer generation ratings or a weighted average of summer and 

winter ratings would be more representative of actual operation. The commenters said in many 

cases, the facility is unable to reach the nameplate capacity of the unit that EPA believes is 

achievable. The commenters provided "Table 3-1. Nameplate Capacity Ratings vs. Summer 

Generation Ratings" that addresses the disparity in megawatts that is possibly used in the EPA's 

case model. 

Commenters stated EPA should use operational capacity for all fossil fuel-powered EGUs for 

consistency and accuracy when determining the amount of re-dispatch available. The 

commenters said nameplate capacity is not appropriate to use for this purpose; nameplate 

capacity is rarely the amount of generation that is actually possible when taking into account site 

conditions such as elevation, temperature, and humidity. The commenters said these factors, are 

considered when permitting these sources in New Mexico; using nameplate capacity 

overestimates the generating capabilities of NGCC facilities. 
238 

Commenters stated in its calculation of the energy that would be produced by the operation of 

NGCCs at a capacity factor of 70 percent, the EPA used the nameplate rating of the NGCCs, 

rather than the net capacity at which the units can actually operate. The commenters said 

nameplate capacity is the nominal maximum output of a generator, assuming a particular set of 

ideal, often location-specific, operating conditions, including altitude, temperature, humidity and 

other factors that cannot be controlled by unit operators. The commenters said nameplate 

capacity is not demonstrated capacity, which represents the maximum output that can be 

delivered to the grid as measured by a unit's historic performance. The commenters 

recommended assuming that the permits are revised and infrastructure accommodates base load 

operation, the commenters believed a 70 percent capacity factor may be reasonable under 

anticipated unit availability and market conditions; however, EPA's analysis should be based on 

the net seasonal capability that has been demonstrated to be achievable (instead of nameplate 

capacity) to avoid overestimating the potential for re-dispatch. The commenters added EPA 

should allow states to adjust goals for units with design or other constraints that prevent 

achieving the 70 percent capacity factor. 

Commenters stated in its application of Building Block #2, EPA first calculated annual 

generation (MWh) from coal, as well as oil and gas (OG) steam plants, using data from the 

baseline year of 2012; EPA then determined the amount of existing NGCC capacity (MW) that is 

available in the state, and determined the total annual generation (MWh) that could be produced 

by the NGCC plants at 70% capacity factor. The commenters said imperative to an assumption 

that coal and oil generation can be pushed to NGCC operating less than 70% is the determination 

of capacity factor; the EPA calculates capacity factor simply as the quotient of the sum of 

electric generation (MWh) divided by the sum of the NGCC nameplate capacities reported in 

eGRID. 

CF = GN 

where CF = 2012 annual state-wide NGCC capacity factor (%) 

G = sum of net electric generation from all NGCC in the state in 2012 (MWh) 

N = sum of nameplate capacities from all NGCC in the state in 2012 (MW) 

Commenters said the nameplate capacity is a fixed number; even if two NGCC in different 

locations have identical nameplate capacities, they cannot be expected to have the same actual 

capacity over a year. The commenters said actual unit capacity changes over time as a unit 

degrades, changes through a maintenance cycle, changes due to varying levels of dispatching, 

and even is affected by the weather. The commenters said the EPA has incorporated as part of a 

standard setting process a fixed constant for a variable that is at the whim of Mother Nature. 

Commenters said the EPA acknowledges this variability (although they did not also delineate the 

many other variables): "Net generating capacity is a function of weather/temperature conditions 

at the site, which varies throughout the year. While some units may model actual weather 
239 

adjusted capacity by the hour/minute, these data are not reported for the fleet. Therefore, the 

EPA used the nameplate capacity reported for units." 

Commenters said the EPA dismisses a known function of capacity because this data was not 

reported for the entire fleet; no other justification was provided for using nameplate capacity - a 

number which was inaccurate and over-stated net generating capacity; however, EPA references 

data collected from Form EIA-860 throughout the rule. "What is the nameplate capacity for this 

generator; Report the highest value on the generator nameplate in MW rounded to the nearest 

tenth, as measured in alternating current (AC). If the nameplate capacity is expressed in kilovolt 

amperes (kVA), first convert the nameplate capacity to kilowatts by multiplying the 

corresponding power factor by the kVA and then convert to megawatts by dividing by 1,000. 

Round this value to the nearest tenth. If generator nameplate capacity is less than net summer 

capacity, provide the reason(s) in SCHEDULE 7." 

Commenters said Form EIA-860 also has entries for net capacity, both in winter and 

summer; EPA already has at their disposal at least seasonality capacity. The commenters said as 

well, EPA has at their disposal Section 114 of the CAA to collect additional data for better 

resolution, and a more accurate assessment, if needed. The commenters urged EPA to utilize the 

data and tools readily available to assess the state-specific impact of broad, nation-wide 

assumptions, such as a required 70% capacity factor. 

Commenters stated EPA has made a critical error in its calculations for building block 2. The 

commenters said although EPA claims that it has applied building block 2 on a "net" basis EPA's 

target for increased natural gas generation actually reflects a calculation of "gross" generation 

because EPA developed its gas generation target based on applying a 70 percent capacity factor 

to the "nameplate" capacity of existing NGCC units. The commenters said "Nameplate" capacity 

refers to the total "gross" MW because it reflects the maximum amount of electricity that a unit's 

generator is designed to deliver, not the amount of electricity that eventually may be sold to the 

grid; therefore, EPA's 70 percent capacity factor calculation actually reflects "gross MWh," not 

"net MWh," whereas EPA's calculation of 2012 coal-fired generation remains based on "net" 

generation. 

Commenters stated EPA's conclusions thus rely on an inconsistent analysis that compares gross 

MWh of gas generation to net MWh of coal generation; as a result, coal units must give up more 

generation than if EPA actually determined what the "net" generation of existing gas units at a 70 

percent capacity factor would be. The commenters stated in the converse, coal units must give up 

more total "gross" generation because they only receive credit in the tradeoff for "net" 

generation; either way, coal units are held to a more stringent standard because EPA's calculation 

relies on a "gross" nameplate capacity for gas units to determine their dispatch of "net" 

generation from coal units. The commenters said this difference is not insignificant - as EPA 

explains, "the difference between gross and net electricity is the amount of electricity used at the 

plant to operate components such as pumps, fans, motors, and pollution control devices," which 

"may represent from 4 to 12 percent of gross generation at a coal-fired steam EGU." The 
240 

commenters said in other words, EPA's unfair "re-dispatch" comparison of net gas generation to 

gross coal generation itself may account for as much twice the difference in total generation as 

EPA's entire building block 1 assumption of six percent. 

Commenters asked EPA to recalculate its building block 2 assumptions for the "re-dispatch" of 

coal generation to natural gas generation using the net dependable capacity, based on the average 

of the summer and winter capacities, for all of the affected NGCC units. The commenters said in 

the case of New Mexico, the total nameplate rated capacity of the NGCC units relied upon by 

EPA in the building block 2 calculation is 1,662 MW, whereas the blended summer/winter net 

dependable capacity is actually only 1,448.5. The commenters said use of that more 

representative capacity value in determining New Mexico's goal would thus increase the 2030 

goal from 1,048 lb/MWh to 1,104 lb/MWh. The commenters said relying on the net capacity of 

New Mexico's NGCC fleet (based on the more representative blended summer/winter net 

dependable capacity) instead of gross capacity would raise the goal for New Mexico from EPA's 

original proposal of 1,048lb/MWh to 1,104 lb/MWh. The commenters said that new goal would 

decrease the compliance gap between the "base case" and the new goal from 211 lb/MWh to 155 

lb/MWh; in doing so, the new goal would more fairly represent the emission reductions 

achievable through the re-dispatch of New Mexico's NGCC fleet, and therefore represent a more 

achievable and appropriate goal for the State. 

Commenters stated EPA used an annual average capacity factor; this capacity may not be 

available during peak periods and for operational reasons coal-fired units cannot be used 

interchangeably with natural gas-fired units for peaking. The commenters said EPA needs to 

evaluate capacity on a seasonal, if not hourly basis to determine how much capacity can 

effectively be dispatched. 

Comment 10: Incorrect use of nameplate capacity, the EPA should use summer capacity.

Response 10: In this final CPP, the EPA has switched from relying on nameplate capacity to 

utilizing net summer capacity for determining BB2 potential. See Section V.D of the Preamble 

for more discussion.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated for existing NGCC facilities, EPA uses "nameplate capacity" to determine 

the potential electricity generation capacity factors; however for under construction NGCC 

facilities EPA uses data from the NEEDS database, which the Department believes uses expected 

summer capacity. The commenters asked if EPA has considered in determining the BSER, the 

effect of using expected summer capacity to select the capacity of under construction NGCC 

units while using nameplate capacity for existing units. 
241 

Commenters added in order to determine the 70% dispatch threshold for NGCC facilities, EPA 

compared 2012 NGCC facility generation to nameplate capacity and calculated capacity factors 

for each NGCC facility; using this data, EPA determined that the top 10% of highest utilized 

NGCC plants operated at an annual capacity factor (in terms of nameplate capacity) at or above 

70%. The commenters said in order to validate the feasibility of a 70% NGCC capacity in a 

compliance scenario, EPA used the Integrated Planning Model, which uses the NEEDS database 

as its primary input for information on generating units. The commenters asked if EPA has 

considered the fact that the NEEDS database does not rely on "nameplate capacity" as its 

principle data input, but rather summer capacity. 

Commenters asked if EPA has considered that discrepancies may exist between nameplate and 

summer capacities as a result of repurposed equipment; for example, Florida has identified at 

least one heat recovery unit that was repurposed, and, as a result, now operates well below its 

nameplate capacity because of insufficient waste heat from the combustion turbine. Commenters 

asked if EPA has considered whether use of the NEEDS database or summer capacity might 

eliminate such discrepancies. 

Commenters stated further compounding the calculation of the targets for Building Block 2 is 

EPA's use of nameplate capacity for existing NGCC units, instead of net summer capacity; net 

summer capacity is the tested maximum output of a unit at the time of summer peak demand and 

is generally lower than nameplate capacity. The commenters said in some cases, net summer 

capacity can be significantly lower than nameplate capacity; EPA's use of nameplate capacity 

instead of net summer capacity in the state goal calculations reflects a redispatch of natural gas 

fired generation that is actually greater than a 70 percent capacity factor for existing units. The 

commenters said they recommend that EPA utilize net summer capacity in calculating targets for 

natural gas fired units in building block 2. 

Commenters added in projecting a 70% capacity factor for NGCC units, U.S. EPA used the 

nameplate capacity of those units. The commenters understand that the nameplate capacity of a 

unit represents a gross-rating of the generator alone, and is not indicative of the net capability of 

a particular unit as a whole. The commenters believed that the "summer capacity" of the units' 

should be used instead. The commenters said summer capacity represents the net rating or 

capability of the generating unit as a whole. The commenters said when summer capacity is 

considered, which the commenters believed to be the most representative and appropriate 

approach, Ohio's 2012 NGCC capacity is 3,895.3 MW and not the 4,342.5 MW of nameplate 

capacity utilized in the goal-setting calculation for Ohio. 

Commenters stated EPA used nameplate/gross capacity in its calculations rather than actual/rated 

capacity which results in substantially overstating gas generation potential in each state; 

nameplate capacity represents the design gross capacity of the generator before any internal plant 

usage (auxiliary power) is deducted, whereas the net capacity represents the value after auxiliary 

power is deducted. The commenters said there is also a seasonal component to net capacity with 
242 

summer net capacity being lower than winter net capacity; the EPA needs to use summer net 

capacity factors for re-dispatch calculations. 

Commenters stated in building block 2 for Alabama's proposed goal, EPA utilizes a 70% 

capacity factor for NGCC based on statewide total nameplate capacity for years 2020-2029. The 

commenters said the NGCC fleet is relied upon more heavily during periods of greater electricity 

demand, which is primarily during the summer months; the summer capacity factor is, therefore, 

a better measure of NGCC capacity. The commenters said in Alabama's goal rate computation, 

EPA used a total nameplate capacity of 10,333 MW for NGCC. The commenters recommended 

that EPA use the total 2012 summer capacity of 9,278 MW in Alabama's goal rate calculation; 

this would result in total NGCC generation at a 70% capacity of 57 million MWHRs rather than 

the 64 million MWHRs used by EPA. The commenters said based on this factor alone, the 

commenters recommended that Alabama's 2020-2029 goals be adjusted; the adjusted 2029 goal 

for Alabama using this approach would be 1,124 Lbs CO2/MWHr rather than 1,059 proposed by 

EPA. 

Commenters stated the U.S. EPA used nominal nameplate capacity when determining the 

capacity for EGUs in this proposed rule; the commenters believed summer peaking values 

should be used, as they are a much more accurate measure of an EGU's capacity. 

Commenters stated as detailed in the Technical Concerns portion of this document, U.S. EPA 

utilized the nameplate capacity of the nationwide nuclear fleet instead of the more appropriate 

summer capacity. Commenters said that the nameplate capacity of a unit represents a grossrating of the generator alone, and is not indicative of the net capability of a particular unit as a 

whole. The commenters believed that the "summer capacity" of the units' should be used instead. 

The commenters said summer capacity represents the net rating or capability of generating unit 

as a whole. The commenters said examination of EIA's most recent existing generation data 

(2011), use of nameplate capacity instead of summer capacity would over-represent nationwide 

nuclear capacity by 5,582 MW; the magnitude of this error is simply too great to ignore. 

Commenters analyzed EIA forms 923 and 860 data for years 2008-2012; these data demonstrate 

that improper use of nameplate capacity in calculating capacity factors would result in a 2008-

2012 nationwide nuclear capacity factor of 85%. The commenters said using the more realistic 

and appropriate summer capacity, the five-year nationwide average capacity factor is 89%; thus, 

U.S. EPA's assumption of a 90% capacity factor for the nuclear fleet is only valid if summer 

capacity is used. The commenters added that they did not attempt to exclude those nuclear units 

committed to shutdown, as was the case with U.S. EPA's goal setting calculations. 

Commenters stated in the eGRID baseline data for 2012, EPA used the EIA860 nameplate 

capacity rating (in MW) by generator as the basis for any capacity factor or energy production 

computations. The commenters said nameplate capacity represents the design gross capacity of 

the generator before any internal plant usage (auxiliary power) is deducted, and may not 

correctly reflect a unit's true capacity due to various operational restrictions, whereas the net 
243 

capacity represents the value after auxiliary power is deducted. The commenters said there is 

also a seasonal component to net capacity, with summer net capacity being lower than winter net 

capacity. The commenters said in its calculation, EPA consistently mixes the nameplate capacity 

rating with the net generation capacity rating when calculating the baseline capacity factors for 

NGCC units. The commenters said this capacity factor calculation is the basis for the Building 

Block 2 NGCC re-dispatch, and EPA's error results in an overstatement of potential net MWh 

generation that could be added to the electrical grid to achieve a 70 percent NGCC capacity 

factor (or 15 percent capacity factor for units under construction). The commenters said instead 

of using nameplate generator capacity, EPA should use the net summer capacity rating of each 

generator, which will produce more realistic estimates of generation NGCC units can supply to 

the electrical grid, and the differential amount of net generation to be deducted from coal-fired 

units. 

Commenters stated as with the re-dispatch of natural gas component of the goal setting, U.S. 

EPA relied on nameplate capacities in their calculations. The commenters said they understand 

that the nameplate capacity of a unit represents a gross-rating of the generator alone, and is not 

indicative of the net capability of a particular unit as a whole. The commenters believed that the 

"summer capacity" of the units is more representative. The commenters said summer capacity 

represents the net rating or capability of a generating unit as a whole. The commenters said Ohio 

has 2,236.8 MW of nameplate nuclear capacity; using the more appropriate summer capacities 

for these units taken from EIA-860 reporting, this capacity is 2,134 MW. Furthermore, the 

commenters have identified that U.S. EPA, in the GHG Abatement Measures TSD, used 2,150 

MW of capacity for Ohio's nuclear fleet, and has been unable to resolve this value with available 

nameplate and summer capacity information. 

Commenters stated BB2 and its redispatch of coal-fired generation to NGCC also ignores 

problems associated with peak usage by failing to use net summer capacity in calculating NGCC 

capacity. The commenters said EPA should have used net summer capacity because it reflects 

the maximum output that generating equipment can provide to the system at the time of peak 

summer demand, which is particularly critical in Arizona and other states with a wide divergence 

between peak and average demand. The commenters said net summer capacity is generally lower 

than the actual nameplate capacity because it reflects capacity reductions resulting from 

efficiency loss and electricity use for station service or auxiliary loads. The commenters said net 

summer capacity is a much better indicator of existing NGCC capacity available for redispatch 

because it reflects the amount of energy that EGUs will be able to supply to the power grid to 

replace lost generation from coal- and oil-fired sources. 

Commenters stated EPA's refusal to use net summer capacity creates a false impression about the 

availability of existing NGCC generation for redispatch. The commenters said EPA's refusal to 

account for net summer capacity further harms states with severe weather, such as Arizona. The 

commenters said Arizona has a uniquely high summer peak demand; most of central and 

southern Arizona, and specifically the cities of Phoenix and Tucson, have very high ambient 

temperatures during the summer months, resulting in an annual energy profile that peaks 
244 

significantly during the long summer months; as a result, Arizona has the greatest change in 

capacity utilization of any state on a month-to-month basis. The commenters said currently, the 

existing NGCC capacity in the state of Arizona is designed to act as an intermediate capacity 

resource with the ability to quickly and efficiently meet peak summer month demands; the 

State's current NGCC capacity is not sufficient to both redispatch coal generation and meet 

summer peak demand. The commenters said if Arizona were to redispatch coal with the existing 

NGCC capacity, the State would need to build out significant additional NGCC capacity and 

infrastructure and renewable resources or make large and likely unsustainable market purchases. 

The commenters said the Pace Study similarly found that existing NGCC EGUs are inadequate 

to replace the coal-fired EGUs. 

Commenters requested that EPA use "net summer capacity" when determining a unit's 

generating capacity. The commenters said the proposal relied on nameplate capacity, which is 

often much higher than realized capacity, especially for older units; in addition, gross generation 

should have been used to ensure there is no penalty for utilizing air pollution control equipment 

at the site. The commenters said the following are some examples of the differences in 

generating capacity between nameplate and net summer capacity for Lakeland Electric units in 

Florida: 

Unit 1 - nameplate capacity: 103.5 MW, net summer capacity: 85 MW 

Unit 2 - nameplate capacity: 126 MW, net summer capacity: 106 MW 

Unit 3 - nameplate capacity: 363.8 MW, net summer capacity: 342 MW 

Unit 5 - nameplate capacity: 369 MW, net summer capacity: 338 MW 

Unit 8 - nameplate capacity: 126.5 MW, net summer capacity: 105 MW 

Comment 11: Improperly used nameplate capacity, the EPA should use net capacity 

with recommendations. 

Response 11: The EPA relies on summer capacity to inform its final rule subcategory-specific 

emission rates. See section V.A and V.D of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. Also see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation 

TSD for CPP Final Rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EIA860 database provides reported summer and winter net capacities in 

addition to nameplate capacity, so the information is readily available. The commenters said for 
245 

combustion turbine-based generation, including NGCC units, the summer net capacity can be 

significantly lower than the winter net capacity due to higher combustion air inlet temperatures. 

The commenters said EPA should therefore take seasonal net capacity variation into 

consideration as well (the FCG-EC's recommended methodology for taking seasonal net capacity 

variations into account is detailed below). The commenters added for many units in the EIA860 

database, net capacity data may be listed by unit (such as for an entire NGCC plant) versus by 

individual generator (separate capacities for the turbine(s) and the steam generator); in such 

instances the FCG-EC recommends that the plant net rating simply be allocated to the generator 

level by pro-rata share of generator nameplate gross capacity. 

Commenters recommended the following procedure for replacing generator nameplate capacity 

with net capacity: 

-Obtain summer net capacity ratings from EIA860 and append them to the eGRID data, by 

generator. 

-For multi-generator units with net capacity identified at the total unit level only, allocate the 

summer net capacities to the individual generators via pro-rata share of generator nameplate 

gross capacity. 

-For NGCC under construction, verify source and type of capacity rating; confirm that all project 

values used represent net capacity. 

-Use summer net capacity as the annual average net capacity; this will ensure that the net 

generation potential of NGCCs at a 70 percent capacity factor will not be overestimated and is 

most representative of average temperatures in a state. 

-This net capacity rating methodology is also needed to calculate coal-fired unit capacity factors 

and incremental NGCC emission rates as modifications to other parts of the calculation. 

Commenters stated the EPA should have used net generating capacity instead of nameplate 

capacity for natural gas combined cycle units in its application of Building Block 2. The 

commenters recommended the following procedure for replacing generator nameplate capacity 

with net capacity: 

-Obtain summer net capacity ratings from EIA860 and append them to the eGRID data, by 

generator. 

-For multi-generator units with net capacity identified at the total unit level only, allocate the 

summer net capacities to the individual generators via pro-rata share of generator nameplate 

gross capacity. 

-For NGCC under construction, verify source and type of capacity rating. Confirm that all 

project values used represent summer net capacity. 
246 

The commenters said the approach the EPA has taken is clearly erroneous because it is based on 

the gross generating capacity; the EPA must correct this error and conduct a proper analysis of 

the net generating capability of NGCC units in the United States and revise the emissions goals 

accordingly. 

Comment 12: The EPA's use of nameplate capacity is incorrect. 

Response 12: The EPA relies on net summertime capacity for the building block two in the final 

rule. Also see section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the use of nominal nameplate capacity rather than the actual demonstrated 

capacity was incorrect. 

Commenters stated with the improper nameplate capacity assumption for NGCC, in EPA's goal 

setting methodology for Building Block 2 under Option 1, the Agency essentially retires all coal 

capacity in 11 states, and its generation is replaced by NGCC generation from existing units; 

these states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington. The commenters said two of these states 

(Oregon and Washington) have already announced the retirements of their entire coal fired 

capacity, as a result of various state agreements; but while the remaining nine states have 

announced the retirement of some of their existing coal capacity, they still have plans to keep 

their remaining coal fleet operating into the future. The commenters said this is also shown by 

EPA's parsed IPM modeling files projecting compliance with the Option 1 state goals in 2025 

under a state-focused approach, which indicate that coal-fired capacity is required to meet 

demand and reliability in Arizona, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada and New Jersey. The 

commenters said this modeling seems to be supported by the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), which stated that current and planned pipeline infrastructure in both 

Arizona and Nevada are inadequate to handle increased demand due to the Proposed Guidelines. 

The commenters said it should be noted that the EPA only made one parsed IPM file available 

pertaining to Option 1; therefore, we were unable to ascertain projected unit compliance in 2030, 

the first year required to meet the Final Goals in the proposed emission guidelines ("Proposed 

Guidelines") and the year in which compliance with the Interim Goal is assessed. 

Commenters added reflecting the impact of adding this excessive NGCC generation into the state 

goal calculation, the capacity factors that would actually be required to reach these generation 

levels when applied to summer net capacities in these seven states are extremely high and well 

above the 70% capacity factor EPA assumes as the basis for its conclusion that its state goals are 

achievable. 
247 

Commenters added EPA should recalculate North Carolina's 2012 existing IOU NGCC 

nameplate capacity based on the criteria discussed above to more accurately represent the 

capacity that actually existed in 2012; North Carolina calculates this revised number to be 1,930 

MW. 

Commenters stated in the state goal computations, EPA calculated that 34,361,954 MWh were 

needed to be generated from Arkansas NGCC units to meet a 70% capacity factor; this 

calculation is based on using the total of the nameplate ratings - or 5,588 MW. The commenters 

said when the total of the actual tested ratings is used, in reality, Arkansas NGCCs must operate 

at an annual capacity factor of 83.9% to achieve 34,361,954 MWh. The commenters believed 

that it would be very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to meet an annual capacity factor of 

70% for some NGCC units; this is due to the fact that annual capacity factors must include 

planned and unplanned outages. The commenters said based on historical operations, during 

years when major maintenance is required on NGCC units, the planned outage factor alone could 

approach 15%; in addition, unplanned outages typically range from 2%- 5%. The commenters 

said if 70% is nearly impossible, then operating at a capacity factor of 83.9% is flat out of the 

question. The commenters said the state goal computations need to be recalculated in the final 

rule using (1) each unit's actual tested NGCC capacity as opposed to the unrepresentative 

nameplate capacity; and (2) a lower NGCC capacity factor than 70% - such as 60% or even 

lower, based upon industry average performance data. 

Commenters stated the challenge with a nation-wide, blanket assumption in an achievable 

capacity factor are the many variables that affect realized capacity factor; in just looking at what 

EPA has already acknowledged, ambient conditions play a large role. The commenters said 

Florida's average temperatures are much higher than the rest of the nation, and certainly higher 

during the long heavy electric-demand summers; it is not congruous to use nameplate capacities 

across the board and expect that a NGCC in Florida could achieve the same capacity factor as a 

NGCC in a colder state, even if all other variables were held constant. 

Commenters stated beyond the identification of mis-analyzed data points, realized utilization in 

Florida in 2012 is significantly greater than realized capacity factor by almost 20%; looking at 

the hours of operation of NGCC in Florida from 2012, 21 of 32 plants that reported operating 

data were available more than 70% of the hours, many of the largest capacity units greater than 

90%. The commenters said the EPA "assumes that NGCC has a utilization of 87%"; this refers to 

the cap of available hours of operation, not also to the generation capacity in each of those hours. 

The commenters said a closer look at the specific data suggest that even those plants that 

operated for a significant number of hours, were not over 70% capacity factor; for example, the 

Treasure Coast Energy Center had a utilization of 96%, yet only met a 53% capacity factor; 

clearly this plant will not be able to achieve 70% capacity factor by simply being dispatched 

more hours of the day. Commenters stated when operating, most turbines in NGCC are operated 

at high load (many turbines become unstable and/or inefficient at low loads); this suggests that 

there are other limiting conditions to meeting EPA's claimed achievable capacity factor besides 

just tapping into more of the nameplate capacity when operating. The commenters said in 
248 

Florida, the high ambient temperatures play a limiting role; station-specific constraints also 

should be considered. Commenters suggested that EPA re-evaluate the level of achievable 

existing NGCC capacity factor based on state-specific, and NGCC-specific data (not plant level); 

by doing so, the analysis will based on data with higher resolution for each state; however, it 

should be noted that even when refining the analysis, there are many other system constraints 

that must be taken into consideration that further restrict the possibility of re-dispatching to 

existing NGCC. The commenters said following the same approach as EPA did for defining 

what was adequately demonstrated with a broad brush of nation-wide, plant-level data, a more 

appropriate, state-specific peak capacity factor for Florida is 65%. 

Commenters stated the rule's calculation methodology is based on a fundamental 

misunderstanding of how utilities plan to meet electricity demand. The commenters said utilities 

must ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet peak demand, not annual average 

demand. The commenters said for example, their peak hourly load reached its highest value of 

557 MW on July 25, 2012; all available generation resources were being utilized at full capacity 

to meet that peak demand, and would not be available for re-dispatch. The commenters said it is 

clear that additional redispatching of the commenters' fleet of NGCC to support the state wide 

goal would not be possible at all times. The commenters said coal and oil steam plants provide 

vital capacity during those peak periods, and that capacity must remain available to ensure that 

sufficient resources are available to meet peak demand. The commenters said the combined 

nameplate capacity of the commenters' two NGCC units is approximately 480 MW; at a 70% 

capacity factor dispatch, the units provide 336 MW, which equates to approximately 60% of the 

peak demand for 2012. The commenters said the system load was less than that for 

approximately 70% of the year. Commenters stated coal and oil steam plants cannot be replaced 

by increasing the utilization of existing NGCC plants; the only way to replace coal and oil steam 

plants is to construct new NGCC power plants to ensure sufficient capacity is available in peak 

periods. 

Commenters stated in applying building block 2, EPA assumed that underutilized existing and 

currently under construction NGCC EGUs could be dispatched to a 70 percent capacity factor in 

replacement of coal-fired EGU generation; the following concerns raise questions regarding the 

validity of the EPA assumption: 

-EPA used name plate capacity to estimate the potential underutilized NGCC capacity that could 

be available for redispatch; the actual capacity of NGCC EGUs is affected by many factors 

including elevation, temperature, humidity, etc. 

-The EPA estimates of underutilized NGCC capacity did not account for capacity held in reserve 

to maintain system reliability and provide for anticipated growth in demand. 

-NGCC EGU's located in non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone 

may not be redispatched as anticipated by EPA without infringing on permit limitations; in Utah, 

the Wasatch Front is a non-attainment area for PM2.5. 
249 

The commenters said the EPA assumption that increased utilization to 70 percent capacity of 

NGCC can be redispatched in place of coal-fired generation needs to be evaluated more 

rigorously and adjusted to account for actual unit capacity, reserves to maintain system reliability 

and provide for growth and limitations resulting from compliance requirements of other permits. 

Comment 13: Errors - nameplate capacity value

Response 13: The EPA continues to list the nameplate capacity reported on the 2012 EIA-860; 

however, as explained in preamble section V.D, the EPA is relying on net summer capacity for 

its building block two assessment. See section V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment. See the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule for summer capacity rating values used. The nameplate 

capacity for Riverside Energy Center (ORIS ID Code 55641) was corrected; however, the EPA 

will use the summer capacity in the goal calculations. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the nameplate capacity used by EPA for Deer Creek Station is in error. The 

commenters sated as described by Basin Electric in its Application for an Energy Facility Siting 

Permit, its PSD Air Quality Construction Permit Application, and its April 2013 Integrated 

Resource Plan, the capacity for Deer Creek Station is 300 MW. The commenters said EPA used 

an erroneous rating of 324 MW in calculating Deer Creek Station's additional capacity. The 

commenters said the 300 MW rating can be verified by examining the gross hourly load data 

reported to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division by Deer Creek Station's continuous emission 

monitoring system. The commenters said an examination of the data reveals that the full load 

achieved on a gross basis is typically 301 - 304 gross MW, which aligns with the 300 net MW 

rating. 

Commenters have identified an error in the nameplate capacity used for WPL's Riverside Energy 

Center (ORIS ID Code 55641) located in Wisconsin for the Block 2 NGCC redispatch 

calculation. The commenters provided Table 8 that summarizes EPA's original data and the 

revised corrected data; the proposed rule applied a nameplate capacity of 695.7 MW and the 

correct value is 674.9 MW. The commenters did not recommend use of NGCC nameplate 

capacities for the Block 2 calculation; rather than use the nameplate rating of NGCCs in EPA's 

calculation of the energy that would be produced by the operation of NGCCs at a capacity factor 

of 70%, the EPA should use the demonstrated net capacity at which the units can actually 

operate; however, if the EPA does not alter its original approach, the commenters requested 

correction of the nameplate rating used for WPL's Riverside Energy Center. 

Commenters stated the EPA made an error in their analysis of the Cheyenne Prairie Generating 

Station, the sole natural gas combined cycle unit in Wyoming; the EPA assumed a 220-megawatt 
250 

facility when it is a 95-megawatt unit; this error calls into question the entire component 

analysis. 

Comment 14: The EPA should use gross generation. 

Response 14: See section V.C and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. The response to this comment is also addressed in section 3.1.4. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA requested comment on the use of "net" versus "gross" savings in the 

context of energy efficiency compliance approaches; one important distinction is that utility 

ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs and other non-ratepayer programs (e.g., state 

energy efficiency loan funds, energy savings performance contracting, building energy codes) 

may not need to be treated in the same manner. The commenters said the net-savings approach is 

linked to cost effectiveness issues and not emissions issues; non-ratepayer funded energy 

efficiency programs are developed in a different context. The commenters said if a state wants to 

leverage a revolving loan fund and the associated energy savings that are achieved through 

retrofits facilitated by the fund for 111(d) compliance, the state should not have to determine the 

net energy savings from those projects. The commenters said the gross energy savings should be 

sufficient for 111(d) compliance; overall, NASEO recommends that EPA allow gross energy 

savings from energy efficiency projects to be used for compliance purposes, at least on programs 

that operate outside of utility ratepayer-funded programs, which may have non-emissions reason 

to use a net energy savings approach. The commenters said if individual states wish to use net 

energy savings on all or a subset of the energy efficiency programs included in their 111(d) 

plans, that should be their option. 

Commenters added the USEPA requested comment on net energy output (proposed) and gross 

energy output; the current reporting of CO2 emissions from EGUs is required by 40 CFR, Part 

75 to be in gross energy output and the proposed EGUs' CO2 emission limits are expressed as 

net output. The commenters said the USEPA did not propose a methodology for how any 

adjustments in net output would be modified for reporting in 40 CFR Part 75. The commenters 

said net output fails to account for broad discrepancies of parasitic loads to the EGUs. The 

commenters said an example of this would be comparing the gross CO2 lbs/MWh from an EGU 

with a wet sulphur dioxide control device to one with a dry scrubber; if all other things are equal, 

the EGU with a wet scrubber will have a higher carbon intensity than the dry control device, 

thereby skewing the net rate. The commenters said this would be magnified with multiple or very 

large units in a state's generation mix. The commenters said the goal calculations should be 

based on gross output for the EGUs or there should be a provision in 40 CFR, Part 75 for 

reporting net output if this is what the USEPA determines to be appropriate. 

Commenters stated EPA solicits comment on the prospect of monitoring and reporting net versus 

gross generation; the commenters are concerned with EPA's proposed use of net rather than 
251 

gross electricity generation as a basis for the emission rate goals in the proposal. The 

commenters said the additional monitoring required to accurately determine net generation is 

burdensome and of little or no benefit beyond the current gross energy monitoring requirements. 

The commenters said use of net generation penalizes utilities for the electricity that is used to 

power pollution control systems that are, in fact, mandated by other federal environmental 

regulations; in addition, EPA's proposed new source CO2 standards under section 111(b) are 

based on gross generation. The commenters said for consistency and to minimize the monitoring 

and reporting burden, gross generation should also be used for the section 111(d) standards. 

Commenters added Delaware has one coal-fired unit in the state; Nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

emissions from this unit are controlled by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology, and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by a scrubber. The commenters said units equipped with 

emission control equipment have higher heat rates than those without, due to the energy needed 

to operate the control equipment; the NOx and SO2 emission controls were installed on 

Delaware's unit after the 2012 base year, so the station auxiliary loads associated with those 

controls were not reflected in the net generation of the 2012 base year. The commenters said 

given that EPA 2030 goal calculations are based on net generation States with controlled units 

appear to be at a disadvantage. The commenters recommended EPA consider calculating heat 

rates on gross generation, instead of net generation, for units that are equipped with advanced 

emission controls. The commenters said this recommendation is only for units that have 

enforceable requirements to continuously operate such emission controls at all times the 

associated unit operates. 

Commenters stated the goals are based on net generation which excludes power used to operate 

air pollution control equipment; using net generation penalizes sources that have installed good 

air pollution control equipment. The commenters said air pollution control equipment can 

consume up to 15% of the electricity generated by an EGU; as such, the commenters believed it 

would be more equitable to use gross generation for establishing the goals and determining 

compliance. 

Commenters stated any rate, whether in mass tons or otherwise, must be based on gross output 

rather than net output because each power plant's internal load to run pollution control equipment 

varies and units with more pollution control equipment and a greater internal load should not be 

adversely penalized in the baseline calculation or in any carbon reduction program. The 

commenters added EPA should use each unit's maximum energy output rating rather than the 

nameplate ratings, which are design ratings and do not reflect a unit's true capacity. 

Comment 15: The EPA should use gross electrical output rather than net electrical output

Response 15: See response 14 above. 
252 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated USEPA should reassess the use of net electrical output rather than gross 

electrical output for calculating heat rate/efficiency improvements. The commenters said 

reporting of gross electrical output is already required from EGUs with specific, clear methods 

for its measurement; this does not appear to be the case for net electrical output. The commenters 

said any requirements in state rules to implement heat rate improvements on a net basis would 

require additional reporting requirements and rules on how net output could be consistently 

measured and calculated; additionally, emission controls on EGUs reduce efficiency as internally 

generated electricity is used to power such controls thereby increasing the parasitic load and 

reducing net output; consequently, using net electrical output to calculate efficiency creates an 

undesirable incentive for sources to avoid installing new or operating existing criteria pollutant 

emission controls when seeking to improve EGU efficiency. The commenters said use of gross 

electrical output for heat rate calculations avoids this conflict, although there is still the issue of 

the best controlled and least polluting units potentially being the least efficient. The commenters 

examined the possible use of net electrical output for its Illinois mercury rule, but opted for gross 

output for just these reasons. 

Comment 16: Net generation appropriate, but there are concerns for units that have installed 

pollution controls.

Response 16: See section V.C. and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. Also, see section 3.1.4 in this RTC document. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed rule uses net generation as opposed to gross generation in the 

denominator both in setting the goal and for compliance purposes under a rate-based approach. 

The commenters recognized that the use of net generation allows for plant-level efficiency 

improvements to be accounted for; however, the use of net generation does present some 

concerns. The commenters said if a utility installs controls for a traditional air pollutant 

(mercury, SO2, or NOx) or for addressing other environmental issues such as clean water 

regulations, it often requires electricity to operate the control equipment, reducing the utility's net 

generation. The commenters said if pollution controls are installed at an EGU after 2012, in 

order to meet the 6% heat rate improvement in building block 1, the utility would have to make 

up the lost net generation resulting from operating the controls just to get back to its baseline 

level and then reduce another 6% on top of that; this penalizes EGUs for installing traditional 

pollution controls, which is likely an unintended consequence of using net generation. The 

commenters suggested that the EPA rectify this in the final rule; one option to alleviate this 

concern is to allow a utility to include the electricity used to operate pollution control equipment 
253 

installed after 2012 to meet any state or federal environmental requirement in its net generation 

for compliance purposes. 

Comment 17: Gross vs. Net capacity to set goals; more information required

Response 17: See section VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. Per commenters’ suggestion, EPA has relied on net summer capacity to inform its 

BSER quantification of subcategory-specific emission performance rates and state goals in the 

final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated nameplate capacity represents the design gross capacity of the generator 

before any internal plant usage (auxiliary power) is deducted, whereas the net capacity represents 

the value after auxiliary power is deducted. The commenters said net capacity is what a unit can 

supply to the electrical grid; there is also a seasonal component to net capacity, with summer net 

capacity being lower than winter net capacity, but both typically are lower than nameplate 

capacity - and occasionally significantly lower. The commenters said EPA is using net 

generation (in megawatt-hours (MWh) as the input for emission rate calculations on a pound of 

CO2 per net MWh basis. The commenters said more information is required to understand the 

most representative value for determination since other emission limitations are based on gross 

versus net. 

Comment 18: Gross CO2 with net generation; inconsistent

Response 18: See section V.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. Also see discussion in section VI Also, see section 3.1.4 in this RTC document 

in regards to the interaction between heat rate improvements and auxiliary controls. EPA 

continues to rely on total CO2 emissions when establishing emission rates to be consistent with 

the reporting requirements of the rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the CPP established state emission rates using gross CO2 emissions from 

2012 and net generation from the same year. The commenters believed this to be an inconsistent 

methodology and believes gross emissions and gross generation should be utilized to establish 

BSER. The commenters said this relevant in light of additional controls and the loss of 

generation and increased heat rate required for emissions controls by other EPA rules including 
254 

the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and 

National Ambien t Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Commenters stated EPA is not consistent with the use of gross versus net generation when 

calculating state level goals. The commenters said EPA calculated unit-specific heat rates using 

gross generation data from the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) as the basis 

for estimating heat rate improvements related GHG reduction potential. The commenters said the 

use of gross generation completely overlooks the negative impacts to auxiliary load caused by 

pollution control equipment such as scrubbers, fabric filters, selective catalytic reduction 

technology, dry fly ash handling systems, or waste water treatment systems; however, when 

calculating individual state CO2 emission rate goals EPA used net generation. The commenters 

said while gross generation is not affected by the installation of pollution control, net generation 

can be affected significantly. The commenters said EPA should be consistent with its use of 

gross and net generation. The commenters said given the level of new pollution control retrofits 

necessary to respond to recent and upcoming EPA regulations, net generation is the most 

appropriate value to use throughout the proposed Guidelines. 

Comment 19: Solar data in goal calculation

Response 19: See sections V.A and V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the data used by EPA for calculating solar energy potential as part of the 

building block 3 is out of date and incomplete; therefore, the EPA's current proposal does not 

reflect the BSER. The commenters said the EPA should update its cost and penetration data for 

solar when determining state emission reduction targets to ensure that the BSER is correctly 

reflected in state goals. 

Commenters added the BSER as proposed by EPA does not properly account for solar energy 

measures because it fails to project accurate emissions reduction and cost potential, and it fails to 

include distributed PV entirely; therefore, the state goals as set forth in EPA's proposal are 

inaccurate. The commenters stated the EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmark 

from the alternative approach and rely on the IPM model results with modifications. The 

commenters said the EPA should use the Sunshot -62.5% cost scenario as the cost input for 

utility PV in the IPM model and as the cost input for distributed PV from the SolarDS model. 

The commenters said the EPA should use the Sunshot -62.5% scenario distributed PV solar 

capacity projections to hard-wire distributed PV into the IPM model to include distributed PV. 

The commenters said the EPA should update the current generation data for solar from EIA data 

with SEIA's recommended outlined approach. The commenters said the EPA should update the 

performance estimates used in the IPM model for solar. The commenters said the EPA should 

use a 2012 or higher baseline year. 
255 

Commenters added use Sunshot -62.5% scenario distributed PV solar capacity projections to 

hard-wire distributed PV into the IPM Model. 

Commenters stated distributed PV meets the necessary requirements to be considered a part of 

the BSER; distributed PV can be deployed at a reasonable cost, reduces emissions, is technically 

feasible, and is also adequately demonstrated. The commenters said as distributed PV is a 

unique, customer sited generation resource, it may be difficult to represent the technology in a 

wholesale power model such as IPM; instead, it is more accurate to rely on separate modeling 

that fully accounts for market dynamics at the customer level. The commenters said for example, 

NREL has developed the Solar Deployment System model (solarDS), a modeling complement to 

ReEDS which projects distributed PV installations by state based on system prices, retail rates, 

and consumer economics. 

Commenters stated the Solar Deployment System (SolarDS) model is a geospatially rich, bottom 

-up, market penetration model that simulates the potential adoption PV on residential and 

commercial rooftops in the continental United States through 2030; SolarDS was developed by 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to examine the market competitiveness of 

PV based on regional solar resources, capital costs, electricity prices, utility rate structures, and 

federal and local incentives. The commenters said SolarDS calculations are run at a high level of 

disaggregation by calculating PV generation in 216 solar resource regions (shown in Figure ES1), and combining PV output with state-based electricity rate distributions from 3000 utilities. 

The commenters said Regional PV financial performance is used to simulate PV adoption rates 

for each customer type and building type; SolarDS then aggregates regional PV adoption to the 

state and national level. 

Commenters stated in an analysis of the EPA Clean Power Plan performed by the NRDC, NRDC 

utilized the DOE Sunshot distributed solar capacity projections from their -62.5% price scenario 

for input into the IPM model; to arrive at these distributed PV capacity projections, the DOE ran 

the -62.5% price scenario through the SolarDS model. The commenters said the -62.5% cost 

scenario is reasonable to use, as the cost assumptions correspond with the level of prices and 

projection of prices seen in today's distributed PV markets. (See Appendix C for these solar 

capacity projections from the Sunshot -62.5% scenario.) The commenters said NRDC also 

approximated a growth pathway between 2014 installed capacity and the Sunshot 2030 

distributed PV capacity projections; the Sunshot -62.5% distributed PV solar capacity projections 

were then hard-wired into IPM to ensure that the effects on the grid and other generation options 

are captured; meaning, the capacity projections were forced into the IPM model to build a certain 

GW amount of distributed PV in 2020. The commenters said the IPM model then went through 

the same set of steps as the model would with other technologies (i.e. cost considerations, 

regulations, etc.). 

Commenters stated the analysis by NRDC notes that using the -62.5% cost reduction scenario 

may be a conservative projection, as an October 2014 notice from the Sunshot program projects 

that distributed solar prices are still on track to meet the Sunshot goal (a full -75% reduction in 
256 

price) by 2020, which would result in higher demand for distributed PV systems than in the -

62.5% projection. The commenters said NREL's analysis assumes no further price declines after 

2020, when in fact many analysts expect that prices will continue to decline. The commenters 

said the NRDC analysis does not assume any carbon price or incentives for renewable energy 

beyond those already in place in 2012. The commenters said therefore, an analysis that includes 

an application of a $30/MWh cost reduction or similar incentive for zero-carbon technologies 

would lead to even higher levels of distributed PV deployment to achieve cost-effective 

emissions reductions. 

Commenters added use the Sunshot -62.5% Cost Scenario as the Cost Input for Utility PV in the 

IPM Model and as the Cost Input for Distributed PV from the SolarDS Model. 

Commenters stated the Alternative Approach's strengths lie in its use of technical and economic 

data to calculate the state renewable energy potential. 

Commenters stated the EPA has relied on outdated and incorrect data from the EIA, which 

contains several-year old cost and performance data and results in levelized costs for wind and 

solar which are 46% above current averages for each technology. The commenters said EPA's 

modeling should use the most reliable and up-to-date cost and performance assumptions 

available, which will provide a more accurate representation of the cost competitiveness of 

renewables and demonstrate that more renewables can be deployed at reasonable cost. 

Commenters stated based on data from the latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report (Q2 2014), 

the costs for utility PV are at $1.81/watt, while the costs for residential and commercial PV 

(which together make up the distributed solar market) are at $3.92/watt and $2.39/watt, 

respectively. The commenters said this places solar on track or close to meet the 2030 SunShot 

goals; therefore, the Sunshot assumptions can be used as a trendline for 2030 solar costs. The 

commenters said he -62.5% Sunshot cost assumptions to use are: $1.50/watt for utility PV as an 

input directly into the IPM model; $2.25/watt for residential distributed PV and $1.88/watt for 

commercial distributed PV for use with the -62.5% capacity projections as inputs directly for the 

solarDS model, which is then hard-wired into the IPM model. 

The commenters stated NRDC compared a variety of sources to determine an installed cost for 

utility solar PV. 

Commenters stated update the Capital Cost Adders for CSP; for CSP cost, the Proposed Rule's 

2016 cost and performance numbers are consistent with a near-term molten-salt tower, if the 

location multipliers are accounted for and the dollars are converted to 2014 dollars; however, the 

maximum targets for solar thermal provided in the Proposed Rule are too low; in addition, the 

"short term capital cost adders," intended to account for maxing out the production capacity of 

any given technology, are too high and their use results in unrealistically high costs (we note as 

well that the steps on the short term cost adders of 90 MW and 60 MW are unrealistically low). 

The commenters said these should be corrected; the cost adder should be no more than 10% or 
257 

20%. The commenters said there is significant excess capacity for the CSP equipment today, 

including factories for receivers and mirrors all over the world; most of the equipment in a CSP 

plant is conventional power plant equipment or materials (steel and concrete); only a small 

percent is specialty equipment, for example mirrors, receivers, heat transfer fluids and salt. The 

commenters said in addition, the future cost reduction assumptions are too conservative, as costs 

are predicted to continue to decrease as new CSP plants come on line. The commenters said if 

availability impacts the EPA analysis, it is important to note that operating CSP plants in the US 

have availabilities above 95% after the first couple years of operation. The commenters said 

finally, CSP plants can be adapted to the needs of the utility; they can be designed for peaking, 

intermediate or baseload. EPA's model only includes the intermediate load plant configuration, 

but in the future, the baseload and the peaker plant configurations are likely to be as or more 

relevant; EPA should model all of the three options. 

Commenters stated update the Current Generation Data for Solar from EIA Data; the IPM model 

base case should accurately depict the solar market today in order to give an accurate forecast for 

future solar deployment. The commenters said the EPA can source data from a number of 

publicly available data sources to understand the solar potential from DG solar, utility PV, and 

CSP; the EIA collects data on distributed PV, utility PV and CSP capacity and generation 

through 4 separate forms. Those forms are 860, 861, 826, and 923: 

-EIA form 860: Annual Electric Generator Report. This covers system-level data for all plants 

larger than 1 MWac; therefore it does not include most distributed PV capacity deployed; while 

detailed data from this form is reported only annually, monthly data releases with important 

metrics are available from EIA's Electric Power Monthly table 6.3.146 

-EIA form 861: Annual Electric Power Industry Report. This form includes data on the number 

and capacity of solar energy systems deployed under net energy metering. (Note: data for 2012 

and 2013 likely does not include plants larger than 2 MWac but a form update recently approved 

by OMB means new data will include those systems and capacity.) This form also contains fields 

related to energy exported to the grid from these systems reported in megawatt-hours (MWh) but 

due to different metering infrastructure and different interpretations of the survey questions, this 

data is not consistent or reliable. 

-EIA form 826: Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions This 

form includes data on the number and capacity of solar energy systems deployed under net 

energy metering. This data is updated monthly and, thus, is more current than form 861 data. 

However, it covers fewer than 300 of the roughly 3,000 utilities in the U.S. and excludes a 

couple utilities with significant amounts of customer-sited solar. (Note: data for 2012 and 2013 

likely does not include plants larger than 2 MWac but a form update recently approved by OMB 

means new data will include those systems and capacity.) This form also contains fields related 

to energy exported to the grid from those systems in megawatt-hours (MWh) but due to different 

metering infrastructure and different interpretations of the survey questions, this data is not 

consistent or reliable. 
258 

-EIA form 923: Power Plant Operations Report. This form gathers data on generation from a 

sample of power plants larger than 1 MWac. Since this form does not cover all power plants, 

EIA uses this data to estimate generation from power plants not surveyed; given the variation in 

solar production from location to location and with different plant configurations that are not 

readily captured by EIA, estimating total solar generation based on data from this form is not a 

reliable reference source. 

Commenters stated the four EIA forms outlined above contain limited information about current 

solar capacity deployed; while the EPA relied on data from 2012 in the proposed rule, the 

commenters strongly encourages the EPA to use the latest available data before setting final 

targets. The commenters said given the rapid deployment of solar energy in recent years, the 

amount of existing solar capacity is now much higher than at the end of 2012; further, the EPA 

failed to account for distributed PV capacity reported in forms 826 and 861. 

Commenters stated given the shortcomings regarding the timing and limitations of EIA forms 

utilized, the commenters submitted that a more comprehensive estimation approach would 

present a more accurate picture of actual solar generation; the commenters suggested the EPA 

take the latest available data on solar PV capacity (both distributed and utility) from EIA forms 

860, 861 and 826 and multiply this capacity by the estimated generation per unit of capacity by 

state, which is current through the end of September 2014. 

Commenters stated the annual generation data should be used as a direct input into the IPM 

model. 

Commenters stated update the Performance Estimates used in the IPM Model for Solar; the EPA 

used EIA data that does not reflect current performance estimates within the solar market. The 

commenters said the solar performance estimates are based on the simple average of 

performance at each TMY3 weather station in each state as modeled using PVWatts in NREL's 

System Advisor Model (SAM). The commenters recommended using the maximum capacity 

factor in each state, as utility scale developers will target the highest resource regions. 

Commenters said it should be noted that through innovation such as oversized inverters, 

individual projects have reported capacity factors of up to 30%, but the commenters do not 

currently have publicly available data that captures this trend at a national level. 

Commenters added the EPA should use the highest RPS in a region to set the state targets, not 

the average RPS, unless a state specific determination shows that a lower RPS would be more 

appropriate. The commenters said the current approach groups states into 6 different regions and 

takes the average of the 2020 RPS goals for those states in that region and multiples this by the 

total 2012 generation for the region. The commenters said the EPA chose this RPS approach for 

two principal reasons: "First, in establishing the requirements, states have already had the 

opportunity to assess those requirements against a range of policy objectives including both 

feasibility and costs. ...Second, renewable resource development potential varies by region, and 

the RPS requirements developed by the states necessarily reflect consideration of the states' own 
259 

respective regional contexts." The commenters said the highest RPS goal in the region still fits 

within the principal reasons the EPA used, as the state will have weighed the feasibility and cost 

of the RPS policy against other policy objectives, yet still arrived at the aggressive RPS goal. 

Commenters added there are many instances where solar deployment has exceeded RPS 

deployment schedules, indicating that the RPS goal could have been more aggressive; for 

example, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, solar has already 

exceeded the RPS goals. The commenters said these aggressive goals are an indication that 

higher-levels of renewable energy deployment are viewed as possible in each respective region. 

The commenters added a recent report called "The State Clean Energy Cookbook" from former 

Senator Jeff Bingaman notes that only five of twenty-nine states have fallen below 90 percent of 

expected annual progress toward RPS targets. 

Commenters added the EPA should use 2030 RPS targets, not 2020 targets in setting the state 

goals; as the compliance period for the Clean Power Plan rule extends out to 2030, not 2020, 

selecting the RPS goals for 2020 severely limits the renewable energy potential for an entire 

decade. The commenters said for example, the RPS goal for HI is set for 40% by 2030, 

compared to just 25% by 2020. The commenters said Minnesota also has a 10% solar target by 

2030, in addition to other RPS goals. The commenters said today, 2020 RPS goals are less than 6 

years away, and by the time the rule is made final, less than 5 years away. The commenters said 

utilities are already planning for these RPS requirements in 2020 as part of their integrated 

resource planning processes; selecting a 2030 RPS goal sends a clear message on the potential 

for a state to include renewables as part of a balanced state energy portfolio by 2030. 

Commenters stated Florida is the "Sunshine State", but compared to southwestern states such as 

Arizona, we are really the "Partly-Cloudy State". The commenters said the NREL shows solar 

potential in Florida as approximately 5 kWh/m2/day, compared to 7 kWh/m2/day in areas of the 

Southwest. The commenters said solar is a viable resource for energy only - it cannot be counted 

on as capacity, due to the unpredictability of when the solar generation will drop off due to 

weather. The commenters added given the lack of utility-scale electric storage, it is a daytimeonly resource. The commenters are a leader in solar utilization in Florida, and as the price for 

panels decrease the commenters expected to add more; however, the nature of solar power and 

the manner in which it drops off the grid and comes back as a cloud passes, necessarily limits the 

total amount of solar that can be put on the system without introducing unacceptable instabilities. 

The commenters provided graphs indicative of the existing Jax Solar 12.6 MW plant's daily 

performance with a) afternoon showers, b) a rainy day, and c) a sunny day showing peaks of 

power (MW) during day light (8am to 7pm). The commenters said alternate (natural gas-fired) 

capacity is required to be available to replace the solar generation when it drops off - and to drop 

off itself when the solar comes back. The commenters said this need for system backup is a large 

component of the overall cost of solar when performing evaluations. 

Commenters stated the breakdown for where this electricity is produced in the Clean Power Plan 

map for NC shows that NC has no significant solar generation capacity. The commenters 
260 

stated other sources show the NC has 550 MW of solar power; this should produce about 1TWh 

of electricity per year (1.4% f 71 TWh). The commenters asked, why this is not included in the 

calculation for NC power production? 

Comment 20: Solar - Technical Potential Benchmark

Response 20: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see sections V.A and V.E. of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP and the building block three chapter in the GHG Mitigations Measures 

TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated should the EPA choose to include the technical benchmark potential, the 

EPA must include updated solar data to reflect the current solar industry. The commenters said to 

establish the technical potential benchmark, the EPA compares each state's renewable energy 

technical potential against its existing renewable energy generation; the technical potential is 

measured by NREL in the report "U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potential: a GIS-based 

analysis" and existing renewable generation as reported by the EIA for 2012. The commenters 

said the EPA notes that for solar, the EPA uses NREL's technical potential estimates for urban 

utility-scale PV, rural utility-scale PV, and CSP; should the EPA include the technical potential 

benchmark, the EPA must include the technical potential estimates for distributed solar; this 

technical potential for rooftop solar can be found here: 

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/re_potential.html. 

Commenters stated to have severe concerns with the existing renewable generation data used for 

solar as reported by the EIA in 2012; the commenters recommended the EPA take the latest 

available data on solar capacity (both DG and utility) from EIA forms 860, 861 and 826 and 

multiply it by the estimated generation per unit of capacity by state that is current through April 

2014. The commenters said for CSP facilities in operation, the EPA should use production 

estimates provided by NREL since generation from these plants is more project-specific. 

Commenters stated the comparison of the renewable technical potential to the existing renewable 

net generation yields the proportion of achieved renewable generation from technical potential, 

which the EPA represents as the renewable energy development rate. The commenters said the 

EPA next takes the average renewable energy development rate for the top third of states to use 

as a benchmark renewable energy development rate for each technology; the benchmark rate is 

applied to each state's technical potential to calculate the benchmark generation for each 

technology type. 

Commenters said using their recommended approach for accurate solar data in each state and the 

NREL technical potential figures gives a new benchmark average solar development rate of 

4.74% when looking at the top 16 states as the approach calls for; the current EPA proposal has a 

benchmark average solar development rate of 0.009%. 
261 

Commenters stated the EPA realizes the limits with the technical potential, and therefore pairs 

the benchmark development rates with an IPM model to take into account the cost of building 

the renewable generation; the final target renewable generation for each state is achieved by 

taking the lesser of these two approaches: the technology benchmark rate multiplied by the instate technical potential, or the IPM-projected market potential for that specific technology. 

Commenters did not support including the technical potential benchmark in the alternative 

approach; to clarify how the technical potential is not a realistic number to use in setting a 

benchmark, Texas has enough renewable potential to meet the 111(d) requirements of every state 

combined several times over; in 2012 (according to EIA form 861 data), Texas consumed 

365,000 GWh of electricity; Texas could get 22% of its electricity from rooftop PV, 81% from 

urban utility PV, more than 10,000% of its electricity from rural utility PV, etc.; a fraction of any 

one of these would be more than enough to comply with the requirements for Texas under the 

Clean Power Plan. The commenters provided a table summarizing the renewable energy 

potential relative to annual consumption in Texas (km2, Acres, GW, GWh, Renewable potential 

as a fraction of Total Texas Consumption). 

Commenters stated the SunShot study also notes that the land area that is potentially suitable for 

solar deployment is enormous and "thus land, per se, is not a constraint on meeting the SunShot 

scenario level of deployment." Commenters stated the study goes on to note: 

"However, it is important to make careful selection of sites in order to provide access to available 

or planned transmission, and to minimize conflicts with environmental, cultural, and aesthetic 

interests. The land area required to supply all end-use electricity in the United States using PV is 

only about 0.6% of the country's total land area. Similarly, the technical potential for CSP is 

enormous: about 17,500 TWh of annual CSP electricity generation, which is more than four 

times the 2010 U.S. annual demand, could be sited in seven southwestern states on land that has 

been pre-screened to avoid prominent land-use issues and to meet technical requirements such as 

insolation and slope. About 370,000-1,100,000 hectares (ha) (900,000-2,700,000 acres) are 

required for utility-scale solar installations in 2030 under the SunShot scenario, and about 

860,000-2,500,000 ha (2,100,000-6,300,000 acres) are required in 2050. The required land area 

is equivalent to about 0.05%-0.14% of the contiguous U.S. land area in 2030 and about 0.11%-

0.33% in 2050. Solar development in the SunShot scenario is greatest in the South and 

Southwest. Often the highest-quality solar resource areas are dry environments that are typically 

not well suited for cropland or offer little value for forestry and rangeland." 

Comment 21: Renewable energy potential - including solar
262 

Response 21: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP and sections V.A and 

V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated other approaches to setting the renewables portion to the state targets, such as 

the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) demonstrated renewables growth approach, show 

double the amount of renewable energy potential using the correct data for renewable energy. 

The commenters said the UCS demonstrated growth approach would improve on the EPA's 

proposed approach by incorporating the following core components: 

-Setting a national renewable energy growth rate benchmark based on demonstrated growth in 

the states from 2009 to 2013 

-Assuming full compliance with current state RES policies, as set by law, that require certain 

percentages of electricity to come from renewable sources 

-Accounting for actual and expected renewable energy growth between 2013 and 2017. 

The commenters said the UCS state-level renewable energy targets begin in 2017, the proposed 

start date for state compliance plans, and ramp up through 2030; to determine each state's 2017 

generation levels, the UCS uses actual generation data from 2013 (the EPA's approach uses 2012 

data) and adds projected generation from wind and utility-scale solar projects known to be under 

construction through 2016. 

Commenters said this demonstrated renewables growth approach results in a total of 923 TWh of 

total renewables to be deployed nationwide, nearly double the EPA's estimate of 524 TWh in 

2030. The commenters said to arrive at this level of generation, the UCS utilized the ReEDS 

model and SolarDS; inputs were provided into SolarDS first, with the output then inserted into 

the ReEDS model; this allows for distributed PV to be included. The commenters said updated 

solar data and cost assumptions were used in the UCS demonstrated growth approach 

Comment 22: Utility plans for nuclear

Response 22: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. This comment is addressed by the fact that EPA no longer quantifies at-risk 

nuclear in its final CPP BSER quantification. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
263 

Commenters stated Georgia's existing nuclear fleet provided 28.7 million MWh of generation in 

2012; EPA assumes that 5.8 percent of this generation will remain on-line through 2030, and 

provides a credit for the amount of generation this would represent: 1.8 million MWh. The 

commenters said this lowers Georgia's emission rate by 29 lbs/MWh or approximately 4 percent 

of the target reduction. The commenters said EPA's assumption is conservative in light of the 

utility's most recent resource plan, which shows it retaining all of its current nuclear fleet through

2030. 

Commenters stated Georgia Power is in the process of constructing two new nuclear units, 

totaling 2,200 MW, at its Plant Vogtle facility near Waynesboro, Georgia; the two units have 

expected operation dates of December 2017 and December 2018, respectively. The commenters 

said assuming, as EPA does, a 90 percent capacity factor, these units would produce more than 

17 million MWh of zero-carbon generation annually. 

Comment 23: An Alternative: Accounting for Nuclear Generation That Is Lost. 

Response 23: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. This comment is addressed by the fact that EPA no longer quantifies at-risk 

nuclear in its final CPP BSER quantification. 

Although nuclear generation is not factored into the BSER quantification directly, its presence as 

a zero emitting generation technology not subject to the rate creates still provides an additional 

incentive for it to remain in service. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated an alternative clarification in the final rule could potentially achieve the same 

incentives as a system-wide rate to maintain existing nuclear facilities, although it would be 

somewhat more complex; without changing EPA's proposed target rate calculation 

methodologies, EPA could still ensure that states have the appropriate incentive to preserve all 

existing nuclear capacity by adjusting the state's calculated emissions rate, when assessing a 

state's compliance, to reflect the full impact of any premature nuclear retirement. The 

commenters said EPA could indicate that, in determining whether a state is meeting its goals, 

EPA will subtract from the rate denominator the full amount of any lost nuclear generation, 

effectively requiring full replacement with equivalently carbon-free generation; like a systemwide emissions rate, this approach would give each state an incentive to preserve all of its 

existing nuclear plants that may be at risk of early retirement; however, because state plans may 

differ, and because EPA has expressed an intention to measure compliance with respect to each 

state's plan, it would be more straightforward to include all megawatt-hours of existing power 

plant generation in determining a state's target emissions rates, as proposed above. The 

commenters said regardless of methodology, EPA should require that a state plan include 

requirements that no nuclear generation assets will be prematurely retired - or, alternatively, that 

any prematurely retired nuclear generation will be replaced by an equal or greater amount of 
264 

other zero-emissions generation; a plan that failed to satisfy this principle should be deemed noncompliant. 

Comment 24: At a Minimum, the EPA Should Use a State-Specific Determination of "At-Risk" 

Nuclear Capacity. 

Response 24: See response 23 above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should not limit the inclusion of nuclear generation in the calculation of 

a state's emissions rate goals to those facilities deemed "at risk"; however, to the extent that EPA 

does retain that general framework, it must replace the use of a six-percent nationwide average - 

which does not accurately reflect conditions in any particular state - with a state-specific 

determination of the nuclear capacity at risk of early retirement. The commenters said this 

solution, while an improvement to the rule as proposed, does not treat all carbon-free generation 

the same and is far from preferable; it will not provide states with sufficient incentives to value 

the carbon-free generation of all existing nuclear facilities, nor will it provide them with 

sufficient incentives to preserve every cost-effective megawatt of existing nuclear power. The 

commenters said this solution poses administrative challenges that a system-wide emissions rate 

would avoid; in particular, EPA would be forced to determine which nuclear facilities are "at 

risk;" EPA would also need to revise that determination from time to time, adjusting state goals 

with each addition to the list of endangered nuclear plants. The commenters said the difficulty 

inherent in such judgments will only be compounded by changing market conditions over the 

timeframe envisioned in the rule. 

Comment 25: Threshold capacity factor for existing nuclear in Building Block 3

Response 25: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. Also, see section VIII for a discussion of use of nuclear generation in 

demonstrating compliance in the state plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that EPA allow states in their State Plans to establish a threshold 

capacity factor for existing nuclear plants; to the extent that the nuclear plant is able to operate 

above that capacity factor, the incremental generation would be included as a component of 

Building Block 3. The commenters said operation below the threshold capacity factor would 

have no impact on the state's compliance. The commenters were aware that other parties may be 

suggesting an approach like this may include specific recommendations with respect to the 

threshold to be used. 
265 

Comment 26: The EPA Should Expressly Recognize the Ability to Demonstrate Compliance 

Through Portfolio Standards That Credit Nuclear and Hydropower. 

Response 26: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

the nuclear portion of this comment and section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to the hydropower portion of this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated one way that states could choose to help ensure the continued vitality of 

existing nuclear and hydropower plants is to include such generation in their portfolio standard 

programs through what might be called a "clean energy credit;" doing so would place a value on 

the environmental attributes of nuclear and hydropower generation, just as Renewable Portfolio 

Standard ("RPS") programs place a value on the environmental attributes of wind or solar. The 

commenters said, few if any state RPS programs encompass all forms of zero-carbon electricity 

and some may even credit carbon-emitting generation such as clean coal and waste coal; that is 

unsurprising, given that RPS programs ordinarily seek to achieve state policy goals other than, or 

in addition to, CO2 emissions reductions. The commenters said most state RPS programs do not 

encompass nuclear power, and although many include some types of hydropower, they generally 

exclude the existing large-scale hydropower that provides the largest source of reliable 

renewable generation. 

Commenters stated if states are given the proper incentives to preserve existing nuclear capacity 

and hydropower - for instance, if EPA uses a system-wide rate to calculate emissions targets - 

then states may expand their portfolio standard programs to include nuclear and existing largescale hydro by mandating procurement of clean energy credits. The commenters said such 

credits, like RECs under existing programs, could also be traded, thereby allowing a state to 

comply by helping to preserve an existing nuclear or hydropower facility located in another state. 

The commenters said EPA should make clear in the final rule that such clean energy credit 

programs will be recognized as a valid method for states to comply and that clean energy credits 

reflecting nuclear generation will be valued fully, rather than at the six percent factor suggested 

by EPA's proposed goal-setting methodology. 

Commenters stated the reasons for including nuclear and large-scale hydropower in clean energy 

credit programs are similar to the reasons for fully counting nuclear generation in EPA's goalsetting formula. The commenters said procuring one MWh of electricity from a nuclear generator 

is at least equivalent to procuring one MWh of electricity from a wind generator; moreover, 

clean energy credit programs would avoid the negative consequences for emissions reduction 

that can result from RPS programs that favor some zero-emissions generation technologies and 

not others. The commenters said existing RPS programs that favor wind power but exclude 

nuclear power exacerbate the economic pressures faced by nuclear generators; tradable nuclear 

and hydropower credits would help ensure, particularly in rate-based states, that nuclear and 

hydropower facilities are appropriately valued for the zero-carbon attribute of the electricity they 

generate. 
266 

Commenters stated current supply to 49 member communities consists of over 1200 MWs of 

nuclear and hydroelectric power capacity; the result is that over 50% of the electricity supplied to 

the communities is produced while creating no emissions. The commenters said this proposed 

rule provides little credit for these carbon free resources and instead would require these 

communities to fund new, unneeded renewable energy resources and new energy efficiency 

programs which raise the cost to electric consumers in the communities unnecessarily. The 

commenters said looking to invest in the future of their communities, members have not only 

committed to the construction of new non-emitting resources in Vogtle Units 3 and 4, but have 

also funded 1/2 billion dollars in state-of-the-art emission control improvements for coal 

generating resources based on recent federal and state rules. The commenters said this proposed 

carbon dioxide rule penalizes the communities for these investments by asking for more 

emission reductions from the State of Georgia, which has seen substantial reductions in carbon 

dioxide emissions since 2005. The commenters said the proposal approach does not 

consider nuclear investments. The commenters said the proposal would also require reduced coal 

unit operation, potentially even requiring shutdown of the units, which strands the cost of the 

recent environmental investments and again raises the cost of electricity to consumers in the 

communities. 

Comment 27: The EPA should use hydroelectric power data in baseline and state goal 

calculations. 

Response 27: The EPA only factors generation from affected sources and potential replacement 

generation (which may include incremental hydro) into the quantification of BSER. See sections 

VI and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this comment and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP. See sections V.E for a discussion of RE generation technologies quantified in 

building block 3. 

As discussed in the preamble section VI, EPA has made an adjustment to the baseline to 

normalize baseline data in hydrological generation intensive states to a more typical year. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that U.S. EPA include hydroelectric power in its baseline and future 

state goal calculations; excluding hydropower does not encourage utilities to continue to invest 

in the maintenance and upkeep of existing units; also, it does not encourage states or utilities to 

invest in potential new hydropower capacity. The commenters said Indiana has five hydropower 

plants that have the capacity for roughly 73.2 megawatts (MWs) of electric generation, according 

to the EIA, and these plants are currently not included in Indiana's state goal calculations. The 

commenters said according to the National Hydropower Association, by 2025, the U.S. has the 

potential to install around 60,000 MW of new hydropower capacity; further, according to the 

EIA, Indiana produced around 34% more electric generation from hydropower in July 2014 than 

in July 2013, meaning there's an uptick in avoided CO2 emissions that the state should get credit 
267 

for in the goal calculation. The commenters said if U.S. EPA intends to encourage the use of 

renewable energy through this proposed rule, they need to promote the use of all types of 

renewable energy, not just certain ones. The commenters recognized that U.S. EPA has not ruled 

out the option for states to include incremental hydropower generation from existing facilities or 

later-built facilities and encourages U.S. EPA to include hydropower generation in any revised 

goal calculations. 

Commenters stated EPA arbitrarily excludes hydropower from its calculation of renewable 

energy potential. The commenters said this is a particularly glaring omission because EPA 

concedes that "hydropower is America's largest existing source of RE, for which generating 

capacity has remained relative constant over the last 20 years." The commenters said it attempts 

to justify this exclusion by claiming that, despite the fact that hydroelectric facilities "provide a 

large percentage of renewable energy generation in a few states inclusion of this generation in 

current and projected levels of performance would distort the proposed approach by presuming 

future development potential of large hydroelectric capacity in other states." The commenters 

said EPA's justification is unwarranted; the NREL study that EPA relies upon throughout its 

renewable energy calculation reveals that the total estimated technical potential from 

hydropower in the United States is 258,953 GWh; it further reveals that every state in the 

country has the potential to produce some degree of hydropower - with 42 states having the 

potential to produce over 1,000 GWh (including 4,883 GWh in Illinois) - undermining EPA's 

distortion argument. The commenters said in failing to consider hydropower, EPA is dismissing 

the potential for future hydropower. The commenters said acknowledging this fact, EPA states 

that "the analysis informing regional RE targets does not explicitly account for the potential of 

building new hydroelectric facilities as a source under RPS policies." The commenters said 

similar to its decision to simply ignore those states with no RPS requirements, EPA's exclusion 

of hydropower - based on a tenuous distortion argument - has no real scientific basis; rather, it 

appears that EPA is allowing its own desired approach to dictate its policy decisions and is only 

considering those technologies and - indeed those states - that expedite the implementation of its 

chosen approach. The commenters said by incentivizing wind, solar and nuclear - specifically 

building preservation of "at-risk" nuclear into the goal calculation - EPA has weighed into a 

policy debate regarding which sources of renewable energy states should foster going forward. 

The commenters said such broad policy choices are not the role of EPA under this emissions 

regulation. 

Commenters stated the EPA should adjust the amount of emissions in the goal and those used to 

measure compliance by normalizing the amount of hydroelectric generation during both periods. 

The commenters said this approach is a reasonable solution that ensures states with significant 

hydropower resources are treated fairly; this process of "normalizing," or "averaging," 

hydroelectricity generation across periods and scenarios is a common regulatory practice utilized 

by the Idaho PUC since 1982. The commenters said normalization could be used by the EPA to 

adapt its goal-setting and compliance requirements to account for the implications of hydropower 

generation variability without compromising the Proposed Rule's intent or results. 
268 

Commenters stated normalizing baseline hydro generation allows average hydro conditions to be 

taken into consideration and adjusted in baseline emissions from affected units; similarly, by 

normalizing hydro generation during compliance measurement periods using the same method, 

the effects of consecutive years of poor (or good) hydro conditions are accounted for. The 

commenters said this will ensure that hydroelectric generation variability is accounted for in the 

same way in both the goal-setting and compliance evaluation processes, thus eliminating water 

year variability as a determining factor for Idaho's compliance with the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters stated the EPA's method of calculating the Proposed RE Targets is flawed because 

it is not reasonably tied to the generation and emissions of the units that the EPA intends to 

regulate. Notably, Washington and Idaho are the only two states with Proposed RE Targets that 

exceed their 2012 affected unit generation. The commenters said the EPA's Proposed RE Target 

for Idaho exceeds Idaho's affected unit generation by almost 200%, while the EPA's Proposed 

RE Target for Washington exceeds Washington's affected unit generation by 168%; this occurs 

because the EPA calculates the Proposed RE Targets independently of affected unit generation 

and emissions, which is inconsistent with the main premise of the EPA's BSER method for 

establishing state goals (i.e., offsetting CO2 emissions from fossil fueled affected units). The 

commenters said the EPA thus forces Idaho to offset more than Idaho's fair share of emissions; 

this point is illustrated in the November 2014 Translation of the Clean Power Plan Emission 

Rate-Base CO2 Goals to Mass- Based Equivalents technical support document, in which the 

EPA states "Mil two states (Washington and Idaho), the proposal identified incremental 

generation under building blocks three and four that exceed the amount of affected fossil fuelfired generation in 2012. The commenters said the EPA oversteps its CAA authority by requiring 

states to develop more mitigation than needed to offset emissions from affected units, which 

leads to the arbitrary and capricious result of requiring states to develop RE to displace existing 

zero-carbon emitting generation. The commenters said the EPA could alleviate this disparate 

treatment with Proposed RE Targets by capping the Proposed RE Targets (existing plus 

incremental) at the amount of 2012 affected unit generation. Commenters provided Table 3 

compares the EPA's Proposed RE Target against affected unit generation and total generation for 

each state; as shown, under the EPA's current proposal, Idaho's targets significantly exceed every 

other State's targets as a percent of 2012 affected unit generation. 

Commenters stated EPA has excluded existing hydropower from consideration under the 

Proposed Rule, ostensibly because it would "distort" calculation of goals. While the 

commenters agreed that including existing hydropower in goal calculations would be distorting 

because hydropower may not have the same growth capacity as other renewables, EPA's concern 

about distortion does not justify eliminating consideration of existing hydropower for purposes 

of complying with the Interim and Final Goals. The commenters said just like other renewables, 

hydropower generates electricity with a considerably lower carbon intensity than coal, fuel oil, or 

even natural-gas; thus, use of hydropower achieves EPA's objective of reduced carbon intensity. 

The commenters said EPA should explicitly recognize that hydropower generation should be 

included in calculating a utility's or state's compliance with the Interim and Final Goals. The 

commenters said explicitly stating that existing hydropower can be used for the compliance 
269 

demonstration creates an important incentive to keep such hydropower available for future use 

and to avoid replacing it with other, more carbon-intensive forms of power generation. 

Comment 28: The EPA should exclude hydroelectric power from calculation of state goals.

Response 28: See section VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final 

Rule supporting the final CPP. Existing hydro power is not included in the BSER quantification 

or the state goals. EPA has also made adjustments to the baseline as discussed in section VI to 

address concerns about unrepresentative hydro generation in the baseline period. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated as utilities with significant hydropower assets, we support the proposed 

Clean Power Plan's approach to exclude existing hydropower resources in the calculation of state 

goals. The commenters recognized the many benefits of hydropower, including its ability to 

deliver affordable, reliable and emissions-free power; nevertheless, we believe that existing 

hydropower resources should remain excluded from the building block calculation due to the 

nature of EPA's approach. The commenters said states endowed with large hydropower resources 

(California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) are recognized as our country's leaders at moving 

towards a cleaner grid, with existing policies in place to increase the use of hydropower and nonhydro renewable energy and energy efficiency. The commenters said these states already have 

the most stringent final goals in the nation, and including hydropower in the state goal 

calculation could further increase the disparity between goals in the west coast and those in the 

rest of the country. 

Commenters added moreover, hydropower's year-to-year variability already presents a 

compliance risk and complexity to states with large hydropower assets due to hydropower's 

impact on fossil plant generation output and emissions. The commenters said including 

hydropower in the goal-setting calculation would magnify the difficulty hydropower-rich states 

will have in demonstrating compliance should hydropower decline from baseline levels. The 

commenters said this is of particular concern given the possibility that changes in hydrology 

resulting from climate change and regulatory outcomes, include those arising from the FERC relicensing process, could lead to reduced generation from existing hydropower projects in the 

coming years. The commenters said for these reasons, we strongly encourage EPA to maintain 

the proposed approach and continue to exclude existing hydropower from the state goal 

calculation; at the same time, we encourage the finalized Clean Power Plan to clarify that all new 

and incremental hydropower generation can be used to demonstrate compliance. 

Commenters stated Washington State is the most hydropower dependent state in the nation; 

the residents and businesses are served primarily through low-cost, reliable, non-emitting 
270 

hydropower and EPA should recognize the value of this important non-emitting resource in how 

hydropower is accounted for in setting emissions goals and as a strategy for achieving carbon 

emissions reductions in the SIPs. Nonetheless, the commenters support EPA's decision to leave 

existing hydropower resources out of the building block calculation due to the complexity of 

hydropower's year-to-year variability and the difficulty hydropower-rich states will have in 

demonstrating compliance in low water years. The commenters' own analysis shows doing so 

would significantly narrow the carbon emission target for Washington and, if there was a poor 

water year, make compliance very difficult; therefore, the commenters urged EPA to maintain 

the approach proposed, and leave existing hydropower out of the building block calculation. 

Commenters stated as a carbon neutral utility, the commenters have tracked its emissions needed 

to serve retail load since 2005 since the commenters must offset them. The commenters said 

almost all of the emissions are due to power purchases (netted out on a monthly basis) as 

everything else is very small (vehicles, airplane travel, etc.). 

Commenters stated while it is appropriate to exclude existing hydropower from the base year(s) 

generation for purposes of setting state goals, it is critical to affirm that incremental hydropower 

and hydropower efficiencies are clearly identified as options for compliance with state goals in 

the final proposed rule. The commenters said given the role of energy markets and the number of 

Washington electric utilities selling hydropower on the wholesale energy market, it is important 

for hydropower to be just as attractive, if not more, than switching to NGCC. The commenters 

added "at risk" hydropower plants should be treated in the same manner as "at risk" nuclear is 

treated in the rule. The commenters said both resources are non-emitting and the loss of these 

resources can have significant impacts on the economy and regional grid reliability. 

Comment 29: Use of Biomass for RE GHG Abatement

Response 29: Biomass is included in the IPM baseline projection. Biomass is not considered 

part of the best system of emission reduction in this rule and therefore it is not included in goalsetting or compliance evaluations. However, similar to other technologies outside of BSER, 

biomass may be considered as a part of a state’s plan to meet the emission guidelines. 

For more information regarding Building Block 3, refer to Section V.E of the preamble. 

For more information regarding biomass in the IPM baseline projection, refer to EPA v5.13 Base 

Case Documentation Supplement to Support EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for 

Existing Electric Generating Units in the docket. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in Section VIII.I and Section VIII.K of the preamble. 
271 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA uses two different values for existing RE in the proposed rule; in the 

TSD- GHG Abatement Measures (Table 4-1: 2012 RE Performance by State), the 2012 MWh 

generated from solar plus biomass is used as the baseline level of RE generation in each state; 

however, it is not clear that all biomass projects would be available for inclusion as RE under the 

proposed rule since EPA has not finalized its position on whether biomass is carbon neutral. The 

commenters said EPA should not include RE from biomass in the GHG abatement measures 

until it has made a determination on how it will account for biomass as a BSER. The commenters 

said if EPA chooses to include biomass, it should estimate how much of a state's biomass 

generation would not qualify and subtract that amount from the total RE generated in 2012. 

Commenters stated after reviewing the draft State Plan for South Carolina to comply with the 

proposed rule; it has become apparent that KapStone's specific cogeneration source data is 

incorrect. The commenters said the basis for these inconsistencies is likely because the states are 

using the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Reports to obtain the data to perform the 

calculations necessary for the proposed rule; the data in these reports do not provide accurate 

accounting for cogeneration units and as a result, a cogeneration facility is penalized for its 

structure and configuration for supplying energy to the grid. The commenters proposed the States 

should use the data supplied by EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Rule; so the CO2 

emission calculations will be consistent across all sources and certified by a Responsible 

Official. The commenters said it is also important to note that the factors for all biomass fuels 

need to be adjustable based on the moisture content of the fuel; otherwise, emissions from 

biomass fuels are highly over-estimated because the existing biomass GHG factor for CO2 

emissions is based on a dry fuel with a moisture content of 12 percent (The commenters' biomass 

moisture ranges between 45-55 percent moisture). 

Commenters stated overview of biomass energy. 

Commenters stated biomass emissions offsetting is a "beyond the fenceline" mitigation measure. 

Commenters stated EPA could improve the GHG rule and responsibly account for net bioenergy 

emissions. 

Commenters stated biomass energy - the combustion of wood and other biological materials in 

power plants - has been promoted extensively at the state level as renewable energy; however, it 

is well-known that per megawatt-hour (MWh), biomass power plants emit more CO2 than coal 

plants, and that co-firing biomass at coal plants increases CO2 emissions and decreases facility 

efficiency. The commenters said given these facts, it is important to determine how the EPA 

counts bioenergy emissions under the existing source GHG rule, and what role EPA envisions 

for biomass power in helping states meet target emissions rates. The commenters said EPA's rule 

treats biomass and waste-burning as having zero CO2 emissions, although emissions from 
272 

biomass co-fired at coal plants are counted in state-level totals. The commenters said looking 

forward, the equation that EPA has developed to calculate state-level power-sector emissions 

rate goals, in which CO2 emissions are summed in the numerator, and power generation (as 

MWh) is summed in the denominator, treats standalone biomass power plants as contributing to 

power generation, but again, not to CO2 emissions (although the CO2 emitted by biomass cofired at coal plants is counted), and again, biogenic municipal waste combustion is treated as 

having zero CO2 emissions. The commenters said the one place where biomass (but not waste) 

emissions are counted is in EPA's going forward modeling, the model runs that the Agency 

conducted to determine a least-cost pathway for states to achieve their emissions goals. The 

commenters said there, emissions from standalone biomass plants are counted, along with 

emissions from biomass that is co-fired at fossil fueled plants. 

Commenters stated bioenergy does not directly provide "mitigation" of emissions in the GHG 

rule. The commenters said while EPA has not offered biomass co-firing as means of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions at coal plants, the Agency has stopped short of taking a firm position 

on bioenergy emissions, and the GHG rule, as currently formulated, treats biomass and biogenic 

waste burned at standalone plants as having zero carbon emissions. 

Commenters stated EPA's biogenic carbon accounting approach is likely to be science-based. 

Commenters stated EPA's baseline and goal rates are skewed by the assumption that biomass is 

carbon neutral. The commenters said to develop goal emissions rates for states, EPA first 

determines each state's baseline emissions rate from 2012 power sector data on emissions and 

generation. The commenters said the "goal computation" technical support document actually 

presents two rates: first is the emissions rate from just the fossil fueled plants that are initially 

regulated under the rule, which in the case of Maine is derived from only four plants and is 873 

lb CO2/MWh; the second rate adds generation from renewable energy to the denominator of 

fossil-fueled rate (MWh), but still only counts CO2 from the fossil fueled plants in the 

numerator, treating all the renewable energy as having zero emissions. The commenters said 

Maine's rate in this case is 437 lb CO2/MWh. 

Commenters stated in calculating the adjusted rate, EPA counts electricity generated by wind, 

solar, geothermal, biomass, waste, and landfill gas as reported by Energy Information 

Administration, but excludes power generated at conventional hydroelectric facilities; while all 

these technologies contribute electricity, none contribute CO2 in the rate equation - all biomass, 

waste, and landfill gas burning is treated as emitting zero CO2. The commenters said the system 

essentially "runs the CO2 meter backwards" for the portion of fuels provided by biomass and 

waste-burning at any facility; this means, for instance, that while Rumford Cogeneration in 

Maine is exempted from regulation under the rule, the portion of electricity that the plant 

generates burning wood and paper-making wastes is credited as carbon-free, even as emissions 

from other fuels burned at the plant (like shredded tires) are unregulated by the rule. 

Commenters stated EPA's modeling counts biomass energy emissions. 
273 

Commenters stated EPA has not yet issued final guidance regarding carbon emissions from 

biomass, and has treated carbon emissions inconsistently in the proposed guidelines. The 

commenters said EPA assumed that biomass is carbon-neutral for the purpose of setting state 

goals, and should treat biomass as carbon-neutral for the purpose of demonstrating compliance 

with the state plans. The commenters said measures that reduce CO2 (or other GHG) emissions 

from other sectors should be allowed as compliance measures and assumed to also be carbon 

neutral. The commenters said it is unclear, however, whether the proposed guidelines would 

allow the use of such measures. (See e.g. the discussion at 79 Fed. Reg. 34910.) The commenters 

said baseline and goal calculations assume biomass has zero GHG emissions; however, EPA's 

integrated planning model (IPM) results assume biomass has GHG emissions that are greater 

than zero; for example, the CO2 emission rate for We Energies Rothschild Biomass 

Cogeneration Facility, which came on-line in 2013, is shown to be 2,632 lbs CO2/MWh in the 

IPM results. The commenters said the inconsistency between baseline and target calculations and 

the modeling assumptions should be corrected by assuming that biomass is carbon neutral for all 

purposes related to the guidelines, and both existing and new biomass should be treated as 

carbon neutral for compliance purposes. 

Comment 30: The EPA calculated unit-specific heat rates using gross generation data from the 

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMSs) 

Response 30: See section V.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EPA calculated unit-specific heat rates using gross generation data from 

the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMSs); with this approach, the EPA excluded 

generation-reducing effects from post-combustion environmental controls, such as selective 

catalytic reduction and flue-gas desulfurization controls. The commenters said the EPA then 

used net generation data, without consideration for these retrofits, for coal-fired EGUs when 

calculating the state CO2 emission rate goals; these retrofits will reduce the net output of these 

units, as well as their associated net heat rate efficiency. The commenters said not considering 

these reductions creates an inconsistent approach, especially considering that most coal-fired 

EGUs will require control retrofits to comply with environmental regulations, such as the 

Mercury Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. 

Comment 31: Unit specific heat rates 
274 

Response 31: See section V.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. The response to this comment is addressed in section 3.1.4 of this document as 

well. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated heat rates will vary over time depending on capacity factors, maintenance, 

season, temperature and other factors, including dispatch; dispatch may also be driven by out-ofstate demand that is outside of Utah's control. The commenters said the EPA should determine 

appropriate heat rates based on unit-specific calculations that allow for reasonable adjustments 

over time to recognize and reward power plants that have already invested in efficiency 

upgrades. 

Comment 32: BB2 changes/recommendations 

Response 32: See section V.D of the preamble and the building block two sections for a 

discussion of building block two potential. 

EPA feels that it is both reasonable and conservative in its use of NGCC region-wide baseline 

emission-rate data to estimate the regional NGCC emissions from the fleet at higher utilization 

levels following building block two adjustments. First, NGCC unit-level and fleet-level rates 

generally decrease rather than increase as NGCC utilization increases. This is consistent with 

expectations of increased efficiency from reduced start-up and shut-down time. Furthermore, a 

significant portion of the NGCC capacity is under construction which is, on average, more 

efficient than older units on which the state and regional emission rate is based. These are the 

units that would conceptually increase most from their 2012 levels (0% utilization) to 75% 

utilization levels. If they are generally more efficient than the existing NGCC fleet, than their 

sharp increase in utilization and increased share of the expected NGCC generation following 

building block two would put downward pressure on the NGCC rate. Finally, EPA is not 

making any unit-level assumptions - that is, there is not the assertion that the least efficient unit 

will increase its utilization to 75%. Some of the more efficient units may increase their 

utilization to levels above 75% and some of the less efficient, or otherwise restricted units, may 

not increase their utilization. The BB2 assumption is a region-wide assumption as described in 

the CO2 Emission Performance and Goal Computations TSD for CPP Final Rule. Therefore, the 

EPA believes it is being conservative by using the baseline average emission rate to inform the 

NGCC rate and emissions expectations post building block two. 

Using the unit-level emission rate for units that currently operate very little would not only be 

less reasonable for the reasons stated above, but would clearly overstate the emission rate for 

these units on average if they were to increase utilization. For instance, some units that operated 

only marginally (e.g., capacity factor less than 2%) endured significant start-up and shut-down 

throughout the year. EPA examined the change in emission rates at units operating at these low 
275 

capacity factors in 2011, but that increased their capacity factor in 2012. On average the units 

decreased their emission rate significantly, in some cases cut it in half as they increased 

generation levels. 

Finally, EPA modeling of the 75% capacity factor scenario suggested a NGCC emission rate of 

883 lb/MWh was lower than the national average in EPA’s 2012 baseline data (i.e., low 900s 

lb/MWh). This further supports EPA’s assertion that is approach to estimating NGCC emissions 

post BB2 is reasonable. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that EPA consider how the system is actually operated in 

redispatching NGCC generation to displace coal and oil/gas steam; reliance on an annual 

capacity factor is not appropriate; instead, the commenters recommend that the EPA perform an 

hourly dispatch of the system; however, to be conservative, the commenters have used the 

maximum monthly capacity factor for the NGCC generation in performing its analyses. The 

commenters said for Arizona, this would be 49.4 percent, which is comparable to the 70 percent 

maximum capacity factor. 

Commenters stated in Building Block 2, EPA assumes that all natural gas combined cycle 

(NGCC) units in a state will operate a capacity factors up to 70%, with a corresponding kWh 

reduction in generation by coal units; EPA uses mismatched coal and gas generation data to 

arbitrarily make the state goals more stringent. 

Commenters stated EPA should use actual emission rates instead of the average. The 

commenters said when computing the NGCC emissions for the Building Block 2 NGCC redispatch, EPA calculates the additional CO2 emissions from baseline NGCC units using the 

increase in generation from baseline to 70 percent NGCC capacity factor, multiplied by the 

original baseline-year state average NGCC CO2 emission rate. The commenters said this is 

inaccurate, inappropriate, and underestimates the additional NGCC CO2 emissions due to the redispatch. The commenters said instead of erroneously using the state average baseline-year 

NGCC CO2 emission rate, EPA should use the incremental NGCC CO2 emission rate, on a 

state-average basis; that is because the most efficient, lowest-emitting units are already 

generating at or near the baseline 70 percent capacity factor, whereas the units that would 

actually be re-dispatched and contribute the greatest increase in net generation are the less 

efficient, higher-emitting units. The commenters said EPA can readily calculate the state average 

incremental NGCC CO2 emission rates using the generator-level data that is included in eGRID; 

after appropriately determining the generator net capacity ratings, EPA must calculate and 

review generator by generator the baseline capacity factor, CO2 emission rate, and potential 

contribution of each to the redispatch. The commenters said for Florida, the average incremental 

NGCC CO2 emission rate is 996 lbs/net MWh, whereas the value EPA used is 864 lbs/net MWh. 
276 

Comment 33: NGCC generation

Response 33: See section V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the GHG Mitigations 

Measures TSD for the EPA’s response to this comment and corresponding analysis. The EPA 

has made changes to the deployment rate, BB2 assumptions, and the start date in this final CPP 

rule which address this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated U.S. EPA notes from 2005 to 2012, NGCC generation increased 80% and 

they believe it could increase approximately 50% from 2012 levels by 2020; the 

commenters disagree. The commenters collected nationwide natural gas generation data from the 

EIA's August 2014 Monthly Energy Report for years 1993-2013. It should be noted that the 

commenters were unable to separate NGCC generation from other natural gas-fired generation 

for this analysis, but estimates from EIA data that combined cycle units provided approximately 

81% of natural gas generation in 2012. The commenters said linear regression analysis of this 

data indicates that the annual growth of natural gas net generation is well described by a straight 

line, with an R2 value of 0.9502. The commenters provided a graph of the Nationwide Natural 

Gas Generation from 1993-2013, showing a linear increase in net generation of NG in the 

electric power sector. The commenters said using the results of the linear regression analysis, the 

net generation from all natural gas EGUs in 2020 was projected by the commenters to be 1,263 

TW-h. The commenters said U.S. EPA indicates in its GHG Abatement Measures TSD that the 

re-dispatch of under-construction and existing NGCC units would result in the net generation of 

1,444 TW-h beginning in 2020. The commenters have several concerns with U.S. EPA's 

estimate. Comparing the commenters' projection to U.S. EPA's 2020 goal indicates a net 

generation shortfall of 181 TW-h. The commenters said this is even more concerning when it is 

considered that the commenters' projection represents not just NGCC units, but all electricity 

producing units fired by natural gas. The commenters said a cursory examination of the historical 

natural gas generation data demonstrates that 2012 generation data is atypical and well above 

historically observed trends; elimination of 2012 data improves the R2 value of the regression 

analysis to 0.9719. The commenters said U.S. EPA effectively ignored dominant trends in the 

growth of natural gas generation over the past 21 years; examined in this light, U.S. EPA's 

projection of 1,444 TW-h by 2020, from combined cycle units alone, would seem to represent a 

goal far beyond historical precedence and, therefore, is not adequately demonstrated. 

Comment 34: RPS renewable portfolio standard

Response 34: See section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. Per the commenters suggestion, EPA no longer relies on benchmark regional RPS 

to inform the quantification of BSER. 
277 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated renewables targets for the southeastern states including Florida were based 

on the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in North Carolina at 10% by 2030. The commenters 

said from the Initial Reliability Review released by NERC in November 2014, "In addition to 

hydroelectric power, energy efficiency plays an important role in various states' RPSs. North 

Carolina's RPS includes a provision that allows up to 25 percent of its target to be met by energy 

efficiency gains. This provision, if it were properly excluded by the EPA, would reduce North 

Carolina's RPS target to 7.5 percent from 10 percent, thereby lowering targets for the entire 

Southeast region..." The commenters said EPA's assertion that the North Carolina RPS is 10% is 

incorrect and its application to Florida is inappropriate and should be withdrawn. The 

commenters said Florida has a unique geography and thus a unique capability and access to 

renewable resources; Florida's CO2 reduction goal should not be based on any other state's 

renewable potential. The commenters said CPP should be revised to allow Florida to set the 

renewable goal for Florida. 

Commenters stated in calculating renewable energy goals for states, EPA should utilize statespecific analysis of RPS and other renewable energy development data to accurately determine 

the current level of renewable energy in the state and to arrive at a reasonable expectation for 

potential future development. 

Commenters stated the assignment of states into geographical regions, and the subsequent use of 

regional averages for the calculation of state renewable energy goals, does not give a 

representative or justifiable outcome, as suggested by EPA. The commenters said when multiple 

states have either none or relatively large renewable portfolio energy (RPS) requirements, the 

"average" of those requirements is not the appropriate measure. The commenters said a median 

would be more representative if the geographical approach is used, as in EPA's proposal; this 

would prevent outliers from skewing the results - for example, in the West, California with an 

RPS target of 33% or Wyoming with a target of 0%. 

Commenters stated RPS requirements are not representative of the actual renewable statewide 

goals. The commenters said in Montana, for instance, public utilities that own generation in 

Montana but serve out-of-state consumers, merchant utilities, and consumer-owned electric 

cooperatives are exempt from the state's nominal 15% RPS; in effect, using the 15% Montana 

standard (and other states' nominal percentage standards) inflates the regional averages on which 

Building Block 3 relies. The commenters said if an average methodology is used, it should 

reflect states' true percentage targets. The commenters said in the case of Montana, renewables 

are required, in fact, to equal approximately 7.5% of the load, versus the 15% RPS requirement 

used in EPA's calculation for Montana's contribution to the West region. The commenters said 

applying Montana's 15% RPS requirement and looked at in the context of total electrical 

generation in Montana in 2012, renewable energy makes up 5%, not 15%, of generation in the 

state. 
278 

Comment 35: Generation in regional RPS calculation

Response 35: See sections V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. Per the commenters suggestion, EPA no longer relies on benchmark 

regional RPS to inform the quantification of BSER. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that U.S. EPA did not adequately consider generation in its regional RPS 

calculations. The commenters would like to direct U.S. EPA's attention to several elements of 

this data; firstly, there is significant variation in the generation amongst the states, with three of

the states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia producing 70% of the regional total. The 

commenters said from a RE perspective, two of the states in this region, West Virginia and 

Virginia, have determined that establishment of RE portfolios are not an economically feasible 

action for their state, yet both have renewable generation above New Jersey, Maryland, 

Delaware, and Washington D.C., which have highly ambitious 2020 RE RPS goals. The 

commenters said it is concerning that these non-RPS states were not somehow factored into U.S. 

EPA's averaging in setting RPS goals, thus giving great weight to states in the East-Central 

region with highly ambitious 2020 targets, but little or no real renewable generation. 

Comment 36: Specific state RE generation % electricity generation values differ than RE in 

2012 12% electricity generation value from proposal.

Response 36: See preamble sections V.A. and V.E. Per the commenters suggestion, EPA no 

longer relies on benchmark regional RPS to inform the quantification of BSER. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

The commenters said U.S. EPA states RE in 2012 represented 12% electricity generation 

nationally (including hydropower) which is up from 9% in 2005. The commenters added U.S. 

EPA found more than half of the states have established state-level RE with an average of almost 

20% of 2020 generation supplied by renewables; however, in Ohio, 2012 RE represented only 

2% of generation (including hydropower) and Ohio is expected to have 9% of 2020 generation 

from renewables. 

Comment 37: Uniform growth rate penalize early investments in RE 

Response 37: See preamble sections V.A. and V.E.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
279 

Commenters stated applying a uniform growth rate to states within a region has the perverse 

effect of penalizing states that have made the most significant early investments in RE. The 

commenters said while the growth rate EPA applies to each state within a given region is 

uniform, that growth rate is applied to drastically different baseline RE generation capacities; as 

a result, states that have the highest baseline RE generation capacity within their region are 

expected to increase their RE generation capacity the most in absolute MWh. The commenters 

said for example, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland are all located in the East Central 

Region, which has a 17% growth rate; under EPA's approach, New Jersey is expected to increase 

its RE generation by 8,866,751 MWh, while Maryland will only have to increase its generation 

by 5,083,917 MWh; Delaware has an even lower target of 907,300 MWh; New Jersey's high 

target is a direct consequence of its early investments in RE, which led it to have a higher 

baseline of RE capacity. 

Comment 38: BB3; the EPA's assumed land available for development was too high 

Response 38: See preamble sections V.A. and V.E and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA relied on the U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GISBased Study (Study), which assessed the amount of land available for RE development. The 

commenters said the Study detailed that the largest technical potential in Wyoming was for wind 

energy, and the amount of land available for such development was 110,415 km2; however, the 

Study failed to consider high-priority environmental conflicts specific to Wyoming that greatly 

reduce the actual amount of land available for such development, such as protection of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, other designated critical habitats, and other protected areas of cultural and 

historical significance. The commenters have determined that the land available for wind energy 

development is remarkably smaller than the amount outlined in the Study. 

Commenters said one of Wyoming's greatest challenges in siting wind energy and transmission 

projects is the need to protect the habitat of the Greater Sage-Grouse; this species is under 

consideration to be listed on the Endangered Species List by the FWS. The commenters said 

Wyoming is dedicated to protecting the Greater Sage-Grouse, which lives in the abundant 

sagebrush steppes of Wyoming. The commenters said the State has devoted significant resources 

towards developing a conservation plan for this species; one of the important safeguards includes 

protection of its core habitat areas. The commenters said Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead 

issued an Executive Order on June 2, 2011 that continues support of the State's Core Area 

Strategy for sage-grouse conservation (EO 2011-5); the Executive Order identifies the species' 

core habitat areas and effectively removes 15,263,210 acres (61,768 km2) of Wyoming land 

from wind energy development. The commenters said this impact could grow depending on a 
280 

FWS decision expected in mid-2015 regarding the listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse; if the 

species is listed, then there will be substantially less land available for any development. 

Commenters stated when the areas of land restricted from development for designated core 

habitat areas and other protected areas are compared to the land identified for wind development, 

the conflict is evident; specifically, 3,563,040 acres (14,419 km2) of Wyoming land classified as 

Wind Potential Class (WPC) 4 or higher cannot be developed for environmental reasons. The 

commenters provided Figure 1 that identifies the land with WPC 4 and higher and considered 

commercially viable for energy generation; the map has no exclusions for protected lands. The 

commenters provided Figure 2 that illustrates the reduction in land available for development; 

the Greater Sage Grouse core area, as well as cultural and historical lands that are protected and 

unavailable for development, have been removed. 

Commenters stated the Study identified 110,451 km2 available for wind development; in reality, 

only 20,158 km2 are potentially available for wind development. The commenters said 

accounting for the wind farms already built or permitted in this area (1,888 km2), the total 

available land is further reduced to 18,270 km2, or 16.5% of the total land available for wind 

development. The commenters said EPA has relied upon an incomplete study to determine the 

technical potential of RE in Wyoming. The commenters said EPA must adjust the State's goal to 

account for the realistic technical potential for Wyoming. The commenters said Wyoming is 

receiving conflicting messages regarding RE development from the FWS and EPA; FWS is 

telling Wyoming not to disturb large areas of land in order to guard against habitat 

fragmentation; EPA is telling Wyoming to develop as much wind energy as possible. The 

commenters said wind energy facilities are very large and disturb greater land areas than EGUs, 

which have much smaller footprints; these two federal agencies are giving Wyoming directives 

that are directly at odds with each other. 

Comment 39: BB3; the EPA Methodology Fails To Explicitly Recognize All Of The Tier 1 

Sources 

Response 39: See response 38

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in determining the 16% target for the PA BB3 goal, EPA only utilized the 

Tier I resource targets in each state, but did not specifically identify which resources would be 

acceptable in meeting the target. The commenters said PA's Tier I include resources that are not 

CO2 neutral, such as biologically-derived methane that provide greater than a 1:1 ratio of CO2 

reductions. The commenters said EPA should give consideration to specifically giving credit for 

the additional reductions associated with the use of these non-CO2 neutral resources. The 

commenters said these specific Tier I resources derive their benefit from utilizing biologically or 

other naturally occurring sources of methane (a more potent GHG) for the production of 
281 

electricity. The commenters said the PA AEPS program recognized the value of deriving energy 

through utilizing methane emissions as an energy source as evidenced by the inclusion of 

methane-emitting sources in Tier 1; methane has been determined to be more than 25 times as 

environmentally destructive than CO2. The commenters said EPA should modify its BB3 target 

for PA and all states to specifically recognize the additional CO2 equivalent emissions 

reductions from these RE sources. 

Comment 40: Incorrect demand side energy efficiency growth rate used.

Response 40: As explained in preamble section V.A demand-side energy efficiency is not part 

of BSER quantification in the final CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA set goals for this Building Block relying on broad inferences from state 

successes with energy efficiency (EE) programs; using broad inferences to the most recently 

available Energy Information Administration data, EPA calculated specific goals by tying these 

together. The commenters said EPA did not actively pursue additional state-specific data to 

refine their calculations; EPA's overall method has resulted in a goal which is too ambitious for 

Wyoming. Based upon the commenters' analysis of annual growth rates in energy efficiency, a 

value of 3.77% is more realistic for Wyoming. 

Comment 41: IPM incorrect assumptions; NEEDS; errors

Response 41: The EPA does not use IPM projections regarding retirements to quantify BSER. 

The starting point for its baseline is 2012 reported data. As explained in the RIA, projections are 

illustrative of potential compliance scenarios as the regional and more aggregate levels – the 

levels at which EPA assesses the model’s results. Unit-level projects illustrate one potential 

realization of those regional results, but are not meant to be anticipatory of the individual EGU 

source compliance decision. IPM is used when evaluating compliance cost and system-wide 

impacts. See the final RIA, the EPA power sector modeling documentation, and RTC Chapter 8 

for a discussion on IPM assumptions.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters requested that EPA update its compliance demonstration IPM input data to remove 

incorrect assumptions regarding the commenters' EGUs. The commenters reviewed EPA's 2025 

"Base Case" modeling results, which predict electric system operation without the Clean Power 

Plan, and EPA's 2025 "Policy Case" modeling results, which predict electric system operation 

with the Clean Power Plan. The commenters said even though the IPM output is intended to be 
282 

an illustrative example of potential compliance and does not impose any requirements associated 

with the Clean Power Plan, the commenters believed the modeling should be as accurate as 

possible since the results are being used to predict costs and benefits of the rule proposal. The 

commenters provided Appendix F with the incorrect assumptions and corrections. 

Commenters stated EPA relied on The National Electric Energy Data System or "NEEDS" 

database for its assessment of the impacts the proposed Clean Power Plan using the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM). The commenters said NEEDS includes basic geographic, operating, air 

emissions, and other data on electric generating units affected under the rule. The 

commenters have reviewed the information contained in the NEEDS database pertaining to its 

electric generating fleet and has identified several errors and inaccurate assumptions that 

significantly impact EPA's IPM modeling results and need to be corrected. The commenters 

provided Appendix B of their comments with corrected electric generating fleet data. 

Commenters stated EPA used Integrated Planning Model ("IPM") output files based on EPA 

Base Case v.5.13, which was "designed and developed for use in analyzing policy scenarios 

starting in 2016," in its evaluation of the Clean Power Plan. The commenters have reviewed this 

data and identified the following data discrepancies for several of its operating units that need 

correcting: 

1. EPA assumes that George Neal North Unit 3 and Walter Scott Energy Center Unit 3 will both 

retire prior to 2020; as these units have recently been retrofitted with emissions controls 

including dry scrubbers, baghouses and activated carbon injection, MidAmerican will not retire 

either unit prior to 2020. 

2. EPA assumes that Riverside Generating Station Boiler 9 will retire prior to 2020; however, 

this unit is dual-fueled (coal and natural gas), and will be limited to natural gas operations by 

April 16, 2015; there are no plans to retire the unit prior to 2020. 

Commenters stated EPA's modeling runs assume significant changes in Arizona's energy 

position from a net exporter to a net importer of power, an assumption and forecast that is shared 

by none of the Arizona utilities due to the ownership structure of the Arizona power market, 

where much of the generation is tied to owners from other states who export that power to their 

own systems. 

Commenters stated EPA's IPM v.5.13 base case contains significant errors. The commenters 

added in May of 2013, EPA released NEEDS database v.5.13, Southern Company reviewed the 

database and suggested several changes; the EPA released a second version of NEEDS database 

v.5.13 which incorporated some of Southern Company's suggested changes. The commenters 

said Southern Company analyzed a side-by-side comparison of the most recent NEEDS database 

v.5.13, which was used by EPA to model the proposed guidelines, to determine which of 

Southern Company's recommended changes were corrected. The commenters provided Table 17 

(titled: “Southern Company's Suggested Changes to NEEDS Database”) illustrating some of the 
283 

key discrepancies that remain and potentially affecting EPA's IPM compliance modeling. The 

commenters said it is apparent that Southern Company's recommended changes were not 

incorporated in the version of IPM used by EPA and, therefore, the error-laden assumptions 

produced inaccurate results. The commenters said for example, the database shows that Gulf 

Power and Mississippi Power's Plant Daniel Units 1 and 2 do not have a wet scrubber despite 

Southern Company's recommendation to reflect the under-construction scrubber that will come 

online in 2016. The commenters said EPA must correct these errors and reanalyze its proposal to 

more accurately determine compliance costs, which are likely underestimated due to these 

assumption errors. 

Commenters stated EPA used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to estimate the compliance 

cost and economic and energy impacts associated with the proposed rule, as well as likely future 

electricity market conditions with and without the proposed rule. The commenters said the EPA 

notes that the assessments regarding the ability of the electricity and natural gas industries to 

achieve the levels of performance indicated for building block 2 in the state goal computations 

are supported by analysis that has been conducted using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 

The commenters said to fulfill its purpose of producing projections related to the electric power 

sector and its related markets - including least cost capacity expansion and electricity dispatch 

projections- that reflect industry conditions in as realistic a manner as possible, IPM incorporates 

representations of constraints related to fuel supply, transmission, and unit dispatch. The 

commenters said at the EGU level, IPM includes detailed representations of key operational 

limitations such as tum-down constraints, which are designed to account for the cycling 

capabilities of EGUs to ensure that the model properly reflects the distinct operating 

characteristics of peaking, cycling, and base load units. The commenters said inputs to IPM for 

all existing EGU s and those under construction are based on data contained in the National 

Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS). The commenters said in developing the proposed rule, 

this data served as the starting point against which policy scenarios were compared. The 

commenters said unit capacity values in NEEDS reflect an EGU's net summer dependable 

capacity, not its nameplate capacity. The commenters said as used here, net summer dependable 

capacity is the net capability of a generating unit in megawatts (MW) for daily planning and 

operation purposes during the summer peak season, after accounting for station or auxiliary 

services. The commenters said consistent with the agency's use of NEEDS data for IPM 

analyses, EPA should not rely on MW ratings in excess of those listed in the NEEDS database in 

determining Louisiana's NGCC capacity, especially given that electrical demand in usually 

highest during the hot summer months. 

Commenters stated it appears that the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) modeling EPA 

conducted for the 111(d) proposed rule is based on EPA's version 5.13 of the National Electric 

Energy Data System (NEEDS) database that was also used for EPA's 2018 Emissions Modeling 

Platform. The commenters said since the NEEDS database supplies many essential electrical 

generating unit (EGU) parameters to 111(d) IPM modeling, the NEEDS database must be as 

accurate as possible if IPM is to provide a useful forecast of power sector emissions and 

electricity generation. 
284 

Commenters stated a summary of concerns on the IPM (Basecase 5-13) forecast includes 

incorrect predictions that certain EGUs will: 

- continue operating units that have already shutdown, 

- retire units (with a combined summertime net capacity of ~1,646 MW as reported by IPM) that 

currently have no plans to shut down and instead are expected to utilize controls or burn natural 

gas to comply with existing air quality regulations, 

- install mercury controls on units converting to (or permitted to fire only on) natural gas, and 

- rely on existing sources despite plans for new wind, hydroelectric, and combined-cycle 

generation with a nominal capacity over 1,600 MW. 

Commenters stated it also appears that EPA made updates, such as heat-rate improvements, 

which created some differences in the projected statewide total emissions between the 111(d) 

IPM results and the original NEEDS v5.13 data, but the commenters cannot confirm this because 

EPA did not provide the unit-level results for the 111(d) modeling; instead, the results are only 

available in statewide totals or by other aggregated methods. The commenters seek clarification 

from EPA on the unit-level results for its 111(d) modeling. 

Comment 42: The EPA should use the capacity provided in NEEDS v.5.13 for each NGCC Unit 

Response 42: As explained in preamble section V.D the EPA is relying on net summer capacity 

as for its building block two assessment. NEEDS also relies on this same metric for its unit-level 

capacity designations.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to estimate the compliance 

cost and economic and energy impacts associated with the proposed rule, as well as likely future 

electricity market conditions with and without the proposed rule. The commenters said the EPA 

notes that the assessments... regarding the ability of the electricity and natural gas industries to 

achieve the levels of performance indicated for building block 2 in the state goal computations 

are supported by analysis that has been conducted using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). 

The commenters said to fulfill its purpose of producing projections related to the electric power 

sector and its related markets - including least cost capacity expansion and electricity dispatch 

projections -that reflect industry conditions in as realistic a manner as possible, IPM incorporates 

representations of constraints related to fuel supply, transmission, and unit dispatch. The 

commenters said at the EGU level, IPM includes detailed representations of key operational 

limitations such as tum-down constraints, which are designed to account for the cycling 

capabilities of EGUs to ensure that the model properly reflects the distinct operating 

characteristics of peaking, cycling, and base load units. The commenters said inputs to IPM for 
285 

all existing EGUs and those under construction are based on data contained in the National 

Electric Energy Data system (NEEDS). The commenters said in developing the proposed rule, 

this data served as the starting point against which policy scenarios were compared.6 Unit 

capacity values in NEEDS reflect an EGU's net summer dependable capacity, not its nameplate 

capacity. The commenters said as used here, net summer dependable capacity is the net 

capability of a generating unit in megawatts (MW) for daily planning and operation purposes 

during the summer peak season, after accounting for station or auxiliary services. The 

commenters said consistent with the agency's use of NEEDS data for IPM analyses, EPA should 

not rely on MW ratings in excess of those listed in the NEEDS database in determining 

Louisiana's NGCC capacity, especially given that electrical demand in usually highest during the 

hot summer months. The commenters provided Attachment 4 with NEEDS v.5.13 data for 

affected NGCC units. 

Comment 43: IPM data not robust enough 

Response 43: See the final RIA, the EPA power sector modeling documentation, and RTC 

Chapter 8 for a discussion on IPM assumptions.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated when looking at the proposed guidelines with a view of system reliability, 

the EPA's analyses using the IPM to evaluate the building blocks and whether goals are 

achievable, uses less robust data than data possessed by and used by the MISO. Commenters 

stated that for example, MISO has performed studies of potential retirements and resulting 

resource adequacy due to the implementation of MATS; these studies have included information 

about firmness of interstate pipeline deliverability for gas-fired units, plans for replacement of 

units, and also consider the electrical location and network deliverability of units expected to be 

retired. The commenters said in contrast, the IPM modeling used by EPA does not appear to 

consider any of these factors. The commenters believed there is a role for the RTOs/ISOs such as 

MISO and NERC to assist in modeling the impacts of the rule on electric reliability. The 

commenters said the models used by the RTOs, ISOs, and NERC are more sophisticated for 

assessing electric system reliability than is the IPM model, and these organizations also have 

planning expertise that could promote a more robust analysis. The commenters said system 

modeling should also evaluate what reserves are available under this rule and understand what 

resources will be called on to meet those reserves. The commenters said if NGCC units are 

utilized more as base load resources, as suggested in EPA's Building Block 2, they may not be 

available to ramp up quickly to fill a need for energy. The commenters said simple cycle units 

may be required to fill that need because coal-fired units are not as able to respond quickly to 

load changes given their base load characteristics.

Commenters stated for a number of years, numerous states and organizations have expressed 

concerns regarding U.S. EPA's IPM modeling and concerns of its accuracy and appropriateness 
286 

for developing important policy and regulatory programs. The commenters have concerns 

regarding the economic optimization of the IPM model specifically with respect to the power 

system, which is not completely governed by economics; reliability, emissions credit trading, 

and corporate/organizational inertia can all influence where companies select to generate power. 

The commenters said the juxtaposition of these two ideas are best manifested and illustrated in 

the handling of a single large oil burning unit in Virginia called Possum Point; on peak days 

Possum Point has significant generation, also the unit runs during the spring maintenance periods 

of the nuclear plants in Virginia; this example illustrates the inherent problem with using a 

national model such as IPM that cannot take into account the potential state and local reliability 

issues that arise. 

Commenters stated to have reservations concerning the ability of the IPM to accurately predict 

and demonstrate grid reliability under the proposed rule. The commenters stated they understand 

that the IPM model is a deterministic linear programming model, which, for specified periods of 

time, determines the least-cost method of meeting energy and peak demand requirements; IPM is 

categorically not a dispatch model, and is limited in multiple ways in its reliability assessment 

capabilities. The commenters said among these limitations are seasonal only dispatch, lack of the 

necessary finely-detailed transmission and distribution information required to accurately model 

intra-regional dispatch, and the treatment of generating units as aggregates (as opposed to 

individual, geographically located entities within the transmission grid), which fails to represent 

congestion at the local geographic level. 

Commenters stated IPM inadequately represents solar, wind, and other forms of intermittent 

renewable generation which are reliant on favorable meteorological conditions; IPM does not 

account for meteorology through either past observed weather data or random meteorological 

data generation. The commenters said accurate and reliable transmission modeling of the type 

conducted routinely by RTOs and other entities concerned with grid reliability can only be 

accomplished with sophisticated dispatch models. The commenters said models of this type are 

nonlinear, rely on historical operating data to achieve optimal dispatch, correctly treat generating 

units as specific, geographically located entities, and are capable of identifying congestion at the 

proper level of detail. The commenters contended that absent independent, transparent and open 

dispatch modeling, implementing the proper dispatch modeling tools, reliability under the 

proposed rule has not been adequately demonstrated by U.S. EPA via IPM modeling results. The 

commenters said given the impacts of the proposed rule and the consequences of grid reliability 

issues, if U.S. EPA insists on moving forward with this proposal, the commenters urged U.S. 

EPA to engage in outreach with the various RTOs, FERC, NERC, and other entities capable of 

adequately modeling dispatch scenarios under the proposed rule. The commenters believed that a 

fully optimized economics based projection tool is an inappropriate mechanism for building 

future policy frameworks or setting policy budgets.

Commenters questioned how accurate is the forecast demand likely to be; for each rulemaking, 

the Integrated Planning Model is updated to insure that its assumptions are current. The 

commenters said because the Integrated Planning Model simulates power plants and the 
287 

electricity system but not the economy as a whole, it must be provided with an exogenous 

estimate of demand for electricity. The commenters said EPA has long used the most current 

available Annual Energy Outlook forecast for this information. 

Commenters stated the first step in assessing predictive ability or forecast skill is to develop a 

reference against which forecasts can be compared. In this case, the obvious reference with 

which to compare NEMS electricity demand forecasts are the electricity demand data released on 

a regular basis by the EIA; these data cover all consumption of electrical energy connected to the 

high voltage transmission network in the United States and are created using the same reporting 

system used to initialize NEMS. The commenters said not included in EIA estimates of 

electricity demand are generation from distributed energy resources such as behind the meter 

rooftop solar installations or small wind power installations; this will serve generally to reduce 

apparent demand/consumption of electric power; however, since the rule in consideration here is 

one that acts upon utility scale fossil-fired electric power plants, this difference is immaterial. 

Commenters stated both the changes in electricity demand growth and the Forecast Error 

analysis provide alternative options for projecting future U.S. electricity demand. The 

commenters said one might assume that the apparently linear trend in percentage change of 

electricity demand continues into the future. The commenters said under this scenario, peak 

demand for electricity has already occurred and during the next 15 years growth in electricity, 

which has been flat for the last 5 years, gradually becomes negative so that by 2030, demand is 

falling about 4% per year. 

Commenters stated alternatively, one might assume that the NEMS forecast used to design the 

state goals and to initialize the Integrated Planning Model for purposes of the Clean Power Plan 

contains the same level of bias as the previous 14 Annual Energy Outlook reference cases; if so, 

then demand would fall below the NEMS forecast used for the Clean Power Plan by about 36 

billion kilowatt hours per year. The commenters said this is almost exactly equal to forecast 

growth in the NEMS reference case, thus this bias correction implies essentially no load growth 

during the next 15 years - before any energy efficiency efforts are taken under the Clean Power 

Plan. 

Commenters stated neither recent history of electricity demand does not suggest that the future 

will be like the past; indeed the consumption of electricity and its relationship to GDP growth 

has been evolving since at least 1950; likewise, analysis of the electricity demand forecast used 

to project future consumption indicates a strong positive bias. The commenters said making 

alternative assumptions consistent with these observations, rather than taking the NEMS 

reference case at face value, suggest very different alternative growth trajectories for the U.S. 

bulk power system, the subject of this rulemaking. 

Commenters stated at a minimum, EPA should consider to what degree observed bias in NEMS 

should be corrected for when setting rate-based goals that assume a particular level of future 

demand; this may well be a minimum estimate of the degree to which NEMS based electricity 
288 

demand forecasts are incorrect for 2030, but it is still of a similar magnitude to the percentage 

cuts in carbon dioxide emissions envisioned under the plan. The commenters said it's worth 

noting in this context that successful state energy efficiency programs do not typically attempt to 

forecast future demand beyond 5 years; by contrast, EPA has attempted to set energy efficiency 

goals in building block 4 for a period more than three times longer farther into the future. 

Comment 44: NEMS has consistently overestimated national electricity consumption

Response 44: Demand-side energy efficiency is not part of the BSER quantification in the final 

CPP as explained in section V of the preamble. Also, see preamble section VIII for mitigation 

measures that can be counted in state plans – specifically VIII.K for EM&V requirements.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EIA has been using NEMS to generate its Annual Energy Outlook report 

series since the mid-1990s. The commenters said Annual Energy Outlook reports over the past 

decade have projected that electricity consumption would grow significantly; however, actual 

electricity consumption has remained consistently below the forecasted levels. 

The commenters said one reason for the discrepancy is that earlier NEMS projections did not 

account for the national recession that began in 2008-09; nevertheless, the recession only 

explains some of the reduced electricity demand observed over the last few years, especially 

when considered in the context of past model projections. The commenters said other factors 

include the structure of and assumptions in NEMS itself; for example, in the residential and 

commercial sectors of the model, adoption of energy-efficient technologies is driven primarily 

by user-specified input parameters describing consumers' discount rates. The commenters said if 

consumer preferences change, or if new energy efficiency technologies emerge in the coming 

two decades, those developments will not be reflected in the AEO2013 reference scenario. 

The commenters said if the structure and business model of the U.S. electricity industry changes 

in the coming twenty years - as many analysts expect it will, due to the improvements in 

distributed and renewable energy technologies - then the AEO2013 reference scenario would 

serve as a poor proxy; after all, EIA intends its Annual Energy Outlook series not as a prediction 

of future conditions, but as a projection of the status quo policy and discernable economic trends 

into the future. The commenters said the reference scenarios are, by definition, not intended to 

project significant changes in the energy industry or macro economy. 

The commenters said it is worth considering the history of NEMS projections and state-level 

electricity sales patterns in greater detail. 

Commenters’ concerns center on the use of electricity consumption forecasts from the reference 

scenario in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 ("AEO2013") from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration ("EIA"); this report is based on output from the National Energy Modeling 

System ("NEMS"), the EIA's primary national forecasting and policy analysis model. The 
289 

commenters said as a general matter, energy models are powerful tools that can support informed 

decision-making; in this case, however, relying on a single forecast to drive critical 

methodologies used in the Clean Power Plan creates significant risks. 

Commenters stated for over a decade, NEMS has significantly overestimated national electricity 

sales; while no model can perfectly predict future energy markets, the track record with NEMS 

suggests that further Agency analysis is warranted before finalizing its methodologies. The 

commenters said indeed, most prominent energy models have done a relatively poor job 

anticipating future levels of consumption; this observation counsels adopting a conservative 

approach to mitigating the risk of forecast error - especially when developing guidance on 

appropriate methods for constructing their state plans. 

Commenters made the recommendation of in developing guidance for the evaluation, 

monitoring, and verification ("EM&V") of demand-side energy efficiency programs in state 

plans, the EPA should explicitly prohibit use of the methods the Agency used to calculate energy 

efficiency potential in the context of the Best System of Emission Reductions ("BSER"). The 

commenters said while these methods may be defensible as an approach to evaluating the 

potential for energy efficiency in the context of the BSER, they are insufficient as a means of 

establishing the contribution of energy efficiency towards an individual state target. 

Commenters made the recommendation of in the context of establishing equivalent mass-based 

targets for new and existing units, the EPA should evaluate the extent to which relying on the 

AEO2013 reference scenario to project future electricity sales risks establishing baseline 

consumption levels that are artificially high, and therefore would allow states to take credit for 

energy efficiency improvements that would have happened in the absence of the Clean Power 

Plan. The commenters said the Agency should consider alternative methods for use in state 

plans, such as (1) using the actual energy consumption trends observed between 2012 and 2020 

in place of forecasts made today, or (2) using forecasts made just prior to implementation of the 

Clean Power Plan in 2020, which are likely to have smaller errors. 

Comment 45: Inappropriate reliance on IPM and EIA 

Response 45: See the Appendix of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation 

TSD for CPP Final Rule on historical baseline data. As described there, the EPA’s baseline 

relies on Part 75 emissions data from the EPA, when available. When Part 75 emissions data are 

not available, fuel-specific emission factors from the EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012, and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program from 40 CFR Part 

98 are used in conjunction with fuel use data. The EPA considers this an accurate data source as 

the emissions and fuel use data are reported by sources themselves who attest to their accuracy. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
290 

Commenters stated IPM projects, under the state-only policy case, 3,001 MW of new wind 

capacity in Ohio by 2025. The commenters said under the regional compliance plan, this is 

increased to 4,955 MW of new wind power in 2025. While the commenters recognized the 

potential for wind power in the state given recent rapid growth in the wind sector, wind power 

does not, and cannot, supplement or replace the base-load power supplied by coal and natural gas 

fired power plants. Furthermore, the commenters strongly urged U.S. EPA to consider the 

highly-localized nature of wind-power and its ability to serve a small portion of the overall grid; 

these results clearly indicate that location and base-load reliability concerns were not considered 

fully in the IPM projections. 

Commenters examined wind capacity projections from EIA's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook. 

Between years 2012 and 2030, the largest annual change in wind capacity for the RFCW region, 

of which Ohio is a part, was 37 MW. The commenters said U.S. EPA's projection of 3001 MW 

of new wind capacity in Ohio by 2025 under the state-only scenario represents the addition of 

195 MW each year starting in 2012 and concluding in 2025. The commenters said thus, U.S. 

EPA is projecting a growth rate in wind capacity 5.3 times greater than that projected by EIA. 

The commenters found this difficult to comprehend. The commenters said U.S. EPA's reliance 

on an inaccurate model leads to a large overestimate of the amount of RE that can be achieved in 

Ohio and only reinforces the level of inaccuracies in this proposal. 

Commenters stated EPA suggests that projections could be based on capacity expansion and 

dispatch planning model or a dispatch simulation model but these models must receive input on 

how much energy generation will be required. The commenters said they cannot reach to the 

challenge of accurately and reliably translating improvements in energy efficiency and the 

utilization of renewable energy activities into energy demand reductions. 

Commenters stated EPA used the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 923 and 861 

reports to calculate CO2 emissions for each unit; the CO2 emissions contained in the EIA reports 

use different calculation methodologies. The commenters said EPA should only use the wellestablished CO2 emission factors from 40 CFR 98 to ensure consistency. 

Comment 46: EIA growth forecast

Response 46: A historical baseline was used for goal setting in both the final and proposed rule. 

A growth factor was used at proposal in quantifying percent savings under building block four, 

but as described in preamble section V demand-side energy efficiency is not part of the final 

rule’s quantification of BSER.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that U.S. EPA use the 2013 EIA growth forecast for goal estimation 

as opposed to 2010. The commenters said there is a ten-fold difference between the two; as such, 
291 

the most current growth forecast should be used, as this could have a substantial effect on future 

year goal development. 

Comment 47: Historic data

Response 47: When identifying reduction potential for the building blocks, the EPA does 

consider cost as discussed in the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. The historical baseline is used 

to quantify the impact these building blocks would have on the likely affected EGUs. The EPA 

took comment on the use of a historical baseline and commenters generally favored the use of a 

historical baseline over a projected baseline. Moreover, the EPA tests the resulting 

quantification of BSER in a power sector modeling that observes the system constraints 

referenced by commenters.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated establishing performance standards should be unrelated to state historic 

data; EPA must establish BSER and the emission standard by taking into account cost, non-air 

and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The commenters said the statute does not 

contemplate consideration of historic baselines. 

Comment 48: Historical and future emissions reductions 

Response 48: See preamble section VIII.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should allow states to recognize historical emissions reductions from 

existing energy efficiency programs to the extent that energy efficiency program measures 

continue to provide quantifiable emissions reductions. 

Commenters stated EPA should allow states to recognize future emissions reductions from 

energy efficiency programs and activities that were initiated after the promulgation of the final 

rule; EPA should allow states to take credit for all new activities, programs and installations 

utilizing EM&V protocols and approaches. 

Comment 49: Transmission considerations

Response 49: The EPA’s power sector modeling represents transmission infrastructure 

constraints. See the EPA power sector modeling base case documentation at 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling 
292 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters were concerned that the modeling efforts supporting the CPP proposed rule did not 

adequately and accurately account for the electric transmission system, as the EPA's models 

considered generation and load, but not the transmission infrastructure necessary. The 

commenters said this approach by the EPA is not an accurate portrayal of how our nation's 

electrical system works. 

Comment 50: Demand response programs 

Response 50: See preamble section V.A for a discussion of the EPA’s treatment of demand-side 

energy efficiency in the BSER quantification. See Section VIII for a discussion of mitigations 

measures that can be used to achieve/demonstrate compliance.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated demand response programs can be effective programs that reduce carbon 

emissions, or they can be programs that appear to reduce carbon emissions but actually increase 

such emissions. The commenters said effective programs are based on a reduction in electric 

usage due to measures such as load curtailment or employment of energy efficiency measures. 

The commenters said the "sham" programs drop load, and replace the load with on-site fossil 

fuel fired "behind-the-meter" generation. The commenters recommended that the EPA ensure 

demand response programs are only allowed for credit in goal calculations when such programs 

do not include any on-site "behind the meter" fossil fuel generation capacity. 

Comment 51: DSIRE 

Response 51: See preamble section V.E for a discussion of revisions to building block 3.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in order for U.S. EPA to quantify RPS levels to develop target levels of 

performance, U.S. EPA relied on a N.C. State University Database for State Incentives for 

Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org/). The commenters said this website 

provides a disclaimer specifically stating it provides an "unofficial overview of financial 

incentives and other policies ... and it should not be used as the only source of information ... 

when executing other binding agreements." The commenters said it also warns that "while the 

DSIRE staff strives to provide the best information possible [they] make no representations or 

warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or 

suitability of the information." The commenters said because of the extensive amount of 

information to review under this proposal and the very limited time to complete comments, the 

commenters did not have sufficient time to review all the data on DSIRE to determine its 
293 

accuracy relative to Ohio's RPS policy. The commenters questioned why U.S. EPA would use as 

their only source of information, a database to develop BSER for RE that warns of the 

unsuitability of its information for that purpose. The commenters said for such an important 

proposal and for the determination of what is technically feasible and cost-effective for BSER for 

RE, why would U.S. EPA not review the actual individual state RPS policies themselves; U.S. 

EPA's methodology is flawed and the commenters do not believe U.S. EPA's use of DSIRE data 

for goal development is technical sound and must be reconsidered. 

Comment 52: The EPA did not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state renewable 

generation; the EPA methodology relies on in-state generation, not sales 

Response 52: See preamble section V.E for a discussion of revisions to building block 3. See 

RTC chapter 3 for further response to comment on RE evaluation.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that U.S. EPA did not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state renewable 

generation, when many of the actual renewable portfolios averaged in U.S. EPA's regional goals 

do so. The commenters said this further calls into question the rationale behind the regions 

selected by U.S. EPA according to RE potential, when most states have already recognized these 

potentials and their limitations when designing their own renewable portfolios. The commenters 

said U.S. EPA relied upon the document "Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States: 

A Status Update, November 2013" to justify aspects of this proposal; however, even this 

document discusses how each state's current RPS requirements can vary substantially; the 

eligibility of different renewable technologies, whether existing projects qualify, the treatment of 

out-of-state generators, the use of credit multipliers, methods to enforce compliance, and waivers 

for compliance are just a few examples. 

Commenters said U.S. EPA appears to have ignored this variability; U.S. EPA's requirements for 

implementation, will restrict states due to federal enforceability requirements. The commenters 

said U.S. EPA's best practices and ultimately the state goals cannot be based on or computed 

from the assumption that certain RPS targets can be achieved when under the conditions of this 

proposal may not even be permitted to be used for compliance. The commenters said if U.S. 

EPA is to rely on current RPS programs in the states as "best practices" then U.S. EPA must take 

them at face value and allow those programs, as implemented in each state, to fully qualify for 

implementation under this proposal. 

Commenters were concerned that this lack of distinguishing between in-state and out-of-state 

renewable generation that U.S. EPA did not accurately account for could have led to doublecounting in determining the state goals. The commenters said a state with an RPS that allows for 

RE to be imported may be considered to have a higher level of RE potential than is actually 

generated in the state. The commenters said the state(s) it imports from has an RE potential that 
294 

also considers this same level of RE generation; U.S. EPA cannot double count this RE potential 

in formulating goals. The commenters said this calls into question how credit can be taken in a 

state plan and then how compliance with a state plan is determined. The commenters said U.S. 

EPA has proposed several alternatives to eliminate double-counting in state plans and for 

compliance purposes; however, U.S. EPA is giving no consideration to this issue with respect to 

goal setting. The commenters asked if a state's RE is exported to another state and counts 

towards the importing state's reductions, what happens to the exporting state's RE target; should 

it not be adjusted. The commenters said U.S. EPA must use consistent methodologies to 

eliminate double-counting in goal setting and in plan development and compliance 

determinations. 

Commenters stated EPA's BB3 methodology is based on in-state generation rather than 

sales; this is a particularly polarizing issue for states such as PA that are large net exporters of 

electricity. The commenters said while in-state generation does contribute to GHG production, 

much of this generation is utilized by consumers outside of PA and even outside of the PJM 

region. The commenters said states should be accountable for CO2 production only to the extent 

of what their consumers actually utilize and not be penalized for the electricity use of consumers 

in other states. The commenters said EPA has no control over the consumption patterns of others 

outside of their jurisdiction nor does PA have jurisdiction over the dispatching of generation. The 

commenters said EPA should revise its BB3 methodology to reflect state sales as opposed to 

generation. 

Commenters tried several ways and could not recreate the ratios of sales to in-state generation 

EPA provided in the goals calculation spreadsheet therefore, commenters would like EPA to 

explain how this ratio was calculated. Commenters also stated that the reference case is based on 

0.8 percent per year electricity demand growth and that EPA should demonstrate that end-use 

efficiency measures are not already incorporated in the EIA/IPM base case. 

Comment 53: Projections using Regional versus National Data 

Response 53: The EPA did shift to a regional framework for identifying building block potential 

in this final rule. We also reevaluated the appropriate regions based on comments. See section 

V of the preamble for more discussion.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated excluding the carbon reductions that EPA projects a state can achieve from 

renewable electricity under Building Block 4(b), national data is used to project the incremental 

reductions in the other Building Blocks. The commenters said given regional variations in 

climate and temperature, EPA should look closely at whether regional data is more suitable for 

formulating carbon intensity reduction targets from demand side efficiency. 

Comment 54: Using national aggregated instead of each states data 
295 

Response 54: The quantification of BSER in this final rule is based on a regional assessment of 

building block potential. The equivalent rate-based and mass-based state goals described in 

section VII reflect state-specific baseline data. Moreover, the resulting state goals are evaluated 

in a comprehensive power sector model to estimate compliance impacts. The model reflects 

competing state-level constraints.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in composing each state's emission guideline, or standard of performance, 

EPA has used national aggregated data for each BSER building block that it applies to each 

state's energy fleet to determine that state's goal. The commenters said because this national data 

represents EPA's analysis of 48 states total, and not any one individual state, EPA is skewing 

each state goal to the point where it in no way reflects that state's ability to meet it. The 

commenters said these state standards are not at all a reflection of real-world conditions in a 

given state, but are merely an amalgam of national projections applied to that state's energy fleet; 

thus, EPA's standard is purely theoretical. 

Comment 55: Discount rate

Response 55: Demand-side management is not a component of final BSER quantification as 

explained in section V. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the USEPA based its calculation upon an inappropriate discount rate. The 

commenters said the USEPA has used what it terms a real discount rate of 3% for its calculations 

regarding DSM costs; however, the USEPA's real discount rate appears to be a customer 

discount rate rather than a utility discount rate. The commenters believed this is inappropriate for 

a multitude of reasons. The commenters said it appears that the USEPA is using the discount rate 

more commonly used for the Societal Cost Test in its analysis. The commenters believed the 

more appropriate discount rate to use in utility resource planning is the utility discount rate (such 

as is used for the RIM, PACT, and TRC tests), not the customer discount rate. The commenters 

respectfully suggested that the USEPA use a discount rate that is reflective of the manner in 

which DSM costs are actually recovered and consistent with its own best practices manual: a 

blended utility discount rate, somewhere around 8%.

Commenters stated electric utilities rarely request ROEs that are lower than 10%, and when 

adjusted for the specific capital structure of the utility, end up with a blended rate of around 7-

8%. The commenters said societal discount rates are generally applied to measures such as 

building code changes, but are not generally used for utility energy efficiency programs. 
296 

Comment 56: Outdated cost and performance numbers for RE and EE 

Response 56: See preamble section V for a discussion on revised RE and EE assumptions based 

on comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the impact of using outdated cost and performance numbers for renewables 

and energy efficiency in estimating the cost of the Clean Power Plan is substantial. The 

commenters said EPA found that under the Clean Power Plan, the power sector could reduce its 

emissions by 30% in 2030 below 2005 levels, costing between $7.5 billion and $8.8 billion; but 

because EPA used unreasonably high and out-of-date cost assumptions for renewable energy and 

energy efficiency, EPA substantially overstates the costs of compliance with the standard and 

underestimates the potential to make these critical carbon reductions. The commenters said a 

study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that simply by updating the cost and 

performance parameters for renewable generation and energy efficiency to be consistent with 

today's technologies, compliance could be achieved at net savings of $1.8 billion in 2020 and 

$6.6 billion in 2030. The commenters said in the final rule, EPA should update its cost numbers 

and strengthen the state targets to reflect the emission reductions available based on current data 

on availability and cost. 

Comment 57: Duct burner capacity

Response 57: EPA relies on net summer capacity for quantification of building block two 

potential in this final rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that EPA has included some units' temporary supplemental generating 

capacity from the use of power augmentation modes, such as duct burners, in the existing NGCC 

capacity available for long-term re-dispatch. The commenters said duct burners increase power 

throughput, but at the cost of substantially increasing heat rate and accelerating component 

wear. The commenters added that continual operation of duct burner capacity is not a feasible 

option for displacing coal-fired generation and should not be considered as part of a strategy to 

reduce CO2 emissions. The commenters concluded that EPA must examine the NGCC capacity 

values used in its goal calculation and eliminate any duct burner capacity. 

Comment 58: Load growth 

Response 58: While load growth in a reference case scenario is expected at the fleet-level, load 

growth among likely affected existing sources is not expected based on a review of historical 

data from a fixed set of units over time. In regards to comments on load growth considerations 
297 

in the EPA’s compliance modeling, the commenters should review the EPA power sector 

modeling documentation. In regards to load growth considerations for determining subcategoryspecific rates or state goals, the EPA believes the baseline is a reasonable baseline expectation 

and does not expect aggregate generation levels from these sources to increase during the 

compliance period beyond what is accounted for through the EPA adjustments accounting for 

under construction units and hydro adjustments.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated as with any model, the inputs used on the front end greatly influence the 

results; this is true in the case of EPA's use of IPM for the proposed rule. The commenters said 

one of the basic and most important inputs in determining the resulting power prices is the 

expected load growth. The commenters said EPA's Base Case peak load growth for the SERC 

Central TVA region is very similar to TVA's internal forecast for the forecast time horizon; 

however, EPA's "Option 1" peak load growth for the period 2020 through 2030 is one tenth of 

the base case. The commenters said while the dramatic drop could be attributed to increases in 

Energy Efficiency (EE) for Option 1, the increase in EE as proposed in the calculation of the 

state emission rate goals only gradually increases to about 10% by 2029. The commenters said it 

appears that the early years of the compliance period (2020 thru 2025) have the load growth rate 

arbitrarily reduced. The commenters said on the "Generation and Peak Demand" sheets in the 

supporting document named: "Option 1 Regional - April 2014 Draft DAT Replacement 

File.xlsx," the year-by-year generation and peak demand values for the SERC Central TVA 

region show a saw-tooth pattern. The commenters said the values show a gradual (1%) increase 

year over year for 4 to 6 years followed by a large (-2% to -4%) cline. The commenters said this 

pattern of demand growth is not reflected in any of the parameters in the emission rate target 

calculations; also, the growth rate for the initial years of 2018 and 2019 appear to have been 

arbitrarily reduced by factors of 2 and 8. The commenters said except for those years that have 

the negative growth, the year by year growth rates in the Option 1 case are exactly the same as in 

the Base Case. 

Commenters added the same observations can be made for the Option 2 case - file named 

"Option 2 Regional - April 2014 Draft DAT Replacement File.xlsx"; the demand growth for 

years 2018 and 2019 have been arbitrarily reduced and there is a saw-tooth pattern of growth 

rates with every 4 to 6 years having a large negative growth rate. The commenters said the other 

year's growth rates are the same as the Base Case. The commenters said the use of 2012 data 

coming out of a recessionary period may not be indicative of future economic growth; EPA 

should revise the load growth assumptions in its analysis basing them on documented reasonable 

assumptions. 

Comment 59: Distribution CO2 emissions and net generation for units that do not report unitlevel values
298 

Response 59: The EPA disagrees that this methodology is inappropriate for dealing with missing 

data. Holding all else equal, generation levels do typically track with generation capacity for the 

given units at a plant. Moreover, because the data is aggregated to the regional level, the unitlevel apportionment has no impact on the subcategory-specific rates or state goals except in the 

instance where a subset of the plant’s units – for which an aggregate generation is being 

apportioned - are included in the rule, and a subset are excluded. Moreover, while the 

apportionment of plant-data may not match unit-level non-reported data, the EPA believes it is a 

reasonable approach using the best available data that does not introduce any bias into the 

subcategory-specific rates that are informed at the regional level. EPA is using the best available 

data, and making reasonable assumptions where necessary. Furthermore, EGUs have the ability 

to comment on their covered unit status, and EPA can also compare the inventory of resulting 

likely affected EGUs to sources that are covered under other EPA existing programs as further 

support for the inventory categorization of a unit.

 The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's attempt, to deal with missing data is inappropriate. The commenters 

said for calculating a unit's applicability and state emission rate goals, the Agency used data 

submitted to EPA and EIA. The commenters said for units that reported to EPA under 40 C.F.R. 

Part 75, reported CO2 emissions were used; if a unit did not report CO2 emissions under 40 CFR 

Part 75, then the reported fuel use from the EIA-923 dataset and the reported emission factors 

under EPA's "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks of the Climate Registry 

Default Emission Factors" were used to calculate CO2 emissions. The commenters said if no 

unit-level fuel use was reported in the EIA-923 dataset, but the prime mover fuel data existed 

and more than one unit at a plant had the same prime mover, then the prime mover fuel level 

emissions were distributed to each generator in the prime mover proportionally by nameplate 

capacity. The commenters said this exercise is arbitrary and may inadvertently include units that 

do not meet EPA's proposed applicability criteria. 

Commenters added EPA completed a similar exercise for net generation data. A unit's net 

generation was taken from EIA-923; if no unit-level net generation existed in the EIA-923 

dataset but the prime mover fuel data existed and more than one unit at a plant had the same 

prime mover, then prime mover fuel level net generation was distributed to each generator in the 

prime mover proportionally by nameplate capacity. The commenters said this is an arbitrary 

exercise by EPA that could have unintended consequences. 

Comment 60: If the EPA uses a savings percentage of sales from energy efficiency, it should be 

based on estimated actual electricity sales 

Response 60: See preamble section V.A. The EPA is not including BB-4 in its quantification of 

final BSER.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
299 

Commenters stated if EPA uses a savings percentage of sales from energy efficiency, it should 

be based on estimated actual electricity sales. The commenters said the draft rule estimates 

potential energy savings in the target years and uses that to adjust an emissions rate that is based 

on 2012 generation levels; the savings potential estimate starts from a BAU sales estimate that is 

based on 2012 actual sales and estimated growth from the AEO 2013 Reference Case (GHG 

Abatement Measures TSD, 5-40). The commenters said the incremental savings are calculated 

by taking a percentage of BAU sales minus net cumulative savings ("sales after net EE" on p. 5-

41); but as the draft rule recognizes elsewhere, the AEO projections implicitly incorporate some 

savings that states are achieving that would qualify under this rule. The commenters said those 

savings are being double-counted in the sales after net EE, decreasing the estimated sales and 

thus decreasing the estimated savings potential. The commenters said then, in order to add the 

savings to 2012 generation, the draft rule divides the target year savings by BAU electricity sales 

in that year (for a percent savings), and multiplies by 2012 sales (p. 5-43 and Goal Computation 

TSD, p. 17); however, the savings potential is initially calculated based on an incremental 

savings percentage of actual sales after the savings. The commenters said the cumulative savings 

percentage should be calculated using the same denominator, sales after net EE. The commenters 

said in South Carolina, for example, in 2029 the potential savings are 10.2% of BAU sales but 

11.4% of sales after net EE; using percentage of actual sales, the target rate would be 763 rather 

than 772. The commenters said the state rate calculations to demonstrate compliance will use 

actual generation and savings for the target years, so this issue does not apply in those cases. 

Comment 61: Sales Data 

Response 61: See preamble section V.A. The EPA is not including BB-4 in its quantification of 

final BSER.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the sales for Lower Valley Energy Inc. should be excluded because the 

energy efficiency achieved by LVE was reported by the Bonneville Power Authority, following 

instructions for EIA Form 861: "...Federal Power Marketing Administrations should coordinate 

with the reporting of DSM information with their power purchasing utilities to avoid double 

counting the effects and costs of DSM programs." The commenters said BPA confirmed to LVE 

that "BPA Energy Efficiency already reports all reportable savings (both utility and BPA 

implemented) to the Power Business Line which in turn is reported to EIA." The commenters 

said this is not an instance of "disaggregation of reported data by state for administrators with 

programs in multiple states," as referenced on p. 5-16 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD. 

The commenters said where efficiency effects have been reported by an entity other than a utility 

listed for Wyoming, the goal calculation should not include related Wyoming sales. 

Commenters added the sales for Powder River Energy Corp (PRECorp) should be excluded 

because EPA policy is intended to induce a decline in the economic base of the company's 
300 

Campbell County service territory, which will in turn make customary energy efficiency 

programs infeasible. The commenters said the company's service territory includes eight of the 

ten largest coal mines in the United States, collectively responsible for over 336 million short 

tons of coal in 2012. The commenters provided information about a recent study considering the 

impact of section 111(d). 

Commenters added Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) is one of the largest 

electric generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives in the United States; it is not a local 

distribution company, and Commission staff confirmed that the only transactions with its two 

customers in 2012 were wholesale. The commenters said Willwood Light & Power is a local 

distribution company which reported sales of its own on Form 861S, so it would be double 

counting to include the sales to Willwood under Basin's auspices. The commenters said F.E. 

Warren Air Force Base is a federal military installation over which the state exercises no 

economic regulatory control; Basin's sales to F. E. Warren Air Force Base ended in 2013. 

Commenters added the entry labeled Adjustment is actually an assortment of fourteen entities 

(nine municipal, four cooperative, and one political subdivision) small enough to file an EIA 

Form 861S, which is a short version of the Form 861. The commenters said Form 861S does not 

require quantities for energy efficiency; all of these entities were individually listed by EIA in 

2011. The commenters said as an example of scale, in 2011 Midvale Irrigation District had total 

revenues of $3700 and six customers; Southeast Electric Coop is actually a Montana coop with 

10 Wyoming customers; Willwood Light & Power Company had 49 customers, all residential; 

the largest of the other entities is the Wheatland Rural Electric Association, with 3,717 

customers; only four other entities had more than a thousand customers. The commenters said if 

these entities are too small to have to quantify energy efficiency, they should be too small to be 

included in the basis for the state target; doing so would take the EPA too far into the depths of 

rural America, and subject the entities to administrative and regulatory demands which are 

unreasonable in light of the benefits to the nation, and which are unreasonable in light of the 

compliance expectations which EPA has articulated in its TSD on State Plan Considerations. 

Commenters added if these exclusions are made, the cornerstone for intrastate sales is 

13,282,366 MWh; adding back 24 gigawatts, the Business As Usual case for Wyoming would be 

13,306,366 MWh.; the calculated cumulative savings should be counted against this reduced 

base. 

Commenters stated the sales numbers (corrected for transmission losses) listed in the data file 

accompanying EPA's November TSD do not match those used in calculating state goals in the 

June 2014 proposal. The commenters said for Wisconsin, the data file on state goal calculation 

accompanying the original proposal listed this number as 73,988,479 MWh, whereas in the 

November TSD data file, this value is listed as 74,765 GWh (74,765,000 MWh). The 

commenters said EPA should correct this discrepancy. 
301 

Commenters stated for EE, the TSD states the EPA used a growth factor for electricity sales 

obtained from the Average Annual Growth Rate from AEO 2013 NERC Region. The 

commenters said for SERC this value is stated to be 1.10%; however, in the EPA spreadsheet a 

value of 1.10184% was used. The commenters said this discrepancy becomes significant over the 

long time period of this building block. The commenters added, the spreadsheet also changed 

this growth factor from 1.011018 to 1.011218 in the year 2041. 

Comment 62: Wholesale electricity from multi-use water projects; exclude 

Response 62: See preamble section V.A. The EPA is not including BB-4 in its quantification of 

final BSER.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is one of four power 

marketing administrations within the U.S. Department of Energy whose role is to market and 

transmit wholesale electricity from multi-use water projects; it sells power to preference 

customers such as Federal and state agencies, cities and towns, rural electric cooperatives, public 

utility districts, irrigation districts and Native American tribes. The commenters said they, in 

turn, provide retail electric service to consumers in the West. The commenters said as a federal 

agency over which the state exercises no control, it should be excluded from setting the state's 

goal for energy efficiency. 

Comment 63: The EPA Should Use a System-Wide Emissions Rate to Set Emissions Rate 

Targets. 

Response 63: See preamble section V for an explanation of the mitigation measures quantified 

as BSER, section VI for an explanation of the metric of the BSER quantification, and section 

IV.D for an explanation of affected units. The EPA understands the commenters’ suggestion, 

but as explained in the aforementioned sections, the EPA is only quantifying BSER for likely 

affected 111(d) sources (including replacement generation for those sources). Additionally, 

while not subject, the subcategory performance rates, state goals, and mass equivalents do create 

an additional incentive for non-affected zero emitting generation to stay on line as they become 

more competitive relative to the affected fossil sources as they are not subject to the same 

compliance obligation as affected EGUs. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated within the framework of EPA's current proposal, the most straightforward 

solution is for the Agency to calculate state emissions targets by counting in the denominator of 
302 

the rate not only all of a state's existing fossil fuel generation and existing renewable generation, 

but also all of its existing nuclear and hydropower generation. 

Commenters stated use of such a "system-wide" emissions rate is consistent with EPA's 

approach to defining the "best system of emission reduction," as required by statute; under EPA's 

rationale, because the statute uses the term "system of emissions reduction," it is appropriate to 

consider emissions reduction opportunities from all parts of the electricity supply and delivery 

system. The commenters said EPA also recognizes that "electricity production ...takes place 

interchangeably between and among multiple generation facilities and different types of 

generation;" for that reason, EPA has included non-emitting resources in calculating initial 

emissions rates and rate targets. The commenters said accordingly, the regulatory approach taken 

by EPA in the Proposed Rule more logically supports consideration of a state's total electrical 

generation when calculating its target emissions rates. 

Commenters stated adopting a true system-wide rate would create an effective incentive for 

states to keep all existing carbon-free generation online; if a nuclear facility were to retire 

prematurely, the state's calculated emissions rate would increase by an amount reflecting the full 

amount of carbon-free generation that has been lost. The commenters said because each nuclear 

facility is so large, a state could not easily replace the lost nuclear generation with other carbonfree resources in the short term, to compensate for the increase in the calculated emissions rate; 

therefore, a state would have reason to prevent the premature retirement of any of its nuclear 

generation. 

Commenters stated using a system-wide rate to set goals would require states eventually to 

replace existing nuclear units with an equal amount of new zero-emissions generation (or energy 

efficiency) once those units have reached the end of their useful lives in the coming decades; 

while it may be challenging for states to do so today, inclusion would give states and industry 

incentives to speed development of new carbon-free generation technologies. 

Commenters stated adopting a technology-forcing standard is entirely consistent with the Clean 

Air Act and its legislative history; in proposing the CO2 new source performance standards for 

new EGUs, EPA referred to the extensive legislative history and case law supporting the 

proposition that the technology-based standards under section 111 were intended to be 

technology-forcing. The commenters said that intent applies equally to standards for existing 

sources; both section 111(b) and section 111(d) direct EPA to adopt a "standard of performance," 

a term defined in section 111(a) to reflect the application of the "best system of emission 

reduction." The commenters said as the D.C. Circuit has held, section 111(a)'s "mandated 

balancing of cost, energy, and nonair quality health and environmental factors embraces 

consideration of technological innovation as part of that balance. The statutory factors which 

EPA must weigh are broadly defined and include within their ambit subfactors such as 

technological innovation." 
303 

Commenters stated the electricity industry can meet the challenge, in coming decades, of 

replacing nuclear units that have reached the end of their useful lives with other zero-emitting 

generation; technologies that either already exist, or that are currently under development and are 

likely to be commercialized in the coming decades, include: 

-New nuclear facilities. Nuclear units are a demonstrated, proven technology for generating zerocarbon electricity. Certainly, it is technically feasible to replace units that have reached the end 

of their remaining useful life with new units. As EPA notes, five nuclear EGUs at three plants 

presently are under construction: Vogtle in Georgia, Watts Bar in Tennessee, and Summer in 

South Carolina. More are under consideration, such as additional units at Turkey Point in 

Florida. 

-Innovations that will extend the life of existing nuclear facilities. The nuclear industry 

continually develops and implements such innovations, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

will soon receive applications to extend licenses for a fourth twenty-year term. 

-Next-generation nuclear technology. The nuclear industry is currently developing modular small 

and medium size nuclear reactors that could significantly reduce construction times and 

costs.113 Although current economic conditions make the development of such reactors in 

competitive electricity markets challenging, these innovations could be applied within regulated 

markets, and when the technology is proven, applied more broadly. The International Atomic 

Energy Agency has also identified developments in fast reactors and gas-cooled reactors. 

-Carbon capture and reuse from existing coal-fired plants. EPA has already found that CCS is 

technically feasible (though not yet cost-effective) for many existing coal-fired plants, and a 

variety of such systems are under development.115 Some involve the capture and purification of 

CO2 emissions to compress the CO2 to a super-critical liquid that can then be reused in 

industrial processes or injected into geologic formations for long term, permanent sequestration 

and removal from the atmosphere. In 2009, Pennsylvania examined establishing a network of 

geologic sequestration sites in the Commonwealth and found it feasible.116 However, in the 

absence of market incentives for carbon emissions reduction from existing fossil fuel-fired 

plants, the efforts to develop a sequestration site network were abandoned. Other processes under 

development include capture by genetically enhanced algae to produce new fuels, thus recycling 

carbon dioxide rather than releasing new carbon from long-term carbon sinks. 

-CCS from NGCCs. CO2 capture from NGCCs for reuse or sequestration will be feasible within 

the next decade, so that retiring nuclear plants could be replaced by new NGCCs that produce 

electricity without emissions. On October 15, 2014, Exelon Generation announced that it had 

joined a joint venture that would validate that technology at a site in Texas, using supercritical 

CO2 as a working fluid to drive a combustion turbine and ultimately to produce pipeline-quality 

CO2 that can be sequestered or used in industrial processes. The developer is working toward 

commissioning the plant in 2016. 
304 

-Improved solar generation. Photovoltaic solar is becoming dramatically less costly. There have 

also been new developments in utility-scale thermal projects that can deliver solar-generated 

electricity with increasing reliability. For example, the 400 MW Solana plant in Arizona, which 

came online in October 2014, uses molten sodium to store heat generated during the day to 

produce steam during late afternoon peak hours or when the sun is no longer shining to achieve a 

40 percent capacity factor.119 The price for Solana's power falls within the range EPA has 

determined is cost-effective. Moreover, new technologies such as solar shingles and solar films 

are allowing increasing use of distributed solar generation in or at the building sites where the 

electricity is consumed. 

-Improved storage technologies. Battery, fuel cell, and other storage technologies are improving 

rapidly.120 Although these technologies do not generate electricity, they will allow greater and 

more efficient use of intermittent technologies such as wind and solar. Fuel cell technologies will 

also permit more efficient production of electricity from natural gas during periods of time that 

renewable generation is unavailable. 

-Smart Grids and improved techniques for distributed generation. These innovations in electricity 

distribution allow demand to be matched more closely with supply of electricity, allowing 

intermittent renewable resources to be integrated efficiently, electric vehicles to provide grid 

balancing services, demand response to reduce electricity consumption at peak times in the most 

efficient manner, and transmission losses to be reduced through distributed generation. 

The commenters said these emerging technologies hold great promise in reducing the carbon 

intensity of our electricity system; their advancement would be strongly encouraged by a Clean 

Power Plan that requires states to build on the emissions reductions they have already achieved, 

and that prohibits states from backsliding and increasing CO2 emissions from historical levels. 

The commenters said indeed, historically, environmental regulation has been a strong driver of 

innovation in the power sector; moreover, environmental regulations have consistently cost 

substantially less to implement than EPA or industry originally estimated; thus, the prospect that 

existing nuclear units will eventually retire should not be a justification for failing to consider the 

full effect of that generation in setting state goals. 

Commenters said including nuclear (or hydropower) units in setting emissions rate targets need 

not negatively affect a state if a nuclear (or hydropower) facility were forced to retire 

unexpectedly for reasons beyond reasonable control - for example, due to an unexpected 

equipment failure (or, for hydropower, a prolonged drought); in that circumstance, EPA's 

regulations implementing section 111(d) provide a mechanism for a state to amend its plan to 

provide a different pathway for achieving compliance. The commenters said the general 

regulations explicitly allow for the possibility that a state plan or revision may, under certain 

circumstances, provide for a longer compliance period or establish less stringent emission 

standards, at least for a time; specifically, a state may provide for longer compliance schedules or 

the application of less stringent emissions standards if the state demonstrates with respect to a 

facility or class of facilities that costs of control are unreasonable because of "plant age, location, 
305 

or basic process design," installing necessary control equipment is impossible, or "factors 

specific to the facility (or class of facilities) ...make application of a less stringent standard or 

final compliance time significantly more reasonable." The commenters said such plan 

submissions would require increments of progress to achieve compliance; moreover, section 

111(d)'s authorization for states to consider "the remaining useful life of the existing source" in 

establishing standards of performance can also be interpreted to authorize a revision of systembased standards where the life of an existing zero emissions source is cut short. 

Comment 64: CHP Line Loss Credit Should be Revised

Response 64: In the final rule, the EPA acknowledges the value of measures that increase 

transmission and distribution (T&D) efficiency or reduce electricity use. It allows that the 

verified and quantified MWhs of avoided losses or reduction in end use electricity that result 

from T&D measures to be used to adjust a CO2 emission rate. For more information on the 

accounting approach for adjusting a CO2 emission rate and specifics on eligible transmission and 

distribution measures, see Section VIII.K. For more detail on the requirements and criteria for 

proper quantification and verification of MWhs, see Section VIII.K.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said that the EPA should increase line loss credit from 5 percent to 6 percent to be 

consistent with the EIA which says that the national average transmission and distribution line 

loss is 6 percent. Secondly, commenters said, it is very important that the EPA bring clarity to 

the applicability of the line loss credit. Commenters said that it appears that the credit is only 

applicable to CHP systems that are directly affected by the CPP. Commenters urged the EPA to 

emphasize the benefits of distributed energy in reducing transmission and distribution costs and 

increasing reliability to states and extend the 6 percent credit to both affected units and nonaffected units. 

Commenters said that the proposed 5 % line loss credit is inconsistent with the actual average 

line losses that accompany centralized electricity transmission and distribution, and in the 

Technical Support Document, the EPA itself refers to line losses of 7% or higher. Commenters 

stated that several studies have found that line losses are far greater during peak hours. For 

example, commenters said, in 2011 the Regulatory Assistance Project found that a grid segment 

or area with average line losses of 7 percent could have marginal line losses of 20 percent during 

peak load, and other studies have shown that one MWh of local generation can displace up to 

1.47 MWh of central generation. To reflect the actual energy benefit of distributed generation, 

commenters said that the EPA should provide a 7.5% credit to distributed generation. 

Commenters added that the EPA should consider increasing the credit for distributed baseload 

generation operating during peak hours, because this would encourage the deployment of CHP 

Systems that can provide reliable peak baseload power to off-set baseload coal plant closings. 
306 

Commenters stated that because the proposed rule only addresses line loss credit in the context 

of affected units, the Final Rule should make it clear that a similar line-loss credit should be 

credited to generation from unaffected units. Commenters said that selling industrial CHP/WHP 

carbon credits, should apply against potential future industrial GHG reduction obligations. 

Commenters urged the EPA and states to recognize that when an industrial company sells its 

energy efficiency-based GHG reduction, it simultaneously reduces its own GHG baseline. If the 

company is ever regulated on GHG emissions, commenters said that early reduction must be 

credited to any GHG emission reduction required under any such future regulation. Commenters 

also urged that when comparing CHP emissions to affected EGUs, that you not compare it to a 

regional rate, but instead, compare it to a more realistic estimate of the GHG reduction in 

dispatch of base load/intermediate/peaking (coal and gas), plus credit for avoided transmission 

and distribution losses. 

Commenters said that the EPA should provide a full-line loss credit rather than the proposed 

modest 5 percent line loss credit. 

Comment 65: Provide 100 Percent Thermal Credit

Response 65: In the final rule, for affected CHP units, the EPA is providing for the use of the 

equivalence accounting method which ensures that a CHP unit’s measured electrical and all of its 

thermal output are factored into the unit’s adjusted emission rate. For non-affected units, 

however, the final rule calls for the use of the avoided emissions method to calculate the 

qualifying ERC generated. For more information regarding crediting of CHP, see Section 

VIII.K.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said that the EPA should provide a full 100 percent thermal credit. Commenters 

stated that avoided transmission and distribution losses associated with CHP are significantly 

larger, and the rule needs to fully credit these savings. Commenters said that by installing CHP 

systems manufacturers reduce emissions throughout the air shed, but since they are now 

producing electricity on site, their own emissions may modestly increase. Commenters 

concluded that these facilities need to have assurances that actions that they take now will not 

subject them to more demanding requirements down the road. 

Commenters stated that the ability to obtain air permits is a major determinant as to whether 

industrial CHP units are built. Commenters noted that industrial companies' primary business is 

making manufacturing products, not electricity. As such, and given that air permits are getting 

harder to get, commenters said that building a CHP unit and any resulting increase in emissions 

(albeit less emission per MWH than regional EGUs) can be a significant challenge to a 

manufacturing company. Commenters said that the EPA should provide a full thermal credit 

(100%) for CHP units instead of only 75 percent of the useful thermal output as proposed. 
307 

Commenters described the different approaches have been used in federal and state regulations 

and guidance documents to account for the efficiency benefits of the thermal output of a CHP 

system: equivalence approach and avoided emissions approach. Commenters said that the EPA 

should provide full thermal credit for affected CHP units when using the equivalence approach. 

While the avoided emissions approach is arguably a more accurate reflection of the emissions 

benefits of CHP, commenters said that many stakeholders believe the equivalence approach 

could be simpler to implement. 

Commenters noted that the EPA has historically applied a range of credits to CHP thermal output 

under the equivalence approach, ranging from 75% in EPA's New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da) to 100% in the 

NSPS for Stationary Combustion Turbines. Commenters added that a 100% credit has likewise 

been applied in several states that have used the equivalence approach in state regulations. 

Commenters stated that the actual comparison between the equivalence and avoided emissions 

approaches is site specific and depends on the overall efficiency of the CHP system, the relative 

amounts of electricity and thermal energy produced, and the emissions characteristics of the 

displaced boiler. 

Commenters believed that the 100% thermal credit is appropriate under the Clean Power Plan. 

Commenters stated that, as compared to the 75% credit in the proposed rule, for typical CHP 

systems, a 100% thermal credit results in an effective emissions rate for CO2 that more closely 

approximates the emissions rate determined by the avoided emissions method. So long as the 

rule includes monitoring and a minimum thermal output requirement (to protect against "sham" 

CHP projects), commenters recommended that 100% of the thermal output be recognized under 

111(d) as well. Commenters added that the proposed rule limits eligibility to CHP systems where 

20 percent of the total gross useful energy output consists of useful thermal output, which would 

eliminate the potential for "sham" CHP projects. Commenters stated that providing 100 percent 

of the thermal credit will help the economic viability of the CHP unit be financed and 

constructed. Commenters agreed that a higher credit for thermal output will encourage the 

development of more CHP facilities consistent with the president's goals. Commenters supported 

the EPA's proposal to allow credit for 75% of the useful thermal output of CHP systems that 

qualify as EGUs. Commenters also stated that for unaffected CHP units, they recommended that 

the EPA allow both CHP and WHP to be eligible compliance methods, WHP under Block 3 and 

CHP under Block 4 in states that choose the emissions rate approach. 

Commenters said that the EPA should establish that WHP can contribute to CO2 savings under 

Building Block 3, Alternative Power Generation. Commenters noted that 15 of the existing 

Renewable Portfolio Standards define WHP as a renewable resource. For the purposes of the 

111(d) rule, WHP is unequivocally a type of power generation, commenters said, and while it 

does increase the energy productivity of an industrial process, its purpose is to generate 

emission-free electricity. Commenters added that the EPA should allow a 100% credit for every 

megawatt-hour of useful electrical output, the same as a megawatthour generated from solar or 

wind. 
308 

Commenters stated that relative to heat rate improvement opportunities at other EGU types in the 

basis for supporting the BSER, they noted that the rationale for not considering such 

improvements was the result of analysis that indicated that the carbon reduction benefits of such 

improvements were determined to be "relatively small." Commenters noted that this analysis did 

not include a robust analysis of heat rate improvements considering improvements not only in 

electricity output but also thermal energy output in CHP systems. Commenters noted that some 

power plants, including oil/gas steam or combustion turbine plants, can be converted to CHP 

operation, thereby improving the heat rate of affected EGUs, with heat distributed to buildings 

and industry via highly efficient district heating systems. Commenters urged the EPA to include 

in BSER heat rate improvements achievable through conversion to CHP or expansion of CHP 

operations in all affected EGUs including oil/gas steam turbine and combustion turbine plants. 

Commenters stated that the EPA is unclear in how Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facilities 

are treated and asked why didn't EPA provide clarity. Commenters asked: When is a CHP 

facility considered "covered"? If this is determined by sales criteria, at what date is the 

determination made? Can this determination change? If so, under what criteria? 

 

Comment 66: Tribes & Territories - Use of imports in target emission rates

Response 66: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see section VIII of the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in regards to the supplemental proposal since importing states have minimal 

formal influence on the energy policies of Canada or its provinces, we do not recommend that 

the potential for increasing imports be factored into states' target emission rates, regardless of 

how imports are treated for compliance purposes in the final rule. 

Comment 67: Tribes & Territories - Data

Response 67: The EPA appreciates the information regarding emissions data, for the EPA’s 

response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD

for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for a description of the emission data informing 

EPA baseline. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in regards to the tribal and territories supplementary rule Navajo Mine and 

FCPP has been burning bituminous coal instead of sub-bituminous resulting in higher output of 

carbon pollution; FCPP leaking emissions before releasing from the stacks; bad emissions data. 
309 

4.4.3 Calculation 

Section 4.4.3 covers public comments related to the calculation of the proposed emission goals. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: General recommendations to goal calculation

Response 1: See Section V of the preamble for a discussion of BSER and building blocks.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated for the definition of state-level goals, considerations should include: 

-Reducing the fossil fuel by heat rate improvements (lbs./MWh)) 

-Reallocating the generation and rate for each fuel due to increased NGCC dispatch to include 

what % capacity factor level. 

Commenters stated, the draft rule builds on the transition to cleaner energy that is already 

happening. Commenters said, over 178 coal power plants are slated for retirement. Commenters 

said, the trend of coal power plant retirement decreased carbon pollution significantly ahead of 

the 2012 baseline year. Commenters said, with low renewable energy prices, this trend will 

likely continue, and the final rule should further incorporate this trend in the BSER and within 

state implementation plans. 

Comment 2: General disapproval of goal calculation 

Response 2: See Section IV of the preamble for a discussion on legal authority and section V of 

the preamble for our final BSER determination. 

In regards to BB3 and BB4 treatment, the EPA agrees that BB3 should be treated more 

analogous to BB2 and has incorporated that change into the final CPP rule as explained in 

Sections V and VI of the preamble. BB4 and nuclear generation are not included as part of 

BSER as explained in Section V of the preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA lacks authority to regulate existing power plants under section 111(d) of 

the CAA; EPA also may not consider beyond-the-fence measures in determining BSER and 

setting the state emission targets. The commenters said although these flaws alone require the 

withdrawal of the CPP, there are additional technical and legal problems with each of the 
310 

Building Blocks that EPA has proposed to use in setting state CO2 emissions targets. The 

commenters said these problems include faulty Building Block assumptions and major 

inconsistencies in the application of those assumptions in setting the goals among the states; as a 

result, in addition to being illegal from a statutory perspective, EPA's proposed approach to 

setting state goals is also arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and therefore provides further 

compelling grounds for EPA withdrawal of the proposed rule. 

Commenters stated the BSER and goal-setting formula should be modified. 

Commenters stated EPA bases its proposal on flawed information and assumptions for the four 

building blocks that are used to calculate each state's emissions target. 

Comment 3: Data errors in goal calculation

Response 3: See Appendix 1 for the unit-level 2012 data used in the final CPP rule. This data 

reflects capacity changes for Mankato Energy, Pueblo Airport facility is shown to only be 

counted once at 200 MW. Ninemile Point and Morgan City Power units mentioned are included 

as under construction. Corrections were made to several facilities, including Washington Parish 

and Perryville, based on comment. 

Based on comments, the EPA has re-categorized units that commenced operation in 2012 as 

“under construction” and assumed an annual generation value for them reflective of typical 

operation of new units in that technology class. Moreover, we also reviewed under construction 

sources – adding and removing some units from its inventory based on comments and a further 

review of EIA data. 

The EPA revised our assumptions for Cape Canaveral based on comments – it is flagged as an 

under construction unit and has a generation value applied to it reflective of a full year of 

operation for units of that technology class. The EPA applies this assumption to the state-level 

data as explained in Section VI. 

Hansel was not removed from the baseline as the EPA relied on 2012 data as a representative 

year. As explained in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for final 

CPP, the EPA chose to use a historical year data set instead of a projected year data set that 

forecasted different generation levels based on retirements. A significant number of commenters 

supported the EPA not factoring in announced retirements to its baseline. 

In regards to Cane Island, the EPA’s apportionment methodology is described in the CO2 

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for final CPP. The EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ note that this does not affect system-wide levels, and therefore does not affect the 

EPA’s quantification of BSER 
311 

In regards to Mankato Energy Center, EPA relies on net summertime capacity in this final rule 

for quantifying building block two. This appears to address the concern raised by commenters as 

the summertime capacity is significantly lower than nameplate. 

The EPA reviewed technical corrections submitted by Colorado EGUs and made changes where 

appropriate. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said there are data errors in EPA's goal calculation methodology. 

Commenters identified one case where EPA used generation data for only two months when the 

plant actually had operated for 11 months. 

Commenters identified another case where EPA attributed emissions from a co-located steam 

unit to an NGCC. 

Commenters stated EPA also included non-NGCC units and other non-affected sources in its 

analysis. 

Commenters stated that Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) already has 

informed EPA that the state will not be able to rely on fuel switching to meet its 2020 interim 

goal because there is no available NGCC capacity in the summer months, which will hamper its 

ability to meet the 2030 target. 

Commenters stated that Louisiana's environmental regulator has noted concern about EPA's data 

regarding NGCCs in the state, such as the inclusion of a plant that has not even been permitted. 

Commenters stated that Alabama's environmental regulator also has expressed concern about the 

EPA's general approach to reducing emissions from existing sources. 

Commenters stated EPA has applied its BSER Building Blocks to sources that cannot be 

regulated under section 111(d) and that EPA's error would force affected NGCC units to operate 

at capacity factors significantly above 70 percent in order to accommodate the expected 

generation that states cannot require from non-affected EGUs. 

 Commenters added Colorado encourages EPA to review technical corrections submitted by 

Colorado EGUs, including Black Hills Energy and Public Service Company of Colorado; it 

appears that several units may have erroneously been included or excluded within the proposed 

rule. 

Commenters found numerous instances of incorrect data and assumptions; the 

commenters submitted that the errors in EPA's modeling and analysis are further proof that states 
312 

are in the best position to oversee utility resource planning. The commenters requested 

the technical flaws be remedied in the final rule. 

Commenters stated in the Goal Computation Technical Support Document, EPA states that all 

NGCC units under construction that were included in Building Block 2 were obtained from 

NEEDS v.5.13; the NEEDS spreadsheet includes a NGCC with the description, 

""WEC_LADW_CA_Combined Cycle"" with capacity of 560 MW with an on-line year of 2015. 

The commenters said LADWP's Scattergood 3 repowering project will consist of the following 

permitted generating capacities: a NGCC (318.3 MW) and two simple cycle turbines (103 MW 

each) with an on-line year of 2015. 

Commenters stated the EPA has misapplied the data available; for Cane Island, the station-wide 

analysis may be appropriate, however, the net generation from each of the three NGCC on-site 

were apportioned based on nameplate capacity alone - giving each the same capacity factor. The 

commenters said this is not appropriate as the two largest of the three NGCC were operated 

significantly more hours than the other (6,590 and 5,408 hours for the newer NGCC, and only 

1,966 hours for the oldest NGCC). The commenters said for Cape Canaveral, the EPA included 

this plant in all existing NGCC analysis (including lowering the achieved state-capacity factor) 

even though the facility had yet to begin operation in 2012; instead it should be treated as an 

"Under Construction NGCC Capacity" so as to not penalize the redispatching calculation under 

Building Block 2. The commenters said EPA included the Hansel plant, again penalizing the 

redispatching calculation, even though this station was permanently shutdown in 2012 (more 

discussion on this plant later in this letter). 

Commenters stated the consequences of EPA's overreach are compounded by the technical errors 

and fundamentally flawed assumptions embedded in EPA's emission rate goal calculations. The 

commenters said EPA failed to consider constraints on (1) EGUs' abilities to achieve and sustain 

heat rate improvements, (2) redispatch from existing coal-fired EGUs to natural gas combined 

cycle units (NGCC), and (3) exponentially increasing investments in renewable generation and 

energy efficiency measures. The commenters said the resulting rate goals are arbitrary and 

capricious and, as a practical matter, so stringent that they cannot be met without jeopardizing 

the reliability and stability of the electric grid. The commenters encourages EPA to amend the 

Proposed Rule based on emission reductions to measures that can be undertaken at affected 

sources and allow states to comply through a portfolio of measures; failing this, it is imperative 

that EPA make changes to the Proposed Rule to address the most severe consequences of the 

rule. 

Commenters stated in the TSD- GHG Abatement Measures (Table 4-5), EPA states that the 

Annual Regional RE Growth Factor for the Southeast is 13%; however, in the spreadsheet 

"20140602tsd-proposedre- approach.xlsx", EPA used 13.4%. The commenters are requesting 

that EPA's recalculation of the "Annual Regional Growth Factor'' correction is applied 

consistently in the final rule making. 
313 

Commenters stated In Table 4-8 of the TSD-GHG Abatement Measures, the interim target for 

NC is given as 7%; however from the spreadsheets the value should be 6.4%. 

Commenters stated throughout the CPP, EPA makes calculation errors that directly impact the 

proposed goals; for example, substantially more natural gas generation will be required to meet 

the CPP's goals than EPA estimates. The commenters said EPA's calculations assume a 400 

TWh/year shift to existing NGCC generation from coal (376 TWh/year) and older oil-gas steam 

(64 TWh/year) units; EPA estimates that the NGCC market will increase from 29 percent of the 

country's energy in 2013 to 33-34 percent of the nation's energy from 2020-2030. The 

commenters said for NGCC to be 35 percent of the country's total energy in 2020, 39 percent in 

2030 and 49 percent 2040, an additional 400-450 TWh/year NGCC generation will be required. 

The commenters said with these miscalculations underestimating needed NGCC, EPA's CPP 

also underestimates the necessary substantial investment in NGCC. 

Commenters stated that they believe EPA should correct unit level NGCC inaccuracies. The 

commenters stated that "in Colorado the Brush 1-3 "GT2" unit was erroneously included while 

the Brush 4 "GT4" and "GT5" units erroneously excluded." This would result in a net increase in 

NGCC capacity of 25MW. Commenters also stated that for Colorado, EPA may have made a 

mistake and that there may be a duplicate entry for the Pueblo Airport facility which was 

included both as an existing and "under construction" unit. The Pueblo Airport facility with 

200MW was online in 2012. Commenters also believed that the capacity of the Mankato Energy 

Center in Minnesota was overstated by 230MW because the net summer dependable capacity 

recorded by the EIA is only 300MW since a second CT is planned for 2018 and not yet built. 

Commenters supported comments by LDEQ on several data errors that impact the rate-base 

calculation for Louisiana. Commenters stated that EPA excluded two NGCC units that are 

"under construction" at Ninemile Point Electric Generating Plant which would add 559 MW of 

net summer capacity and a new NGCC unit at the Morgan City Power Plant which would add 

64.5MW of net summer capacity. Commenters also said that in EPA's Block 2A calculations a 

655 MW capacity NGCC unit at the Washington Parish Energy Center that is listed as "under 

construction" should be removed. Commenters also said that 4 units at Entergy Gulf States 

Louisiana should be removed since 3 are boilers and one does not meet the EGU definition. 

Commenters further stated that Unit 2-1 at Perryville Power Station is a simple cycle and should 

not be included. Commenters included a table that showed the impact of these corrections and 

said that Louisiana's baseline emissions rate changes from 883 lbs/MWh to 981 lbs/MWh 

Comment 4: Need more detailed explanation of calculations 

Response 4: The EPA did not propose or finalize a BSER that requires reductions from other 

regulatory initiatives. The EPA does base BSER of an inventory of likely affected units that 

reflect, indirectly, the power grid and its response to those policies by that point in time. 

Although expected CO2 reductions occurring as a result of other regulatory programs are not 

part of BSER, to the extent that they occur, they represent on-the-way reductions that will help 
314 

sources/states meet their CPP compliance obligations and possible serve as a substitute 

mitigation measures for other reduction alternatives. 

The EPA took comment on whether to use a historical baseline or a projected baseline, and 

received significant comment in favor a historical baseline. The EPA believes that existing 

programs already in place expected to deliver post 2012 reductions will make the CPP targets 

more feasible, not less. 

Page 25 and 26 of the Proposed Goal Computation TSD provide a value in column C with 

existing fossil sources, existing RE sources, and existing at-risk nuclear. This was intended to 

give stakeholders a sense of the state-level starting position relevant to their final goal. The data

for this rate is found in the Proposed Appendix 1 to the Goal Computation TSD. This TSD 

(available online and in the docket) has the existing fossil sources provided in column B through 

I. The relevant at-risk nuclear data is available in column T (For GA, SC, and TN the under 

construction nuclear MWh need to be deducted from these totals to get at-risk nuclear values. 

The existing RE values are in a different spreadsheet available on the website and in the docket 

titled Data File: Proposed Renewable Energy (RE) Approach. Although the EPA disagrees with 

the commenters’ assertions that these values were not available at proposal, it also points out that 

these metrics are not germane to the final CPP rule quantification of BSER as explained in 

Section V of the final rule preamble. 

All underlying data necessary to recreate the subcategory-specific performance rates and the 

state goals is available in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated with regard to calculating EE for Building Block 4, the 

commenters requested that U.S. EPA provide a more detailed explanation of its calculations. The 

commenters said some states calculate energy efficiencies differently than others and in order for 

each state to get equal credit for various energy efficiency measures; a standard methodology 

needs to be set by U.S. EPA. The commenters said for instance, the same LED light bulb 

replacement is credited differently under Michigan's RPS than under Indiana's renewable 

portfolio goal. The commenters said U.S. EPA should release a standard for calculating various 

energy efficiencies prior to the implementation of the rule in order to ensure that each measure is 

calculated in a fair and consistent manner. The commenters also requested that U.S. EPA provide 

detailed spreadsheets that contain formulas, rather than hard numbers, in order for states to have 

the opportunity to understand just how the EE calculations would work going forward, 

particularly for the calculations used in Building Blocks 3 and 4. 

Commenters stated EPA's repeated refusal to answer basic questions about how it formulated the 

highly technical state BSERs and reduction goals is deeply concerning. The commenters said on 

June 30, 2014, the news website Climate Central published an article by journalist Bobby Magill 

entitled "Basis for EPA Clean Power Plan Cuts a 'Mystery'". The commenters said the article 

contained many disturbing revelations, including: 
315 

-"How the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached the Clean Power Plan's CO2 

emissions reduction goal for each state is somewhat mysterious, experts say, with answers buried 

in a complex formula that doesn't clearly detail why each state would have to slash its carbon 

dioxide emissions to a certain level under the plan." 

-"EPA officials did not answer questions about how the agency arrived at each state's CO2 

emissions reduction goal. EPA Media Relations Director George Hull told Climate Central that 

EPA officials and scientists can speak to journalists about technical details of the plan only on 

'background,' a practice of providing information that cannot be quoted directly or attributed to a 

specific source." 

-"To explain how different states wound up with different targets, I think it's a little bit of a 

mystery," said Doug Vine, senior energy fellow with the Center for Climate and Energy 

Solutions. Disclose more information on how the state-level emission goals were created. 

Commenters asked if on pages 25 and 26 of the "Technical Support Document: Goal 

Computation" could EPA explain and provide the data for how column C (2012 Fossil, RE, 

NuclearAR) was calculated; the commenters are trying to create the table in Appendix 5 using 

the "Technical Support Document: Goal Computation - Appendix 1 and 2" (XLSX) file but 

are unable to calculate column C. 

Commenters stated EPA states that measures put into place before 2012 have been factored into 

each state's goal, but EPA's methodology is not transparent. The commenters said EPA appears 

to rationalize this approach by explaining that the building block emission rate values set forth in 

the proposal "are purely illustrative and meant to assist in the understanding of the state goals." 

The commenters said although EPA explains that the values are meant to be illustrative rather 

than prescriptive, it relies on those same values for determining state goals; moreover, the 2012 

rates EPA relies on in the proposal in many cases no longer reflect current rates or emission 

reductions that will result in the near future due to existing programs or measures. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed state goals should consider factors similar to those it 

analyzed in determining the economic impact of the proposed rules. The commenters said the 

base case for EPA's regulatory impact analysis (which uses the Integrated Planning Model 

("IPM")) considers state rules that have been finalized and/or approved by a state's legislature or 

environmental agencies, as well as final federal rules. The commenters said the model includes 

the CAIR and MATS, and other state and federal regulations that contain measures, permits, or 

other air-related limitations or requirements; additional legally binding and enforceable 

commitments for GHG reductions, as well as energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standard 

policies considered in the base case are discussed in the documentation for IPM. The 

commenters said these state and federal programs and policies are factored into the cost 

assumptions of the rule, but do not appear to be factored into each state's goal computation; 

carbon reductions achieved pursuant to such programs, plans and policies should be taken into 

account and counted towards each state's goal. 
316 

Comment 5: Inconsistency in calculation of emissions

Response 5: Using the best data available, exact matches between units and generators were not 

able to be determined. EPA followed the methodology described in Appendix 9 of the CO2 

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computations Technical Support Document for CPP Final 

Rule. The generator level net generation values were extracted from EIA-923 and the Part 75 

reported emissions from Units 8 and 9 were apportioned to generators 7, 8, 8A, and 9 using net 

generation. If apportionment results in unit-level discrepancies, most discrepancies will cancel 

out at the facility and statewide levels, and any remaining discrepancies will be negligible. For 

the Muscatine Plant #1, if the generator 7 emissions were redistributed to generators 8, 8A, and 

9, the resulting increase to the state coal steam emission rate is insignificant (less than 0.1%). 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the calculated values for MP&W Units 7, 8, 8A, and 9 in the "Data File: 

2012 Unit Level Data Using the EGRID Methodology" (2012 Unit Level Spreadsheet) are 

inconsistent with the methods presented in the "Description of 2012 Unit Level Data using the 

EGRID Methodology". The commenters said MP&W staff discussions with EPA's staff indicate 

that "ratios" were used to apportion CO2 reported from CAMD for Unit 8 and Unit 9, according 

to the proportion of net generation relative to total generation reported for all the units on EIA 

Form 923. The commenters said this approach does not match the above referenced method and 

does not accurately reflect the CO2 emissions from covered MP&W EGUs. The commenters 

added, it arbitrarily assigns an emission value used for State goals to Unit 7, which is not a 

covered unit under the proposed rule. The commenters requested that EPA clarify the actual 

method and associated rationale used for calculation of CO2 for MP&W EGUs. The 

commenters stated they understand that EPA considers the calculated emission values to be an 

"exercise" used to develop State goals but, because EPA uses these calculated emission values 

from the "exercise"" to quantify state goals, the numbers need to be reliable and accurate as the 

data will be relied upon when states move forward with plan design. 

Comment 6: Credit for early coal retirements; don't penalize 

Response 6: The EPA did not include announced retirements occurring post 2012 in its baseline. 

Therefore, the emission reductions (and corresponding changes in emission rates) will be 

incremental to the baseline and help sources/states move towards compliance. Section VIII of 

the preamble explains how sources can incorporate CO2 reduction measures into state plans. 

Both the change to quantifying the Best System of Emission Reductions described in section V 

and VI of the preamble along with the adjustment to the first year of the interim period should 

address commenters concern regarding Boardman. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
317 

Commenters requested that EPA clarify how affected coal-fired facilities retired before the 

compliance period (pre-2020) will be treated in the compliance calculation. The commenters 

stated it is important that coal-fired facilities retired in 2015-2020 do not simply disappear from 

the equation, but are treated as an emissions reduction for the purposes of state compliance; and 

that states will get credit for early coal retirements. The commenters said Minnesota has already 

been on a path of early coal-fired plant retirements through its IRP Process and have a list of 

coal-fired affected facilities under 111(d) that have retirement dates: 

-Minnesota Power, Laskin Unit l (2015) 

-Minnesota Power, Laskin Unit 2 (2015) 

-Minnesota Power, Taconite Harbor Unit 3 (2015) 

-Otter Tail Power, Hoot Lake Plant Unit 2 (2020) 

-Otter Tail Power, Hoot Lake Plant Unit 3 (2020) 

-Xcel Energy, Black Dog Unit 3 (2015) 

-Xcel Energy, Black Dog Unit 4 (2015) 

Commenters stated that according to EPA's technical support documents, Xcel Energy's Black 

Dog units 3 and 4 units generated approximately 2,680,500 MWh's in 2012; these two units will 

be retired in April 2015. The commenters requested EPA clarify: ( 1) whether this retirement will 

be treated as a reduction from 2,680,500 MWh' s to zero for the purposes of 111(d) compliance; 

or (2) whether the Final Goal will calculate the carbon intensity of only those affected units 

remaining in operation during the 2020-2030 compliance period. 

Commenters stated PGE, state regulators and a group of diverse stakeholders agreed to an 

innovative plan in 2010 to cease coal use by December 31, 2020 at Oregon's only coal-fired 

EGU (Boardman 2020 Plan); the Boardman Plant was not scheduled to cease operations until at 

least 2040, so the plan would retire Boardman at least twenty years before this would otherwise 

be expected to occur. The commenters said as proposed, the Clean Power Plan would penalize 

Oregon for the timeline of that plan, which was developed through careful analysis and dialogue 

with stakeholders and the Boardman community (where the plant is the largest local employer 

and property taxpayer) entirely prior to the release of EPA's proposal. The commenters said 

despite the fact that EPA approved the Boardman 2020 Plan, the Clean Power Plan's application 

of the BSER to Oregon creates an unreasonably stringent interim goal, due to the assumption that 

Boardman ceases burning coal one year before the current schedule. The commenters said EPA 

should amend the Clean Power Plan to avoid penalizing Oregon for developing and 

implementing a plan to end coal-burning at Boardman twenty years ahead of schedule with no 

knowledge of EPA's timeline. 
318 

Commenters stated under the EPA's proposal, North Carolina will reportedly be required to 

reduce the CO2 emissions rate of its electric generation fleet by 40%. The commenters said the 

EPA's proposed rules are arbitrary and unfair to states like North Carolina who were early 

adopters for lowering power plant emissions and have made subsequent emission reduction 

investments. The commenters said in 2002, North Carolina enacted The Clean Smokestacks Act 

in which electric utilities were required to dramatically lower power plant emissions. The 

commenters supported the use of a multi-year baseline that gives more credit to states that have 

already been implementing significant emission reductions over the past five years. The 

commenters said in recent years, Duke has invested $9 billion in five new power plants and those 

new plants have offset 3,400 MW of older coal units that were retired at the end of 2013. The 

commenters believed that the remaining useful life of a state's generation assets should be given 

consideration in establishing goals for states. The commenters said because generation 

investment decisions were made and rates were established upon reliance that such asset would 

operate through its useful life, any proposal that would force closure of generation plant before 

its useful life is reached places an unjust rate burden on consumers. The commenters said it is 

patently unfair that the EPA does not take the aforementioned measures into consideration; thus 

will penalize North Carolina's utilities and ultimately ratepayers throughout the State. The 

commenters said the EPA's proposed standards will be harder to achieve and impossible to do 

without significant economic harm to North Carolina and other states across the United States. 

Comment 7: The credit for the retirement of existing fossil-fired generating units should be 

substantial.

Response 7: Section VIII of the preamble provides details on incorporating CO2 emission 

reductions into state plans. The EPA has provided states more alternative metrics in this final 

rule such as a mass based state goal. If states/sources feel that one measure better captures 

reductions through retirements, they have the flexibility to use that metric for compliance 

demonstration purposes. 

The EPA believes that the flexibility provided for states to craft plans that are appropriate for 

their circumstances and emission reduction strategies fully recognizes the role that retirement of 

affected EGUs can play. Under a rate-based plan, retirement of a higher-emitting affected EGU 

will reduce the weighted average CO2 emission rate of the remaining fleet of affected EGUs, 

helping a state to achieve its rate-based CO2 emission goal. States also have the alternative of

implementing a mass-based plan, where retirement of an affected EGU will help a state meet its 

mass-based CO2 emission goal. In both cases, retirement of an affected EGU is a compliance 

option for the owner or operator of an affected EGU, as a retired affected EGU will have no 

compliance obligation under either a rate-based or mass-based CO2 emission standard. State plan 

approaches, and the different types of emission reduction measures that they accommodate, are 

discussed in section VIII of the preamble to the final rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
319 

Commenters stated the proposed rule allows for states to demonstrate compliance with the state 

goals through either a rate-based or a mass-based approach; one difference between these two 

approaches is the way in which retired units are treated. The commenters said under a massbased approach, if future EGU retirements are not known, firm, or required, they likely would 

not be considered when the state converts to a mass-based goal; in this case, the state receives a 

significant credit for reducing the mass emissions from the retired unit (assuming the retirement 

was not considered during the rate-based to mass-based conversion process). The commenters 

said under a rate-based approach, because the retirement reduces both emissions and generation 

in the state, the credit for reducing the CO2 emissions is minimal. 

Commenters said because the proposed rule aims to reduce CO2 emissions and retiring older 

EGUs is one of the most significant ways to achieve this, the credit for retirements should be 

substantial regardless of whether the state elects to go with a rate-based or a mass-based 

approach. The commenters suggested that EPA develop a method to credit EGU retirements 

under a rate-based approach, or include flexibility for states to develop such a method for 

determining compliance with the goals. The commenters said one approach is to allow states to 

treat retired EGU generation similarly to the way that renewable energy is treated; under this 

approach, the historical generation from the retired EGU would remain in the denominator when 

determining compliance with the state goal after the unit is retired. The commenters said an 

alternative approaches include: 1) allowing a percentage of the historical generation from retired 

units to remain in the denominator or 2) keeping historical generation in the denominator but 

reducing it by a percentage each year. 

Commenters added despite the CAA granting states explicit authority to do so, EPA's proposal 

unlawfully prohibits states from considering remaining useful life and other factors on a case-bycase basis to adjust standards of performance for existing sources; for example, EPA fails to 

appropriately account for, at a minimum, the more than 70,000 MW worth of facilities that either 

have already been retired (i.e., since the 2012 baseline), or have already been scheduled for 

retirement prior to the interim compliance period (e.g., due to inability to comply with other EPA 

rules like MATS), or may be scheduled to retire during the interim compliance period or shortly 

thereafter. The commenters said the EPA's November 13, 2014 notice providing additional 

information regarding the conversion of emission rate-based CO2 state targets to mass-based 

equivalents states is unlawful and severely distorted by EPA's failure to exclude capacity with 

limited remaining useful life. The commenters said while it is certain that EPA has no authority 

to set statewide emission caps under 111(d), it is even more certain that EPA cannot approve 

state caps that are based on a methodology that fails to exclude, at a minimum, all of the 

aforementioned 70,000 plus MW of units either already retired (since 2012) or scheduled to be 

retired. The commenters said by failing to exclude these units, EPA impermissibly has inflated 

the number of covered units and is requiring a significantly higher total amount of statewide 

emission reductions than are allowable under 111(d). 

Commenters believed the rule will not properly credit coal plant retirements that are not replaced 

with new generation under a rate based compliance program. The commenters said it is assumed 
320 

that under a rate based program both the emissions of CO2 and the megawatt hours generated 

from the retired coal plants are removed from the emission rate calculation when determining 

compliance. The commenters said this approach does not properly reflect the emission reduction 

gained, because it produces only a minor reduction in the overall emission rate. The commenters 

said in order to properly reflect the benefits of coal plant retirements, these units should be 

treated as zero emitting units, whereby the associated megawatt hours are left in the 

denominator, similar to the way energy efficiency is treated in the rule. 

Comment 8: Retirement assumption errors

Response 8: The EPA IPM model is not used directly in quantifying the Best System of 

Emission Reductions. It is a least-cost linear programming model that EPA relies on for state, 

region, and system-level impacts assessments. It does contain unit-level “parsed” files as an 

illustrative example of how the power sector may comply with CPP. While unit-level 

projections and real world compliance strategies can and will differ, this does not impact the 

EPA’s assessment as the single unit-level projections and differences are not central to the EPA’s 

projection of system-wide impacts.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has made assumptions on unit retirements that do not align with the 

commenters' current plans. The commenters said EPA has assumed a retirement year of 2016 for 

Hopkins Unit 1, a boiler and steam turbine that runs primarily on natural gas; the unit 

is committed to operate until 2020. 

Comment 9: Retired voltage support

Response 9: See the Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for CPP Final Rule

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated when EGUs are retired the remaining units are necessary to provide voltage 

support. The commenters said EPA should account for the generation of the volt-ampere reactive 

power when determining the state-specific goals by subtracting this generation from the goal 

computation. The commenters added EPA should account for emissions from generating units 

that will be required to operate because of the transmission constraints by implementing a "safety 

valve" mechanism, which would deduct the associated emissions generated during must-run 

conditions from the units' annual emission levels. 

Comment 10: Construction never completed/units don't exist 
321 

Response 10: The EPA agrees, Washington Parish has been removed from its quantification of 

BSER and is no longer considered a likely affected units in its baseline (see Appendix 1 – CO2 

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule).

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Washington Parish Energy Center was first permitted on June 25, 2000; 

however, construction of the facility was never completed. The commenters said on June 19, 

2009, at the request of Calpine Corporation, LDEQ withdrew the facility's application for a Title 

V renewal, effectively rendering the existing permits for the facility null and void. The 

commenters said the facility remains unpermitted as of today; therefore, Washington Parish 

Energy Center should be removed from EPA's computations. 

Commenters stated in calculating state goals and the related existing NGCC capacity, EPA 

included NGCC units that do not currently exist, units that have not yet been fully developed, 

and units that may never be completed. The commenters said EPA should revise their 

calculations to accurately demonstrate generation capacity that is currently available. 

Comment 11: The EPA's treatment of "under construction" units in the goal calculations should 

be revised.

Response 11: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ assertions that is should review its 

inventory of under construction units for the final CPP rule. Based on comment, the EPA has 

reviewed the inventory using commenters’ data (incorporating many of the below comments), 

EIA data, and NEEDs data and internet search of public statements on units. Per the 

commenters’ suggestion, it has also identified coal steam units that are under construction and 

reclassified all units that commenced operation in 2012 as under construction. Appendix 2 of the 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD provides a list of units that the 

EPA considered under construction for purposes of quantifying BSER. The EPA recognizes that 

these are only likely affected units, and that their status may change pending follow through with 

construction completion and/or applicability determinations. Section VII of the preamble discuss 

potential changes to state goals resulting from inventory changes. However, the EPA believes 

that by relying on comments and utility-reported data to EIA, that it has a representative 

inventory of likely affected units and potential unit-level reclassifications would not result in a 

bias to its subcategory rates or state goals. 

EPA used best available data for which it could apply consistently to the inventory of units. EIA 

860 data and status codes reported in the 2012 file allowed EPA to incorporate an objective 

collection of unit status as reported by the sources themselves. Commenters suggested EPA may 

be missing more than twenty under construction sources by ignoring this data. EPA also 

examined commercial operation dates, scheduled month/year of start/operation, and information 

on construction start dates to further verify consistency with the reported EIA data. EPA also 

examined websites and news articles further verifying construction start. EPA recognizes that 
322 

sources could potentially be cancelled, but we risked understating a state’s mass goal if we did 

not include units that were reporting as under construction and likely affected by 111(d). 

Therefore, EPA felt that it was necessary to include these sources in the inventory. 

EPA believes this reflects an objective assessment of the inventory using best available data. It 

does not constitute “cherry picking” as described by commenters. Assuming that the BAU 

generation from these sources does not replace any operating 2012 generation levels from 

existing sources is an additional conservative measure. 

Per commenters’ suggestion, Dan River, Lee Combined Cycle, and Deer Creek units (along with 

others) have been reclassified to under construction units based since they commenced operation 

in 2012. This is further discussed in Preamble section VI. Watts Bar is no longer factored into 

the quantification of BSER, and does not impact Tennessee’s state goal. Dresden is counted 

once in the calculation of subcategory-specific emission performance rates and state goals. The 

EPA did continue to include units like Hansel in its Baseline that are scheduled for retirements. 

We did not selectively removed units that operated in 2012, but at some subsequent point retired 

or are scheduled to retire. The EPA relies on 2012 as a representative historical baseline year, 

not a future inventory of units expected to be online in a compliance year. Moreover, we 

analyzed the impact of removing the four NGCC units identified as scheduled for retirement and 

determined that it has an insignificant impact of the subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates. 

Upon review, the EPA did not consider the Texas Clean Energy Project would be a likely 

affected source under 111(d) and it is therefore not included in the baseline inventory. Among 

other things, the EPA found the project’s website to announced construction to begin in summer 

of 2015 (well after the 1/08/14 cut-off date for 111(d) sources). See 

http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com/project/ as displayed on June 15, 2015. The EPA’s 

review of the reported status in EIA 860 also suggested it was not likely affected. 

Per commenter’s suggestion, Kemper is treated as a coal unit in the CPP final rule calculations, 

but EPA still relies on its unit-specific assumptions proposed for anticipated generation and 

emission levels. 

EPA believes it is appropriate to include all likely affected EGUs in its baseline. The building 

block potential from these units will be fully available and representative for the BSER time 

frame of interest. EPA disagrees with the commenter that it should ignore the likely affected 

EGUs that were not commissioned in 2012. EPA’s cutoff for its baseline has been 1/08/14 to 

best reflect all likely affected EGUs. 

EPA notes that these baseline adjustments always result in an increase in generation for states. 

This generally carries over to adjusted emissions as those are a product of the adjusted 

generation. The one exception on the emissions side is the state of Georgia. EPA’s treats the 

Jack McDonough plant (units 5 and 6) “under construction –commenced in 2012” based on its 

reported online year. In this case, the EPA methodology effectively assumes a 55% capacity 

factor for the unit, only up slightly from its 2012 value. However, for the under construction 
323 

units, EPA uses the state-level average NGCC emission rate to estimate their emissions. EPA 

believes this is reasonable and conservative as most of the more new NGCC units can generally 

perform at levels equal to or better than the historical fleet average. Because the state average 

NGCC emission rate was slightly lower in this case than that observed in 2012 by the Jack 

McDonough unit, the net impact of higher generation and a slightly lower rate was slightly 

reduced emissions in the Georgia baseline relative to the total reported in 2012 (e.g., 0.008 

million tons). EPA determined that it was still appropriate to make the adjustment as the 

increase in generation assumed from the 55% capacity factor results in slightly higher mass goal 

for the state of Georgia. The small negative emissions differential has not impact on the state 

goal. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters, stated the treatment of "under construction" units in the goal calculations should be 

revised. 

Commenters added EPA has included NGCC units that are under construction in its applications 

of building block 2; those units, however, are "new" sources under Section 111 and cannot be 

regulated under the existing source rules. 

Commenters added in calculating each state's goal, EPA assumes that NGCC units that were 

under construction in 2012 have available generating capacity that may be utilized to displace 

coal-fired generation under Building Block 2; specifically, EPA assumes that each NGCC unit 

under construction will be completed and that it would operate at a 55 percent annual capacity 

factor under a "business as usual" scenario in the absence of the proposed emission 

guidelines. The commenters stated this 55 percent annual capacity factor reflects EPA's 

calculation of the "average performance of NGCCs that came online in the past 5 years," 

although EPA did not provide any data analysis to support that calculation. The commenters said 

the Agency claims it "conservatively designated the generation associated with this 55% capacity 

factor as unavailable for re-dispatch to reduce CO2 (i.e., not qualifying for building block 2), 

instead, reserving that amount of generation potential to meet other system needs presumed to 

have motivated the construction" of those units. The commenters said accordingly, EPA assumes 

that an additional 15 percent of the under - construction unit's nameplate capacity will remain 

available for re-dispatch, bringing the unit to an overall annual capacity factor of 70 percent. The 

commenters added EPA should not rely on generating capacity from "under construction" units 

when applying Building Block 2 to calculate the proposed state goals; EPA has no basis to 

assume what generating capacity will be available for re-dispatch from NGCC units that had no 

operating history during or prior to the 2012 baseline year. The commenters said EPA should 

exclude "under construction" NGCC units from its application of Building Block 2 for the 

purposes of calculating state goals; because these units are technically "existing sources" under 

section 111, however, they would remain subject to appropriate state plan requirements and 

would count towards compliance with a state's interim and final goals if they satisfy the relevant 

applicability criteria. 
324 

Commenters added in setting state goals based on units that may never be completed, EPA 

distorts its assessment of achievable emission reductions. 

Commenters objects to the inclusion of "under construction" NGCC units in the goal setting 

calculations. The commenters said these units were not operational in 2012, contributed no CO2 

emissions, and produced no electricity; they are clearly not part of the "base year", nor does 

"under construction" guarantee or even suggest that these units will be operational. The 

commenters find it very difficult to rationalize why under-construction NGCC units were 

considered in the goal setting, yet coal-fired EGU's with firm shutdown dates were not credited 

in any manner. The commenters suggested that the hand-picking of some future projects in favor 

of others is not a consistent approach, and that U.S. EPA should either consider no future project 

or all future projects, not just those whose inclusion results in a further lowering of state goals, as 

appears to be the case. The commenters believed that if units that may or may not be completed 

can be considered in the goal setting computation, than U.S. EPA must consider past HRI 

projects, potential and known shutdowns of units (with a mechanism to credit the considerable 

reduction in CO2 these shutdowns will achieve with respect to the stated goal of achieving a 

30% reduction in CO2 from 2005 levels), and potential uncertainty in renewable and EE 

markets. 

Commenters stated EPA should not include NGCC units under construction in the calculation of 

the state reduction targets, explaining that for purposes of BSER and developing the state targets 

under Building Block 2, the classification of these units with respect to NSPS is irrelevant. 

Commenters stated, since these units were not operating during the baseline year, there is no 

regulatory or legal requirement for EPA to determine that future dispatch of these units is BSER 

or to include them in the calculation of the state goals. Commenters contended that EPA has no 

basis to assume what generating capacity will be available for redispatch from NGCC units that 

had no operating history and no emissions during or prior to the 2012 baseline year, and the 

inclusion of these units in effect penalizes utilities for undertaking these projects whose 

operation is assumed in the state's baseline even though the plants have not yet commenced 

operation and disadvantages the states and the utility companies for early actions to reduce the 

state's emission rate by investments in less carbon-intensive technology. To the extent EPA 

retains its proposed approach to include NGCC units under construction in the calculation of 

state goals, commenters remarked, EPA should take into account the specific circumstances of 

these NGCC units to determine the expected extent to which those units can increase their 

utilization to displace higher-emitting steam generating units. Commenters closed, stating that 

EPA's assumption that units built for the purpose of supplying base load generation will run at 

only 55 percent capacity factor significantly overestimates the contribution that these units can 

have in displacing CO2 emissions from existing steam generating units. 

Commenters added the structure of the intensity target itself appears to be a means to discount 

the effects of unit retirements, with no clear guidance provided to account for the significant 

mass-reductions already realized; if reduction of atmospheric CO2 is the aim of this proposal, 
325 

then actions to that end should be fully and fairly credited, even if this credit does not conform to 

the CO2 intensity targets proposed by U.S. EPA. 

Commenters stated EPA should not include NGCC units under construction in the calculation of 

the state reduction targets, explaining that for purposes of BSER and developing the state targets 

under Building Block 2, the classification of these units with respect to NSPS is irrelevant. 

Commenters stated, since these units were not operating during the baseline year, there is no 

regulatory or legal requirement for EPA to determine that future dispatch of these units is BSER 

or to include them in the calculation of the state goals. Commenters contended that EPA has no 

basis to assume what generating capacity will be available for redispatch from NGCC units that 

had no operating history and no emissions during or prior to the 2012 baseline year, and the 

inclusion of these units in effect penalizes utilities for undertaking these projects whose 

operation is assumed in the state's baseline even though the plants have not yet commenced 

operation and disadvantages the states and the utility companies for early actions to reduce the 

state's emission rate by investments in less carbon-intensive technology. To the extent EPA 

retains its proposed approach to include NGCC units under construction in the calculation of 

state goals, commenters remarked, EPA should take into account the specific circumstances of 

these NGCC units to determine the expected extent to which those units can increase their 

utilization to displace higher-emitting steam generating units. Commenters closed, stating that 

EPA's assumption that units built for the purpose of supplying base load generation will run at 

only 55 percent capacity factor significantly overestimates the contribution that these units can 

have in displacing CO2 emissions from existing steam generating units. 

 

Multiple States

Commenters added EPA has double counted some units in both the existing NGCC capacity and 

the "under construction" capacity and EPA has identified some units as under construction that 

apparently do not exist. The commenters said in the Goal Computation TSD, EPA indicated that 

all NGCC units under construction that were included in Building Block 2 were obtained from 

the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS v.5.13); in addition to those NGCC units that 

are under construction in NEEDS, EPA identified three other NGCC plants and one IGCC plant 

that were under construction: Dominion Brunswick plant (Virginia, 1,358 MW), Cheyenne 

Generating Station (Wyoming, 220 MW), Cane Run plant (Kentucky, 640 MW), and the 

Kemper IGCC plant (Mississippi, 582 MW). The commenters said EPA is double counting the 

Dresden Energy Facility, which is an existing unit and can be found in EPA's Plant Level TSD 

spreadsheet of plants operating in 2012. The commenters said EPA reports the combined-cycle 

capacity at Cheyenne to be 220 MW; however, EIA reports the facility is to have only 100 MW 

of combined cycle capacity and four simple-cycle gas turbines (GTs) that total 120 MW. The 

commenters said the Kemper IGCC plant should be removed from any NGCC under 

construction calculation because it is a coal plant. The commenters said the fact that many of the 

units identified as "under construction" in California, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and North 
326 

Carolina cannot be identified by name suggests that development of those units is uncertain, and 

that it would be speculative for EPA to include this capacity in any goal setting methodology 

under Building Block 2. The commenters said according to NEEDS, North Carolina has 2,249 

MW under construction, and EPA used this value in its Building Block 2; however, in evaluating 

EIA Form-860 data for North Carolina, the only facility that could be found that either was under 

construction or entered operation after 2012 was the L.V. Sutton NGCC (622 MW), which 

entered operation November 2013; this leaves 1,627 MW of unidentifiable generating capacity 

"under construction" that EPA has included in calculating North Carolina's goals. The 

commenters said it is possible that this excess "under construction" capacity may be the result of 

the Agency double counting the existing Dan River (nameplate capacity - 691 MW, summer net 

capacity - 620 MW) and Lee Combined Cycle plants (nameplate capacity 1,759 MW, summer 

net capacity 1,540 MW) in its Building Block 2. 

Commenters added both the CPV Warren facility in Virginia and Cheyenne facility in Wyoming 

may have incorrect capacity levels assigned to them. The commenters stated according to EIA 

Form-860, CPV Warren has an expected nameplate capacity of 1,329 MW compared to the 

NEEDS capacity of 572 MW; the Agency also reports the combined-cycle capacity at Cheyenne 

to be 220 MW; however, EIA reports the facility is to have only 100 MW of combined cycle 

capacity and four gas turbines that total 120 MW. 

Commenters added many of the units identified as "under construction" in California, Colorado, 

Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina cannot be identified by name suggests that development 

of those units is uncertain, and that it would be speculative for EPA to rely on those units 

becoming available for re-dispatch. 

Commenters stated in terms of the NGCC capacity that EPA classified as "under construction" in 

the building block two calculations, EPA assumed that these facilities are being constructed to 

meet a specific demand that is equivalent to a 55% capacity factor; based on this assumption, 

EPA calculated that 15% of this "under construction" capacity would be redispatched under 

building block two. 

Commenters stated EPA determined that nine states had NGCC units that were "under 

construction" a determination that is incorrect for each of the nine states; for five of these states,

the units determined to be "under construction" by EPA represent fictitious "potential" units 

identified within EPA's NEEDS database and Integrated Planning Model. The commenters said 

NEEDS describes potential units as follows: "Potential" units refer to new generating options 

used in IPM for capacity expansion projections of the electric industry... whereas potential units 

are endogenous to the model in the sense that the model determines the location and size of all 

the potential units that end up in the final solution for a specific model run. 

Commenters stated these "potential" units are nothing more that phantom units that do not 

represent real projects that have been proposed, designed, permitted, or constructed; to the extent 

that these "potential" projects come to fruition, they would be subject to the new source 
327 

standards under 111(b), not the existing source 111(d) guidelines; as such, these "potential" units 

should not be considered in building block two. 

Commenters stated for the remaining four states, the inaccurate inclusion of these units as "under 

construction" capacity is largely a result of the EPA incorrectly assessing the actual status of 

these units; for example, the one "under construction" facility identified by EPA for Ohio is the 

Dresden Plant that was actually commissioned in 2012 and the one "under construction" facility 

in Kentucky is the Cane Run project, which has yet to receive an air permit and has not yet 

commenced construction. 

Commenters stated for Virginia, the data source used by EPA to determine that 1,928 MW of 

NGCC capacity is "under construction" has not been determined; EPA employed the NEEDS 

database to determine the under construction capacity in other states, but NEEDS lists only 570 

MW of capacity related to a plant that has yet to receive an air permit or commenced 

construction. The commenters said a separate review of the 2012 EIA860 report identified 2,801 

MW of "proposed" NGCC capacity in Virginia, but only 1,472 MW of that capacity represents 

units that are known to have commenced construction. The commenters stated EPA identified 

220 MW of "under construction" capacity in Wyoming, which is associated with the Cheyenne 

Prairie Generating Station; this project includes both a combined cycle unit and a separate simple 

cycle unit that together have a nameplate capacity of 220 MW; however, only 100 MW of that 

capacity is associated with the combined cycle process. 

Commenters stated the agency has not recognized other proposed NGCC projects that may fall 

into the under construction category; for example, a review of the spreadsheet tab marked 

"proposed" in the EIA860 report that has been referenced by EPA quickly identifies many 

potential NGCC projects that were simply ignored by EPA in building block two. The 

commenters said potential NGCC projects have been identified for over 20 states, which may 

meet the definition of "under construction" as currently defined in building block two. 

Commenters stated in determining the CO2 emissions associated with the redispatch of "under 

construction" capacity, EPA used either the average emission rate for existing NGCC units in the 

state, or a national average if the state did not have any existing units. The commenters said 

based on the significant flaws in how the state average NGCC emission rates were calculated, 

EPA's approach for determining the future emissions from under construction units is inaccurate 

and inequitable. The commenters said to highlight these differences, consider the emission rates 

that were assumed for the NGCC facilities that EPA alleges are "under construction," even 

though most of these examples are not actual projects. 

Commenters stated EPA must correct these errors in both the scope of "under construction" units 

considered and the assumptions for consistently estimating emissions from these units. 

 

Florida (FL) 
328 

Commenters stated in building block 2, EPA not only includes existing NGCC capacity, but 

NGCC capacity under construction, as elements in setting a state goal. The commenters added 

for example in Florida, the Proposed Rule included the Cape Canaveral NGCC (1,295 MW), 

which did not begin commercial operation until April 2013; the Cape Canaveral NGCC facility 

should be shifted to units under construction, and based upon EPA's building block 2, only 15 

percent of that capacity should be assigned to goal development. Commenters added in Florida, 

the new construction capacity is incorrect and should include Cape Canaveral (1,210 MW) and 

Riviera NGCC (1,212 MW), which was expected to enter operation in June 2014. 

Commenters stated EPA did not make any adjustments for plants that have retired since 2012; 

for example, Kissimmee Utility Authority has retired the Roy B. Hansel Power Facility. The 

commenters said the EPA identifies this facility as an included NGCC with a total nameplate 

capacity of 55.0 MW. The commenters said why 55.0 MW for this unit was included is 

unknown, as even EPA's data suggests the unit is retired. The commenters said the Florida DEP 

modified the facility's Title V Air Operation Permit No. 097001-011-AV to have already expired 

as of September 30, 2012; this information was available during EPA's preparation of the 

proposed rule, and evident in running eGRID and Part 75 data reports. The commenters said if 

the EPA is going to use as a key building block redispatching to existing sources, they must 

reevaluate to ensure those sources are still in existence prior to suggesting that a state move 

generation to it and retire other plants that are still on-line; furthermore, some facilities have 

physical or permitted operational restrictions (e.g. PSD avoidance limitations). The commenters 

said the EPA must take into consideration these operational constraints on the feasibility of 

redispatching. As such, the commenters requested that EPA subtract from the "Under 

Construction NGCC Capacity" the amount of retired, or to-be-retired existing NGCC units, 

including unavailable capacity expansions due to permitted operational restrictions, to more 

accurately identify NGCC availability. The commenters said form EIA-860 also requires in Line 

8 an estimate of whether the generator will be retired in the next 10 years; these should also be 

taken into account and subtracted from the nameplate capacity. The commenters added EPA 

should remove from the existing NGCC capacity and add to the under construction capacity the 

Cape Canaveral NGCC; this 1,295 MW unit had no operation in 2012, as it did not come online 

until April 24, 2013. The commenters said it should instead be treated as an under construction 

NGCC. The commenters said this lowers Florida's existing NGCC Capacity from 29,485.1 MW 

to 28,190.1 MW. 

 

North Carolina (NC) 

Commenters added according to NEEDS, North Carolina has 2,249 MW under construction and 

EPA used this value in its building block 2; however, in evaluating EIA Form-860 data for the 

state, the only facility that could be found that either was under construction or entered operation 

after 2012 was the L.V. Sutton NGCC (622 MW), which entered operation in November 2013. 

Commenters added this leaves 1,627 MW of unidentifiable generating capacity "under 
329 

construction" that the Agency has included in calculating North Carolina's state goals. The 

commenters stated in the alternative, this excess "under construction" capacity may be the result 

of EPA double counting the existing Dan River and Lee Combined Cycle plants (nameplate 

capacity of 1,759 MW or summer net capacity of 1,540 MW) in its building block 2. 

Commenters added Duke Energy's Dan River NGCC plant started operating in December 2012 

and Duke Energy's NGCC Lee facility started reporting data in January 2013 but both the Lee 

and Dan River facilities were assumed by EPA in its North Carolina goal calculations to have 

been operating for all of 2012. The commenters stated these units should more appropriately be 

credited as "under construction" units rather than as part of the baseline of fully operational units.

The commenters added EPA identified 2,249 MW of new NGCC under construction capacity 

when in fact only 625 MW of NGCC was under construction; that was Duke Energy's Sutton 

NGCC plant that was under construction but not yet operational by the end of 2012; it began 

operation in late 2013. 

Commenters stated EPA calculates North Carolina's 2012 under construction NGCC capacity as 

2,249 MW; even disregarding the fact that 1,759 MW (H. F. Lee NGCC and Dan River NGCC) 

of NGCC capacity should be reclassified from existing to under construction, EPA's number of 

2,249 MW is significantly over-stated. The commenters said besides those two units, the only 

non-operational NGCC unit to have received a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

("CPCN") from the NCUC as of December 31, 2012, was the L. V. Sutton NGCC unit, with a 

nameplate capacity of 730 MW; no other NGCC capacity had been identified, no CPCN 

applications had been filed, and no other filings had been made with the NCUC regarding 

specific NGCC capacity in North Carolina by December 31, 2012, including the IOUs' annual 

Integrated Resource Planning documents; thus, no other plant could have legally been under 

construction at the end of 2012. The commenters said EPA has provided no documentation with 

respect to how it calculated its 2,249 MW under construction NGCC capacity. It is the 

commenters' understanding that EPA's IPM modeling program inserted a generic under 

construction NGCC unit for North Carolina and that EPA imputed the additional 1,624 MW to 

North Carolina's calculation despite the fact that no actual construction of such a unit is planned 

or underway. The commenters said this outcome was either the result of invalid inputs or an 

error within the model and its underlying assumptions. The commenters said increasing North 

Carolina's NGCC under construction value by 1,624 MW when no such unit exists or was 

planned is arbitrary and erroneous. The commenters said for these reasons, EPA's 2012 

calculation for "under construction" NGCC capacity in North Carolina should be corrected to 

730 MW. The commenters said after reclassifying the H. F. Lee NGCC capacity and Dan River 

NGCC capacity from "existing" to "under construction," the correct total 2012 "under 

construction" capacity for North Carolina should be 2,489 MW (nameplate) instead of the EPA's 

identified 2,249 MW. 

Commenters stated Building Block 2 of the EPA's CO2 emission rate goal calculation for North 

Carolina includes 2,249 MW of NGCC capacity under construction. The commenters had traced 

this number back to the EPA's NEEDS v5.13 database; this value is in error. The commenters 

said with the exception of plants entering service late in the baseline year (2012) and early in 
330 

2013, the only NGCC unit in North Carolina that should be considered under construction was 

the Duke Energy Sutton NGCC plant; this plant was under construction in 2012 and came on line 

in late 2013. The commenters said there were no other NGCC units in North Carolina that meet 

the definition the EPA has established for under construction units; that being '...anything that 

came on line in 2013 or that was under construction, site prep, or testing by January 8, 

2014." The commenters said this is confirmed by a review of open construction permits with the 

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The commenters said the Sutton NGCC 

plant has a net summer capacity rating of 622 MW; the EPA should therefore eliminate the 

erroneous 1,627MW of NGCC under construction capacity for North Carolina. 

Commenters stated one of Duke Energy's newly constructed NGCC facilities in North Carolina 

entered service very late in 2012 (EPA's selected baseline year); net generation and CO2 

emissions data for the Dan River NGCC facility were first reported to the EPA's Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) in December 2012; the total 2012 operating time reported to CAMD 

for the Dan River NGCC facility in 2012 was less than 10 days. The commenters said the facility 

appears in the eGRID database for 2012 with net energy output of 135,081 MWh; this translates 

to an annual capacity factor of 2.4 percent. The commenters said despite this exceedingly low 

capacity factor due entirely to the fact that the facility was just beginning began operation in late 

2012, the EPA took none of this into consideration and treated it as an existing facility for all of 

2012; it is not reasonable to treat a facility that was just beginning operation in late 2012 as an 

existing facility. 

Commenters stated the Dan River facility was clearly more like an under construction facility for 

2012 than an existing facility. The commenters recommended that for NGCC units that began 

initial operation in the base year and did not have a capacity factor of at least 55 percent, the 

EPA should treat such units as under construction units; without such a criterion, a facility with 

as little as one hour of operation in the base year would be treated as an existing facility. The 

commenters did not believe that it was the EPA's intent to treat a facility like Dan River as an 

existing facility; treating the Dan River unit as an existing unit assigns generation for redispatch 

that is actually needed to meet generation obligations from the unit that was not reflected in the 

very limited partial year data. The commenters said it is clear that under a business-as-usual 

scenario the Dan River facility was intended to operate at least at the 55 percent annual capacity 

factor the EPA assumed as the baseline capacity factor for under construction NGCC facilities. 

The commenters believed that the EPA must reclassify the Dan River facility as an under 

construction facility for purposes of applying Building Block 2 to the North Carolina goal 

calculation. 

Commenters stated a second Duke Energy NGCC facility located in North Carolina, the Lee 

NGCC facility, begin operation in January of 2013, yet has been treated as an existing facility by 

EPA for purposes of applying Building Block 2 to the North Carolina goal calculation. The 

commenters said the facility appears in the 2012 eGRID database with zero net generation and 

emissions; there was also no data reported to CAMD for the Lee (Wayne County) NGCC facility 

in 2012. The commenters said it is clear that the EPA erred in treating the Lee NGCC facility as 
331 

an existing facility; the EPA must reclassify the Lee NGCC facility in North Carolina to an under 

construction facility. 

Commenters stated using the summer net capacity ratings, the North Carolina new NGCC under 

construction input value should be composed of (1) Sutton NGCC at 622 net MW; (2) Lee 

NGCC at 920 net MW; and (3) Dan River NGCC at 620 net MW, for a total of 2,162 net 

MW; this is very close to the original value of 2,249 MW used by the EPA; however, the EPA 

has effectively double counted this capacity in the North Carolina goal calculation by also 

including the Dan River and Lee NGCC facilities as existing facilities. 

 

Ohio (OH) 

Commenters added the Dresden Energy Facility (Ohio) is an existing unit and can be found in 

EPA's Plant Level TSD spreadsheet of plants operating in 2012. Therefore EPA is double 

counting this facility. 

 

South Dakota (SD) 

Commenters stated in South Dakota, Deer Creek Station, the only NGCC plant in the state, was 

modeled by EPA as operating at a 1 percent capacity factor during 2012; however, Deer Creek 

should have been considered "under construction" during 2012 because it did not go into 

commercial operation until late in 2012 and had only 190 total run hours for the year. The 

commenters stated while firing of the Deer Creek unit may have begun in April, it was not 

commercially operated for the bulk of the year; the 1 percent capacity factor is clearly 

unrepresentative, and South Dakota was the only state that had a less than 10 percent NGCC 

capacity factor applied in EPA's building block 2 calculation. The commenters stated EPA's 

proposed methodology, as currently applied to South Dakota, produces flawed targets that the 

Agency should adjust. The commenters added applying building block 2 in South Dakota under 

the proposed methodology results in Big Stone Plant, the state's only coal-fired EGU, having to 

operate at a 23 percent capacity factor, forcing it to be offline at least half of the year; this also

assumes that it is technically feasible for South Dakota to re-dispatch resources under building 

block 2. The commenters stated this assumption is incorrect because Deer Creek Station and the 

Big Stone Plant operate in different RTOs; EPA should recalculate its proposed targets with 

these plants in their proper categories. Commenters added the one coal-fired plant, Big Stone is 

owned by Otter Tail Power Company, Montana-Dakota Utility Resources Co., and 

NorthWestern Energy. The commenters stated Deer Creek will be in the SPP as of October 2015, 

and Big Stone is in MISO; thus, for South Dakota at least, Building Block 2, or any form of redispatch, is not available, because these two plants have different owners with no contractual 

relationship, and they are committed and dispatched by two separate entities with unique 

commitment and dispatch processes. The commenters said Building Block 1 is also not an option 
332 

for South Dakota because Big Stone is undergoing a $384 million upgrade to comply with 

BART Regional Haze Program requirements; the new station service required by this upgrade - 

estimated to be as much as 8 MW out of 475 MW - will cancel out any heat rate improvements 

that the plant might achieve. (J. Edward Cichanowicz & Michael C. Hein, "Evaluation of Heat 

Rate Improving Techniques for Coal-Fired Utility Boilers as a Response to Section 111(d) 

Mandates" at 2-7 (Oct. 13, 2014) (Attachment D) ("Cichanowicz Heat Rate Report"). 

Commenters have concerns about how EPA counted Basin Electric's combined cycle generation 

in South Dakota. The commenters said the Deer Creek station was under construction for the 

majority of 2012 and went in operation late in the year; it ran just 90 hours; yet EPA assumed 

this plant had a one percent capacity factor for the entire year. The commenters said this is highly 

inaccurate and unfairly penalizes the State of South Dakota in determining that state's emissions 

target. The commenters said EPA needs to correct South Dakota's target to reflect that Deer 

Creek was under construction during 2012. 

Tennessee (TN) 

Commenters added in calculating Tennessee's goal, EPA included TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear 

Unit 2, which is currently under construction; Tennessee cannot meet its state goal without this 

unit. The commenters stated because of the many potential issues that could delay or otherwise 

negatively impact the startup and commissioning of nuclear units like this one, EPA should not 

include nuclear units under construction in the state goal assumptions. The commenters said if 

the Agency continues to assume completion of nuclear units in state goals, then it should allow 

for an off-ramp or other adjustment if nuclear units are not completed or do not operate as 

expected. 

Texas (TX)

Commenters stated EPA's list of potentially affected EGU facilities appears to omit the Texas 

Clean Energy Project (TCEP), a 400 MW integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coalfired power plant that began construction in June 2012. The commenters said because TCEP 

began construction before the January 8, 2014 applicability date, it should be included in the list 

of affected EGUs, and incorporated into Texas' state goal calculation. The commenters said EPA 

should incorporate this under-construction coal-fired facility using reasonable assumptions about 

how similar facilities operate on the grid at high efficiency levels without the use of carbon 

capture sequestration technology (CCS). The commenters said EPA should assume that this new 

state-of-the-art IGCC facility will operate without CCS at an average 80% capacity factor and at 

an average emission rate of [1,450 lb. CO2/MWh] based on projected heat levels achievable for 

the facility. The commenters said any emission reductions obtained below this CO2 emission 

rate at this facility, which is expected to utilize an advanced CCS technology, should also be 

eligible for compliance credit under the state or federal plan. The commenters said as it has done 

for other under-construction EGUs, EPA should clarify that the TCEP project is an affected unit 

for purposes of the proposed rule, and adjust Texas' state goal accordingly as well as confirm that 
333 

the TCEP project would achieve credit for the CO2 reductions achieved through the application 

of CCS technology. 

 

Comment 12: The EPA should include under construction units in goal calculation. 

Response 12: The EPA agrees with the commenters that we should include under construction 

affected EGUs in our BSER quantification for the final CPP (see response 11). We have 

continued to do so, and a list of units included that were considered likely affected and under 

construction can be found in Appendix 2 of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation Technical Support Document. EPA appreciates the comment that some of these 

units are being built specifically to replace fossil steam sources. EPA discusses in section VI of 

the preamble the uncertainty in projecting which unit(s) would be offset by this baseline 

generation. We also acknowledge that some of these units are being built for purposes of 

replacing existing fossil generation. We have determined that the assumption that 55% of 

NGCC under construction generation and 60% of coal steam under construction generation will 

not replace 2012 generation levels is conservative, but reasonable.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the inclusion of under construction NGCC units in the goal setting 

calculation; under construction NGCC units will be considered "existing units" because they 

have commenced construction prior to January 8, 2014 (the date of the reproposed New Source 

Performance Standard for EGUs) and the emissions from these sources will have to be accounted 

for in a state's compliance plan under section 111(d). 

Commenters stated upon review of EPA's docket, it appears that EPA did not include several 

under construction NGCC units being built in New Jersey; over the past few years, permits have 

been issued to three new projects: 1) LS Power's West Deptford facility, 2) Hess' Newark Energy 

Center, and 3) CPV's Woodbridge facility. The commenters said EPA must work with states to 

ensure all under construction NGCCs are captured. 

Commenters added the emission rate for under construction NGCC units for the goal setting 

calculation should be the New Source Performance Standard (i.e., 1,000 lbs/gross-MWh for large 

NGCC units); this is because the state-specific average 2012 emission rate for NGCC units may 

be below the permitted limit for under construction units. The commenters said for example, the 

average 2012 rate for NGCC units in New Jersey was 889 lbs CO2/MWh. The 

commenters recently received a permit to construct a new NGCC unit with a 12-month rolling 

permit limit of 925 lbs CO2/MWh; actual or limited data may not be available for some of the 

under construction units and the average 2012 rate for NGCC units may be below the permitted 

limited of the under construction NGCC units; therefore, EPA must use the New Source 

Performance Standard for under construction NGCC units for the goal setting calculation. 
334 

Commenters stated EPA has assumed that under construction NGCC plants are being built 

mostly to meet new electricity demand. The commenters said assuming those plants operate at 

70 percent capacity factor, the agency assumes that a larger portion (a 55 percent capacity factor, 

meaning 79 percent of a new plant's generation) meets new demand, while the remaining 15 

percent is available to displace existing fossil; however, this overestimates the amount of 

generation that will be utilized to meet new power demand because many of these plants are 

being built to replace retiring coal generation deemed uneconomic due to age, lack of pollution 

controls, and cheaper alternatives. 

Commenters stated of the nine states with under construction NGCC units incorporated into the 

Building Block 2 target methodology, all except for California have significant planned coal 

generator retirements scheduled between 2012 and 2018. The commenters said the total capacity 

of planned coal retirements in these states outweighs the capacity of under construction NGCC 

plants by nearly a factor of 2 to 1 (16,366 MW vs 8,938 MW). The commenters said in some 

case, these under construction NGCC units are being built explicitly to replace the generation 

from retiring coal plants; for example, the 620 MW NGCC plant that Kentucky Utilities is 

building at Cane Run will replace the generation from coal units the utility is retiring at its Cane 

Run, Green River, and Tyrone facilities. 

Commenters stated while it is difficult to precisely determine how much generation from new 

NGCC capacity will go toward displacing retiring coal, it is clear that the EPA's estimate is 

overly conservative. The commenters recommended reversing the EPA's proposed allocation of 

generation from under construction NGCC units by allocating a capacity factor of 55 percent as 

available for re-dispatch purposes (and a capacity factor of 15 percent as unavailable), instead of 

the 15 percent available (versus 55 percent unavailable) that is assumed in the draft proposal. 

Comment 13: The EPA should not include units not operating yet in 2012 in the goal 

calculation. 

Response 13: The EPA has included under construction EGUs in the quantification of BSER as 

they are likely affected EGUs under the 111(d) applicability requirements. The commenters 

language on page 109 of comment ending in docket number 24030 suggests that it understands 

EPA’s intention to only reflect under construction units that were commissioned in 2012. 

However, EPA’s intent is to identify a baseline of all affected 111(d) sources, which includes 

any EGUs that commenced construction prior to 1/08/14. 

The EPA has corrected the generation and emission values assumed for Kemper to be consistent 

with its assumed generation and emission rate.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated because the Mississippi Power Company Kemper County Energy 

Facility was not yet operating in 2012, EPA assumed an 800 CO2 lb/MWh-net emission rate and 
335 

a 70 percent capacity factor; the operating assumption may present compliance issues. The 

commenters said the state of Mississippi's interim and final goals are 732 and 692 CO2 lb/MWhnet, respectively, which are less than EPA's emission rate assumption of 800 CO2 lb/MWh-net 

for Kemper County. The commenters said if Kemper County were to operate above EPA's 

assumed capacity factor of 70 percent, then the state of Mississippi's compliance with the 

proposed guidelines will be made more difficult. The commenters hoped that EPA's intent was 

not to penalize or limit the operation of the nation's first IGCC facility with carbon capture and 

storage. The commenters said rather than reward Mississippi Power's effort to build and operate 

a first-of-a-kind, clean power facility, EPA has proposed a target more stringent than the 

country's most state-of-the-art generation technology could achieve and would potentially 

penalize the facility for operating at capacity factors above the assumed 70 percent. 

The commenters said Kemper County's generation and emissions are reflected in Mississippi's 

"other generation" and "other emissions" categories in the goal calculation; using the 

assumptions provided by EPA, Kemper County's annual generation and emissions should equal 

3,568,824 MWh and 2.9 billion CO2 lb; however, EPA's goal computation worksheet lists 

5,836,968 MWh and 4.7 billion CO2 lb as the annual generation and emissions used to calculate 

Mississippi's state goal. The commenters said it is unclear how these numbers were developed 

but they should be explained. 

Commenters stated in the goal calculations for certain states, EPA incorrectly included certain 

NGCC projects that were not commissioned until after 2012 as part of the "existing" NGCC 

units that were redispatched up to a 70% capacity factor; in fact, one example was identified for 

a facility that has not received its air permit or commenced construction, and as such would not 

be an affected source subject to the proposed section 111(d) guidelines. The commenters said 

EPA must revise these calculations to exclude such units and to ensure that the existing NGCC 

units considered have actually been constructed. 

Comment 14: The EPA's methodology for accounting for units in partial operation in 2012. 

Response 14: The EPA agrees that the calculation for under construction NGCC incremental 

potential merited revisiting. It has done so and changed its assumptions for units commencing 

operation in 2012. See Section VI of the Preamble for more discussion. 

The Dresden Energy Plant, Fremont Energy Center, Lee Combined Cycle Plant, and the Dan 

River facilities have been identified as commencing operation in 2012 and Unit 2 at the Healy 

plant has been identified as under construction in 2012 (although Alaska and its EGUs are not 

subject to the final CPP Rule. The Haynes units 11-16 are not considered likely affected units in 

the final rule based on revisions to the applicability criteria that make it unlikely that any simplecycle turbines would be subject to the rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
336 

Commenters stated in determining Building Block 2, EPA includes both generation and 

emissions from NGGC and coal units that entered operation in 2012 in its goal setting 

methodology; many of these units that entered operation in 2012 have very low annual capacity 

factors because they did not operate for a full year, resulting in either lower amounts of coalfired generation being reported in the 2012 baseline or an artificially high amount of NGCC 

capacity being considered available to be ramped up to displace coal capacity. Commenters 

provided Table 6, which illustrates those new NGCC facilities that entered commercial operation 

in 2012, as reported in EIA Form 860, along with their 2012 and 2013 generation and capacity 

factors (CF). 

Commenters stated with the exception of two facilities (Fremont (OH) and John Sevier (TN)), 

the capacity factors for these new NGCC facilities all increased between 2012 and 2013; it 

should be noted that the capacity factor reduction between 2012 and 2013 for John Sevier was 

attributed to a generator rotor failure on all four generators, as well as a steam system problem on 

generator four, resulting in a six-month outage. 

Commenters added this same trend with regard to capacity factors also applies to those coal-fired 

units that entered commercial operation in 2012, which EPA included in its goal calculation for 

Building Block 2; as can be seen from Table 7, by using 2012 generation instead of a full 

calendar year, EPA is significantly under-reporting how these new coal units will be operating in 

the future, thereby biasing the state goals in those particular states downward. 

Commenters believed that U.S. EPA's methodology does not appropriately account for units that 

were not operational for the entirety of 2012 in determining state-wide capacity factors. The 

commenters said in the case of Ohio, there were two facilities that were not operational until the 

end of January 2012; the Dresden Energy Plant did not begin operation until January 20, 2012, 

and the Freemont Energy Center did not begin operation until January 31, 2012; thus, the 

calculated capacity factors for those units, if based on 8,784 hours of operation, do not accurately 

reflect the operation of those units in 2012. The commenters said when partial operation is taken 

into account and the corrected generation at the Dresden plant considered, the capacity factor of 

NGCC units in Ohio is calculated to be ~69%; furthermore, Ohio EPA believes that the redispatch of NGCC units should be based on this historic capacity factor and not historical 

generation, as historical generation reflects bias concerning units that did not begin operation 

until after January 1, 2012. The commenters concluded that when summer capacities, correct 

capacity factors, and re-dispatch based on historical capacity is considered, the anticipated redispatch is nearer to 444,000 MW-h and not the 5,793,981 MW-h proposed by U.S. EPA; if 

order-of-magnitude errors are present in other state goals, the commenters would call into 

question much of U.S. EPA's methodology. 

Commenters stated a number of NGCC projects were identified that could be considered existing 

111(d) facilities, but were ignored by EPA in the building block two calculations; these are units 

that commenced construction after 2012, but before January 8, 2014 - the effective date that the 

111(b) standards for new sources were re-proposed by EPA. 
337 

Commenters added EPA overstates the amount of redispatch available from NGCC units 

commissioned in 2012 because it does not weigh the commissioning date into its 

calculation; when calculating redispatch, EPA assumes that all of these units were available to 

operate throughout 2012 even though some of these units were not commissioned until later in 

the year. The commenters said this assumption means that these new units are calculated to have 

an artificially low capacity factor, which produces an artificially high amount of NGCC 

redispatch; the end result is a state emission rate goal that is biased low. 

Commenters stated for example, two of the five existing NGCC units in Ohio were 

commissioned in 2012. The commenters provided a table that compares baseline capacity factors 

for these two facilities if calculated based on their in-service date versus EPA's assumption that 

they were available for the entire year. 

Commenters stated in the state goal calculation, EPA uses the following steps to determine the 

amount of NGCC capacity to be redispatched: 

(1) Determine the total net generation from all existing NGCC units in 2012 

(2) Calculate the "potential" NGCC capacity that could be redispatched if the entire NGCC fleet 

in the state operated at a 70% capacity factor as follows: Potential Redispatch Capacity (MWh) = 

(existing NGCC capacity) * (8784 hours/yr) *70% [the commenters said note EPA incorrectly 

uses nameplate capacity in this calculation] 

(3) Calculate the amount of NGCC redispatch to be used in building block 2 as follows: State 

NGCC redispatch (MWh) = "Potential" NGCC capacity at 70% - 2012 NGCC net generation 

The commenters said thus, the amount of redispatch that EPA computed for certain states is 

inflated by the inclusion of the capacity that units did not generate (and were not available to 

generate) prior to being commissioned in 2012; if units commissioned during 2012 remain in the 

calculation of the "existing" category of units, then the potential redispatch for the existing 

NGCC fleet should be derived based on the historic capacity factor, not on the EPA approach of 

using historic generation. The commenters said using the historic capacity factor approach 

accounts for the fact that units were commissioned in 2012 and appropriately weighs the inservice date into the redispatch calculation; this calculation would involve the following: 

(1) Determine the total net generation from all existing NGCC units in 2012 

(2) Calculate the potential operating hours for each existing NGCC unit in 2012 based on the 

date that each unit was commissioned Potential operating hours for units in-service prior to 2012 

= 8,784 hours Potential operating hours for units commissioned in 2012 = 8,784 hours - (time 

prior commissioning) 

(3) Calculate the maximum potential 2012 NGCC generation for each existing unit: Maximum 

potential generation = potential operating hours (from step 2) * net summer capacity 
338 

(4) Determine the weighted potential net generation from existing NGCC units in 2012 

(5) Calculate the weighted 2012 capacity factor for the state NGCC fleet 2012 NGCC capacity 

factor = 2012 net generation (step 1) / 2012 total potential generation (step 4) 

(6) Determine the amount of redispatch as a % capacity factor: Amount of redispatch (% 

capacity factor) = 70% capacity factor - 2012 NGCC capacity factor (step 5) 

(7) Determine the amount of redispatch in MWh: Amount of redispatch (MWh) = redispatch 

capacity factor (step 6) * net summer capacity * 8784 hrs. 

The commenters said using this approach for the Dresden and Fremont Plant, along with the 

correction of other errors noted throughout the comments would reduce the amount of NGCC 

redispatch calculated for Ohio from 5,793,981 to 439,452 MWh - a 92% reduction from EPA's 

calculated amount. 

Commenters said consider another example, the H.F. Lee Plant, which is a 920 MW NGCC unit 

commissioned on December 31, 2012; the unit was available to operate for only one day in 2012, 

yet EPA's calculation assumes that the unit was available for the entire year. The commenters 

said EPA used the nominal nameplate capacity (1,068 MW) to determine that approximately 

6,548,976 MWh (equivalent of a 70% capacity factor) was available to be redispatched from this 

facility because it would have had a near 0% baseline capacity factor in 2012 by EPA's logic. 

The commenters said these 6,548,976 MWhs represent over 20% of the total redispatch 

calculated for the state of North Carolina - even though the H.F. Lee plant had not been 

commissioned until the last day of the year. The commenters said the North Carolina goal is 

made even more unrealistic by the commissioning of another NGCC unit at the Dan River plant 

on December 10, 2012; if the associated "redispatch" capacity from Dan River is considered as 

well, then nearly 40% of the redispatch capacity calculated for North Carolina was from units 

that had not been commissioned or available to operate for most of the year. The commenters 

provided other examples of this issue in a table on page 116. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed 111(b) rule for new units included a technical support 

document for combustion turbines that was designed to evaluate potential differences in emission 

rates due to various unit-specific factors; the evaluation focused on NGCC units that were 

commissioned from 2000 through 2010; with respect to new NGCC units that were 

commissioned after 2010, EPA noted that "Although new NGCC units came online in 2011, 

none are included here as they lacked sufficient data to calculate a 12-month rolling average, the 

basis for determining a standard of performance." The commenters said EPA should apply this 

same rationale and exclude units commissioned in 2012 from the calculation of existing NGCC 

units to be redispatched. The commenters said these units could then be separately included in 

the "under construction" category of units within building block two calculation; at a minimum, 

EPA must at least revise the state goal calculations to properly account for the date that new 

units were commissioned in 2012. 
339 

Commenters added the Haynes units 11-16 should not be considered existing units as they came 

online in 2013; in addition, the nameplate capacity of the units is 103 MW each, not 108.2 MW. 

Commenters stated any other unit that began commercial operation during 2012 will have 

reported an artificially low capacity factor because it did not accumulate a full year of operating 

data; therefore, units that came online during 2012 should be classified as "under construction" 

so that EPA does not assign generation for redispatch that is needed to meet generation 

obligations not reflected in the partial year data. Based on the commenters' review of EPA's Goal 

Computation Technical Support Document Data File, this change would affect approximately 

only a dozen units nationwide. 

Commenters stated the initial rate-based emission is derived from 2012 CO2 emissions from 

Alaska's existing EGUs; emissions from Healy Unit 2 are not considered because the plant was 

not operational in 2012. The commenters said since Healy 2 would increase the proposed initial 

fossil fuel rate in lbs/MHh, the initial emission rate is inaccurately low. 

Comment 15: Entered operation during or after 2012 - incorrect state post-redispatch capacity 

factors. 

Response 15: The EPA has revised building block two calculations to rely on net summertime 

capacity and treat units that commenced operation in 2012 as under construction. As described 

above, to ensure subcategory-specific emission performance rates and state goals that best 

reflected a representative year’s likely affected units – the EPA did continue to include under 

construction sources in the final rule as they meet the applicability language and do reflect 

potential generation and emissions. Moreover, as it relies on 2012 as the basis of its 

representative year, it does not remove sources that are scheduled to retire. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters provided Table 8 that illustrates the effect that EPA's application of its incorrect 

state post-redispatch capacity factors have upon the state generation levels for those NGCC units 

that entered operation in 2012. The commenters said the column "EPA Post-Redispatch 

Generation" uses the same approach that EPA employed in the Building Block 2 calculations 

(Nameplate Capacity * Post-Redispatch Capacity Factor = Total Generation); the post-redispatch 

capacity factors were as follows: (i) California - 49 percent; (ii) Connecticut - 65 percent; (iii) 

Idaho - 30 percent; (iv) Mississippi - 63 percent; and, (v) Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, 

Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee all 70 percent. The commenters said for those states that had 

post-redispatch capacity factors less than 70 percent, this normally represents the NGCC 

capacity factor that is required to displace all coal-fired generation in that particular state. 

The commenters said as Table 8 illustrates, the difference between these new NGCC unit's postredispatch generation and 2012 (partial year operation) and 2013 (full year operation) is dramatic 
340 

in some states; more specifically, if one compares the post-redispatch and 2013 generation of 

these new NGCC units, the new units produced significantly higher generation levels during a 

full year of operation, and in the case of Idaho, Georgia and North Carolina, exceeded the postredispatch generation levels; therefore, these new NGCC units, which entered operation in 2012 

and have only partial year generation levels, should be removed from the Building Block 2 goal 

calculation as they appear now, because they over-estimate the amount of available NGCC 

capacity that would be available in those states to displace coal-fired generation. 

The commenters said to correct for this excessive NGCC generation in Building Block 2, EPA 

should either look at 12 months of operational data or eliminate these units from the goal 

calculation altogether. The commenters stated for EPA to correct for its underestimation of those 

state goals in those states that had new coal units enter operation in 2012, the Agency needs to 

consider a full year of operation. 

The commenters stated implications of EPA's methodology for Building Block 2 includes 

excessive NGCC generation in a state's goal calculation due to the following: 

-EPA use of nameplate capacity; 

-EPA including units that did not enter operation in 2012; 

-EPA inclusion of NGCC capacity that has been out-of-service or has/will be retired; 

-and, EPA including low capacity factor NGCC and coal units that entered operation in 2012. 

The commenters said this excessive generation artificially reduces the amount of coal-fired 

generation included in determining a state's goal; if one corrects for these erroneous calculations 

and removes this additional gas-fired generation from the redispatched NGCC generation level in 

EPA's methodology, a state's 2030 Final Goal and 2020-2029 Interim Goal will increase. The 

commenters said in addition, analysis of other EPA assumptions for Building Block 2 shows that 

states will not be able to ramp up existing NGCC capacity to meet the proposed state goals even 

if EPA was correct in assuming nameplate capacity rather than net capacity. 

Comment 16: Constructed after 2012 prior 2020 

Response 16: See section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated emission reductions associated with natural gas generation units constructed 

after 2012, including those constructed prior to 2020, should be included in the calculation of 

whether a state has met its interim and final CO2 emission reduction goals. The commenters 
341 

stated adding new NCGG units to a state's generation resource mix is costly and reductions in 

state CO2 emission rates resulting from construction of new natural gas generation units are real. 

The commenters concluded reductions from units constructed after 2012, but prior to 

2020 should not be ignored when calculating whether a state has met its interim and final CO2 

emission reduction goals. 

Comment 17: Treatment of Merchant NGCC

Response 17: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment and more information about merchant NGCC. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed guidelines will require states to mandate in some manner that 

combined cycle natural gas plants (NGCC) operate at 70% of capacity; while there may be 

mechanisms existing for a state to require that level of operation for a vertically integrated utility, 

there appears to be no legal authority to require operation of a merchant plant if they can meet 

the emission rates outlined in the proposed guidelines. The commenters said because utilities 

with significant coal-fired resources in their portfolio are mandated to shift some generation to 

NGCC, the proposed guidelines will work to create an unregulated monopoly on electric power 

from this type of resource which can provide power at premium prices; additionally, even after 

all this time in crafting this rule EPA still appears to miss the most essential details of operation 

in an RTO market. The commenters said power plants do not operate when their owners decided 

operate; they operate when they are authorized to operate by the RTO to maintain adequate 

supply on the grid. The commenters said under Federal law RTO's are only authorized to 

dispatch on an economic basis; in other words, they cannot consider the environmental impact of 

the emission. The commenters suggested withdraw the rule and reconstruct without requiring use 

of a shift to NGCC for compliance. 

Comment 18: New NGCC under construction; new NGCC

Response 18: See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment and more information about new NGCC units. Consistent with the comment, 

Morgan City and Nine Mile Point have been added to the inventory of likely affected units. 

Consistent with the comment, under construction NGCC is included in the rate calculations. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's calculations do not consider several new NGCC units which are 

currently under construction. The commenters said on August 16, 2011, LDEQ issued Title V 

and PSD permits allowing Entergy Louisiana to construct and operate two new NGCC units, 
342 

along with a new steam turbine generator, at its Ninemile Point Electric Generating Plant, 

located in Westwego, Jefferson Parish. The commenters said the new NGCC units, identified as 

6A and 6B, have a nameplate capacity of 640 MW and a projected net summer capacity of 559 

MW; these figures account for the steam turbine generator. The commenters added on September 

26, 2013, LDEQ issued Title V and PSD permits allowing Louisiana Energy and Power 

Authority (LEP A) to construct and operate a new NGCC unit, along with a new steam turbine 

generator, at its Morgan City Power Plant, located in Morgan City, St Mary Parish; the new 

NGCC unit, identified as 14-01, has a nameplate capacity of 84 MW and a projected net summer 

capacity of 64.5 MW; as before, these figures account for the steam turbine generator. 

Commenters stated for the past several years, the commenters have been engaged in a planning 

process with the Purchasers for the repowering of its coal-fired units with NGCC. The 

commenters said these plans require the unanimous approval of the Purchasers which has not yet 

been obtained. The commenters said if as a result of the approval of these plans or otherwise, the 

commenters were to construct NGCC, such NGCC generation would be available to 

displace coal-fired generation. The commenters said it is not clear under the Proposed Rule that 

such NGCC generation would be included in the rate calculation; the commenters encourage 

EPA to allow NGCC generation built to replace coal-fired generation to be included in the 

calculation of the rate. 

Comment 19: Under-construction and at-risk nuclear generation 

Response 19: The EPA has removed at risk and under construction nuclear from its 

quantification of BSER in the Final CPP Rule. However, we still include under construction 

fossil units that likely meet the 111(d) definition of likely affected sources. EPA is establishing a

regulatory program for existing units, and it would not be prudent to ignore known or likely 

existing units when quantifying the expression of BSER. Furthermore, EPA believes that failing 

to do so could potentially harm a state using a mass-based equivalent if the EPA had not 

appropriately accounted for all generation of likely affected units. 

The EPA feels that its basis for assuming a 55% baseline value as not available for 

replacement/BB2 consideration is well supported by historical data and conservative. There has 

been a large volume of NGCC capacity coming online over the five-year and 10-year period 

leading up to 2012 that constituted a significant sample size. EPA relied on the 10-year period 

more heavily for coal to assure it had a sufficient sample size greater than 30 units. Moreover, 

EPA did not attempt to assign any potential decrease in fossil steam baseline generation even 

though a decrease in fossil steam generation has been associated with historical increased 

deployment of NGCC. The EPA felt this conservative assumption was necessary to avoid 

penalizing any particular state by a projection of where the reduced fossil steam generation 

would occur. 

EPA understands that some under construction units will operate at different level from others. 

However, its 55% assumption is a reasonable reflection of average utilization and estimating the 
343 

incremental impact on a state’s baseline generation and emissions. Moreover, EPA is 

quantifying BSER at the regional level, so use of the average utilization rate of 55% used to 

reflect incremental generation and emission from under construction sources is not hindered by 

potential unit-level variations.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters urged EPA to exclude both under-construction and at-risk nuclear generation from 

the state goal calculation procedure if and when EPA issues a final rule. 

Commenters questioned the methodology used by the EPA in calculating the contribution of 

nuclear plants to the state goal in Building Block 3; EPA determined that 5.8 percent of the 

existing nuclear fleet is at-risk, and in calculating the state goal assumed that the existing nuclear

generation in each state would be reduced by that amount. The commenters said that at-risk 

generation was used in the calculation of the goal, but is then awarded to the state without 

conditions in calculating compliance with the goal. The commenters said at-risk nuclear plants 

are in danger of a total shut-down, not a curtailment in their generation; therefore, existing 

nuclear plants should not contribute to the state goal calculation, and only existing nuclear plants 

that are truly at-risk should be counted for compliance purposes, provided the approach is lawful 

under Section 111 (d) of the CAA. The commenters said in Pennsylvania, the nuclear portion of 

Building Block 3 accounts for 7. 8 percent of the state goal. 

Commenters recommended that EPA remove the 5.8 percent at-risk nuclear component from 

states with nuclear generating facilities whose units are not "at-risk". 

Commenters urged EPA give South Carolina equitable treatment in the final Clean Power Plan, 

especially with regard to the treatment of nuclear units under construction. The commenters said 

several years ago, Santee Cooper began planning for strategic reduction of CO2 

emissions; Santee Cooper devised a measured approach, one that balances environmental 

stewardship, reliability and costs. The commenters said since 2005, Santee Cooper has reduced 

their CO2 emissions by 23 percent. The commenters said Santee Cooper previous and current 

initiatives are projected to reduce their CO2 emissions by 44 percent in 2029 and still deliver 

electricity that is reliable and affordable; Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas are 

currently building two of the first new nuclear units in the country. The commenters said most 

critical in the terms of the costs of this proposed regulation, is the treatment for new nuclear units

already under construction; EPA should not consider these under-construction units as if they are 

already built. 

Commenters stated in calculating each state's goal, the EPA assumes that NGCC units that were 

under construction in 2012 have available generating capacity that may be utilized to displace 

coal- fired generation under Building Block 2; specifically, the EPA assumes that each NGCC 

unit under construction would operate at a 55 percent annual capacity factor under a "business as 

usual" scenario in the absence of the proposed emission guidelines. The commenters said this 55 

percent annual capacity factor reflects the EPA's calculation of the "average performance of 
344 

NGCC units that came online in the past 5 years." The commenters said the Agency claims it 

"conservatively designated the generation associated with this 55 percent capacity factor as 

unavailable for redispatch to reduce CO2 (i.e., not qualifying for Building Block 2), instead, 

reserving that amount of generation potential to meet other system needs presumed to have 

motivated the construction" of those units. The commenters said accordingly, the EPA assumes 

that an additional 15 percent of the under-construction unit's nameplate capacity will remain 

available for redispatch, bringing the unit to an overall annual capacity factor of 70 percent. 

Commenters stated the EPA's approach is arbitrary and unreasonable; as a general matter, EGUs 

that commenced construction before January 8, 2014 - even those that were "under construction" 

during the 2012 baseline year the EPA has proposed to use - would be considered "existing 

units" for the purposes of section 111(d) once completed, and thus could properly be subject to 

standards of performance contained in a state plan if they meet the relevant applicability criteria; 

but the EPA should not rely on generating capacity from "under construction" units when 

applying Building Block 2 to calculate the proposed state goals. The commenters said the EPA 

has no basis on which to make assumptions about what generating capacity will be available for 

redispatch from NGCC units that had no operating history in 2012 or earlier. The commenters 

said the average annual capacity factor of all recently completed NGCC units, is an inadequate 

predictor of the future generation performance of the individual units the EPA includes in the 

state goals. The commenters said such an average does not account for the fact that some units 

are constructed for the purpose of supplying base load, while others are constructed as loadfollowing units. The commenters said recent experience suggests that the EPA's methodology 

grossly overestimates the generation capacity available from units that were under construction 

in 2012. 

Commenters stated given the EPA's inability to provide a rational justification for predicting the 

hypothetical operating duty of units that were not operating in the baseline year of 2012, it 

should exclude "under construction" NGCC units from its application of Building Block 2 for the 

purposes of calculating state goals. The commenters said because these units are technically 

"existing sources" under section 111, however, they would remain subject to appropriate state 

plan requirements and would count towards compliance with a state's interim and final goals if 

they satisfy the relevant applicability criteria. The commenters added NGCC units classified as 

"under construction' should not be included in state goal calculations because they do not meet 

the applicability criteria for stationary combustion turbines; they would not have supplied onethird or more of their potential electric output to a utility distribution system on a 3-year rolling 

average basis as of 2012. 

Commenters recommended that the EPA remove existing generation resources (renewable 

energy and nuclear energy) from the denominator of the formula used to calculate state goals. 

The commenters said the EPA's adjusted emissions rate formula includes existing renewable 

energy generation and 6% "at risk" nuclear generation in the denominator of the formula used to 

calculate state emission reduction goals. The commenters said this results in a formula that is not 

truly measuring the emissions rate reduction. The commenters said removing these components 
345 

from the formula would result in a goal that is a better representation of the BSER and would 

also result in a more consistent treatment of all zero-carbon emitting generation sources. 

Commenters recommended EPA reexamine the state rate-based emissions equation to exclude at 

risk nuclear and under construction nuclear from goal calculation. 

Commenters stated it would be inappropriate to include assumptions about relicensed nuclear 

facilities in calculating state goals because relicensing can be costly and uncertain. 

Commenters added EPA should treat under-construction, relicensed, and uprated nuclear 

facilities the same as it treats RE facilities: it should exclude these facilities from the state goalsetting methodology, but allow states that build new facilities or uprate or relicense existing 

facilities to count the generation from those facilities toward compliance. 

Comment 20: The 6% of nuclear capacity to be "at risk" is insufficient.

Response 20: At-risk nuclear is not considered part of BSER quantification in the final CPP 

Rule. See section V.A of the final rule preamble for discussion of nuclear generation and the 

BSER. See section VIII for a discussion of how reductions stemming from incremental nuclear 

generation can be considered in state plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the U.S. EPA identified 6% of nuclear capacity as "at risk" based on 

projections of potential retirements presented in the 2014 EIA Annual Energy Outlook as well as 

the announced retirement of six nuclear EGUs. The commenters are not aware of any supporting 

documentation presented by EIA or U.S. EPA to support these projected retirements, and only a 

single reference is cited in the TSD; this reference, "Implications of accelerated power plant 

retirements, J. Jones and M. Leff, 2014" presents only vague and ambiguous ""economic 

challenges". The commenters said the EIA study itself indicates that these unspecified 

retirements would occur in unidentified "vulnerable regions", yet U.S. EPA applied their 

methodology to all states with nuclear generation. The commenters understand that a BSER is 

based on adequately demonstrated, economically feasible measures; in this instance, the 

commenters believed that the designation of 6% of nuclear capacity as "at risk" based on a single 

study presented with little to no supporting documentation is insufficient to include "at risk" 

nuclear capacity as part of a BSER. 

Comment 21: Include at risk nuclear; nuclear; hydropower 

Response 21: The EPA did not include at-risk nuclear or existing renewable in the subcategory 

rates quantifying BSER in the final CPP Rule. See section V for an explanation on why they are 
346 

not included. See section VIII for a discussion on how states can incorporate potential 

reductions from these generating technologies into their state plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should allow states to claim compliance credit for that portion of 

nuclear capacity assumed to be at risk in EPA's goal calculation at its actual level of generation 

(i.e., providing credit for operating at a greater capacity factor than the capacity factor EPA 

assumed in its goal calculation). 

Commenters supported the fact that the EPA identifies the continued operation of existing "atrisk" installed nuclear capacity and under construction nuclear capacity; in addition, the 

construction of new nuclear generating units as well as the uprating of existing nuclear units is 

identified as approvable emission reduction measures. 

Commenters supported a final rule which addresses the factors that affect carbon intensity, rather 

than one which tries to define clean power. The commenters believed the proposed rule goes 

beyond the scope of carbon dioxide, specifically regarding the value of alternatives such as 

nuclear energy. The commenters said this comment is put forward not to advance nuclear energy, 

but to encourage a more honest assessment of carbon dioxide as measured by the Plan. The 

commenters said with respect to individual rate-based goals, the commenters would include all 

three of the nations largest historic sources of electric generation: coal, natural gas and nuclear. 

The commenters stated they think the inclusion of only 6% of each states nuclear energy 

production fails to accurately observe actual carbon intensity, and how that intensity will rise or 

fall, as plants are shut down or introduced; it may also cause potential distortions, where natural 

gas replaces nuclear energy. 

Commenters did not feel it is appropriate to reflect completion of the five identified nuclear 

EGUs currently under construction in the state goals. The commenters believed the 2012 

baseline carbon dioxide rate-based intensity values should not be reduced as if these EGUs were 

already online. The commenters said the proposed rule would have the effect of ignoring the 

carbon dioxide reduction these plants will represent; furthermore, this adjustment is inconsistent 

with counting the contribution of other future sources, as found elsewhere within the rule. 

Commenters stated the public policy debate on the relative risks of nuclear and fossil generation 

is likely to evolve; with the certainty that both forms of electric generation will continue to exist,

the inclusion of their size and impact upon rate-based CO2 should be captured in full measure. 

Commenters stated EPA's BSER analysis does not provide meaningful credit for existing nuclear 

generation and excludes existing hydropower generation entirely; this lack of appropriate credit 

has significant impact on States such as Arizona that generate a large percentage of their power 

from these zero-emission sources. 
347 

Commenters stated the current supply to 49 member communities consists of over 1,200 

megawatts of nuclear and hydroelectric power supply; the result is that over 50 percent of our 

electricity supplied to communities is produced with no emissions. The commenters said the 

proposed rule provides little credit for these carbon-free resources, and instead will require these 

communities to fund new unneeded renewable energy resources and new energy efficiency 

programs, which raise the cost of electricity to consumers unnecessarily. 

Commenters stated EPA's supporting documentation indicates it did not consider the nuclear and 

hydropower facilities currently operating in Arizona. The commenters said these facilities help 

Arizona achieve one of the nation's lowest per MWH GHG rates, which makes the imposition of 

further limits on the state seem more unfair and inappropriate. The commenters asked why did 

EPA ignore these zero-emission resources. 

Commenters stated hydropower makes up over half of the portfolio of Northwest generation 

resources, and is over 80% of BPA resources. The commenters said hydroelectric power is a 

major piece of the Northwest's low-cost, reliable and non-emitting resource mix. The 

commenters said PNGC Power and other public and investor-owned utilities in the Northwest 

have invested in additional renewable resources and will continue to achieve even higher 

renewable electricity production from wind and solar because of the firming support provided by 

the Northwest hydropower system. The commenters said the proposed rule should recognize the 

value of hydroelectric power as a compliance tool in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

reduction goals; additionally, new and incremental hydropower should be considered as building 

blocks in meeting state GHG reduction targets. 

Commenters stated it is important for the EPA to address the "5.8%" calculation that limits 

nuclear energy's full contribution to reducing a state's carbon emissions. The commenters said 

this seeming error, first brought to our attention by Remy Devoe, writing at the American 

Nuclear Society blog, should be corrected prior to the final rule being published. (Reference page 

34870 of the Federal Register). The commenters said as Devoe writes, "We must insist that the 

EPA considers the total generation from all energy sources in calculating carbon emissions 

intensity." The commenters agreed, we cannot meet carbon reduction goals without nuclear 

energy playing a major role. The commenters said doing all we can to sustain the nuclear energy 

facilities currently operating, as well as creating regulatory environments and undertaking power 

market reforms to ensure new nuclear can benefit us well into the future, is essential; those goals 

should help guide the final EPA rule. 

Comment 22: Exclude nuclear generation

Response 22: The EPA excluded nuclear generation from BSER in the final CPP. See section 

V.A of the preamble for further discussion.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
348 

Commenters stated in New York, particularly, the EPA has not included the generation 

associated with its existing large hydroelectric facilities as part of the zero-emission resource 

Building Block, reportedly because it "distorts" the adjusted emission rate for the State. The 

commenters said in the same manner, emission-free nuclear generation, either in the numerator 

or the denominator of the adjusted emission rate, distorts the ability of the State to meet its 

adjusted emission rate target. The commenters suggested that eliminating nuclear generation 

from the adjusted emission rate calculation across all states would be an equitable way for states 

to allow power markets to select for emission-free generation technologies in cooperation with 

the NRC if nuclear generation is a preferred approach or in cooperation with other permitting 

entities if other technologies such as wind or solar are more cost effective. 

Commenters requested that the EPA not include any nuclear as a part of calculation of the goal. 

The commenters said the 90% capacity factor assumed is difficult to achieve continuously due to 

years when refueling and maintenance outages are needed. The commenters said the 90% 

capacity factor and 5.8% "at risk" factor add greater risk to companies that have invested in 

nuclear power as a carbon free source. Although the commenters are requesting that the EPA 

remove nuclear generation from the goal formula, if EPA elects to keep nuclear in the formula, 

the commenters were concerned about the 90% capacity factor used for at risk existing nuclear 

plants in the EPA formula for computing each state's emission goal. The commenters said 

although existing nuclear units are normally used as base load and have high capacity factors, 

planned refueling and maintenance outages lower the capacity factor by approximately 11%. The 

commenters said another important point of reference is the fact that the average lifetime 

capacity factor of the 100 nuclear plants now operating is 80.3% (through 2013). The 

commenters added on a three-year rolling average basis (for 2011-2013), the fourth quartile 

plants operated at an average capacity factor of 70.8%; this means that one-quarter of U.S. 

nuclear plants are operating well below 90 percent capacity factors. The commenters said under 

the proposed rule, when these anticipated outages occur and reduce existing nuclear capacity 

factors below 90%, replacement power would have to be obtained from another CO2 nonemitting generation source. The commenters said the cost of power will be very high to make up 

the shortfall to meet the 90% capacity factor requirement; therefore the commenters suggested 

using 70% as the capacity factor in the goal calculation. 

Comment 23: The EPA should reconsider the inclusion of existing nuclear power generation in 

the calculations. 

Response 23: The EPA excluded nuclear generation from BSER in the final CPP. See section 

V.A of the preamble for further discussion. See section VIII for a discussion of how states can 

incorporate reductions from nuclear generation into their state plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
349 

Commenters stated it is not clear how existing nuclear power generation can reduce CO2 

emissions, when these units have been operating at near-constant capacity factors for many 

years. The commenters said any displacement of more carbon intensive generation would have 

already taken place. The commenters said the approach taken by U.S. EPA in including even a 

fraction of existing nuclear generation is inappropriate, as these existing units cannot and will not 

displace generation from more carbon intensive sources. The commenters said it is clear that the 

inclusion of the 6% "at risk" nuclear generation in the goal setting calculations is an artificial and

overwrought attempt to drive target rates lower than necessary or practical. The 

commenters urged U.S. EPA to reconsider the inclusion of existing nuclear generation in all CO2 

intensity calculations. 

Commenters stated the accounting algorithm chosen to establish goals for each state gives a 

carbon emissions reduction credit to states that have currently operating nuclear power plants 

and allow them to shut down; though it is perhaps not intended to have that effect, the net result 

is that a state that shuts down all of its nuclear generation and replaces it with a power source 

that produces between ten and twenty times more CO2 per unit of electricity produced LOOKS 

like it has reduced its emissions intensity. The commenters said it is also unfair to count carbon 

intensity based on the amount of power generated inside the state instead of more accurately 

assessing the carbon intensity of the power that is consumed inside the state. The commenters 

said the way the current rule is written, Vermont never has to take any action as long as it forces 

power producers to locate their plants somewhere outside of the state boundaries. The 

commenters said the plan also gives no credit to the consumers in rate regulated states like 

Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina that recognized the growing danger of increasing CO2 

emissions and took action over a decade ago to make enormous investments in new, reliable, 

long lived, ultra low emission nuclear power plants. The commenters said according to the plan, 

none of that investment counts while all of the investments in unreliable wind and solar power 

that have been made during the same time period count towards the emissions reduction goals. 

The commenters said please take action to correct these aspects of the rule; they are not only 

unfair, but they are in direct opposition to the goal of reducing the overall carbon intensity of the 

United States. 

Comment 24: Treatment of new nuclear in setting the EPA goals

Response 24: The EPA has excluded nuclear from building block three in the final CPP rule. 

See Section V.A of the final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated three states have new nuclear plants under construction; these plants will not 

begin operation until after EPA is scheduled to issue the final rule; however, EPA has 

prematurely included this carbon-free generation in establishing these state goals. The 

commenters said EPA's treatment of these new nuclear units has lowered the emission rate goals 
350 

for each of these states, ignoring the practical difficulties associated with such projects; also, 

developing a new nuclear power plant could take about 15 years from inception to 

operation; hence, the 2030 deadline for compliance with the CO2 goal will not likely incentivize 

any additional nuclear units. The commenters recommended: 

-New nuclear generation should be excluded from building block 3 when determining state 

emission rate goals and instead should only be considered as an eligible action for compliance 

purposes. 

-New nuclear generation should remain an eligible action. 

-Given the long lead time for development and construction of a nuclear generation unit, EPA 

should consider new nuclear generation as an eligible action if construction has commenced 

prior to the end of the compliance period; if a nuclear unit or uprate is under construction prior to 

2030, the predicted CO2 reduction or MWh benefits should be credited in 2030, as a way to 

further promote new nuclear generation. 

Commenters stated new renewable and nuclear generation are not used to decrease fossil fuel 

generation in setting the EPA's target rates; rather the generation numbers are simply used to 

tighten the allowable rate - that is to reduce the allowable rate of emissions per megawatt-hour of 

generation compared to the baseline year, 2012. The commenters said the treatment of new 

nuclear and new renewables is unlike the treatment of increased natural gas combined cycle 

generation, where the increase in generation is actually assumed to reduce fossil fuel generation, 

with the constraint that total fossil fuel generation would remain the same. The commenters said 

this approach favors natural gas over other forms of generation. 

Comment 25: Affected units

Response 25: See section VI of the preamble for an explanation of the EPA’s output adjusted 

emission rates. To capture the reduction potential from reduced generation of higher emitting 

sources, the EPA incorporated some of the replacement generation in subcategory-specific 

emission performance rates and state goals to capture this reduction that would not inherently 

show up in a stack emission rate.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated U.S. EPA also uses, in setting goals, the CO2 emissions from regulated 

entities (numerator); however, in the goal setting, they used generation (denominator) from all 

electric generation in the state, not just from the regulated entities. The commenters said so, in 

setting renewable goals, they took percentages of total generation (including renewables, nuclear, 

etc.) rather than taking percentages of generation from the regulated entities alone; this 

artificially lowers the goal placed on the affected units in an arbitrary manner. The commenters 

said CO2 and generation should be measured and expressed only if they are produced by an 
351 

affected unit. The commenters said by calculating renewable goals from this all-inclusive 

generation value, U.S. EPA is unfairly "double-counting" renewable generation. 

Comment 26: Affected units - exemptions 

Response 26: The EPA has modified the applicability language for 111(d) in the final CPP rule 

to better capture likely affected sources. The EPA believes that nearly all non-cogen NGCC 

EUGs providing electricity to the grid and with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MW will be 

included. As explained in Section VI and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule, the inventory does not constitute an applicability 

determination, but serves as a reasonable baseline of likely affected units in a historical baseline 

year (2012). While final applicability determinations on all individual units may be necessary 

after the final rule, the EPA does not believe that unit-level discrepancies, taken collectively, 

would result in any bias or alter the reasonableness of its quantification of BSER subcategoryspecific rates.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's goal calculation methodology is defective because it applies the 

measures identified as BSER to sources that do not qualify as "affected EGUs" for the purposes 

of the Proposed Guidelines. The commenters said the proposed state goals assume that state 

plans will constrain emissions from sources that EPA cannot lawfully regulate under section 

111(d); this error affects the state goals because it overstates the number of sources that are 

available to implement the BSER building blocks - particularly Building Block 2, which is based 

on shifting generation from higher- to lower-emitting affected EGUs. 

Commenters added excluding non-affected EGUs from the state goal calculation is critical 

because including these units in the 2012 generation and emission levels affects the stringency of 

the state goals as they will eventually be applied to affected EGUs. The commenters said the 

state goals, as currently calculated, assume that some of the burden of achieving the goal will fall 

on EGUs that do not fit within the regulated source category; because states cannot impose 

standards of performance on these units, the additional burden associated with these units will 

ultimately fall on affected EGUs that do meet EPA's applicability criteria. The commenters said 

this is particularly important in implementing Building Block 2, where EPA's purported "system 

of emission reduction" requires transferring energy generation from coal- and oil/gas-fired steam 

EGUs to NGCC units with available generating capacity. 

Commenters added EPA made no effort to exclude from the Proposed Guidelines NGCC units 

that were not "constructed for the purpose of supplying, and suppl[y], one-third or more of [their] 

potential electric output and more than 219,000 MWh net-electric output to a utility distribution 

system." The commenters stated EPA can, and must, examine historical data for existing EGUs 

in order to determine which units would be exempt from regulation under the one-third sales 
352 

exclusion before calculating each state's goal. The commenters said this historical data is readily 

available to EPA; EPA included generated data from 2010 and 2011 in the docket for this 

rulemaking, although it has not performed any analysis of these data to determine which existing 

EGUs would be exempt and how this would affect each state's goals. 

Commenters added in calculating state goals, EPA should apply the measures identified as BSER 

to Subpart Da units only if they "combust fossil fuel for more than 10.0 percent of the heat input 

during any 3 consecutive calendar years" and "suppl[y] more than one-third of [their] potential 

electric output and more than 219,000 MWh net-electric output to a utility power distribution 

system for sale on an annual basis." 79 Fed. Reg. at 1502, Proposed 40 C.F.R. section 

60.46Da(a). The commenters said the NSPS for new Subpart Da units applies only to sources 

that meet these (and several other) criteria; EPA proposed to eliminate these applicability criteria 

in its proposed NSPS for modified and reconstructed EGUs and in its definition of "affected 

EGUs" for these Proposed Guidelines. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,954, Proposed 40 C.F.R. section 

60.5795(b)(1); 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,979. The commenters said as noted in Section VI and in 

UARG's comments on EPA's proposed GHG standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs, 

however, EPA cannot broaden the scope of the Proposed Guidelines to include units that, if they 

were newly constructed, would not be subject to the proposed NSPS for new EGUs; therefore, 

EPA must exclude such units from its goal calculation. 

Commenters added EPA has further distorted its assessment of achievable state goals by 

inappropriately including units smaller than the Proposal's 73 MW applicability threshold in its 

calculations of the state goals; EPA has provided no justification for its decision to include these 

units in setting state goals. 

Commenters stated non-affected EGUs are not included in the numerator of the rate goal 

calculation; however, they are included in the denominator of the RE calculation. The 

commenters asked why is this inconsistent approach used when performing the RE calculations 

vs. the rate efficiency calculations. 

 

Comment 27: Units mistakenly counted as "affected units" in goal calculations 

Response 27: The EPA has changed the status of J.M. Shafer and Rifle to “exclude” based on 

the reported cogen status and public comment. Based on the final rule applicability language, 

the EPA did not exclude non-cogen NGCCs greater than 25 MW. 

The EPA changed the status of Perryville Power Station unit 2-ct to reflect the comment that it is 

a simple cycle turbine and hence the unit was excluded from BSER calculations. 

Based on comment and the baseline cogeneration status of Louisiana 1, the EPA has recategorized it as “exclude” in its baseline consistent with the comment. 
353 

The 150 MW of under construction NGCC in Mississippi refer to the Moselle units that 

commenced operation in 2012, but are treated as under construction as described in Preamble 

section VI. 

The EPA did not include Southcentral Power Plant Unit 4 in its final CPP rule baseline 

consistent with the comment. 

Because Beluga 6, 7, and 8 were all considered likely affected, the sum generation and emission 

from the three is counted in Alaska’s baseline generation at proposal. However, Alaska and its 

EGUs are not subject to the final CPP. The unit-level apportionment does not impact the 

baseline or the state goal. The EPA recognizes that the facility may report as fewer units than 

expressed in the baseline accounting, but the EPA understands the comment to suggest this will 

not impact the totals assumed for the facility. See section VII.F for discussion of Alaska. 

The EPA has not made a final applicability determination for the CPP inventory, but its baseline 

constitutes a representative inventory of likely affected units based of the final CPP applicability 

provisions. 

The EPA believes that non-cogen NGCC facilities greater than 25 MW to be likely affected units 

and are thus included in the baseline (e.g., Noblesville). 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated J.M. Shafer and Rifle are outside the scope of section 111(d) regulation, EPA 

nevertheless included them in this Proposal when applying Building Block 2 in its state goal 

calculation for Colorado; by doing so, EPA bases Colorado's state goal on the assumption that 

both Tri-State NGCC units would be subject to the Proposal and that Colorado could force these 

units to operate at a 70 percent annual capacity factor; this is clearly incorrect. The commenters 

said the mistake results from EPA's flawed goal calculation methodology, in which the Agency 

made no attempt to exclude from re-dispatch under Building Block 2 EGUs that do not meet the 

applicability criteria for the January 2014 proposed NSPS. The commenters said if EPA proceeds 

with this rulemaking, it must remove J.M. Shafer and Rifle (as well as any other EGUs that do 

not meet the applicability criteria for the source category) from state goal calculations. 

Commenters stated EPA's calculations classify each of the three gas turbines at Entergy 

Louisiana's Perryville Power Station as NGCC units; however, one of the three is not equipped 

with a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and operates in simple cycle mode. 

Commenters stated EPA's calculations classify the five electric generating units (EGUs) at 

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana's Louisiana Station No. 1 Electrical Generating Plant as NGCC 

turbines; however, three of these units (1A, 2A, and 3A) are actually boilers, not turbines. The 

commenters added a large portion of the power generated at Louisiana Station 1 is dedicated 

exclusively to the adjacent ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant; based on input from 

ExxonMobil and Entergy, none of the units at Louisiana Station 1 will meet the definition of 
354 

"affected electric generating unit" because no unit supplies "one-third or more of its potential 

electric output and more than 219,000 MWh net-electric output to a utility distribution system." 

Commenters stated Louisiana Station 1 is a co-generation facility that was constructed for the 

purpose of supplying electricity and steam to the Exxon refinery; the units do not supply onethird or more of their potential electric output to a utility distribution system on a three-year 

rolling average basis, and thus are not defined as "affected units" by the Proposed Rule and 

should be removed from the state's goal-setting calculation; additionally, Louisiana Station 1 

Units 1A, 2A, and 3A are steam units, not NGCC units. 

Commenters stated Perryville Unit 2-CT is listed in the goal-setting calculation as an NGCC 

unit; this is a low-use simple cycle turbine and should be removed from the state's goal-setting 

calculation. The commenters said Louisiana has two NGCC units under construction that should 

be included in the goal setting calculation for the state. The commenters said Entergy's Ninemile 

Unit 6 has a nameplate capacity of 640 MWs and a summer net capacity of 550 MWs; Louisiana 

Energy and Power Authority's unit 14-01 has a nameplate capacity of 84 MWs and a summer net 

capacity of 64.5 MWs. The commenters said in Mississippi, EPA calculation for setting the state 

goal includes 150 MWs of NGCC under construction; to the best of the commenters' knowledge, 

there is no NGCC under construction in Mississippi.

Commenters the affected electric generating unit (EGU) inventory that was used to calculate the 

Alaska rat- based carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance goals is inaccurate; the following 

corrections should be made prior to calculating the final Alaska performance goals: 

-Unit 8 at the Chugach Electric Association (Chugach Electric) Beluga Plant should not be listed 

as a separate affected EGU; Unit 8 is a non-fired heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 

associated with the natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Beluga Units 6 and 7; in other words, Beluga Units 6 

and 7 are combined-cycle turbines that share the Unit 8 HRSG; the power generated by Unit 8 

should be included with the power generated by Beluga Units 6 and 7 to accurately represent the 

combined-cycle turbine electrical generation of these EGUs. 

-The Chugach Electric Southcentral Power Project Unit 4 (EPA EU ID 4) has not yet 

commenced construction and so should be eliminated from the affected EGU inventory. 

Commenters stated it is clear from the Proposed Guidelines, however, that EPA disregarded 

these applicability criteria and applied the BSER building blocks to units that do not meet the 

applicability criteria when determining each state's obligations; in particular, it appears that the 

EPA made no effort to exclude from the Proposed Guidelines NGCC units that did not 

"...suppl[y], one-third or more of [their] potential electric output and more than 219,000 MWh 

net-electrical output to a utility distribution system on a 3 year rolling average basis." The 

commenters said including NGCC units that did not meet the one-third sales exclusion in the 

goal calculation artificially inflates the amount of NGCC generating capacity that is available for 
355 

redispatch, which thus inflates the amount by which coal-fired EGUs must reduce generation 

under Building Block 2. The commenters said once this inflated redispatch is incorporated into a 

state's goal, affected NGCC units will be forced to operate at capacity factors significantly above 

70 percent in order to accommodate the expected generation that states cannot require from nonaffected EGUs. 

Commenters stated with respect to Indiana, using the summer rated net capacity of the 

Noblesville NGCC facility of 285 MW, the facility would have needed to generate 826,135 net 

MWh in 2012 to operate at a 33 percent annual capacity factor; the Noblesville NGCC facility 

generated 820,513 net MWh in 2012; in 2010, the facility generated a total of 227,093 net MWh, 

and in 2011 the facility generated a total of 350,091 net MWh. The commenters said this results 

in a three year average capacity factor over the period 2010-2012 of 18.6 percent; this unit does 

not meet the "and supplies, one-third or more of its potential electric output on a 3 year rolling 

average basis" criteria for the unit to be a 111(d) affected unit; the EPA should therefore 

recalculate the Indiana state goal without the Noblesville facility. 

Commenters stated New Mexico is concerned that EPA's list of affected sources in the 

spreadsheet accompanying the State Goal Computation Technical Support Document does not 

include all applicable sources, and may include sources that do not meet EPA's applicability 

criteria. 

Comment 28: Unofficial standby units should be removed from data set

Response 28: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP. The EPA did not 

remove stand-by units if they appeared likely to meet the affected unit-criteria. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has proposed state-specific CO2 emission performance goals, and 

requirements for each state to develop a plan to achieve its goal by the year 2030; the proposed 

emission rates are based on each state's fossil-fired EGUs. The commenters said not unlike many 

states in its region, Oklahoma can experience extreme weather conditions in any season. The 

commenters said the electric generators in Oklahoma keep a significant number of older and less 

cost effective units in reserve capacity, a condition where the unit only operates enough to ensure 

it could be used if needed in case of extreme weather or natural disaster. The commenters said 

generators are hesitant to decommission such units, despite limited use, due to the need to be 

responsive to extraordinary conditions when peak power is needed in a specific location. The 

commenters said Oklahoma generators maintain thirteen units in reserve capacity; these units 

should not be considered in calculating Oklahoma's performance goal, since the units are each 40 

plus years old, and/or have a capacity utilization factor of less than 0.10. 

Comment 29a: CHP units
356 

Response 29a: In the final CPP, all emissions from likely affected CHP plants are included in 

the baseline. Useful thermal output is not included in the quantification of BSER in the final 

rule, so the apportionment of emissions discussed above is not relevant to final rule BSER 

quantification. Affected sources would be responsible for all emissions regardless of their useful 

thermal output activity. However, as described in Section VIII, sources can take credit for their 

useful thermal output when demonstrating rate compliance. 

EPA identified approximately 2,900 cogeneration units connected to the grid. It “excluded” 

nearly 85 percent of these as likely non-affected sources because they reported their primary 

source category as commercial or industrial. EPA also removed some NGCC cogen units from 

its baseline inventory of likely affected units when identified by commenters by name and there 

was supporting publically available data. 

For the CHP units that identified their source category as electric utility or IPP, EPA did 

continue to include the units unless the commenters provided unit-specific data supporting their 

exclusion. 

EPA found no technical reason why the likely affected NGCC cogeneration units identifying 

their primary sector as electric utility would not be able to increase their utilization. It surveyed

2011 and 2012 data and found that collectively these sources did increase utilization from yearto-year (potentially as incentives such as fuel prices decreases made doing so more 

attractive). As natural gas fueled electricity became more competitive due to a drop in gas 

prices, the reported generation data indicates that these sources increased their generation 

collectively by more than 10%. The approximately 320 NGCC cogens that have their source 

category identified as electric utility or IPP that are considered likely affected, increased their 

generation from 115 TWh in 2011 to 129 TWh in 2012 given the additional incentive of low 

natural gas prices. See the 2010, 2011, 2012 unit-level data files. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated CHP units used in the calculation of state goals should be reconsidered; CHP 

errors 

Commenters stated based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission criteria to be a 

cogeneration facility, the addition of electrical generation equipment to an existing industrial 

combustion unit makes these facilities CHP units that can provide new electricity generation 

without new emissions. The commenters said EPA should clearly identify in the support 

documents and preamble that the addition of electric generation to existing industrial combustion 

sources can be used as a new generating source in calculating compliance with the proposed 

emission standards, even if it does not qualify as a renewable resource under state RPS 

requirements. The commenters added if the state can demonstrate that there are no new CO2 

emissions resulting from adding electrical generation equipment to these combustion units, they 

request that a state be able to count this generation as new megawatt-hours (MWh) with no 
357 

associated CO2. Meaning, commenters stated, that in calculating compliance the industrial CHP 

produces energy (MWh) to include in the denominator but no CO2 to include in the numerator of 

the calculation. 

Commenters added given the right incentives and guidance, CHP can be a cost-effective 

emission reduction strategy for each state regardless of the particular numerical emission rate 

target. The commenters were concerned with the treatment of certain CHP units that in 2012 

qualified as "affected EGUs." The commenters stated their view is that no CHP facilities should 

be considered affected EGUs. The commenters said however, even assuming EPA nevertheless 

considers some CHP facilities to be affected EGUs, CHPA disagrees with EPA's assumption that 

re-dispatching the electric generation from these units to non-CHP NGCC units is good policy 

that will result in emission reductions. 

Commenters added natural gas-fired CHP units cannot be dispatched as part of Building Block 2 

due to the integral relationship with adjacent customers; EPA should not factor natural gas-fired 

CHP units into state goal calculations. Commenters stated these natural gas-fired CHP units in 

select states that were included in EPA's goal calculations should be removed in order to 

accurately account for realistic dispatch capabilities. The commenters said all other factors in 

state goal calculations impacted by the removal of CHP units were adjusted accordingly, such as 

the NGCC emission rate, other emissions and generation, historic NGCC generation, and the 

NGCC nameplate capacity. The commenters provided a table (titled "Table 16: Natural GasFired CHP Units That Should Not be Included in Goal Calculations") showing the names of 

power plants in three southern states. The commenters said if EPA chooses incorrectly to include 

natural gas-fired CHP units in state goal calculations, the Agency must evaluate these facilities 

based on similar applicability criteria to the Agency's January 2014 NSPS Proposal. The 

commenters said in the January 2014 NSPS Proposal CHP units were able to subtract "purchased 

power of the thermal host facility or facilities" in determining net-electric output for applicability

purposes. The commenters supported EPA's intent to subtract purchased power of adjacent 

facilities in calculating the 219,000 MWh applicability criteria threshold for CHP facilities. The 

commenters also believed it was EPA's intent not to require the direct transmission of electricity 

to the adjacent facility. The commenters said as proposed, CHP units are not afforded the same 

net energy output definition in the existing source proposal; this treatment inadvertently includes 

some CHP units in state goal calculations. The commenters did not believe this was EPA's intent. 

The commenters said during EPA's webinar series for the proposed guidelines, EPA 

acknowledged that CHP units, for applicability purposes, may deduct power used internally or 

power purchased by an adjacent facility. The commenters said EPA must remove all CHP units 

from state goal calculations or, at a minimum, evaluate units using similar applicability criteria to 

the January 2014 NSPS Proposal. 

Commenters stated in its analysis of the NGCC fleet, EPA also inappropriately included 

industrial Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants. The commenters said in 2012, according to 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI), almost a third of the NGCCs over 25 MW were CHP plants and 

accounted for approximately 15 percent of total electric generation analyzed by EPA; although 
358 

these CHP plants contribute to the overall electric production of the nation, their operation is 

fundamentally different from that of a power plant primarily dedicated to serving electric-only 

load and the needs of the grid. The commenters said CHP plants tend to have much higher 

capacity factors than EGUs. The commenters said their electric output is typically a by-product 

of steam production and directly related to their industrial activity and heat production. The 

commenters said CHP plants are not operated primarily to serve the demand of the electric sector 

at large; also, CHP plants cannot typically be dispatched like other power-sector plants. The 

commenters said EEI reports that approximately half of the plants EPA identified as having 

utilization rates of 70 percent or more were, in fact, CHP plants. The commenters said these CHP 

plants cannot be taken into account when assessing the potential for increased utilization of the 

existing NGCC fleet; their inclusion in EPA's analysis resulted in an overestimate of the 

potential for fossil fuel-fired EGU redispatch; the redispatch portions of the state targets must be 

recalculated accordingly. 

Commenters stated MP&W's Unit 8A is a combined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration 

unit, but is not an EGU covered under the rule. The commenters said EPA's 2012 Unit Level 

Spreadsheet flags Unit 8A as a cogeneration unit and as "EXCLUDED". The commenters said 

the "Goal Computation Technical Support Document" (GCTSD) provides the following 

direction concerning CHP units: "For CHP units that are covered under the rule, the emissions 

and energy output associated with the useful thermal output not used for electricity production 

are included in the state goal and would be reported under the 111 (d) reporting guidelines if the 

unit meets the 111 (d) applicability criteria. The emissions and energy output associated with the 

useful thermal output are captured in the "other" category. The emission rates shown reflect total 

emissions divided by total net energy output (e.g. net electricity generation + useful thermal 

output). However, only the electricity generation portion of CHP is available for redispatch 

purposes, and therefore only this portion of the cogeneration operation is reflected in the 

technology generation totals." 

Commenters stated Unit 8A is a small unit that is not an affected source and it is noted as 

"excluded" on the EPA 2012 Unit Level Spreadsheet, but it is not clear how EPA used the data 

from Unit 8A cogeneration in setting Iowa's state goals. The commenters said the calculated 

values for Unit 8A in the 2012 Unit Level Spreadsheet are inconsistent with the methods that 

EPA states were used in the "Description of 2012 Unit Level Data using the EGRID 

Methodology". The commenters said MP&W staffs discussion with EPA staff indicates that 

"ratios" were used to apportion reported CO2 reported from CAMD according to ratios of 

generation reported on EIA Form 923. The commenters said this approach does not accurately 

reflect the actual thermal output from the CHP at Unit 8A (nor does it accurately reflect actual 

CO2 emissions from the individual units). The commenters said it appears that this approach for 

a CHP unit may result in double counting of CHP related emissions. The commenters requested 

clarification of the actual methods and associated rationale used for calculation of CO2 from 

CHP units, identification of the calculation(s) used by EPA to determine what amount, if any, 

was considered to be the electrical generation portion of the Unit 8A CHP that was available for 

dispatch purposes, and what was considered to be in the "other" category. The 
359 

commenters supported CHP-related generation being EXCLUDED from the calculations of 

generation available for re-dispatch and the heat input/output calculations. 

Commenters stated EPA has double counted CO2 emissions for CHP plants characterized under 

coal and "Other." The commenters said for example, the total 2012 CO2 emissions for North 

Carolina's Edgecombe Genco Plant is 416,411 tons; EPA determined that 223,731 tons of these 

emissions are associated with thermal output; EPA determined the baseline rate by assigning 

416,411 tons under coal and 2231731 tons under "Other". The commenters said this results in a 

total plant-wide CO2 emissions of 640,142 which is clearly higher than recorded emissions data. 

The commenters said the correct method for this plant would be to assign 192.680 tons for coal 

(416,411 minus 223,731) and 223,731 tons for "Other'. The commenters said this error correction 

also applies to North Carolina's other two CHP plants: Roanoke Valley Energy Facility I and II. 

It also applies to all CHP plants nationally. 

Comment 29b: Commenters stated that PSEG's three coal units will be the only remaining coalfired steam EGUs in the state of New Jersey in 2020. Commenters stated that only other coalfired steam EGU is owned and operated by Rockland Capital LLC (B.L. England power plant) 

and is slated to retire or convert to natural gas (NGCC) by May 2017. Commenters stated that the 

facility has received a permit to build a new NGCC unit, however challenges remain on whether 

approval will be granted to build a 22-mile long natural gas pipeline in southern New Jersey. 

Commenters stated that the only other coal-fired units are combined heat and power ("CHP") 

facilities owned by Chambers Cogeneration LP and Logan Generating Company LP. 

Commenters stated that CHP facilities are integrated energy systems that provide: 1) onsite 

generation of electrical and/or mechanical power to a host, and 2) waste-heat recovery to the host 

for heating, cooling, dehumidification, or process applications. Commenters stated that CHP 

facilities are designed to operate more efficiently than traditional EGUs because of the wasteheat recovery and requiring additional heat rate improvements from coal-fired CHP facilities 

may be counterproductive, leading to an increase in emissions. Commenters stated that if the 

host's power and waste heat needs are constant, heat rate improvements will likely result in 

additional excess power sold to the grid. Commenters stated that sale of excess power to the grid 

benefits the facility owner by promoting recovery of costs to operate and maintain the coal-fired 

CHP unit(s). Commenters stated that a coal-fired CHP facility may no longer be justified if the 

opportunity to sell excess power to the grid is eliminated under Building Block 2. Commenters 

stated that due to the foregoing, PSEG believes that coal-fired CHP facilities should be excluded 

from the goal setting calculations in both Building Blocks 1 and 2. 

Response 29b: The EPA did remove the majority of cogeneration units from its baseline 

inventory based on their primary sector was commercial and industrial as opposed to electricity 
360 

generation. However, some cogeneration EGUs that have a primary sector of electricity 

generation and appear to meet the prime mover, fuel, and size criteria are still considered likely 

affected units and included in the baseline. The EPA makes no unit-level assumptions in BSER 

quantification that these specific units will conduct a heat rate improvement or have their 

generation replaced. Those assumptions are made at the regional level. The EPA believes the 

added efficiency of cogeneration relative to non-cogen capacity will generally result in a 

competitive advantage and encourage their continued or increased operation. Moreover, based 

on comments, the EPA did not include useful thermal output in the quantification of BSER, but 

as described in section VIII of the preamble they may still take credit for useful thermal output in 

compliance. This creates an additional incentive for cogeneration units to continue to operate 

relative to similar technology without cogeneration capability. 

 

Comment 29c: Commenters suggested that the EPA consider four categories for CHP to be 

considered an eligible pathway for states to avoid or reduce affected EGU emissions under 

Section 111(d): (1) Existing CHP system that is an affected EGU under Section 111(d); for these 

systems, the determination of the emissions rate should take into consideration the overall 

efficiency of the system at converting fuel to useful energy, and state plans should be able to 

value the carbon reductions that result from increased dispatch of power from these lower carbon 

EGUs; (2) New CHP systems that will be regulated under Section 111(b); for these systems, the 

determination of an emissions rate should take into consideration the overall efficiency at 

converting fuel to useful energy, and a state compliance plan should be able to recognize the 

carbon reduction potential of systems that have lower emissions rates than required by the NSPS 

standard; (3) Existing CHP systems that do not meet the requirements of an affected EGU under 

Section 111(d); for these systems, the efficiency to convert fuel to useful energy should be 

recognized if the systems have the ability to provide power to the grid and their hours of 

operation increase or they switch to a lower carbon fuel such as switching from coal to natural 

gas or from natural gas to a biofuel; and (4) New CHP systems not covered by existing rules; 

these systems should be treated as energy efficiency measures, and the energy savings they 

provide converted into a reduction of generation and associated emissions from affected EGUs. 

Response 29c: The 111(d) rulemaking only regulates existing sources. However, the EPA 

believes that the rule generally favors and incentivizes more utilization from more efficient units 

(regardless of whether they are affected), and therefore CHP units that operate in a manner where 

useful thermal output is a significant component should enjoy a compliance advantage relative to 

similar generating technologies that lack the cogeneration capability

Comment 29d: Commenters disagreed that the thermal contribution of CHP should be relied 

upon in the plan to meet a state goal since it requires that the thermal output be used far into the 

future. Commenters stated that an agreement to generate heat for a co-located industrial or 

manufacturing facility may not last through the interim period, 2030, and beyond. Commenters 
361 

stated that using the short term agreements to establish BSER puts states at risk of not meeting 

their carbon rate reduction goals. 

Commenters stated that the rule should be modified to ensure affected CHP units are adequately 

treated. Commenters stated the proposed rule includes several provisions that relate to the subset 

of existing CHP installations that are treated as Electric Generating Units. Commenters stated 

these provisions only apply to the handful of the nation's 5,408 CHP operating units that are 

directly affected by the rule. 

Response 29d: EPA no longer includes useful thermal output in its rate setting. This helps 

address the concern about uncertainty in thermal output going forward.

Comment 29e: Commenters stated that CHP units should not be subject to emission limits 

unless the primary purpose of the unit is to sell electricity on the grid. Commenters stated that 

otherwise, units that provide power primarily for on-site use should be allowed to voluntarily opt 

in to state reduction plans. 

Response 29e: The EPA agrees, it has only included CHP units as likely affected sources if they 

report in EIA 860 the primary sector is electric utility (as opposed to commercial or industrial). 

Comment 29f: Commenters disagreed that thermal energy generation with CHP systems should 

be included in baseline calculations. Commenters disagreed that increased thermal efficiency 

offered by CHP systems can be best utilized as an incentive for a state or EGU to reduce its 

carbon rate as a compliance option. For facilities and states that want to add CHP capacity due to 

captive market needs, commenters stated that the EPA should require reporting of both electric 

and useful thermal output (e.g.,lb steam generated). In these cases, commenters stated that the 

full 100% credit for useful thermal output should be allowed. 

Commenters stated that CHP facilities should only report net electric generation. Commenters 

stated relying on thermal generation as part of the baseline calculations will put states at risk due 

to the short term nature of CHP agreements. If a state chooses to use CHP activities as part of its 

state compliance option, commenters stated that a CHP facility should be given credit for any 

reduction in CO2 from the thermal portion but it should not be part of BSER since it is difficult 

to enforce and is not permanent.

Response 29f: The EPA agrees, and does not count useful thermal output from likely affected 

CHP sources in the BSER quantification of the final rule. However, in recognition of the carbon 

reduction potential of CHP sources, it does allow the useful thermal output to be converted to a 

MWh figure and counted towards compliance. 

Comment 30: Units with federally enforceable operating limits.
362 

Response 30: The EPA’s quantification of BSER reflects fleet-wide assumptions about increases 

and decreases in utilization. As explained in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for Final CPP, the EPA recognizes that there will be individual units that have 

the ability to outperform these fleet-wide levels, and those that do not have the ability to operate 

at that level.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA included several units in Florida's goal calculation that have federally 

enforceable operating limits restricting their operation to levels below the proposed applicability 

thresholds. The commenters said including such units in Florida's goal calculation is clearly in 

error. The commenters provided Table 3-2, entitled: “City of Tallahassee Units Improperly 

Included in Goal Calculation”. 

Comment 31: Covered Sources vs. Fleet-wide Emissions

Response 31: See Section V of the preamble for a discussion on BSER measures. The EPA has 

finalized a CPP rule that does capture a framework for evaluating the additional power 

production made possible by efficiency upgrades. Section VIII.G of the Preamble discusses 

actions taken to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU. Inherent in the emission rate 

is the reported emissions and generation of the source itself. As this is a fundamental component 

of compliance, any improvements in efficiency at a plant would be captured through these 

metrics and their downward pressure on emission rate. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's proposed approach narrowly targets the existing fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating fleet, reducing carbon emissions from a 2012 average rate of 1,444 pounds 

per megawatt hour (lb/MWh) to a 2030 average rate of 991 lb/MWh; however, the lowest rate 

achievable with fossil fuels - per EPA calculations - would be a natural gas fleet emitting 1,135 

lb/MWh, clearly well above the emissions target. The commenters said EPA must measure 

compliance according to a future fleet-wide emissions average; this artificial distinction between 

existing and future fleet generation creates a number of measurement and compliance concerns. 

Commenters stated as proposed, this rule ignores all existing hydropower and 94 percent of 

existing nuclear generation; together, these sources generated 26 percent of nationwide 

electricity production in 2012 and represent more than 80 percent of the carbon-free power 

supply. The commenters said the result is an emissions rate target that is out of step with current 

emissions. The commenters said consider the states which would be able to increase actual 

carbon emissions over the compliance period if actual emissions from their generation fleet were 

measured accurately in the baseline. 
363 

Commenters stated EPA's baseline calculations disguise the 31.4 percent of the power supply 

currently generated from carbon-free sources and undervalue the carbon reduction 

accomplishments of 11 states that draw more than half their electricity from nuclear and 

renewable sources. 

Commenters stated as we move into the compliance window, however, EPA must change its 

tune; the compliance target is not achievable with even the cleanest of fossil fuels. The 

commenters said compliance cannot be measured according to the emissions rate of the fossil 

fleet in isolation, but must include additional power sources. The commenters said EPA will 

measure a state's emissions rate by considering emissions from the fossil fleet and additional 

carbon-free generation from a narrow subsection of the nuclear fleet, existing and new renewable 

energy (RE), and the avoided production made possible by energy efficiency investments. 

Commenters stated this asymmetric treatment of carbon-free sources, that bolsters production 

from variable sources and diminishes the role of baseload power, inspires an important question 

for EPA: is it possible to account for all existing power generation in establishing emissions 

targets and measuring compliance. The commenters said such an approach would appropriately 

credit early-acting states that rely heavily on nuclear and hydro and create near-term incentives 

to improve the efficiency of and power production from these significant existing sources. The 

commenters said if the EPA does not capture these existing sources in compliance measurement, 

it must create a framework for evaluating the additional power production made possible by 

efficiency upgrades or be prepared to abandon significant low-cost compliance possibilities. 

Comment 32: Application of BB1

Response 32: As described in the Section V.C of the Preamble, the EPA no longer has a BB1 

assumption of 6% nationwide. Also, as described in Goal Computations TSD at Proposal and 

reiterated in the final rule, the EPA recognizes individual units may face limitations that keep it 

from achieving the fleet-wide building block assumptions. The EPA quantification of BSER and 

building blocks is premised on the potential of the fleet on average. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated for step 2 (application of Building Block 1), U.S. EPA took the total CO2 

emissions amount for the coal-fired steam EGU group in each state from Step 1 and reduced it 

by 6%, reflecting HRIs. The commenters contended that there is no direct, one-to-one 

relationship between HRI projections and CO2 intensity; this represents a gross 

oversimplification of the true complexity of fossil-fuel-fired generating units. 

Commenters stated the use of a standard assumption of 6 percent heat rate improvement applied 

to all coal units will not be feasible on some units, and results in more stringent goals for states 

whose coal units have already undertaken heat rate improvement projects than for states whose 
364 

coal units have not undertaken such projects. The commenters said many utilities already 

implement ongoing heat rate improvement programs to capture the efficiency gains that EPA is 

assuming in the "best practices" portion of its Building Block 1 assumption, making a further 4 

percent improvement unlikely. The commenters said the ability to achieve a 2 percent 

improvement through equipment upgrades will vary from plant to plant; new coal units and coal 

units that have already implemented heat rate improvement projects will have more difficulty 

achieving further heat rate reductions than older units and units that have not previously 

undertaken these projects/programs. The commenters made the recommendation to allow the 

option for states to replace the assumed 6 percent heat rate improvement in the goal-setting 

formula with a case-by-case evaluation of the potential for, and cost-effectiveness of, further heat 

rate improvement projects at individual electric generating units (EGUs). 

Comment 33: Discrepancy between BB1 goal setting HRI and compliance scenario 

Response 33: The EPA’s BSER quantification is not prescriptive. Therefore, in the EPA’s 

compliance modeling sources/states were free to choose the least-cost path towards compliance. 

There are many retirements scheduled to occur post 2012 even absent a CPP policy case. While 

these retirements are not part of BSER quantification, they represent alternative emissions 

reductions that can move a source/state towards compliance and alleviate the need for 

sources/states to rely on the building blocks technologies.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that there is an apparent discrepancy with EPA's goal setting vs. EPA's 

compliance modeling (e.g., EPA goal setting has coal-fired units improving efficiency by 6%, 

but EPA's "Option 1 - State" compliance scenario shows all of Gulf Power Company's coal-fired 

units retiring, which would completely negate any such efficiency improvements). 

Comment 34: The EPA double-counts CO2 emissions reductions from Block 1 and Block 2 

Response 34: The EPA disagrees with the comment. The EPA showed each building block 

implementation at proposal. In some cases, one building block may have negated the prior. For 

example if building block two generation replaced all fossil steam generation in a state, than the 

building block one implementation has no impact. Because state goals were a product (among 

other things) of fossil steam generation and fossil steam emission rates, as the building block two 

decreased fossil steam generation it automatically reduced the significance of BB1 emission rate 

impacts. The commenters can observe this by going to appendix 1 of the Goal Computations 

TSD, changing the building block 1 assumption to 0%, and observe that this has no impact on 

the state goal in states where block 2 had completely replaced coal generation. See sections VI 

and VII of the final rule preamble for discussion of how subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates and state goals were calculated for the final rule. 
365 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's model predicts a fleet-wide reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from 

a heat rate improvement of 6%; EPA then, under Block 2, appears to predict that many of the 

same coal fired power plants will be retired under Block 2. The commenters said it would be 

nonsensical, and incredibly economically damaging, to undertake heat rate improvements and 

then only shortly thereafter shut down those same units; but by combining Building Blocks 1 and 

2, and using projected emission reductions combined between these two steps, EPA is doing just 

that. The commenters said this results in the double-counting of these emissions and inflating the 

stringency of the emissions reductions targets for each state; this creates an erroneously low 

value for its final emission guidelines. 

Comment 35: Application of BB2 

Response 35: Because the 111(b) and 111(d) applicability requirements treat fossil steam 

sources as one category, the EPA’s replacement assumptions for building blocks two and three 

do not prioritize between coal and OG steam. Moreover, the EPA observed that nationally the 

ratio of OG steam generation to coal steam generation is low, and that in some cases OG steam 

sources have higher emission rates than coal sources in the baseline. For these reasons, the EPA 

treats all fossil steam equally for replacement purposes. 

As described in Preamble Section V.A.4.b, the EPA relies on net summer capacity for 

quantifying BB2 potential in this final rule. Section V along with the Greenhouse Gas 

Mitigation TSD also explain the EPA assumptions regarding incremental NGCC generation 

potential and the underlying infrastructure comments. 

As explained in the Goal Computations TSD at Proposal, the EPA recognizes that there are 

individual unit limitations that may not correspond to the fleet-wide building blocks assumption 

levels. However, the EPA’s BSER at proposal and final rule is premised of regional fleet-wide 

reduction potential of a building block and the EPA has left states the flexibility to assign 

reduction responsibility in a manner that it best sees fit regarding unit-level limitations. 

Neither at proposal or final does the EPA expect Arizona to eliminate all coal steam generation 

as part of their compliance pathway.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated for step 3 (application of Building Block 2), if the generation data for the 

NGCC group in a state developed in Step 1 showed average annual utilization below 70% of 

those units' maximum possible output, and the generation data developed in Step 1 also included 

generation from the coal-fired steam or oil/gas-fired steam EGU groups in that state, the 

generation and emissions figures for the NGCC group were increased. The commenters said in 

addition, the generation and emissions figures for the coal-fired and oil/gas-fired steam EGU 
366 

groups from Step 2 were proportionately decreased to reflect an estimated potential increase in 

utilization of the NGCC group to a maximum of 70%. The commenters said in this step, the total 

(across all four groups) of the state's fossil fuel- fired generation was maintained at the amount 

computed in Step 1; but a portion of the total fossil generation was shifted from the coal-fired 

and oil/gas-fired steam EGU groups, which have higher CO2 emission rates, to the NGCC 

group, which has a lower CO2 emission rate, the total (across all four groups) of the state's CO2 

emissions was reduced. The commenters said U.S. EPA is also requesting comment on an 

alternative computation procedure; to the extent that generation from a state's NGCC group was 

increased consistent with the NGCC utilization rate target, in order to maximize the resulting 

emission reductions, U.S. EPA would decrease generation from the state's coal-fired steam group 

first, and then decrease generation from the state's oil/gas-fired steam group (instead of 

decreasing generation from the coal-fired steam and oil/gas-fired steam groups proportionately). 

The commenters have identified multiple errors and false assumptions in the development and 

application of Building Block 2, including but not limited to the incorrect use of nameplate 

capacities, incomplete and overly optimistic analysis of the natural gas infrastructure necessary 

to maintain these levels of generation, inadequate consideration of the geographic location of 

existing and under-construction within the power grid, and an incomplete accounting of the true 

costs of increased natural gas usage with respect to manufacturing and residential heating needs. 

The commenters wished to reiterate that increased use of NGCC units was driven in the IPM 

model by the addition of a "shadow cost" to each ton of CO2, absent a detailed explanation of 

how U.S. EPA envisions such a cost being applied in a state plan. 

Commenters stated EPA assumes that NGCC units can be "re-dispatched" to a 70 percent 

capacity factor but fails to recognize several significant impediments to achieving that goal; first, 

some NGCC units were financed and designed to operate as a cycling plant at much lower 

capacity factors than 70 percent; as such, those NGCC units often have permit limits that may 

preclude operation at a capacity factor of 70 percent. 

Commenters stated for example, in EPA's goal calculation for New Mexico, EPA assumed that 

Afton Generating Station ("Afton") could operate at a 70 percent capacity factor to generate 

1,759,884 MWhr, based on the total capacity of the facility including the duct burner; however, 

the Afton permit only authorizes operation of the duct burner- which represents a significant 

portion of the total capacity of the unit- for 1,920 hours per year, which equates to only a 22 

percent capacity factor. The commenters said the MW capacity of the unrestricted portion of the 

facility (i.e., without the duct burner) is only 232 MW, which, if operated at a EPA's assumed 70 

percent capacity factor, would only generate 1,422,624 MWhr, or 337,260 MWhr short of EPA's 

expectation for Afton. The commenters said for the duct burner to make up that difference, based 

on the 60 MW capacity of the burner indicated in the Afton permit, it must operate at least 5,621 

hours, which is nearly three times the level that the Afton permit authorizes for duct burner 

operation. The commenters said conversely, if the duct burner operated for all 1,920 hours 

authorized, thus generating 115,200 MWhr, that would leave 1,644,684 for the unrestricted 
367 

portion of the facility (232 MW) to meet EPA's 70 percent assumption, which would require 

operation at an 81 percent capacity factor, much higher than EPA has proposed. 

Commenters said in short, to satisfy the level of generation EPA calculated for the re-dispatch of 

the Afton facility, PNM would have two choices - either operate the facility at an 81 percent 

capacity factor, or apply for a permit revision to eliminate the duct burner operating hours 

restriction, which could trigger additional permitting and regulatory requirements; because EPA 

has neither evaluated whether an 81 percent capacity factor is achievable (at Afton or any other 

combined cycle facility), nor evaluated the potential issues associated with revising the Afton 

permit to allow increased duct burner operation, EPA's rote application of its building block 2 

assumptions to Afton, and New Mexico as a whole, is inappropriate. 

Commenters were concerned about the significant impact of the very recent additional EPA 

proposal for creating a minimum value of re-dispatched coal to non-existent NGCC power plants 

or to co-firing natural gas in existing coal-fired boilers. 

Commenters stated based on the commenters' evaluation of EPA's documents on development of 

the state CO2 goal for Arizona, it appears that EPA contemplates the complete replacement of 

Arizona's coal-fired resources by other existing natural gas combined cycle, NGCC, generation. 

The commenters said this is problematic for several reasons; first, it is not clear that this 

generation capacity actually exists; EPA used gross, not net, generation which overstates 

available resource. The commenters said it is also unclear whether EPA reduced the generation 

account for reserves, transmission constraints, transmission losses, and added related issues. 

Commenters stated co-owners of Big Stone are investing near $400 million in the regional haze 

pollution controls; the redispatch assumption is not feasible in this case and is expected to result 

in required replacement generation; effectively stranding this asset, including the investment of 

regional haze controls. The commenters said due to this projected outcome, the 

commenters believed that the remaining useful life of the unit has not been considered; for these 

reasons building block two should be eliminated from South Dakota's target. 

Comment 36: Recommendations for Building Block 2 

Response 36: See sections V.A., V.D., and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment and more information about Building Block 2 and the CO2

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final 

CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters believed it is necessary for EPA to consider each affected facility's remaining 

useful life when setting the state goals, the commenters also believed it would be appropriate to 

adjust Arizona's interim and final goals to account for the book life of generation assets and 
368 

major pollution control retrofits, as well as commitments made by utilities to shut down or 

convert coal-fired units to natural gas during the interim period. The commenters proposed the 

following few targeted changes to the final rule: 

1. For purposes of goal setting under Building Block 2: 

a. Re-dispatch from coal-fired EGUs to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) EGUs should occur 

upon the later of any of the following, if re-dispatch would occur prior to January 1, 2030: 

i. January 1, 2020; 

ii. 40 years after initial commencement of operation; or 

iii. 20 years after commencement of operation of major pollution control retrofits, such as 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR), flue gas desulfurization (FGD), or baghouses at any EGU if 

installation occurred prior to issuance of the final 111(d) rule, or after commencement of 

operation of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) at an 

EGU owned by a small utility as defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

if installation occurred prior to the first year of the compliance period (i.e., 2020). 

b. For coal-fired EGUs that either shut down or convert to natural gas-fired operation, redispatch would occur as specified in an applicable implementation plan or enforceable Title V 

permit, provided that such commitment is entered prior to the effective date of the final rule and 

the date of shutdown or natural gas conversion is prior to January 1, 2030. 

c. Coal-fired EGUs that do not re-dispatch prior to January 1, 2030 under paragraphs 1.a or 1.b 

remain coal-fired EGUs for purposes of calculating the interim and final Goals. 

2. For purposes of goal setting, when re-dispatching to NGCC, a rate of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh 

should be used, consistent with the most stringent standard in the EPA's proposed New Source 

Performance Standard for EGUs. 

Commenters supported the Xcel Energy recommended changes to the Plan; eliminate the block 2 

penalty for NGCC generation displaced by renewables by: Estimating NGCC MWh's displaced 

by wind in 2012 and add the displaced MWhs to the actual NGCC MWh's to calculate a new 

adjusted capacity factor; then re-calculate a new Block 2 with the adjusted capacity factor. 

Commenters stated one area in which EPA may want to revise its goal computations is the 

treatment of NGCC emission rates and potential output; the proposed rules treat all NGCCs in a 

state as being essentially the same, and assume that all NGCCs can be operated at 70% capacity 

factor with the average 2012 emission rate of the state's combined-cycle fleet. The commenters 

said this assumption is problematic, because NGCCs come in at least three varieties: 
369 

-Cogenerating units with significant steam load, which have very low net heat rates and emission 

rates, and whose output may be limited by the energy requirements of the steam host; assuming 

that these units can increase output from 2012 levels may not be realistic, and their net emission 

rates are not representative of the potential performance on non-cogenerating units. 

-Modern NGCCs using frame-type turbines, which can operate at heat rates under 7,500 

Btu/kWh and emission rates well under 850 lb/MWh, at high load; these units can generally 

operate at capacity factors over 85%, but many operated at much lower capacity factors in 2012; 

at low load levels, or with many starts and stops, the units had much higher 2012 heat rates and 

emission rates (over 900 lb/MWh in some cases); rather than assuming that these units will 

operate at 2012 emission rates at 70% capacity factor, EPA should assume that they will have a 

heat rate typical of high-load operation. 

-Older NGCCs, from the 1970s and 1980s, and those that use less efficient combustion turbines 

(such as the aero-derivative turbines optimized for fast starts and rapid ramps). In 2012, many of 

these units operated at very low capacity factors, often under 10%, resulting in very high heat 

rates and emission rates; for example, the Arkansas Oswald and Fitzhugh plants operated at 7% 

capacity factors and (respectively) 8,500 and 9,400 Btu/kWh in 2012, while a handful of other 

plants (Stony Brook and Cleary in Massachusetts, Coolwater in California, Brunot Island in 

Pennsylvania, Sterlington in Louisiana, Beaver in Oregon) ran at capacity factors as low as 1% 

and heat rates as high as 15,000; while these units will never operate at the efficiency and CO2 

emission rates of the high-efficiency plants, their performance would improve remarkably were 

they operated at higher capacity factors. 

The commenters said the EPA should examine the feasibility of differentiating the NGCCs into 

these three categories, and using generic (rather than 2012 state-specific) values for the emission 

rates of groups 2 and 3 at 70% capacity factor. 

Comment 37: BB3; RE in calculation 

Response 37: See Section V.E for a discussion of building block three in the final CPP rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Block 3 assumes that renewable energy production can increase to a level 

above the minimum load in the ERCOT {Electric Reliability Council of Texas} market. The 

commenters said it would be extremely difficult for Texas to achieve both a 70 percent capacity 

factor for NGCC plants and 20 percent renewable energy production without increasing CO2 

emissions. The commenters said ERCOT currently has over 11 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity 

and 49 GW of gas-fired capacity; during low load periods (off-peak hours in the shoulder months 

of spring and fall), the majority of ERCOT's NGCC fleet would be turned offline and a 

percentage will be backed down to the unit's Low Sustainable Limit (LSL) to provide ancillary 
370 

services. The commenters said when NGCC are ramping up or down or when those units are not 

performing at their High Sustainable Limit (HSL), CO2 emissions are increased for those 

facilities; for example, LCRA's new NGCC unit (one of the most efficient NGCC units on the 

ERCOT grid) emits 6 percent more CO2 at its LSL compared to its HSL. The commenters said 

not only are CO2 emissions higher per MWh, but other pollutants increase on a per MWh basis 

as NGCCs ramp up and down; this scenario provides another example of EPA's building blocks 

working against each other. 

Commenters stated New York State must get credit under the EPA's Plan for its existing 

renewable energy resources. The commenters said New York power plant developers have been 

making investments toward meeting the goal of the state's RPS of having 30 percent of the 

electricity consumed by New Yorkers come from renewable energy resources by 2015. The 

commenters said according to the NYISO's Power Trends 2014: Evolution of the 

Grid, approximately 23 percent of New York's electricity generation is supplied by renewable 

energy resources. The commenters said with the assistance of the RPS program, a diversified 

generation fleet has continued and been expanded, bringing the level of renewable resource 

capacity in the state to over 6,000 megawatts (MW). The commenters said only in-State 

renewable energy resources are eligible for the RPS. The commenters said in terms of the overall 

resource supply mix available for New York State and the associated emissions benefits, the 

EPA's Plan should account for the value of existing in-State hydro resources. The commenters 

said imported resources should not be considered for emission reductions ahead of reductions 

that are available from power plant assets in New York State. The commenters said additional 

renewable energy resources in New York State are needed to meet New York's RPS goal and to 

garner the associated emissions benefits within New York State. 

Commenters stated Building Block 3 requires that states expand the amount of lower-carbon 

generating capacity; in the case of Indiana, the interim goal is an additional 5 percent by 2020 

and 7 percent by 2030. The commenters said since the baseline for this incremental renewable 

goal is 2012, the approximately 5 percent renewable generation in generation portfolios will not 

be credited toward this goal; this is a serious disincentive for future voluntary efforts to reduce 

GHGs or any other emissions from regulated units. The commenters said in setting the state-bystate renewable goals under Building Block 3 EPA did not consider the renewable potential of 

each state, but EPA instead used a regional methodology that does not account for significant 

differences in the renewable potentials of each state. The commenters said for example, for 

purposes of setting renewable targets EPA placed Indiana in the "North Central" region, which 

includes Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and 

Wisconsin. The commenters said EPA used a regional average of existing renewable portfolio 

standards to prescribe state targets within that region; this ignores both the political realities that 

existing renewable energy standards are creatures of the politics of a given state, and not 

necessarily an accurate reflection of the renewable potential of a region or state, and the simple 

fact that states within these arbitrary regions do not share the same renewable potentials; for 

example, Indiana has limited solar resources. The commenters said in 2013 the Indiana Utility 

Forecasting Group issued its report in which it explains that Indiana is in a region of the country 
371 

that has the lowest annual average solar radiation. The commenters said in addition, EPA's 

assumptions about the potential for wind power in Indiana are erroneous as compared to the 

wind potential of Iowa and the Dakotas, and the inclusion of Indiana in a region that includes 

these northern states inflates Indiana's renewable targets beyond the potential incremental 

capacity that may be available to meet the state's goals. The commenters said EPA should allow 

each state to determine its own potential renewable targets based upon the renewable potential of 

that state. The commenters said EPA must also clarify how states should account for renewable 

energy that is generated in one state but consumed in another; in the case of Indiana, wind energy 

produced in four states is delivered across the state's borders; approximately 50 percent of the 

wind secured in purchase power agreements in the state is produced out of state. 

Commenters stated the existence of emission reduction policies such as renewable portfolio 

standards act as a supplemental to the overall average emission reduction per Mwh simply by 

being on the books; but the tangible benefits of such policies are so difficult to measure that it is 

impossible to know how much actual emission reduction is a direct result of these renewable 

energy initiatives. The commenters said rather than use an unadjusted method of calculation 

which would make it easier for energy producers to comply proposed regulations, the EPA chose 

to use an adjusted formula to calculate emission reduction goals; as a result, states would only be 

able to meet the new targets if they enacted pro-renewable policies such as renewable portfolio 

standards. 

Commenters stated in the Proposal, EPA reduces each state's CO2 emission rate goal using 

renewable energy and nuclear energy factors: 

-Renewable energy is factored in by adding potential renewable energy growth for each state into 

the state's emission factor for affected EGUs calculated from a regional renewable energy 

benchmark. 

-Nuclear energy is factored in by adding "under construction" generation and 5.8 percent of each 

state's existing nuclear generation (using a 90-percent capacity factor) to account for "at risk" 

generation into the state's emission factor for affected EUGs. 

The commenters said the EPA should calculate renewable energy's contribution to the goal in a 

way that does not penalize states that have taken steps to develop renewable energy while 

creating incentives for the continuation or furtherance of such efforts. The commenters believed 

the EPA satisfied this objective in the Proposal. The commenters believed the EPA's method of 

using regional averages is appropriate, as that approach is more likely to account for variability 

in the availability of resources across regions of the country. The commenters have not 

investigated alternative regional boundaries; therefore, does not offer comment on the 

appropriateness of the specific regions used by the EPA. The commenters also supported the 

EPA's conclusion that all renewable energy in place as of the compliance date should be counted 

toward compliance with the states' goals. 
372 

Commenters stated Dairyland is a true leader in renewables; over 12 percent of the power 

Dairyland provided to consumers last year came from a diverse mix of renewable resources. The 

commenters said Dairyland has access to hydro, biomass, solar, biogas and wind resources. The 

commenters were concerned the proposed CPP does not guarantee Dairyland considerable 

efforts to develop renewable resources will be given proper credit. The commenters said to 

diversify the Dairyland generation portfolio and protect Dairyland member interests, Dairyland 

utilizes renewable resources in all the states that Dairyland serves; yet even though Dairyland 

serves members in these states, the current rules do not ensure Dairyland will receive credit for 

these resources simply because the coal plants are all located in Wisconsin. The commenters 

recommended the rules should give utilities credit for all their available renewable resources, 

regardless of the state in which the resource sites are physically located. 

Commenters stated EPA must be consistent in the manner in which it treats renewable energy 

that is sold across state lines. The commenters said when EPA calculated the goals for each state, 

all renewable megawatt hours (MWh) generated in the state in 2012 were placed in the 

denominator; however, with respect to goal achievement, if this generation is credited to the 

power purchaser in a different state, the generating state would be required to make up the 

shortfall. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Power Plant Rule, only incorporates 'renewable green power' as 

a program under a States individual carbon emissions programs, a.k.a. California Cap and Trade 

and Renewable Energy Portfolios; as such, only the reduction in CO2 emissions achieved by 

credit offsets at the State level is recognized, and monetized and not the actual value of the 

renewable green power generation capacity in terms of Jobs, or ZERO emissions (wind, solar). 

Commenters stated EPA's BSER Building Block 3 encompasses both renewable generating 

capacity and new and preserved nuclear capacity; the commenters supported the increased 

development of renewable energy (RE) nation-wide, but EPA's approach to quantifying the 

potential emission reductions that could be achieved through increased deployment of renewable 

generating capacity raises a number of methodological concerns and may result in individual 

state emission goals that are not achievable. The commenters said EPA should revise the generic 

approach to quantifying potential reductions from increased deployment of renewables and EPA 

should adjust state-specific goals to reflect state-specific concerns about the proposed emission 

rate goals before finalizing these goals; EPA should work with the states to set achievable state 

goals that reflect in-state conditions. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed primary and alternate methods for setting RE generation 

goals raise significant concerns about whether the proposed goals can be achieved by the 

states; specifically, the primary proposed approach relies on individual state RES targets to set 

regional goals. The commenters said this regional approach inappropriately assumes that 

individual state RES mandates are proxies for region-wide RE potential and that all neighboring 

states have similar RE potential; further, EPA's use of RES requirements fails to consider key 

design features of state RES programs. 
373 

Comment 38: The EPA needs to consider the remaining useful life of existing plants when 

formulating the group of affected generating units.

Response 38: See sections V.A., V.D., and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment. Also see the docket memo titled “Stranded Assets Analysis”.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated exclude coal plants from the re-dispatch calculation if they are 40 or less 

years old as of 2030. The commenters said this policy in conjunction with allowing a glide path 

on the interim goal will present a more reasonable end target for the state of Arizona and provide 

enough time to put in place infrastructure to accommodate the transition away from coal based 

electricity. 

Comment 39: The proposed rule does not account for increased duct firing as NGCC operations 

increase. 

Response 39: The EPA disagrees with the comment that it should assume a higher NGCC 

emission rate based on increased utilization. First, the EPA surveyed historical state-level data 

and found it to support a negative correlation between emission rate and utilization– suggesting 

the emission rates are generally lower (not higher as suggested by the commenters) as utilization 

increases in a state. This is likely due to efficiency gains from less cycling. Therefore, the EPA 

believes its assumption to use the historical NGCC emission rate to inform BSER calculations is 

conservative and reasonable. Finally, the EPA’s building block analysis and assessment of the 

75% value is based off historical generation and reported capacity values that reflect duct burner 

operation.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in its goal-setting calculation, EPA assumes that the CO2 emission rate of the 

redispatched NGCC units will be equal to their 2012 emission rate; however, this is unlikely to 

be a reasonable assumption, because EPA failed to consider the implications of its building 

blocks on unit operations. The commenters said all Wisconsin NGCC units have duct-fired 

peaking capacity that generally comprises at least 10-20 percent of the total capacity of the units. 

The commenters said the duct-fired capacity has a significantly higher incremental heat rate - 

and emission rate - than the unfired capacity, so the duct-fired capacity has historically been 

operated fairly infrequently; however, in order to achieve a capacity factor of 70 percent, 

additional duct firing will likely be required at some units. The commenters said when 

determining the appropriate emission rate to use for redispatched NGCCs in calculating state 

goals, EPA must consider the fact that redispatched NGCCs operating under the assumptions in 
374 

Building Block 2 will likely operate with increased duct firing - thus at a higher emission rate - 

than they did in 2012. 

Comment 40: Use a rate no lower than rate proposed for new NGCC 

Response 40: See Section V of the Preamble for a discussion of 111(d) BSER rates relative to 

111(b) rates. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in calculating the emission rate targets for Arizona, EPA assumed that 

NGCC units would operate in future years at an emission rate of 900 lb CO2/MWh; this value is 

the combined average annual emissions rate for the NGCC units in Arizona during 2012; 

however, this emission factor is not consistent with EPA's analysis regarding emission rate 

capabilities for new, highly efficient units under section 111(b). The commenters said this single 

year snapshot could underestimate the emission rates for these units given that these units could 

operate differently in the future. The commenters said EPA should remain consistent with its 

analysis regarding the emission rate that is continuously achievable for NGCC units and use a 

rate that is no lower than the rate that the agency proposed for new sources under section 111(b). 

Comment 41: BB3 clean energy storage must be properly accounted for 

Response 41: See sections V.A and V.E from the Preamble. The EPA has revised its approach to 

quantifying building block three potential based on comments.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed CPP fails to recognize the importance of clean energy storage 

in its compliance equations and BSER analysis. The commenters said Michigan is a prime 

example of the importance of energy storage via the Ludington Pumped Storage reservoir (LPS 

or Ludington) co-owned with DTE Electric. The commenters said Ludington can provide energy 

at a moment's notice, which is critical for grid stability and reliability. The commenters said at 

night, when electric demand is low, Ludington's reversible turbines pump water 363 feet uphill 

from Lake Michigan to the 842-acre reservoir. The commenters said during the day, when 

electric demand is high, the reservoir releases water to flow downhill and turns turbines to make 

carbon-free electricity. The commenters said Ludington can generate up to 1,872 megawatts, 

which is enough electricity to serve a community of 1.4 million residential customers; 

furthermore, over the next 6 years Ludington will receive 300 MW in additional efficiency 

upgrades. The commenters said the output is more than double the capacity of any single unit on 

Consumers Energy's system, and is a key piece of Michigan's reliable energy infrastructure. The 

commenters said pumped storage technology enables the plant to respond quickly to the daily, 
375 

weekly and seasonal highs and lows of Michigan's energy demand. The commenters said the 

plant also provides economic benefit to Michigan ratepayers by enabling Consumers Energy to 

avoid expensive spot market prices when customer demand exceeds the capacity of the 

company's baseload plants, such as during extreme weather (e.g. heat waves and polar vortexes). 

The commenters said nonetheless, EPA's proposed compliance formula does not include clean 

energy storage; it penalizes states that have prudently invested in energy storage technology 

because the emissions and megawatt hours from plants used to charge the storage system are 

included in the equation, but the megawatt hours discharged from the storage system are not; 

thus, Michigan's emissions intensity (as calculated by EPP in the CCP proposal) is actually 

increased due to our optimization of the grid resources with energy storage 

Comment 42: Co-firing

Response 42: Co-firing is not part of the final BSER quantification. See section V. of the 

Preamble and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated co-firing should not be included in the calculation of state emission rate 

goals. 

Commenters agreed that co-firing should be an available compliance option for coal-fired EGUs, 

but opposes the inclusion of co-firing in the computation of emission rate goals; because the 

potential applications of co-firing are limited by EPA's current NSR guidance, co-firing is not an 

"available" control technology. 

The commenters stated under the federal NSR regulations (which most states have adopted either 

directly or by issuing their own similar regulations), EGUs can compare baseline emissions to 

projected actual emissions to determine whether a project will result in a significant increase in 

emissions. In calculating "projected actual emissions," EGUs "shall exclude" any increase in 

emissions that (1) is unrelated to the project, and (2) could have been accommodated during the 

baseline period. 40 C.F.R. section 52.21(b)(41)(i)(c); this is commonly referred to as the 

"demand growth exclusion." 

The commenters stated in guidance regarding the Northampton Generating Company, EPA 

Region III made clear that both conditions are required before emissions increases can be 

excluded from the projection. The commenters said for example, according to the Northampton 

Guidance, if a company proposed to switch fuels, it may have been able to accommodate the 

emissions from the new fuel (although not the fuel) during the baseline period but it nonetheless 

would not be able to exclude any projected emissions from use of the new fuel under the demand 

growth exclusion because the emissions would be related to the fuel switch. Northampton 

Guidance at 4-5. 
376 

The commenters stated this means that, for a coal-fired unit that proposes to co-fire natural gas, 

the unit would be unable to increase its utilization and corresponding emissions over the baseline 

period without potentially triggering NSR, at least for NOx, CO and particulate matter. 

The commenters said this is because, even though increased utilization and emissions from a unit 

while it is combusting coal would be unrelated to the co-firing project, the Northampton 

Guidance indicates that all post-project emissions increases would be considered to result from 

the project and would have to be included in calculating the projected emissions. 

The commenters stated such a consequence will discourage companies from undertaking natural 

gas co-firing projects at their coal-fired units. 

The commenters said given the risk that co-firing will trigger NSR or require units undertaking 

such projects to limit their future utilization, it is not appropriate to consider co-firing in the 

computation of the emission rate goals. The commenters stated at a minimum, before 

considering this option, EPA would need to evaluate the costs associated with obtaining an NSR 

permit for co-firing, including the potential installation of hundreds of millions of dollars in 

controls for conventional pollutants. 

Commenters stated EPA should account for reductions achievable from increased co-firing of 

natural gas as part of Building Block 1; co-firing is an "inside the fence" change that will reduce 

emissions from existing coal-fired EGUs. 

Comment 43: The EPA's Use of Average 2012 NGCC Emission Rates When Applying Building 

Block 2 to State Goal Calculations is Inappropriate.

Response 43: The EPA assumes the historical NGCC average emission rate as a reasonable 

reflection of the NGCC fleet-emission rate going forward. In addition to the reasons provided in 

Response 39, the EPA disagrees with the comment here on several grounds. First, the significant 

amount of NGCC fleet expected to come online is expected to be more efficient than the 

historical average. Second, as units increase their utilization they improve efficiency by 

removing the inefficiencies that materialize in units that practice more cycling. Finally, the 

EPA’s building block two estimates pertain to fleet capability, not the expectation of any 

particular unit. While the EPA observes that the fleet on average may increase its utilization to 

75%, the increases NGCC utilization may be realized through the most efficient units increasing 

utilization rather than every unit increasing to the same 75% utilization level. For these reasons, 

the EPA feels that its reliance on the historical emission rate is conservative and reasonable.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated when computing the NGCC emissions for the Building Block 2 NGCC 

redispatch, EPA calculates the additional CO2 emissions from baseline NGCC units using the 

increase in generation from baseline to 70 percent NGCC capacity factor, at the original baseline 
377 

year state average NGCC CO2 emission rate. The commenters said this is inaccurate and 

inappropriate, and underestimates the additional NGCC CO2 emissions due to the redispatch. 

The commenters said instead of using the average baseline year NGCC CO2 emission rate, EPA 

must compute and use the incremental NGCC CO2 emission rate; that is because most of the 

most efficient, lowest emitting units are already generating at or near the basis 70 percent 

capacity factor (and have hence significantly influenced downward the baseline average CO2 

emission rate), whereas the units that would actually be redispatched and contribute the most 

increase in net generation are the less efficient, higher emitting units. The commenters said the 

incremental emission rate of these higher emitting units must be used to estimate the additional 

CO2 emissions from the redispatch. 

Commenters stated to compute the state average incremental NGCC CO2 emission rate requires 

an analysis of the eGRID baseline data at the generator level; the EPA cannot summarize the 

data to the state level first, and then perform the calculations. The commenters said after 

appropriately determining the generator net capacity ratings the EPA must calculate and review 

generator-by-generator the baseline capacity factor, CO2 emission rate, and potential 

contribution of each to the redispatch. The commenters recommended the following procedure to 

compute the state average NGCC redispatch incremental CO2 emission rate: 

-For each NGCC generator, calculate the baseline year net capacity factor using the eGRID net 

generation and the summer net capacity rating; subtract this number from 70 percent to 

determine the net capacity factor increase (or decrease) available; if a generator was operating 

above 70 percent net capacity factor in the baseline year, it is appropriate to adjust this 

downward to the 70 percent target. 

-For each affected NGCC generator, calculate the baseline year average CO2 emission rate by 

dividing the CO2 emission (in tons) by the net generation MWh, times 2000 to convert to 

pounds. 

-For each NGCC generator, calculate the number of annual net generation MWh available for 

redispatch using the net capacity factor increase available, and the summer net capacity rating of 

the unit. 

-For each NGCC generator, calculate the number of annual CO2 emissions increased (or 

decreased) by multiplying the baseline year limited CO2 emission rate by the number of annual 

net MWh available for redispatch. 

-Now for each state, accumulate the total number of annual net generation MWh available for 

redispatch from all NGCC generators, and the total number of annual CO2 emissions changed 

from all NGCC generators. 

-For each state, divide the accumulated annual CO2 emissions by the accumulated annual 

generation available; this is the incremental NGCC CO2 emission rate; use this in place of the 
378 

baseline year average NGCC CO2 emission rate when computing the CO2 emission increase 

from NGCC units due to the Building Block 2 redispatch. 

Comment 44: BB2 - New NGCC to substitute for existing NGCC 

Response 44: See Section V in the Preamble for a discussion of building block two in the final 

CPP Rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated under Block 2, EPA is calling for 70% capacity factor existing NGCC unit 

operation; EPA is taking comment on whether new natural gas combined cycle generation 

should "count" towards delivery of EPA's existing NGCC 70% capacity factor Block 2 target. 

The commenters said EPA is also taking comment about whether new NGCC should be allowed 

for displacing existing coal generation. The commenters said EPA proposed that they will have 

the new NGCC figured into both target-setting and compliance. The commenters recommended 

that EPA not include new NGCC into Section 111(d) target setting or compliance. The 

commenters supported EPA allowing the segment of new NGCC generation that outperforms the 

Section 111(b) NSPS to "count" towards satisfying Section 111(d) compliance targets. The 

commenters said EPA should leave it to the discretion of the state about whether the state wishes 

to opt-in new NGCC for giving relief to EPA's proposed 70% capacity factor target for existing 

NGCC. The commenters noted that EPA should eliminate the Block 2 target component for 

Minnesota, giving deference to the Minnesota established Integrated Resource Planning process, 

which is already giving consideration to fuel diversity, cost and environmental profile, including 

CO2 environmental externalities. The commenters supported EPA's clarified intention to allow 

renewable energy and customer energy efficiency to receive treatment in the denominator of 

emission rate compliance determinations. 

Comment 45: RE goal for each state and its 2012 fossil fueled-fired generation 

Response 45: As explained in Section VI of the final CPP, the EPA is finalizing building block 

three treatment in the a similar manner it finalized building block two treatment in that it will 

replace historical fossil generation levels.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated moving forward with the proposal, EPA wishes to receive further comment 

on whether or not the difference of the target renewable energy goal for each state and its 2012 

counterpart should exceed 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation. The commenters said the difference 

should absolutely surpass the state's reported carbon producing generation level because it will 

then push the effort of rising renewable energy higher than fossil fuel-fired energy. 
379 

Comment 46: BB3 - RE data used from 2030-2032 

Response 46: Building Block 4 is not part of BSER quantification in this final rule. See Section 

V of the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the draft rule bases the final target on 2029 energy efficiency and renewable 

energy potential, but the target is for 2030. The commenters said while the state plans are to 

show how they will meet the target in 2030, actual demonstration of compliance with the final 

target is over the rolling three-year period of 2030 - 2032. The commenters stated the targets for 

2030 and later should be based on the energy efficiency potential in those years. The commenters 

added the impact of an extra year or two would be greater, and this would also increase the 

amount of renewables counted. 

Comment 47: Application of BB3 

Response 47: Thank you for your comment, See Section V.E for a discussion of nuclear and RE 

treatment in the final rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated for step 4 (application of Building Block 3), U.S. EPA estimated the total 

quantities of generation from renewable generating capacity and from under-construction or 

preserved nuclear capacity for each state; separate estimates of renewable generation were 

computed for each year of the plan period for each state based on the state's 2012 renewable 

generation and a regional growth factor. The commenters said nuclear generation was estimated 

as the amount of under-construction and preserved nuclear capacity for each state operated at a 

utilization rate of 90%, consistent with recent industry-wide average utilization rates for nuclear 

units. The commenters have several concerns with the technical approach used by U.S. EPA. 

Commenters supported the adjustment of goal formula as fossil plant utilization is reduced over 

time with increasingly higher penetration of clean energy sources. 

Comment 48: RE Potential 

Response 48: See response 47 above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported EPA's reliance on increased renewable energy generation to achieve 

significant carbon emissions reductions, but believes that the EPA significantly underestimated 

the potential for renewable energy generation, in part because the proposed rule does not 
380 

explicitly account for distributed solar resources. The commenters said renewable energy, 

especially wind and solar, have been growing at an astonishing rate and their costs have declined 

dramatically. The commenters urged the EPA to: (1) remove the "maximum" limits on growth of 

renewable energy, (2) adjust the renewable energy goals to account for the gains in renewable 

energy deployment made between 2012 and 2017; and (3) implement the UCS's "Demonstrated 

Growth" approach for calculating state goals; and (4) use more technical potential data and the 

state's actual and expected rate of deployment to evaluate the quantity of renewable energy that 

can be achieved at reasonable cost. The commenters believed the CPP should drive renewable 

energy development in Texas by accounting for the actual and expected rate of deployment, 

rather than weakening it. 

Commenters stated there is a potential difference between the options for establishing RE 

potential for the purpose of goal setting and how EPA will determine compliance. The 

commenters said in target setting, EPA set the baseline for each state based on the amount of 

renewable energy generation physically occurring in a state; EPA then calculated a current RE 

performance level by dividing in-state RE generation by total in-state generation to yield a 

percentage. The commenters said EPA's methodology does not account for whether that 

renewable energy had been "implemented" by the state, or whether the RECs corresponding to 

that generation are held in-state; thus, some states may have a higher or lower baseline of RE 

generation and RE performance level than they would be able to report for compliance purposes 

today. 

EPA must defer to existing Federal and state-specific policies in its calculation of renewable 

energy potential. 

Commenters stated, since 1981, the FPSC has established DSM and energy efficiency goals for 

the utilities serving 85 percent of Florida's load. Commenters said, the EPA's national application 

of energy efficiency reductions based on existing and new load growth, however, is not an 

appropriate standard setting strategy. Commenters said, likewise, PURPA and Florida law 

provide the legal framework for the development, interconnection, and economic parameters of 

renewable energy. Commenters said, the EPA must defer to existing Federal and state-specific 

policies in its calculation of renewable energy potential for Florida and other states. 

Comment 49: The EPA has miscalculated renewable energy availability

Response 49: See response 47 above. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA miscalculates the availability of RE by the methodologies used to 

evaluate state and regional resources; in reviewing RE availability to determine 2030 RE 

regional targets, EPA makes several methodological flaws: excluding existing hydropower when 

included in existing state program goals, capping the maximum level of RE generation in any 

state at the regional average target, assuming that all States within a region will grow at the same 

rate to reach RE targets, recognizing only RE developed within state boarders, including existing 

and under- construction nuclear units, and applying its 5.8% nuclear "at risk" assumption to 
381 

every state that has existing nuclear capacity. The commenters added most legislation accounts 

for RE at the point of use, rather than the point of generation. (See Pace Study Section 3.1, at 

16.) The commenters said unless EPA is seeking to substantially disrupt the market in RE, it 

should clarify that renewables are accounted at the point of use, not generation, consistent with 

state practice. 

Commenters stated in order to determine state RE targets under BB3, EPA used 2012 state 

performance data demonstrating in-state generation from non-hydropower RE in each 

State; EPA then used this data to formulate state targets. The commenters said in setting these 

targets, EPA did not consider the need for economic development for different business sectors, 

the cost of renewable resources and other options available within each State, availability of 

other fuels within the State, availability of transmission in the State, the costs, benefits and 

consequences of achieving environmental, economic and power goals through alternative means, 

and economic conditions of electric consumers and/or rural electric ratepayers. 

Commenters stated EPA complicates its faulty methodologies by using blanket assumptions for 

all States, both for assuming that all states within a region will grow at the same rate to reach RE 

targets and in applying its 5.8% nuclear "at risk" assumption to every state that has existing 

nuclear capacity. The commenters said these assumptions particularly harm Arizona and its 

associated RE target as Arizona's nuclear generation is not at risk of being retired due to market 

conditions; therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the 5.8% "at risk" assumption to Arizona and its 

target. The commenters said EPA's failure to account for the fact that "at risk" facilities are not 

spread evenly throughout the nuclear fleet and for states that have much lower "at risk" units, 

substantially affects States', such as Arizona's, RE target. 

Comment 50: BSER Block 3 - Use Expanded Amount of Less Carbon-Intensive Generating 

Capacity 

Response 50: See Section V.E of the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's BSER Building Block 3 encompasses both renewable generating 

capacity and new and preserved nuclear capacity. The commenters said EPA's approach to 

quantifying the potential emission reductions that could be achieved through increased 

deployment of renewable generating capacity raises a number of methodological concerns and 

may result in state emission goals that are not achievable. The commenters said if EPA does not 

revise the approach to quantifying potential reductions from increased deployment of 

renewables, EPA should adjust state-specific goals to reflect state-specific concerns. 

Comment 51: BB3 & BB4 - RE & EE

Response 51: See Section V.E in the Preamble. The EPA has revised its BB3 approach to better 

reflect the comment. Section V also explains why demand-side energy efficiency is not part of 
382 

the final BSER quantification. Both RE and EE abatement measures are eligible for 

demonstrating compliance (See Section VIII of the Preamble). 

As described in Section VI and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD 

for CPP Final Rule, the EPA reversed the order of implementing the building blocks to be sure it 

captured the full potential of BB2 per the commenters suggestion. The EPA also revised the 

treatment of BB3 potential in the goal computation to be consistent with BB2 in that they replace 

higher emitting MWhs on a 1-for-1 basis. 

As discussed in Sections V and VI, the EPA takes a regional approach to quantifying the BSER, 

and thus the corresponding subcategory rates and state goals reflect the interconnected-nature of 

the grid and the replacement potential of the regional RE potential is distributed across the 

sources/states in a region instead of being concentrated in the state where they may be eventually 

located. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in Section VIII of the preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA must make consideration regarding the RE & EE calculation in the state 

goals. 

Commenters stated EPA must be consistent in the manner in which it treats RE that is sold 

across state lines. The commenters said when EPA calculated the goals for each state, all 

renewable megawatt hours generated in the state in 2012 were placed in the denominator; 

however, with respect to goal achievement, if this generation is credited to the power purchaser 

in a different state, the generating state would be required to make up the shortfall. The 

commenters stated this points out one more reason that RE should not be used in EPA's goal 

setting but, rather, encouraged as a means of achieving compliance. 

Commenters added EPA should adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating building block 

three to reflect the reduced emissions from affected EGUs from displacement by renewable 

energy. The commenters stated the NODA addresses the issue regarding the calculation of statespecific carbon reduction goals; specifically, it acknowledges the concerns of some stakeholders 

that the formula for calculating each state's goal are not consistent across different resources 

between building blocks 2 and 3, and proposes to make the building block 3 calculation 

consistent with the building block 2 calculation. The commenters think that the proposal in the 

NODA is the correct approach, as it would correctly remove from each state's carbon intensity 

numerator emission reductions from the reduction in fossil generation when renewables and 

energy efficiency increase; affected EGU MWhs should be removed from the denominator and 

the equivalent number of MWhs should be added back based on low- and zero-carbon generation 

from block three, and emissions associated with affected EGUs should be removed from each 

state's carbon intensity numerator. The commenters said this approach would also be consistent 

with the approach in block two for calculating the impacts of block three on the state emission 

rate goals. 
383 

Commenters added renewable energy and energy should be used to remove emissions from the 

highest emitting resources first; this is consistent with how renewable energy would be used 

under a best system of emissions reductions, as displacing the highest-emitting resources first 

would be the most cost-effective option for achieving the maximum emissions reductions. The 

commenters said if carbon cost were accounted for in generation dispatch decisions, as it may be 

in some regions as part of implementation of building block 2, most gas units would be 

dispatched lower on the supply curve than many coal units, putting coal units onto the margin 

where they will be displaced by wind generation. 

Commenters added if EPA maintains its Proposed RPS Approach, it should also account for load 

growth when calculating the MWh required to meet the future percent-based renewable energy 

targets. The commenters stated the calculations included in the TSDs that accompany EPA's 

June 2 release indicate that, under the Proposed RPS Approach, the growth rate calculated from 

the percent-based renewable target that was derived from the regional RPS average target was 

multiplied by 2012 electricity consumption to arrive at the 2030 renewable energy MWh 

target; in reality, state RPS targets are almost always written as a share of future electricity 

consumption, so the conversion to the 2030 MWh target should have used an estimation of future 

load growth and 2030 load, such as the state and regional estimates provided in EIA's Annual 

Energy Outlook. 

 Commenters added States should be allowed to use RE generation and EE resulting from 

measures implemented prior to 2020 by adding such generation to the denominator in subsequent 

compliance periods or to allow a state to extend beyond 2030 the impact of the final emission 

rate goal. The commenters stated a state could accumulate an RE and EE "bank" between 2012 

and 2020 and use it to demonstrate compliance in 2030 and subsequent years; this would 

recognize that states which are leaders in RE and EE, and thus already have harvested some of 

the "lower hanging fruit" of cost-effective opportunities, may need more time to reach their final 

goal. The commenters said EPA should clarify that utility programs and commitments to invest 

in RE and EE measures constitute "existing measures" that states may count toward compliance. 

Commenters added Colorado EGUs and ratepayers have made, and continue to make, significant 

financial investments; requiring more reductions in states that have already made significant 

carbon reduction investments may not be as cost effective as EPA projects. The commenters 

stated as proposed, the state goal is derived from extremely complex calculations that are based 

on numerous technical details and long-range projections that confer a high degree of uncertainty 

in determining whether the state goal is appropriate, realistic and attainable. The commenters 

said that states such as Colorado essentially receive reduced or little credit for early investments 

in renewable energy, as the reduced baseline was then used to calculate a more stringent 2030 

goal. The commenters stated EPA should allow states to use an alternative approach in addition 

to the proposed BSER, whereby a state's baseline is not impacted by pre-2012 renewables. 

Commenters suggested the following adjustments when determining state goals to ensure that the 

EPA's state emission reduction targets reflect application of the BSER to affected EGUs: 

1. The EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmark from the alternative 

approach and rely on the IPM model results with modifications. 
384 

2. The EPA should use the Sunshot -62.5% cost scenario as the cost input for utility PV 

in the IPM model and as the cost input for distributed PV from the SolarDS model. 

3. The EPA should use the Sunshot -62.5% scenario distributed PV solar capacity 

projections to hard-wire distributed PV into the IPM model to include distributed PV. 

4. The EPA should update the current generation data for solar from EIA data with 

SEIA's recommended outlined approach. 

5. The EPA should update the performance estimates used in the IPM model for solar. 

6. The EPA should use a 2012 or higher baseline year. 

Commenters added if EPA were to adopt a formula in which RE and EE displace all existing 

fossil generation on a pro rata basis, it would have to ensure that it maintains the potential 

emission reductions from building block 2. The commenters said if RE and EE are assumed to 

displace NGCC generation, that would lower the capacity factor of NGCC plants and create 

additional potential reductions from building block 2, when using a 70 percent (or any other) 

achievable NGCC capacity factor in target setting. The commenters added the correct reductions 

from NGCC units could be calculated either by displacing fossil generation with block 3 and 4 

resources before calculating the block 2 resources or by doing a true-up to block 2 to restate the 

achievable reductions by returning NGCC units to the specified 70 percent capacity factor. 

Commenters stated Building block 3 (RE) is calculated based on 2012 electricity demand but 

does not account for load growth; in some states, if load were to grow, they would basically need 

to add more renewables than natural gas in order to reach/maintain the goal (because the goal is 

significantly less than the new source performance standard for new or modified NGCC plants). 

The commenters asked if EPA has considered adding load growth to its equation, and if so, what 

growth percentage does it believe is reasonable. 

Commenters stated existing renewable generation and energy efficiency should not be used in 

calculating a State's emission rate goal but instead should only be considered as an eligible action 

for compliance purposes. The commenters added existing renewable generation and energy 

efficiency should be an eligible action, no matter when installed, and receive full credit for 

reducing the CO2 emissions intensity (lb /MWh) of a state. 

Commenters stated the power sector is moving to cleaner sources of energy like wind and solar 

at a fast clip, and these clean energy sources are displacing coal and other fossil generation; the 

formula used to calculate the carbon pollution rate target for each state should incorporate this 

displacement benefit as other stakeholders have noted. The commenters said for example, the 

Silver Lake Power Plant in Rochester, MN is retiring because it was too expensive to continue 

running and enough wind power and energy efficiency had come online in the area that the plant 

was not needed for reliability. The commenters said the goal-setting equation should reflect the 

myriad of benefits that this transition creates; as other stakeholders have suggested renewable 

energy and energy efficiency should be added to both the numerator and denominator of the 

goal-setting equation, so that 1 megawatt-hour of renewable energy displaces 1 megawatt-hour 

of fossil generation. The commenters said either using the pro rata method or replacing coal 

generation first would not only be more consistent with the treatment of NGCCs in Building 
385 

Block 2 it would reflect the significant benefit of offsetting the marginally more expensive fossil 

generators. 

Commenters stated EPA also contends that some stakeholders' believe that the state goals fail to 

reflect the full potential, under the BSER, for incremental RE and EE to replace fossil steam 

generation. The commenters said by adding incremental RE and EE generation, this action 

actually avoids emissions and does not decrease emissions. The commenters said therefore, to 

subtract equivalent fossil generation from the BSER would be erroneous. 

Commenters stated as proposed, the rule is inconsistent in how it incorporates renewable energy 

into the calculation of Utah's 2030 goal. The commenters said the inconsistency is that EPA has 

established a 2030 emissions goal for Utah by accounting for all renewable energy located in the 

state even if some is being dispatched to meet load in another state; at the same time, EPA 

proposes to allow the state that receives this power under a Purchased Power Agreement (PPA) 

or some other "enforceable measure" to count the renewable energy towards compliance with 

that state's goal. The commenters said approximately 60 percent of renewable electricity 

generated in Utah in 2012 was exported, which inflates Utah's additional renewable energy in 

EPA 2030 emission rate proportionally. The commenters said excluding exported renewable 

electricity from Utah's goal computation would reduce Utah's compliance gap by 56 lbs 

CO2/MWH. The commenters said alternatively, keeping exported renewable energy in the goal 

and allowing Utah to include all renewable energy projects located in the state in the calculation 

of the state's post-2020 emissions rate would reduce the emissions rate and stringency of the goal 

by 39 lbs/MWH. The commenters said EPA must ensure that the approach to attributing 

emission reductions from renewable resources for compliance is consistent with the treatment of 

these resources when setting state-specific emission goals. The commenters said EPA should 

either eliminate exported renewable energy from Utah's goal calculation or allow Utah to 

account for these renewable resources in its post-2012 emissions rate calculation and recognize 

PacifiCorp's MSP as an "enforceable measure" with regards to 111(d) renewable energy credit. 

Commenters stated the Proposed Regulation's emission rates for Virginia are set unreasonably 

and unlawfully low is because of EPA's inclusion of significant amounts of new renewable 

generation and energy efficiency in the denominator of its mathematic formula. The commenters 

said although the Proposed Regulation sets state-specific Mandatory Goals, the calculation of 

Virginia's Mandatory Goals disregards real world considerations specific to Virginia. 

Commenters said in this regard, the Proposed Regulation arbitrarily and capriciously extrapolates 

renewable and energy efficiency policy requirements of other States that have not been achieved. 

The commenters said there is no analysis as to how these aspirational levels of renewable 

generation and energy efficiency, derived from other states that have their own particular 

geographies, existing infrastructures, and political considerations, could reasonably be achieved 

in Virginia or whether such levels can be achieved in a cost effective manner given Virginia's 

particular circumstances. The commenters said although the Proposed Regulation purportedly 

recognizes that "states differ in important ways," EPA's generic approach to this aspect of its 

calculation ignores geographic differences that cannot be reasonably ignored. The commenters 

said the end-result of this unrealistic approach is that it deprives Virginia of the flexibility needed 

to achieve carbon reductions at a reasonable cost while still maintaining reliable service. 
386 

Commenters stated the Clean Power Plan's goals for states underestimate the capacity to expand 

clean energy; these goals are, in many cases, lower than pre-existing targets of state renewable 

portfolios, equal to what seven states have already achieved, and only minimally higher than 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections under a "business as 

usual" scenario. The commenters made the recommendations for inclusion of current state 

Renewable Energy and Efficiency Standards, which are set by law, and determination of future 

goals based on more recent growth rates of renewable energy (2009 to 2013). The commenters 

said utilization of alternative energy that emits little if any greenhouse gas (unlike natural gas or 

incineration) should have higher weighting as a building block as it also produces the least harm 

of other direct pollution from mining, burning or management of waste products. 

Commenters stated EPA contends that some stakeholders' believe that the state goals fail to 

reflect the full potential, under the BSER, for incremental RE and EE to replace fossil steam 

generation; by adding incremental RE and EE generation, this action actually avoids emissions 

and does not decrease emissions; therefore, to subtract equivalent fossil generation from the 

BSER would be erroneous. 

Commenters stated EPA is also soliciting comment on an approach that would revise state goals 

based on a recalculation of Building Blocks 3 (RE) and 4 (EE) on the assumption that new RE 

and EE will directly replace or re-dispatch existing fossil-based generation, under the current 

approach, the generation from RE and EE is essentially added to the 2012 baseline fossil 

generation - this new approach would assume that some of that baseline fossil generation would 

be displaced by new and incremental RE/EE, in the context of the CPP, generation from the two 

major examples of renewable generation in "GHG Abatement Measures TSD," photovoltaic 

(PV) and on-shore wind, appear to be preferred due to the fact they are the "fastest growing 

technologies" and they are "competitive in many regions." 

Commenters stated photovoltaic and on-shore wind generation is not dispatchable, due to the 

intermittent nature of the sources; accordingly these sources must be backed up with 

dispatchable capacity from fossil-fueled sources. The commenters said when these intermittent 

generation sources begin to-be integrated into a system, quick-start simple cycle gas turbines are 

typically used to compensate for the variability in their generation; however, as they become an 

increasingly larger part of the generation, it can be expected they will require coal and NGCC 

units to react to their power production. The commenters said increased numbers offload swings 

will increase the CO2 intensity of those units and increased start-ups and shutdowns will increase 

CO2 emissions without generation. The commenters said it is also difficult to determine how to 

calculate which fossil-fueled emissions would be displaced by the RE and EE resources. The 

commenters asked would it be just coal or NGCC or some calculated combination of both; the 

differences could be significant. The commenters said a calculation could be done to simply 

subtract from the coal generation and emissions, but this would not reflect the reality of 

constantly changing generation into the grid. The commenters said the coal units also have 

minimum load requirements, start-up times and stand-by capabilities that further depart from a 

such a simple calculation. 

Commenters stated although biomass is dispatchable, it is a limited resource. The commenters 

said four biomass plants as well as the existing consumers of wood products in the area will 

largely consume the economically available and sustainable wood basket in the region. The 
387 

commenters said these biomass units currently run at high capacity factors even before the 

implementation of the CPP; it is also important to the overall business climate that electric 

utilities avoid crowding out other users of the available wood basket such as paper 

manufacturers; therefore very little additional capacity is available to compensate for a quick 

drop off of wind or solar generation, a factor Virginia lawmakers realize in capping the amount 

of biomass that may count as part of compliance with the state's voluntary RPS program. The 

commenters added the final impact on CO2 emissions is still under review by EPA, although the 

commenters strongly urged EPA to consider biomass carbon neutral for purposes of this rule. 

Commenters stated energy efficiency measures suffer from similar variability; they may be based 

on installation of increasingly more efficient equipment, but the use of that equipment by 

households, businesses and industries will be variable, driven by factors other than energy use 

alone. The commenters said for example, equipment that cuts energy costs may make a product 

or service more competitive, actually leading to increased usage that may result in more energy 

consumption than is saved; it should also be noted that the ultimate successes of energy 

efficiency programs are generally within the control of the customer, not the utility; utilities offer

a range of consumer-friendly energy efficiency programs but must prepared to still serve their 

native load should such programs not be as successful as they hope. 

Commenters stated it should be observed that EPA's assumption of energy efficiency savings by 

states takes state self-reported savings at face value; individual states have varying degrees of 

rigor in their measurement and verification of energy efficiency savings; moreover, the most 

successful states in energy efficiency, according to their self-reported data, have dramatically 

higher rates than what's offered in either Virginia or North Carolina service territory. The 

commenters said any state and utility would find it challenging trying to comply with a permit 

limit based on variable and intermittent renewable and efficiency resources. The commenters 

said the potential for compensating with the variability with the other building blocks is limited, 

due to the long lead times required. The commenters said to ensure compliance, it is essential 

that the emissions and generation from existing sources be retained as they are and not be 

reduced by the RE and EE resources. 

Commenters stated the formula used by EPA to establish the emissions target and standard of 

each state needs to be adjusted to reflect the fact that additional available cleaning and renewable 

generation and energy efficiency resources would replace generation from the dirtiest fossil fuel 

sources and at a faster pace, yielding greater emissions than the EPA assumed. 

Commenters stated in order to set stronger goals, the commenters urged EPA to greatly increase 

the assumption for possible increases in renewable energy development used in setting state 

reduction targets. The commenters said the formula used to set state goals to the plan currently 

only includes a conservative average of regional renewable energy policies; the 

commenters believed the EPA should use the assumption of at least 30 percent renewable energy 

deployment in line with more progressive renewable portfolio standards such as New York, 

which set that goal for 2015, 15 years before the end date for the Clean Power Plan. 

Commenters added energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut carbon emissions and 

should also be prioritized much more on EPA's plan. The commenters said states have the 

policies, technology, and workforce available to achieve more energy efficiency gains right now; 
388 

accordingly, EPA should increase energy efficiency targets in their goal-setting formula to much 

more than the 1.5 percent annually after 2017. 

Commenters requested that EPA affirm that it will not discount reductions from EE measures, 

other than to limit reductions to those that occur during the compliance period. The commenters 

stated that EE measures should be treated the same as RE measures. 

Commenters supported EPA's proposed revision to the goal computation methodology; in 

reality, fossil EGUs will dispatch less when load is reduced, and when low-cost, must-take 

renewable energy generation is available. The commenters said the combination of adding RE 

and EE to the denominator of the rate and reducing emissions from fossil units results in a lower 

rate overall. The commenters said how much the rate declines is highly sensitive to what 

assumptions EPA makes about which fossil units are displaced. The commenters said if EPA's 

emission rate targets do not include this effect, then they will be artificially high (less stringent); 

thus, a state could actually do less in all building block categories than EPA anticipates, and still 

reach its target. The commenters said this possibility reveals that the emission rate does not 

properly reflect the best rate of emission reduction. 

Commenters stated in EPA's June proposal, incremental renewable energy ("RE") and energy 

efficiency ("EE") was simply added to the denominator of the state goal formula; an alternative 

treatment of this incremental RE and EE would be to assume that it directly replaces 2012 fossil 

generation levels and the corresponding emissions on a pro rata basis across generation types 

(i.e., fossil steam and gas turbine). The commenters said of these two approaches, the 

commenters supported the former calculation methodology. The commenters said location 

constraints on the New York system mean that all generation is not fungible, and that a wind 

farm located up-state will not offset the use of steam units in the New York City metropolitan 

area; the same is true of energy efficiency programs. The commenters added, NGCC units will 

be needed to balance intermittent resources such as wind and solar and provide ancillary services 

during normal grid operations. 

Commenters provided comments on how to properly account for emission reductions of BSER 

as a system. In their statements, they argued that the Proposed Rule treats the increased 

utilization of lower-emitting existing NGCC differently from increased generation from other 

low- and zero-carbon sources and from energy savings. The commenters noted that EPA's 

description of Building Block 3 showed that EPA intended to reflect the reduced utilization of 

affected EGU's and not just the addition of zero carbon generation, and therefore, the 

commenters suggested that the final Clean Power Plan should treat generation from nuclear 

energy, renewable energy and existing NGCC in the same way. 

Commenters stated that the energy savings that constitute Building Block 4 replace MWh that 

would otherwise be needed from generation sources, these savings should also be treated the 

same as redispatch to existing NGCC. According to the commenters, in order to calculate the 

impacts of Blocks 3 and 4 in a way that is consistent with the approach for Block 2, EPA should 

remove emissions associated with displaced EGUs from the numerator of each state's carbon 

intensity numerator. Affected EGU MWh should also be removed from the denominator, and the 

equivalent number of MWh should be added back based on low- and zero-carbon generation 

from Block 3 and energy savings from Block 4. 
389 

The commenters expanded their discussion by stating, that to properly evaluate the system-based 

impacts of Building Blocks 3 and 4, EPA should calculate the incremental MWh of nuclear 

generation, renewable generation, and energy savings. The commenters clarified that, for nuclear 

generation, only under-construction nuclear should displace 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation. For 

renewable generation, the commenters suggested that EPA should add all MWh representing 

renewable generation to the denominator in calculating each state's rate. However, the 

commenters clarified, EPA need only displace fossil generation representing the renewable 

energy that is incremental to that produced in 2012. Finally, the commenters concluded that all 

energy savings would be considered incremental to 2012 generation and so all efficiency MWh 

would displace existing generation.

Comment 52: Net generation from RE; avoided generation for EE; non-affected units 

Response 52: See Preamble Section V and VI for a discussion of BSER and the form of the 

emission rates. In order to capture the impact of reduced generation through building block three 

(and alternative compliance vehicles that sources/state may chose) the EPA incorporates the 

generation from this replacement technology into the emission rates. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated U.S. EPA adjusts the goals by estimating annual net generation from RE and 

avoided generation for EE and adding it to the output from affected units (MW-h). The 

commenters objected to the inclusion of generation from non-affected units in the denominator, 

and to the inclusion of all avoided generation and RE beyond those of the affected units. The 

commenters said generation values should come only from the affected units, and the renewable 

and EE portions, if included, should represent only what can be directly attributed to an affected 

entity or entities. 

Comment 53: BB3 & BB4 - RE & EE in goal same as for compliance 

Response 53: See Sections V, VI, VII, and VIII for a discussion of how RE is quantified and 

incorporated into goals, and how it can be accounted for when sources/states are demonstrating 

compliance. The EPA has revised its building block, formula, and compliance to recognize the 

regional nature of RECs. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA must ensure that the equation that states use to calculate their emission 

rate for compliance with EPA's 111(d) interim and final targets is also the same equation EPA 

uses to calculate each state's interim and final emission rate targets. Commenters stated EPA has 

requested comment in numerous places within the draft rule and TSDs about how CO2 emission 

reductions from renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency savings should be 

factored into calculating a state's CO2 emission rate. Commenters stated the State of Montana 
390 

recommends EPA continue to use the draft rule equation, treating each MWh of renewable 

electricity and energy efficiency savings as one MWh of emission free electricity. 

Commenters stated the alternative of requiring states to attribute a specific amount of avoided 

CO2 emissions to each MWh of renewable electricity and energy efficiency, potentially 

requiring different avoided CO2 emission figures for renewable electricity and energy efficiency 

savings generated at different times of day, month, or year, would place an unreasonable 

compliance burden on states. Commenters stated modeling marginal electricity generating units 

within a state or region is a complicated, time-intensive, and expensive proposition. Commenters 

stated that even EPA, which has considerably more resources than most state environmental 

departments, does not release its eGRID estimates every year and only estimates annual, regional 

marginal emission rates for key pollutants rather than more detailed state- or time-specific 

marginal emission rates. 

Commenters stated that moreover, accounting for avoided emissions as a result of renewable 

electricity and energy efficiency presents a significant double counting issue for avoided 

emissions that occur in another state. Commenters stated given the interconnectedness of the 

electricity grid in the continental U.S., the impact of renewable electricity generation and energy 

efficiency savings are likely to be felt across an entire region, not just within the state where the 

renewable electricity was generated or energy efficiency investments were made. Commenters 

stated as a result, if a state is to claim avoided emissions and generation that occurred in another 

state, in order to avoid double counting, the other state must report an increase in its carbon 

emissions and generation that did not actually occur within the state. But, commenters added, 

because every state will be investing in renewable electricity and energy efficiency that will have 

regional impacts, what will result is an immensely complicated system of carbon emission and 

electricity generation trading between states in which every state's emissions and generation 

figures will be augmented in order to account for every other states' activities. Commenters 

stated this is a recipe for an accounting, reporting, and regulatory nightmare that will be grossly 

inefficient, prone to miscalculations and double counting, and more likely to create antagonism 

between states than to foster partnerships. Because of this, commenters stated, EPA should not 

base state compliance for renewable electricity and energy efficiency on demonstrations of 

avoided emissions. Commenters stated that instead, EPA should continue to use the accounting 

methodology used in the draft rule that credits renewable electricity and energy efficiency as 

zero emissions sources of electricity. 

Commenters stated however, if EPA determines in its final rule that the equation states must use 

to demonstrate compliance with their interim and final CO2 emission rate targets needs to be 

revised from what has been proposed in the draft rule, then EPA must also use the revised 

equation to recalculate each states' interim and final CO2 emission rate targets. Commenters 

stated that to do otherwise would be to potentially require some states to achieve emission rate 

targets that would necessitate far more investment in carbon reduction strategies than the EPA is 

assuming through their target-creating building blocks. Commenters stated if EPA opts to 

account for renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency savings by requiring states to 

model avoided emissions, EPA must make it clear that states are allowed to take credit for 

avoided emissions that occur out of state as a result of a state's renewable electricity generation 

and energy efficiency investments so long as states use reasonable and verifiable methods for 

determining carbon emission impacts. Commenters stated the avoided carbon emissions that 
391 

result from increased renewable electricity generation and energy efficiency investments are real 

but, because of the interconnectedness of regional electricity grids, are likely to occur across 

many states. Commenters stated that limiting state credit to only in-state avoided emissions 

under the modeling approach would limit the credit a state receives to only a fraction of the real 

avoided emissions that resulted from a state's investments in renewable electricity and energy 

efficiency. 

Commenters stated EPA has proposed to base the CO2 reduction goals on generation, while 

determining whether the goal has been met based only on consumption; this approach is 

essentially "comparing apples to oranges" - it is inconsistent and will create inaccurate results, 

because the inputs upon which the goal is calculated are fundamentally different from the inputs 

used to measure goal attainment. Commenters said EPA's proposed approach has the potential to 

result in goals for some states that are unachievable, and goals that are too easily achievable for 

other states. Commenters said in order to minimize this imbalance, a state would have to find 

willing partner states to engage in regional or even national planning efforts or trading, so that its

goal is averaged across many other states' goals. The commenters said the notion that some states 

would be required to engage in extensive national or regional planning efforts to achieve 

compliance (i.e., states which export energy and therefore have steeper goals), while other states 

would have little incentive to coordinate (i.e., states which primarily purchase energy) is 

inconsistent and unfair. 

Commenters stated under EPA's proposal, a state that exports a large amount of its electric 

generation, particularly a large amount of its low-carbon electric generation, will be more 

heavily impacted by this rule's requirements than states that do not. The commenters said in its 

goal calculation, the fact that a state already has a large amount of low-carbon generation is used 

as the basis for setting a goal that assumes likewise; however, when calculating whether the state 

has achieved its goal, the state will not receive credit for the exported low-carbon electricity. The 

commenters said further, for those states which are given more easily achievable goals, there is a 

disincentive to participate in a regional/multi-state effort because that goal will be averaged out 

across the states, making their own goals more stringent than they would have been otherwise; 

however, the states with more difficult-to-achieve goals will only fully benefit from 

regional/multi-state planning if the states with easier-to-achieve goals are also involved. 

Commenters stated for example, consider a state that has 15 percent wind generation today and 

half of that generation (7.5 percent) is exported; under the proposal, the goal would be set with 

an assumption that the state has 15 percent generation and could increase to 20 percent 

generation by 2030 (a 5 percent increase), and would be the basis for the state's carbon reduction 

goal. The commenters said if the state were to demonstrate compliance today, it would only 

receive credit for 7.5 percent wind consumption, which would require an increase of 12.5 percent 

in order to reach that same 20 percent generation goal; therefore, without taking any actions 

whatsoever, the state would have moved further from its goal just because the metrics for the 

goals are different than the metrics for compliance. 

Commenters stated both goals and compliance should be based on the same metric; if the goals 

are based upon generation, compliance should also be based on generation. The commenters said 

alternatively, if compliance is based on consumption, the goals should also be based on 

consumption. The commenters said this will make compliance more achievable within state 
392 

boundaries and will not discourage states from engaging in regional planning. The commenters 

said due to the relative ease and certainty in calculating generation compared to calculating 

consumption, the use of a generation approach may be preferable in the final rule as a basis for 

both goal-setting and measuring compliance. 

Commenters stated in the Proposed Rule, RE contributions are included the state's rate 

calculation based upon the RE being located within the states geographic boundaries. The 

commenters said if the EPA determines in its final rule that out-of-state RE can be included in a 

state's rate calculation, such RE should be consistently applied in the rate calculation for both 

goal setting and compliance purposes. 

Comment 54: BB3&4 "backs out" the generation from affected fossil EGUs by the generation 

from existing renewables twice, since the 2012 fossil EGU data already reflects the presence of 

2012 levels of renewable generation 

Response 54: The EPA agrees that replacing existing historical fossil generation with existing 

historical RE generation would be double-counting the effects of the RE. However, it did not do 

this at proposal, and it does not do so at final only RE generation incremental to 2012 is 

quantified and assumed to replace fossil generation. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated some stakeholders' proposal to use Building Block 3 and 4 impacts in the 

goal calculation to reduce expected generation from affected EGUs, along with the emissions 

from those units, is flawed because: 1) it "backs out" the generation from affected fossil EGUs 

by the generation from existing renewables twice, since the 2012 fossil EGU data already 

reflects the presence of 2012 levels of renewable generation; 2) it assumes that the system-wide 

efficiency and renewable investments contemplated are exclusively associated with reduced 

generation from the affected units, ignoring load growth and any generation in the remainder of 

the electricity system. 

Comment 55: Building Block 4; Energy Efficiency (EE) in goal calculation. 

Response 55: The proposed building block four is not included in the EPA’s final BSER 

determination. See Preamble Section V.A. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the cumulative annual EE savings are used as part of the calculation of 

allowable carbon dioxide emissions under the Proposed Rule. The commenters said the 

calculation is expressed as: [(Coal gen. x Coal emission rate) + (OG gen. x OG emission rate) + 

(NGCC gen. x NGCC emission rate) + "Other" emissions] / [Coal gen. + OG gen. + NGCC gen. 

+ "Other" gen. + Nuclear gen. + RE gen. + EE gen] where the term "EE gen" represents the 

annual cumulative EE savings. The commenters said in North Carolina's case, the Proposed Rule 
393 

sets an interim goal of 1077 by 2020 and a final goal of 992 by 2029 for adjusted outputweighted-average pounds of CO2 per net MWh from all affected fossil fuel-fired electric 

generating units. The commenters said consequently, any errors in the determination of a 1.5% 

incremental EE savings rate for North Carolina will cause errors in the cumulative EE savings 

rate and further cause error in the achievable level of CO2 emissions. 

Commenters stated another concern is that EPA has not considered the EE savings from many 

North Carolina EMCs. The commenters said GreenCo Solutions, Inc., (GreenCo) provides EE 

program services and REPS compliance to 23 of the 26 EMCs in North Carolina; while GreenCo 

does not report on EIA Form 861, it does provide EE savings data to the NCUC. The omission of 

EE savings already achieved by GreenCo's EMCs means that EPA has understated the progress 

North Carolina has made in EE and toward its CO2 emission reductions. The commenters 

provided a table showing annual EE savings including GreenCo's EMC of 0.46% of total BAU 

NC sales for 2012. The commenters said EPA's calculation of the 2012 incremental EE savings 

for North Carolina is derived from EIA Form 861 data, the commenters provided a table 

which shows annual EE savings including GreenCo's EMC of 0.37% of total BAU NC sales for 

2012. 

Commenters stated while the CPP only lists energy efficiency as an "option", the state goals 

cannot be achieved by relying only on reductions from affected EGUs, or even reductions from 

affected EGUs and redispatch to natural gas (Building Blocks 1 & 2). The commenters said 

according to EPA, "[m]easures that avoid CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, such as 

quantified and verified end-use energy savings and renewable energy generation, could be used 

to adjust the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU when demonstrating compliance with a ratebased CO2 emission limit; alternatively, a state could use the effect of such measures as a basis 

for administratively adjusting the average CO2 emission rate of affected EGUs when 

demonstrating achievement of the required emission rate performance level in a state plan." The 

commenters said to achieve the objectives of Building Block 4, states will need to implement 

significant energy efficiency programs; however, the assumptions and methodology underlying 

EPA's assessment of energy efficiency in calculating individual states' goals is flawed. The 

commenters said EPA's assumptions are far too aggressive and not achievable based on real 

evidence; first, the proposed rule overestimates the amount of energy efficiency available; 

second, each state has methods to determine the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency, as well 

as methods for verifying the levels of reduction that should be, but are not, respected by the rule; 

third, companies can offer a full menu of efficiency programs, but if the end user does not 

implement them, the efficiency targets will not be reached. The commenters said the proposed 

rule does not give full effect to the intent of and application of existing state efficiency and 

demand response rules. 

Commenters recommended that EPA revise the calculation for energy efficiency and remove the 

discount imposed on states that are net importers of electricity. The commenters said the full 

benefit of ratepayer investment in energy efficiency projects should accrue to the state 

implementing the programs. The commenters said as currently proposed, the full benefit of 

energy efficiency projects is not credited in a net importer state, nor is it accounted for in any 

other state, thereby eliminating a portion of these measures as a compliance mechanism. 
394 

Commenters encouraged EPA to include in its calculation of energy efficiency benefits not only 

additional zero-emission generation capacity, but also replacement of baseline fossil fuel 

generation. 

Commenters stated the CPP treats efficiency in its rate calculation in a problematic manner; it 

adds efficiency to generation in the denominator when in physical reality efficiency reduces 

generation requirements and hence also reduces emissions. The commenters said in the EPA's 

rate calculation, it does neither; it just lowers the allowed rate of emissions. The commenters said 

overall, the EPA's method favors the increased use of natural gas combined cycle power plants 

over renewables, which is problematic for more than one reason. The commenters said the EPA 

should also adopt a consistent approach to estimating the emissions target for each year in the 

final CPP. The commenters said consistent calculation of emissions and emission rates: The 

proper way to calculate CO2 emission rates is to include all CO2 emissions from affected 

generation units and divide that by all generation in a particular state in any year; doing this 

consistently for each year going forward can create a technology neutral rule that is consistently 

based on a well-defined best system of emission reduction, which must include technical 

feasibility, economics, and non-air quality considerations. 

Commenters stated consistent with the CAA's requirement that BSER be "adequately 

demonstrated" and that the resulting standards be "achievable," the use of the median savings 

rate would be a better measure of what the states actually achieved in 2012. The commenters 

stated an analysis conducted by EEI shows that the median savings rate in 2012 was 0.48 

percent. The commenters said EPA notes that the national average was 0.58 percent; when data 

is skewed, however, a median is a better measure of central tendency than a mean. The 

commenters said in this case, the 2012 data is skewed, with 14 states reporting incremental 

savings rates of between 0.50 and .99 percent and 25 states reporting rates of less than 0.50 

percent. The commenters said regardless of whether the mean or median is used, both figures are 

considerably less than EPA's proposed 1.5 percent annual incremental savings rate, and thus, the 

2012 reported savings rates do not support EPA's assertion that all states can achieve 1.5 percent 

annual incremental savings. The commenters said Indiana's performance has not demonstrated 

1.5 percent annual savings to be achievable; if the reported data demonstrate anything 

meaningful about the feasibility of different levels, it would be that the median savings rate 

achieved in 2012 is a better measure of achievable annual incremental savings rate and thus more 

indicative of a demonstrated and achievable BSER measure. 

Commenters stated in its target-setting formula, EPA assumed that states that are net importers 

of electricity should receive credit for only a portion of their energy efficiency investments. The 

commenters said the portion is represented as the share of in-state generation that is not 

imported. Commenters said as a net electricity importing state, Georgia receives credit for 88 

percent of its energy efficiency investments, which represents its share of in-state generation in 

2012. Commenters stated as a net electricity importing state, Virginia receives credit for 58 

percent of its energy efficiency investments, which represents its share of in-state generation in 

2012. Commenters stated as a net electricity importing state, North Carolina receives credit for 

85% of its energy efficiency investments, which represents its share of in-state generation in 

2012. Commenters said the problem with this assumption is that it discounts the value of energy 

efficiency programs as a compliance mechanism. Commenters added it assumes that Georgia is 

likely to remain a net importer of electricity during the compliance period; with the expected 
395 

completion of Vogtle Units 1 and 2, and the added generation they will furnish, this is not likely 

to remain true. 

Commenters stated EPA should revise its formula so that the full level of energy efficiency 

resources that a state invests in will be counted as a compliance mechanism; this will be 

especially important if EPA adopts the approach described in its recent NODA and adjusts the 

emissions rate formula to reflect displacement of fossil generation by energy efficiency and 

renewable generation. The commenters said in that event, for the displacement assumption to be 

accurate, energy efficiency resources must be fully credited. The commenters said for states like 

Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina that are (at least currently) net importers, it is important 

that they get full credit for their investments in energy efficiency where such investments are 

reducing generation from fossil-fired resources. The commenters said failing to provide such 

credit will mean that a significant amount of energy efficiency is not recognized as a compliance 

option, even when they are having the practical effect of displacing in-state generation. 

 Commenters stated there should be no reason to exclude load reductions from more demanding 

energy efficiency codes and standards; the technical feasibility of the EPA's proposed energyefficiency-based reductions in electricity sales could be significantly increased if the EPA's final 

regulations allowed a state to include reductions in energy sales that result from energy 

efficiency codes and standards towards meeting the state's targets that are accounted for in the 

utility's load forecast. 

Commenters stated AEO inherently has some EE in its forecast. The commenters would like 

EPA to discuss how this affects EPA's forecasting for the rule and whether this is the correct 

value to be using for this building block. The commenters said if EE savings are inherently 

accounted for in the AEO forecast, EPA has underestimated the projected MWh of future 

electricity sales without EE. 

Comment 56: BB4 demand side energy efficiency EE- remove from calculation 

Response 56: See Preamble Section V.A. Demand-side energy efficiency is no longer part of 

the BSER quantification in this final rule. 

In regards to heat rate concerns at units retrofitting with controls, the response to this comment is 

addressed in section 3.1.4 of the response to comment document. In regards to taking into 

account scheduled retirements, as explained in the Performance Rate and State Goals TSD for 

CPP Final Rule, EPA used a historical baseline in place of a projected one. Factoring in coal 

retirements, even scheduled ones, would require projections about where the generation would 

shift in the fleet. EPA took comment on using a projected baseline to inform this type of 

baseline, but received support for using a historical baseline as a more representative starting 

point given the reported nature of its data.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
396 

Commenters stated EPA should not use demand side EE, an outside the fence line measure, for 

state goal calculation. The commenters said demand-side EE should be used for compliance 

purposes only. The commenters said the proposal seeks to incentivize the conversion of coal to 

natural gas, nuclear, renewables such as wind, and solar, and energy efficiency; while the plan 

only lists energy efficiency as an "option" not a mandate, the state goals cannot be achieved by 

relying only on reductions from affected EGUs, or even reductions from affected EGUs and 

conversion to natural gas (Building Blocks 1 & 2). The commenters said EPA admits as much by 

calculating different, less stringent goals when relying only on Building Blocks I and 2 as BSER 

Goal Computation TSD, EPA, App. 4, (June 2014) (calculating Blocks 1 & 2 only state goals 

before entering nuclear, renewable, and EE into the denominator). The commenters said 

according to EPA, "[m]easures that avoid CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, such as 

quantified and verified end-use energy savings and RE generation, could be used to adjust the 

CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU when demonstrating compliance with a rate-based CO2 

emission limit. Alternatively, a state could use the effect of such measures as a basis for 

administratively adjusting the average CO2 emission rate of affected EGUs when demonstrating 

achievement of the required emission rate performance level in a state plan." The commenters 

said for several reasons, EPA's assessment of EE is far too aggressive and not achievable based 

on real evidence; first, the proposed rule overestimates the amount of energy efficiency 

available; second, each state has methods to determine the cost-effectiveness of energy 

efficiency, as well as methods for verifying the levels of reduction that should be, but are not, 

respected by the rule; third, companies can offer a full menu of efficiency programs, but if the 

end user does not implement them, the efficiency targets will not be reached. The commenters 

said the proposed rule does not properly reflect existing state efficiency and demand response 

rules. The commenters suggested that EPA remove demand-side EE from the state goals and 

allow owners and operators of affected sources the option to rely on EE measures to demonstrate 

compliance with rate-based state goals. 

Commenters stated that they believe there is an error with the energy efficiency requirements in 

Building Block 4 because currently, "Increased energy efficiency lowers overall generation, 

which increases the emissions rate in the compliance calculation." The commenters suggested 

that EPA should simplify "how energy efficiency is accounted for in the compliance calculation 

so that increased energy efficiency is a benefit to the state for compliance."

Comment 57: States should get credit for renewable generation already achieved and that will 

be implemented before compliance is required. 

Response 57: See sections V.C., VI, and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment and Chapter 2 of the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD 

supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters observed that EPA's methodology does not give compliance credit for renewable 

generation that comes online before 2020. The commenters said there is no reason to 

disincentivize or otherwise fail to recognize the contribution of projects that are underway or are 
397 

being planned and will soon be implemented that will work toward the goal of decreasing CO2 

emissions. The commenters urged EPA to allow states to count for compliance purposes pre2020 renewable generation. The commenters said since the environmental goals of the Clean 

Power Plan are concerned with aggregate future emissions of CO2, it is appropriate that any and 

all actions reducing CO2 emissions from affected EGUs should be credited toward compliance. 

The commenters said EPA should establish baseline references for each state by year and allow 

quantities of renewable generation achieved in excess of reference levels prior to 2020 to be 

carried forward for application in the compliance period. 

Commenters encouraged EPA to seek regulatory mechanisms that will recognize and credit early 

actions and ensure regulatory parity among all states. The commenters said New Hampshire has 

demonstrated, and will continue to demonstrate, leadership in reducing CO2 emissions. The 

commenters said in 2002, prior to the regional reductions achieved under RGGI, New Hampshire 

enacted first in-the-nation legislation that addressed CO2 emissions from power plants. The 

commenters said in response, several individual New Hampshire facilities made investments that 

resulted in greater efficiency and lower emissions. The commenters said states that have not 

achieved equivalent reductions to date should be required to do more to achieve results 

comparable to New Hampshire, and New Hampshire should receive credit for acting early. 

Commenters supported the recognition and encouragement of early emission reductions. The 

commenters said the impacts of climate change are directly related to cumulative GHG 

emissions, so early investments to reduce CO2 create important and long-lasting environmental 

benefits. The commenters said the EPA's assumptions in setting each state's emission rate goal 

include early state actions to reduce emissions prior to 2020, such as RE and EE measures. The 

commenters said the EPA also proposes to consider the post-2019 impacts of most pre-2020 RE 

investment (which we believe should include RPS-eligible hydro investments) and of EE 

investments from mid-2014 onwards (which we believe should be adjusted to the beginning of 

2013). The commenters said the EPA also requests comment on whether emission reductions 

that existing state requirements, programs, and measures achieved prior to January 1, 2020 

should be applied toward meeting the required levels of emission performance in a state plan. 

The commenters believed that reductions prior to 2020 should not be excluded from the 

compliance calculation, and support examination of feasible methods to credit such early actions 

that maintain the stringency and environmental integrity of the EPA's 2030 goals. 

Commenters stated many utilities have invested in energy efficiency efforts, making great strides 

in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in the Pacific Northwest, energy efficiency improvements 

by electric utilities total 5,600 average megawatts, saving electricity consumers $3.5 billion in 

electricity costs. The commenters said this achievement cost electric utilities $375 million (2006 

dollars), making energy efficiency the second largest resource in the Pacific Northwest behind 

hydroelectric power. The commenters said in this case, states through early action have already 

implemented a good portion of available renewable and energy efficiency measures to 

voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas. The commenters urged EPA to consider early action 

achievements in its calculation of state targets; to fail to do so will unfairly penalize states that 

made the early effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Commenters stated on page 34918 and 34919 of the preamble, EPA solicits comments on the 

option to recognize emission reductions achieved starting at a specified date which will allow a 
398 

gradual emission improvement trajectory during the interim performance period of 2020 through 

2029. The commenters said EPA rationalizes this option because higher carbon dioxide 

emissions during the interim period would be offset by lower emissions prior to 2020. The 

commenters said South Dakota's electric cooperatives out of necessity have been promoting and 

rewarding energy efficiency and conservation for decades; examples consist of end user 

incentive programs for energy efficient heat pumps, lighting, and water heaters along with 

promoting energy efficient appliances, windows, and whole house efficiency upgrades. The 

commenters said because these programs are currently reducing carbon dioxide emissions and 

will do so in the future, EPA should give the states the flexibility to account for these existing 

energy efficiency programs. The commenters recommended EPA allow for "banking" carbon 

dioxide emission reductions beginning in the baseline year through 2019 to allow states to take 

credit for what has already been accomplished and create an incentive for states to reduce more 

carbon dioxide prior to 2020. The commenters said this incentive will not only give states the 

flexibility they need to plan for the future and reduce carbon dioxide emissions early, but also 

help reduce the impacts of this federal rule on energy reliability and affordability. The 

commenters said specifically, EPA should allow high-renewable states like South Dakota to 

bank excess renewable generation (above a national threshold) and use the banked megawatthours for post-2020 goal compliance; this would both reward these states' leadership in 

renewable energy investment prior to EPA's base year, and strengthen the incentive to continue 

renewable energy investments prior to 2020. 

Commenters stated EPA should provide for early action credit to reward those states that have 

proactively undertaken to reduce carbon emissions from their generation fleet, and to encourage 

states to take actions prior to the start of the interim compliance period. 

Commenters stated sound environmental policy clearly favors the determination and application 

of performance standards under the CPP in a manner that recognizes (and certainly does not 

penalize) states for previously moving forward with actions to combat climate change in the 

absence of any federal standards. The commenters said for a number of years, a portion of the 

affected stakeholders argued against early state action because of the fear that such proactive 

measures may merely disadvantage the state when ultimately confronting a federal regulatory 

regime. The commenters said should EPA's ultimate CPP program confirm such fears, the 

implication will be to create strong disincentives to future proactive environmental control 

measures by states; therefore, both to ensure consistency with the statutory requirements of 

Section 111, and as a matter of sound public policy, EPA should adjust the state goals to avoid 

the application of a penalty against the significant efforts that many states already have 

undertaken to address GHG emissions from the power sector. 

Commenters stated EPA must allow for early action credit to reward those states that have been 

actively reducing the carbon emissions from their generation fleet and to encourage states to take 

actions prior to the start of the interim period. The commenters said companies have undertaken 

many initiatives to reduce the carbon intensity of the electric generating system, such as: heat 

rate improvements, nuclear plant uprates, and retirement of higher emitting units. The 

commenters said EPA must: (1) allow for adjustments in the heat rate improvement component 

of the state-specific target to a level lower than six percent for any unit that has completed heat 

rate improvement projects within five years of the baseline period; (2) EPA must allow for 

crediting of nuclear uprates and life extensions regardless of timing of the activity; and (3) EPA 
399 

must credit fossil fuel-fired plant retirements that have occurred during and after the baseline 

period. 

Commenters were supportive of an implementation plan that recognizes and rewards early 

action; early action that has occurred in the past (prior to 2012) and particularly early action as 

defined as action that can be taken between now and the time when the first compliance period 

begins (2020 as currently proposed). The commenters said it is important to distinguish the 

setting of a baseline for the purposes of setting a reduction target as opposed to setting a baseline 

for the purpose of compliance budgets. The commenters said the level of overall carbon 

reductions required under the CPP are easily achievable; it is therefore reasonable, and indeed 

critically important, that such a level of overall reduction be maintained regardless of 

considerations or allowances made with respect to early actions. The commenters argued that the 

EPA should, for the purposes of goal setting, recognize that some states are benefitting from not 

having existing natural gas EGU infrastructure, established renewable energy policies, or energy 

efficiency practices. The commenters said the BSER, uniformly applied to all of the states, 

results in a peculiar scenario where some states have less stringent goals due to their past 

indifference of BSER practices. The commenters said to correct for this past indifference to 

BSER practices, the commenters argued that EPA should calculate state goals using a minimum 

baseline methodology; for instance, if a state has no natural gas infrastructure, emission 

reductions attributed to Building Block 2 will be negligible for the purposes of calculating the 

final AER goal for that state. The commenters said by creating a minimum baseline for the 

purposes of goal calculation, these states will be required to meet a level of stringency that is 

more fair relative to other states' AER goal stringencies. 

Commenters stated over the last ten (10) years, Flint, along with all the electric membership 

cooperatives in Georgia, have led efforts to pursue and secure renewable/green energy. The 

commenters said through the formation of Green Power EMC (GPEMC), the first major green 

power project in Georgia started in 2003 at the Taylor County Landfill (Mauk, Georgia) -that 

doubled capacity to eight megawatts (8MW) in 2012 - not only reduced and made use of 

severely damaging methane emissions, but also did so in a way to promote affordability and 

reliability. The commenters said GPEMC has since secured additional landfill, biomass, and 

solar generation projects that were started-up prior to 2012. The commenters said independently, 

Flint secured a long-term power purchase agreement for three megawatts (3MW) of landfill gasfueled generation at the Houston County Landfill (Kathleen, Georgia). The commenters said in 

the vein of attempting to maximize opportunities and resources, Flint has also been among the 

leading electric utilities to aggressively deploy peak load management devices on air 

conditioning and water heater units that have moved approximately fifteen megawatts (15MW) 

from expensive peak generation to lower load periods and other units that helps lessen the 

immediacy of building new generation capacity. The commenters said these initiatives have most 

assuredly contributed to the significant reduction in CO2 between 2005 and 2012. The 

commenters said efforts to take the lead and be environmentally responsible over the last decade 

- in a manner that maintains affordability and reliability - appear to work to the detriment and 

penalization of Flint members. The commenters said other commenters' comments make the case 

for the commenters' concern..."by considering the 2012 benchmark data for determining each 

state's goals, EPA effectively penalizes states that have taken a proactive approach to reducing 

their emissions of CO2 prior to 2012; for instance, from 2005 to 2012 the State of Georgia 

reduced CO2 mass emissions by 30%; EPA's proposed rule, however, requires Georgia to 
400 

achieve an additional 48% reduction in the State's CO2 emission rate by 2030; by comparison, 

CO2 goals for other states that achieved far fewer CO2 reductions are considerably less 

stringent." 

Commenters stated EPA should reassess the assumptions in its four building blocks to reflect the 

potential for additional reductions in states where cost-effective measures have already been 

taken; States whose actions were analyzed as part of developing EPA's BSER should be given 

some measure of credit in the proposal - instead, states like Washington appear to be asked to 

redouble their efforts. The commenters said for numerous reasons, they believed EPA needs to 

look more closely at what potential reductions actually remain in states that are already lowcarbon emitters. 

Commenters stated Minnesota has long-standing state-level goals and requirements for 

renewable energy, conservation, efficiency, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The 

commenters said the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, for example, established the state's 

renewable energy standard (the "RES") and a qualified ban on new carbon emissions from the 

energy sector; further, significant utility repowering and emissions reductions projects were 

completed in recent years or are currently underway; for example, Xcel Energy's Metro 

Emissions Reduction Project ("MERP") was completed in stages from 2007-2009. The 

commenters said these and other efforts, such as Minnesota Power's Arrowhead Emissions 

Reduction Abatement ("AREA") program, have driven significant investments (paid for by 

Minnesota ratepayers) that have resulted in substantial carbon dioxide emissions reductions. 

Commenters stated specifically, Minnesota's electricity users, and in particular industrial users 

such as the members of MLIG, have already paid and continue to pay for much of these 

reductions in the form of increasing electric rates over the past several years; looking at just the 

amounts two of Minnesota's largest utilities - Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power - have 

recovered in rate riders for MERP and AREA, respectively, Minnesota ratepayers paid over $700 

million from 2006 to 2012; but it is critical to also consider other environmental retrofit 

investments and renewable energy investments. The commenters said when these investments 

are taken into account, costs borne by Minnesota ratepayers to reduce emissions from 2006-2012 

approach $1 billion. 

Commenters stated cost recovery for these investments continues and is directly impacting 

industrial rates in Minnesota; in Minnesota, average retail electricity prices for the industrial 

sector have increased by almost 57% since 2004; for the large industrial customers in Northern 

Minnesota, the increase has been even more severe; rates for those customers have increased by 

over 60% since 2005. The commenters said Minnesota's industrial electricity rates are therefore 

becoming increasingly uncompetitive; Minnesota ranks 31st in terms of competiveness for 

industrial rates as of 2012; and for those industrial customers whose cost of energy is a 

significant portion of the overall cost of production, the recent price increases are putting 

unsustainable pressure on Minnesota operations; continuing rate increases may force these 

customers to look to other states and countries for production and expansion opportunities, which 

could hurt our local and national economies. 

Commenters stated under the Clean Power Plan, forward-looking states like Minnesota should be 

rewarded for early action (and not penalized) by crediting Minnesota's existing achievements and 
401 

programs toward compliance with Section 111(d) carbon dioxide goals. In its initial comment 

letter to EPA last year, the commenters argued that a baseline year of 2005 or earlier would fairly 

capture the major investments Minnesota ratepayers have made in carbon dioxide emissions 

reductions; EPA, however, is proposing a baseline year of 2012 for purposes of establishing 

Minnesota's reduction target; as a result, the proposed target for Minnesota is much more 

stringent than targets for other states that have done little to reduce emissions to date. 

Commenters stated Minnesota stakeholders have proposed several options for adjustments to the 

building block methodology that would better reflect progress and investments already made in 

Minnesota; for example, Xcel Energy has proposed several adjustments that EPA should 

consider adopting. The commenters said EPA's current method for calculating Minnesota's target 

ignores the MERP project and the substantial investment made by Minnesota ratepayers to 

achieve significant emissions reductions through that project. The commenters said to address 

this problem, Xcel has proposed recalculating EPA's "Building Block 2" to exempt natural gas 

power plants built after 2005 to replace coal plants under multi-pollutant programs. The 

commenters said the MERP project included replacing 652 MW of coal capacity at the High 

Bridge and Riverside plants with 1,080 MW of natural gas capacity at the same sites. The 

commenters said the result, according to Xcel, would be an adjustment of Minnesota's 2030 goal 

from 873 lbs/MWh to 957 lbs/MWh. The commenters said an exemption for projects like MERP 

makes sense because it is exactly the type of large-scale investment in emissions reduction the 

Clean Power Plan is designed to promote; Minnesota and its ratepayers should not be punished 

for having already invested approximately $1 billion in the most efficient and cost-effective 

options such as the MERP and AREA projects. 

Commenters stated similarly, Minnesota has already made substantial investments in renewable 

energy and has commitments to continue such investment to meet the RES targets; Xcel 

proposed another potential adjustment to Block 2 that would account for the fact that variable 

renewable energy sources are often balanced with natural gas generation. The commenters said 

the premise of Block 2 generally is to presume that natural gas plants can and should ramp up to 

operate with 70% capacity factors; however, this premise is problematic for natural gas plants 

that are significantly displaced by wind generation. The commenters said Xcel recommends 

calculating the number of natural gas MWh displaced by wind in 2012 and recalculating Block 2 

with an adjusted capacity factor that incorporates those displaced MWhs; without an adjustment 

along these lines, Block 2 penalizes states like Minnesota that have already invested heavily in 

pairing wind power with natural gas, a combination that the Clean Power Plan otherwise would 

appear to promote. 

Commenters stated the plan should provide states with credit for prior CO2 reductions as an 

option towards meeting a reasonable national target for reducing CO2 emissions from the 

electric power sector. 

Commenters stated in finalizing the CPP, EPA must also account for the significant initiatives 

that a number of states have already undertaken to limit GHG emissions from the power sector as 

the Agency determines BSER. The commenters said Section 111(d) of the CAA mandates that, 

in determining BSER for a given set of sources, EPA must take into account the performance 

level achieved by the best performing units within that source category, and set standards of 

performance based on those achieved performance levels that can reasonably (and will) be 
402 

enforced by the states. 42 U.S.C. section 7411(d); 40 C.F.R. section 60.22. The commenters said 

the statutory provision requires national uniformity in the application of the BSER standard 

relative to the ultimate compliance level imposed; therefore, the final rule must not penalize 

states that have previously undertaken proactive measures to reduce the contribution of their 

sources to the nation's GHG load. 

Commenters stated with demand-side energy efficiency, EPA again does not present substantial 

evidence that its projection in the state goal calculations is "reasonably reliable," "reasonably 

efficient" or will "produce the performance necessary to achieve the goal." The commenters said 

the Agency requires each state to achieve a goal of 1.5% annual savings in electricity generation 

achieved through demand-side energy efficiency programs. The commenters said EPA claims 

that 12 states have either achieved, or have established requirements that will lead them to 

achieve, annual incremental savings rates of at least 1.5% of the electricity demand that would 

otherwise have occurred. The commenters said EPA claims that this 1.5% savings rate is 

inclusive of, not additional to, existing state energy efficiency programs. The commenters said 

this assertion is false because EPA is counting emission reductions that existing state programs 

achieve only as a result of actions taken after the date of this proposal. The commenters said 

EPA cannot claim that this 1.5% savings goal is inclusive of existing energy efficiency programs 

when it is not counting emission reductions achieved from those programs unless some 

subsequent action is taken after the promulgation of this rule. Commenters stated by discounting 

emission reductions achieved by these existing state programs, EPA is punishing states that have 

taken the early initiative to adopt energy efficiency programs. The commenters said states that 

have been proactive and adopted programs such as energy efficient building codes, energy 

efficient appliance rebates, or smart meter infrastructure will see none of the emissions 

reductions achieved through these programs count toward its energy efficiency goal. The 

commenters said EPA is not only punishing states for being good actors, but also including a 

BSER that cannot "produce the improved performance necessary to achieve" the goal. 

Commenters stated the EPA failed to recognize the past achievements made by TVA by its 30 

percent reduction of carbon emission levels between 2005 and 2013 in its generation and 

transmission of power and energy supplied to the LPCs; and which the TVPPA member LPCs 

helped achieve carbon emission reductions from TVA's generation system through EEDR 

initiatives actively promoted by the LPCs to the separate individual ratepayers. 

Commenters stated energy efficiency improvements by electric utilities in the Pacific Northwest 

now total 5,600 average megawatts, making energy efficiency the second largest electricity 

resource in the Pacific Northwest behind hydroelectric power. The commenters said through 

early action, Northwest states have implemented a large percentage of available renewable and 

energy efficiency measures; these have led to lower GHG emissions. The 

commenters encouraged EPA to consider early action achievements in the calculation of state 

GHG reduction targets. 

Commenters stated it is not fair that none of Minnesota's pollution control actions prior to 2012 

were taken into consideration when the carbon emission formulas for 2030 were created. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule and notice fails to recognize that states including Arizona 

are already utilizing significant amount of low or zero carbon generation, such hydro or solar 
403 

power, and as such do not receive any offsets or credits for being early actors. The commenters 

said by not recognizing these early contributions, the EPA is by default setting the compliance 

bar higher for states such as Arizona. The commenters believed that states such as Arizona, 

which have been utilizing a significant amount of low carbon generation for some time, should 

be able to apply those cumulative emission reductions towards their 2020 requirements. 

Commenters stated as proposed, the CPP takes early action for granted. The commenters said 

across the board, states that have already achieved substantial reductions in carbon emissions, 

improved efficiency at coal-fired facilities, or executed successful demand-side efficiency 

programs are asked to do more than their less proactive neighbors. Commenters stated the 

proposal presumes that states that have renewable capacity and/or statutory goals to increase 

carbon-free generation will meet and, in some instances, exceed, those goals. The commenters 

said the RE targets as established in building block 3 assume that states can achieve higher levels 

of renewable generation by virtue of existing installed capacity and the presence of binding or 

voluntary state targets. The commenters said states may fall short of these goals for a variety of 

reasons, not least complications over financing, technology, reliability, or infrastructure. 

Commenters stated states that have already improved the efficiency of coal facilities are not 

credited for those investments. The commenters said Building block 1 of the CPP proposes that 

all coal facilities can achieve a 6 percent heat rate improvement. The commenters said it is clear 

that facilities that have already undertaken the challenge to realize significant efficiency 

improvements may not be able to achieve further gains. 

Commenters stated state goals must recognize the significant efforts that states, utilities, and 

other entities have made over the past ten years to reduce GHG emissions. The commenters said 

the Proposed Rule unreasonably discriminates against states that took early action to invest in 

cost-effective EE by increasing the stringency of their goals and compliance obligations. 

• From an equity viewpoint, the EPA should reward states that developed 

significant cost-effective EE resources before the EPA proposed its rule, because 

these historically cost-effective EE measures have already reduced the use of 

fossil fuel generation. 

• Since many cost-effective EE resources have a short economic life, states will be 

incented to wait to implement EE measures until the plan period starts so the full 

life-cycle amount of a given EE measure can be fully counted toward the goal. 

Commenters stated the EPA's proposal penalizes early actions already taken with respect to 

block 1, boiler efficiency improvements. The commenters said many utilities have already 

completed the relevant efficiency improvement projects outlined by EPA to get these emissions 

reductions. The commenters said the EPA's goal-setting exercise for Florida simply assumes a 

reduction from efficiency improvements as plausible without due consideration of whether or not 

potential measures have already been completed; this would arbitrarily reward those who 

delayed maintenance on power plants until after 2012 and penalize others who have proactively 

made reductions. The commenters said states should be afforded the flexibility to work with 

EPA to adjust the goal if the appropriate efficiency projects that EPA assumes are feasible and 

have already been completed or would not achieve the reduction EPA projects. 
404 

Commenters stated although the goal of the CPP is to achieve a 30% reduction in 2005 carbon 

dioxide emissions from the electric utility industry by 2030, the actual base year for the plan is 

2012. The commenters said reductions in CO2 emissions achieved by the industry in a particular 

state during the seven-year period from 2005 to 2012 are completely ignored by EPA's formula. 

The commenters said EPA makes some modest assumptions about anticipated CO2 reductions 

during the eight-year period from 2012 to 2020; those assumed savings don't count toward 

achieving the goal; they actually make the goal harder to achieve. The commenters said any 

actual savings above EPA's assumptions are completely ignored by EPA's formula. 

Commenters stated under EPA's methodology, states are assumed to achieve minimal reductions 

in CO2 emissions from the electric utility industry during the 15-year period from 2005 to 2020; 

states are then required to achieve their entire assigned reduction (41% for Minnesota) during the 

10-year period from 2020 to 2030. The commenters said this construct not only flies in the face 

of reality in early adopter states such as Minnesota, it also ignores the incremental pace of 

change that occurs in the highly regulated and capital-intensive electric utility industry. 

Commenters stated EPA's assumption that all emission reductions will occur between 2020 and 

2030 severely penalizes early adopter states such as Minnesota. The commenters said the 

average mandated percentage reduction in states with renewable generation of 10% or greater is 

29%, while the average mandated percentage reduction in states with renewable generation of 

5% or less is only 18%. The commenters said the early adopter states have, on average, an 11% 

higher mandated reduction than the trailing-edge states. The commenters said that states with 

sizeable amounts of renewable energy on line in 2012 should have a lesser obligation during the 

2020-2030 period, since they are already achieving substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. The 

commenters said at a minimum, states that are doing a good job at reducing CO2 today should be 

on an equal footing with those that are not; but under the EPA methodology, states that are 

making serious efforts to reduce CO2 emissions prior to 2020 have to make greater reductions 

between 2020 and 2030 than those that are doing little or nothing today. 

Commenters stated the EPA stated in its press releases that it gives credit to forward thinking 

states for their CO2 reductions; however, in practice, it does not credit these states; in fact, this 

approach will actually punish states. The commenters said the EE measures that will remain in 

2020 as options to implement by the early action states are more costly than the options available 

to states who have not acted on EE. The commenters said these costs will be passed on to the rate 

payers who have already done their part in meeting EPA's overall 30% reduction goal. The 

commenters noted that under a mass-based approach, EPA appears to allow a state to give credit 

to these programs on some level by not including EE programs implemented after 2015 in 

projections. The commenters said EPA seems to be forcing early action states to implement a 

mass-based approach. 

Commenters stated in the emission limit calculation for a given state, credit electric generating 

units that repowered from coal to natural gas combined cycle as if they operated at the coal 

emission rate levels in the baseline years; since there are relatively few repowered units, this 

approach would only slightly increase the calculated emission rate target but would provide the 

appropriate means of rewarding early action to reduce emissions. 
405 

Commenters stated in the emission limit calculation for a given state, do not restrict the dispatch 

of coal units that worked with EPA on commitments to reduce emissions that were memorialized 

in consent decrees. The commenters said utilities that made these commitments did so at 

substantial additional costs to customers; appropriately, these substantial costs were amortized 

over the remaining useful life of these units to minimize the additional cost burden of taking 

early action. The commenters said these units must operate at a much higher capacity factor than 

allowed by EPA's proposal in order to allow customers to recover their investment; therefore, it 

is appropriate for EPA to recognize early investments that were made in good faith and reasoned 

judgment that EPA would not subsequently create new requirements that cause significant 

stranded costs. 

Commenters stated EPA can recognize reductions made in voluntary, but legally binding CO2 

reduction commitments. The commenters said EPA should allow credit for these unused 

allowances by incorporating accrued early action emission reductions into the goal setting or by 

providing an explicit mechanism for states to recognize them. 

 

Commenters stated that the proposed rule would penalize units that have already taken steps to 

come into compliance with other environmental rules, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards Rule ("MATS"). Commenters stated that the proposed rule uses 2012 data, but many 

coal-fired units have MATS-related projects currently underway that will increase heat rates 

above 2012 levels. 

Commenters stated that EPA should consider providing credit for heat rate improvement projects 

undertaken by utilities between the baseline year and the initial date of compliance. Commenters 

stated that for example, they recently completed heat rate improvement projects at IPL's 

Ottumwa Generating Station in November 2014. Commenters stated that WPL's Columbia 

Energy Center has heat rate improvement projects scheduled for completion by the end of 2017 

and these projects are expected to improve efficiency on average by approximately 3 - 5% at 

these electric generating stations. Commenters stated that for the Ottumwa Generating Station 

project description see Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) Docket No. EPB-2014-0150, filed by IPL on 

April 1, 2014 available at https://efs.iowa.gov/efs/. For the Columbia Energy Center project 

description see Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) Docket No. 05-CE-141, 

application filed on July 31, 2013 available at 

http://psc.wi.gov/apps40/ERF_public/Default.aspx. 

Commenters stated that efficiency improvements represent only part of the investment they have 

made to improve the environmental performance of its coal-fueled generating fleet. Commenters 

stated that they have also installed air quality control equipment to meet environmental 

requirements under such rules as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Commenters stated that 

this equipment improves the quality of flue gas exiting the stack, but also requires station power 

for operation. Commenters stated that the increased station power consumption reduces plant 

efficiency and increases net plant heat rate. Commenters stated that coal facilities that placed this 
406 

equipment in service after 2012 will need some amount of energy efficiency improvement just to 

restore plant efficiency to the baseline level used in the EPA's calculations. 

Commenters stated some units simply retire and questioned why didn't the EPA account for the 

changing profile of the coal fleet from 2012 forward when setting state goals? 

Comment 58: Credit for early actions 

Response 58: See sections VIII.B., and VIII.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated it is essential that EPA adjust its future target reduction goals for RGGI stateparticipants, so they are not asked to achieve higher aggregate emission reduction targets that 

would place these "early adopter" states at risk of more substantial risks of grid reliability 

disruptions and higher ratepayer costs. The commenters concurred with RGGI comments of 

November 5th that advocate adjustment of future emission targets so as to recognize and not 

punish earlier achievements in the RGGI region; overall, the RGGI comments suggest that a 

nationwide application of some of the same methods of mass-based emission reductions and 

regional, rather than merely state-based entity goals will be able to more easily meet the EPA 

goals for year 2030 emissions reductions. 

Commenters stated that EPA should consider clarifying that states that go beyond their targets 

under the Clean Power Plan would receive credit for those actions under future updating of the 

carbon pollution standards for power plants, and the standard only applies to fossil generators, so 

those states with less fossil generation in their system mix will bear less cost. 

Commenters stated Tallahassee has lowered its carbon intensity to 960 pounds per megawatt 

hour; this rate represents award-winning early reductions, which is approximately 20 percent 

lower than the current state average for Florida. The commenters stated based on EPA's goal of a 

30 percent reduction, logic would suggest that the city would be very close to meeting the 

target; however, it still remains over 28 percent greater than the EPA's proposed standard for 

Florida. The commenters have concerns about their ability to meet the limits in this proposed 

rule. 

Commenters stated over many years, Otter Tail has taken major steps, primarily through the 

following initiatives, to reduce carbon footprint and mitigate CO2 emitted in the process of 

generating electricity for customers: Supply efficiency and reliability, Energy 

Efficiency/Conservation, Renewable energy, EPA's SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) Emission 

Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems. 
407 

Commenters stated that in the October 28, 2014 Notice of Data Availability (NODA), the EPA 

acknowledged stakeholder concerns regarding the rigidity of the 2020 to 2029 glide path, and 

requested additional stakeholder comments to ensure that the overall framework includes 

sufficient flexibility. Commenters stated that the EPA presented two suggestions for addressing 

the glide path implementation in the NODA. Commenters stated that the first approach the EPA 

requested comment on was the option to allow credit for early CO2 emission reduction. 

Commenters stated that in theory, this approach is appropriate and would recognize the steps 

already taken by those states or EGU's that were engaged in early-action to reduce CO2. 

Commenters stated that however, the reality is that the EPA only intends to make this earlyaction credit available to actions that reduce emissions after 2012 but before the beginning of the 

2020 glide path. Commenters stated that this approach for eligibility of early-action credits 

provides no additional benefit, since by the very nature of the goal-setting and compliance 

determination calculations proposed in the June 2014 proposal, a state that reduces emissions 

after 2012 but prior to 2020 would in fact be "credited" for those emissions by default when 

calculating their emission rates for compliance in 2020. Commenters stated that the only 

approach that would provide an actual benefit to states engaged in early-action, would be a credit 

for CO2 emission reduction activities performed prior to 2012. Commenters stated that since the 

EPA's goal-setting formula applies building blocks to each state's 2012 carbon emission rate, 

states that took action to reduce CO2 emissions prior to 2012 are forced to further reduce carbon 

emissions with the same intensity as states that have not already made investments in carbon 

reduction. Commenters stated that PSNH urges the EPA to consider early-action credit for those 

CO2 reductions that occurred prior to the EPA's selected baseline year of 2012. Commenters 

stated that PSNH's early actions include the economic-based transition of coal plants to targeted 

operation during peak demand periods between 2005 and 2012, various heat rate improvements 

including a turbine energy efficiency project at Merrimack Station's Unit 2 in 2008, and the 

conversion of Schiller Station's 50 MW coal-fired EGU to a biomass-fired EGU via the Northern 

Wood Power Project in 2006. 

Commenters stated that the NODA reintroduces the question of crediting for early action, posing 

early crediting as a potential solution to the concerns of some stakeholders that meeting the 

interim targets will be difficult given the BSER determination that states can implement Building 

Blocks 1 and 2 by 2020. Commenters suggested that one potential response to these concerns 

introduced in the NODA would be to reduce the initial stringency of Building Block 2 by 

assuming that states would instead increase their natural gas utilization gradually, along a "glide 

path." As the commenters explained clearly in its initial comments, the targets set by EPA are 

eminently achievable, and reducing the stringency of these targets is not necessary given the 

wide array of advanced energy technologies available to help states meet their goals. 

Commenters believed that early action crediting should be allowed. Commenters stated that 

while EPA identifies early action crediting as another potential response to stakeholder concerns 

regarding Building Blocks 1 and 2, the commenters believed that such an approach is justified 

for reasons beyond smoothing out a "glide path," namely, as detailed in Section III.G of AEE's 

initial comments, early crediting for new actions will spur states to act earlier, accelerating the 

expansion of the advanced energy markets, driving earlier emission reductions, and providing 

states a longer period for compliance activity. Commenters stated that the policy 

recommendation made by AEE regarding early action crediting achieves all of this without 

weakening the stringency of the emission targets and that conversely, providing no credit for 
408 

early action threatens to counterproductively stall continued expansion of advanced energy 

markets, and their associated emission reductions, until after 2020 when "full credit" would be 

available. 

Commenters stated that in addition to phasing in Building Blocks 1 and 2 over the full interim 

period, MidAmerican supports the proposal contained in the October 2014 NODA that would 

allow states to take credit for early actions which achieved emission reductions. The commenters 

stated that providing full credit for these early actions recognizes the important emissions 

reductions states have already achieved and it continues to incent incremental reductions 

between the date of the proposal and the date of compliance. Commenters stated that 

MidAmerican supports an outcome whereby the final rule clearly states that early emission 

reductions occurring prior to 2020 can be credited towards compliance with the 2030 target. 

Commenters stated that such reductions should not need to relate directly to the proposed 

building blocks so long as they contribute to achieving a state's emissions target. Commenters 

stated that for example, development of renewable energy and implementation of energy 

efficiency programs, as identified in Building Blocks 3 and 4, will certainly continue prior to 

2020 and should be credited towards compliance with the 2030 targets. Commenters stated that 

other actions, such as retirement of fossil-fueled EGUs, will also occur prior to 2020. 

Commenters stated that unit retirement is not tied directly to EPA's proposed building blocks, but 

states should be able to credit the emissions reductions following such retirements, regardless of 

their reasons, towards compliance with their 2030 emission goals. 

Commenters stated that as much as Minnesota wants to do its part to reduce CO2 emissions, we 

have to acknowledge that every CO2 reduction carries a cost with it. Commenters stated that 

Minnesota's electric ratepayers are currently bearing the cost of an aggressive greenhouse gas 

reduction program, which is on track to produce reductions of 30% or more from 2005 levels by 

2020. Commenters stated that then they will have to assume the additional burden of meeting the 

very high reduction under the Proposed Rule of 41% between 2020 and 2030. Commenters 

stated that when all the low-hanging fruit has been picked, further reductions in CO2 emissions 

become technically more difficult to achieve, as well as more expensive. Commenters stated that 

there has to be a reasonable limit to how much one state can be required to achieve. 

Commenters stated that despite EPA's logic, every reduction in CO2 which occurs between 2005 

and 2030 is equally important, no matter when it occurs. Commenters stated that early adopter 

states should not be penalized for moving ahead with greenhouse gas reductions in the absence 

of a federal mandate. Commenters believed that the only fair way to design the program is to use 

2005 as the base year and allow all reductions achieved by states from that year forward to count 

toward achieving the state's goal. 

Commenters stated that if EPA does not wish to redesign the entire program to accommodate 

early adopters, we offer the following suggestions as a means of providing fair treatment to early 

adopters while retaining the existing overall program design. Commenters stated that in 

developing their state plans, early adopter states should be given the option of choosing an onset 

date for the phase-in period that correlates with the state's ongoing greenhouse gas reduction 

efforts. Commenters stated that States should have the option to choose a phase-in period onset 
409 

date of 2015, 2010, or 2005, depending on when its greenhouse gas reduction efforts began to 

show results. Commenters stated that this will allow early adopter states to receive credit for the 

very real CO2 emissions reductions that they will achieve prior to 2020 and greatly enhance the 

overall fairness of the program. 

Commenters did not believe that there should be any insurmountable issues with allowing states 

to opt for a phase-in period that begins prior to the EPA's de facto baseline year of 2012. 

Commenters recognized that, however, that there may be reasons that EPA would not want a 

state's phase-in period to begin prior to 2012. Commenters stated that if that is the case, then 

early adopter states should be permitted to choose any year as the onset date for the phase-in 

period from 2012 through 2019. 

Commenters stated that in Minnesota's case an onset date of 2012 for the phase-in period would 

miss the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions that we achieved from 2005 to 2012, but at least it 

would allow us to receive credit for reductions from our ongoing and effective program from 

2012 forward. 

Commenters stated that EPA proposed that the flexibility provided in the state plan development 

process adequately allows for consideration of the remaining useful life of the affected facilities 

and other source-specific factors and, therefore, separate application of the remaining useful life 

provision by states in the course of developing and implementing their CAA section 111(d) plans 

is unnecessary. Commenters disagreed that the flexibility in the state plan development process 

sufficiently allows for addressing remaining useful life considerations. 

 

Commenters stated that Kansas is in the midst of a period of great transition for its large coalfired electrical generating units. Commenters stated that the six largest coal fired units in Kansas 

have made and continue to make significant investments in criteria pollutant emission reduction 

equipment in the last three to four years to comply with the regional haze program. Commenters 

stated that in addition, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Kansas City ozone maintenance plan 

rules, and the Mercury and Air Toxics rule have also contributed to massive investments in 

pollution control equipment at Kansas' largest coal plants in recent years. Commenters stated 

that more than three billion dollars is earmarked for these projects that have either just been 

completed or are still under construction. Commenters stated that paying off the bonds and other 

credit instruments used to fund controls installed in 2015 cannot be expected to be completed by 

the early compliance period starting in 2020. Commenters stated that investments of such 

magnitude are typically financed for much longer periods of time. Commenters stated that the 

result is a large potential for stranded investments in the State of Kansas as a result of re-dispatch

to non-coal generating units. Commenters stated that although not new facilities, the investments 

made in pollution control equipment are significant and should be allowed to be amortized over a 

greater time period than allowed under the proposal. 
410 

Commenters stated that this is a fundamental issue that EPA must address at the front end of the 

111(d) process by incorporating adjustments for plants with recently installed or to be installed 

controls into the state goal calculations or in the compliance periods. Commenters stated that the 

solution should take into consideration the amount of funds spent on controls as a proportion of 

the value of the generating unit and the generally accepted time frame used by utilities to retire 

the financial instruments used to fund the control devices installed. Commenters stated that 

facilities that have recently installed or are installing new scrubbers comprise 84% of Kansas' 

2012 generation. Commenters stated that this is a far greater impact than the flexibility contained 

in the 111(d) process can reasonably be expected to account for in the short time between the 

plan submittal deadline and the first year of the compliance period. 

Credit for early action should not be given 

Commenters believed stronger and earlier emission reduction targets are required. Commenters 

believed that the introduction of early credits, banking and trading can easily defer or displace 

emission reductions that are achievable, cost effective and adequately demonstrated and that 

would otherwise be implemented. Commenters urged EPA to refrain from introducing any of 

these methods to NSPS rulemakings, however, should EPA proceed, then early credits must be 

cabined by the following principles: commenters stated that first, credit should not be given for 

any action taken before the date of the Proposed Rule (June 2, 2014). Commenters stated that the 

purpose of section 111, and of the Clean Air Act, is to reduce emissions below business as usual, 

not simply to mimic that outcome. Commenters stated that Section 111 standards must reflect 

"emission limitation[s]" achievable through the "best system of emission reduction . . . 

adequately demonstrated." Commenters stated that a standard that fails to reduce emissions from 

business as usual plainly violates that requirement. Commenters stated that second, as EPA 

notes, total emissions would be greater if early action credits were allowed to permit higher 

emission targets during the 2020-2030 period, "unless the pre-2020 emission reductions that can 

be counted toward the state goal are limited to reductions that would not have occurred in the 

absence" of the Proposed Rule. Commenters agreed that a credit limited in this fashion would be 

an incentive for earlier emission reductions, an important goal because early reductions avoid 

additional costs of delay; therefore, we would support such credits if actually so restricted. 

Commenters stated that EPA states concern that without allowing credits for early action, the 

Proposed Rule might create disincentives for pre-2020 emission reductions. Commenters stated 

that EPA can avoid such disincentives if the targets it allocates for each individual state go 

beyond actions to which a state had already committed when the Proposed Rule was proposed. 

Commenters stated that if so, credits for additional and/or speedier emission reduction efforts 

would incentivize, rather than discourage, such conduct. 

Comment 59: Beyond-the-unit approach - penalizes early actors 

Response 59: See Preamble sections V.A and V.E. The EPA has removed block 4 from BSER 

quantification and has revised its treatment of building block 3. 
411 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in addition to making state goals more stringent, EPA's beyond-the-unit 

approach also leads to severe discrepancies in the amount of emission reductions EPA assumes 

different states can achieve. The commenters said because EPA's proposal assumes that states 

will start implementing future emission reductions from RE and EE at the levels they had 

achieved by 2012, states that invested early in these emission reductions are assigned more 

stringent interim goals than are states that failed to invest early; thus, EPA's approach effectively 

penalizes early actors by requiring utilities in those states to achieve deeper reductions than they 

would be required to achieve had they decided not to invest in zero-carbon electricity and EE. 

Commenters said that, by looking beyond the fence line at emission reductions that can be 

achieved through renewable energy generation and demand-side energy efficiency, EPA is, in 

effect, punishing early adopters by imposing more stringent emission reduction targets. 

Commenters said EPA's emission reduction targets for both renewable energy and energy 

efficiency are based on regional or national targets, but also include growth projections that 

begin in 2017 and continue through 2030. Commenters said for States that have already adopted 

and implemented such renewable and demand-side energy efficiency programs, the ramp up 

period is short, and their emission reduction targets are based on EPA's maximum values within 

a few years. Commenters said in contrast, other States that have not yet implemented such 

programs will not be required to demonstrate full compliance with EPA's maximum values until 

much later, if at all. Commenters said for example, both Missouri and Illinois are located in the 

North Central region and are assigned renewable energy targets of 15%. Commenters said 

Missouri is only obligated to increase its renewable capacity from 1% to 3% of Statewide 

generation, while Illinois must increase its renewable capacity by 5% (from 4% to 9%). 

Commenters said that EPA is requiring more aggressive renewable energy expansion for States 

that have already shown leadership in promoting renewable energy. 

Comment 60: Disadvantages and Disproportionate Burdens Imposed for early actions 

Response 60: See sections VI and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the rule disadvantages the proactive states by exactly what has been done in 

calculating the state goals; states that have already planned to reduce CO2 emissions by building 

new nuclear units are at a disadvantage. The commenters said South Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Georgia are the only three states that have nuclear units under construction; the goal for these 

states is lowered substantially by including under construction nuclear in of the state goal 

calculation. The commenters said this is inequitable to customers in those states who are already 

paying for the nuclear units under construction. The commenters said EPA also mentions that it 

recognizes that state that have already shifted toward lower carbon-intensity generation are better 
412 

positioned to meet state-specific goals; this is not true if the state goal has been lowered by 

including this under construction generation. The commenters said this creates a disproportionate 

burden to those states to the detriment of their citizens; this also creates an inequity between 

utilities that have invested in different types of low-carbon generation. The commenters said 

utilities that have invested in nuclear as their low-carbon generation are being further burdened 

since the reductions are already assumed in the state goal; on the contrary, utilities that have 

invested in wind and solar as their low-carbon generation are rewarded since their investments 

do not further reduce a state goal. 

Commenters added EPA's proposal directly penalizes our customers; in addition to paying for 

the substantial emission reductions, they have been participating in EE programs the 

commenters have incentivized since 1979. The commenters said participation in the programs 

has been diminishing as the energy efficiency opportunities have been depleted in the 35 years of 

this already successful program. The commenters said the EPA proposal penalizes these 

proactive customers who are now benefitting from a lower power bill; however, these customers 

would undoubtedly see a substantially higher bill due to the additional costs this proposal would 

bring. The commenters said EPA should recognize that the decades of early action as well as 

new appliance and building codes are already reducing load demand; EPA should work with 

Florida to adjust the goal since any reductions beyond the current commitment have been shown 

to be too expensive or simply not practicable during the current Florida energy efficiency goalsetting process. 

Commenters stated the CPP is based on building blocks to reach goals; the methodology of 

measuring the success of those building blocks does not adequately recognize the substantial 

progress already made by some states. The commenters said states should get credit for their 

actions prior to the CPP and should not feel disadvantaged as an early adopter of programs to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The commenters believed that with changes to the building 

block methodology, state emission rate target calculations could more accurately reflect 

substantial progress made by a state or region in the last few years prior to the CPP issuance. The 

commenters said by refining this part of the building block methodology, states would see more 

equity in the targets established for each state. 

Comment 61: Regions; states don't fit into regions; overestimates RE goals for some states. 

Response 61: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

EPA's adoption of North Carolina's renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard 

(REPS) for Florida does not realistically reflect the available renewable resources or policy 

framework in Florida. Commenters stated that "EPA's adoption of North Carolina's renewable 

energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard (REPS) for Florida does not realistically reflect 

the available renewable resources or policy framework in Florida." The commenters further 

stated that Florida does not have viable wind resources and limited biomass. The commenters 
413 

also contended that EPA overestimated the potential renewable energy generation assumption for 

the southeast region by misinterpreting North Carolina's REPS. Furthermore, the commenters 

stated that "by using North Carolina's REPS as a component of the BSER, EPA has doublecounted the use of energy efficiency, given the interaction between Building Blocks 3 and 4." 

Commenters stated EPA assigned states to "regions" for purposes of identifying best practices 

and calculating the portion of the state goals attributable to development of renewable resources; 

however, based on the in-state resources available for development, certain regional average 

targets appear overly aggressive for certain states. The commenters investigated the impact of 

"re-assigning" states to regions with more similar resource bases, and discovered that such reassignments would actually increase the amount of renewable generation included in the 

calculation of the interim and final goals. The commenters found (see Appendix C of their 

comment) that if Arkansas and Louisiana were assigned to the Southeast region, which has a 

regional average target of 10 percent, instead of being included in the South Central Region, 

which has a regional average target of 20 percent, the amount of renewable energy included in 

the calculation of the interim goal would increase from 3,370,253 MWh to 4,848,761 MWh for 

Arkansas, and from 4,932,549 MWh to 7,282,579 MWh for Louisiana. 

Commenters stated EPA acknowledges that there are regional differences throughout the country 

that may result in differing capabilities and resources for increasing RE generation and 

encourages states to work together on regional compliance plans to address these. The 

commenters said EPA fails to recognize that significant differences often remain between states 

within a given region, and what may have been demonstrated to be achievable in one state, may 

not be achievable in another state. The commenters said energy pricing, geography, topology, 

transmission, load, seasonality, endangered species-related siting rules, state or local permitting 

and siting rules, congestion and existing energy mix are just a sample of the many factors that 

play a role in where renewable resources are developed. The commenters said this calls into 

question EPA's decision to group states regionally when calculating state RE goals. 

Commenters stated the South Central region is calculated incorrectly. The commenters said EPA 

used state RPS data to establish regional RE targets, and each region's RE target was calculated 

by assuming all states in the region could, by 2030, achieve the average of the calendar year 

2020 RPS requirements of the states in that region; importantly, in deriving regional targets, EPA 

"did not include [RPS] targets that were capacity-based." 

Commenters stated EPA derived the RE target for the South Central region (Louisiana, 

Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas) based on the RPS of a single state - 

Kansas; however Kansas' RPS is based on gross generation capacity rather than total retail sales. 

The commenters said consequently, it should have been discounted per EPA's stated protocol. 

The commenters said Texas also has a RPS, but like that of Kansas, it is also based on capacity. 

Commenters stated given the lack of a germane RPS standard within the South Central region, 

EPA must establish the regional RE generation target at 1 0%, consistent with its treatment of 

Alaska and Hawaii (and equivalent to that for the Southeast region). 

Commenters stated in order to increase the South Central region's RE generation by 22,249,199 

MWh by 2030, the annual RE growth factor for the region should be set at 2.7 percent. 
414 

Commenters stated EPA's regional approach to renewable energy does not work well; first, EPA 

divided the country into six regions based on NERC regions; second, a renewable energy 

generation target was calculated for each region, based upon averaging all 2020 renewable 

portfolio standards ("RPS") requirements in that region; third, an annual growth factor was 

calculated that would allow the region as a whole to reach the regional renewable energy target 

in 2029 assuming that renewable energy generation would increase from 2012 levels beginning 

in 2017; fourth, the annual growth factor for a given region was applied to individual states' 2012 

renewable energy generation to calculate future renewable energy generation in that state from 

2017 through 2029, not to exceed a maximum renewable energy generation level equivalent to 

the regional renewable energy target; finally, these annual renewable energy generation levels 

for each state were used to calculate interim and final renewable energy targets for the state. The 

commenters said EPA claims that "states within each region exhibit similar profiles of renewable 

energy potential or have similar levels of renewable resources." The commenters said this 

assumption is off-base because the regions are large and encompass states with drastically 

different renewable resources. The commenters said given the sizeable areas spanned by the six 

NERC regions, there are clearly differing levels of renewable energy resource adequacy and 

availability across these proposed regions. The commenters added the EPA assumption that 

existing RPS targets are feasible across all states within a defined region does not adequately 

consider differing RPS requirements, including the varying definitions of "renewable" across the 

states. The commenters said renewable resources physically located in one state are often used to 

satisfy RPS requirements in other states. The commenters said since these benefits are not 

allocated to the buyer's state, RPS quantification is an inefficient method to determine renewable 

energy potential. 

Commenters stated EPA assigned each state renewable-energy growth rates for 2020-2030 based 

on its review of the existing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) after it grouped states on a 

regional basis; thus, EPA assumed that states within a region could meet the same RPS targets, 

and it made this assumption without considering each state's definition of "renewable," what 

each state has available to it in terms of renewable resources, and the costs associated with those 

resources, all of which are unique by state and region. The commenters said in fact, Arkansas has 

not enacted an RPS to date, due in large part to the fact that Arkansas has few cost-effective 

renewable resources for electric power generation. 

Commenters stated EPA acknowledges that there are regional differences throughout the country 

that may result in differing capabilities and resources for increasing RE generation and 

encourages states to work together on regional compliance plans to address these; however, EPA 

fails to recognize that significant differences remain between states within a given region. The 

commenters said energy pricing, geography, topology, transmission, load, seasonality, 

congestion and existing energy mix are just a sample of the many factors that play a role in RE 

deployment; this calls into question EPA's decision to arbitrarily group states regionally when 

calculating state RE goals. 

Commenters stated EPA grouped states together into six regions for determining state RE goals. 

The commenters said EPA provides no rationale for why certain states are grouped together, 

other than proximity; proximity may not be an appropriate proxy for similarity of RE resource 

deployment potential. The commenters said neighboring states can have very different solar or 

wind potential; for example, AR and KS have dramatically different wind resource potential, but 
415 

are included in the same region. The commenters said it is not reasonable to assign AR the same 

RE goal as KS, given the known differences in their wind resource potential; instead, it would be 

more appropriate for EPA to calculate state RE goals based on, among other factors, statespecific resource availability. The commenters said if EPA chooses to retain a regional approach 

to developing state RE goals, the Agency should allow states to change regions if they can 

demonstrate that another region is more representative of their RE potential. 

Commenters stated utilities that operate in multiple states will meet challenges in complying 

with this proposed regulation. The commenters said the feasibility of implementing Building 

Block #3 is different for every state; the EPA made generalizations that may or may not be 

applicable for a particular state. The commenters said further complicating this issue while 

operating in multiple states is how each state will deal with RE resources. The commenters said 

there are unanswered questions regarding how RE resources produced in one state will be treated 

when sold to utilities, delivered into regional RTO's and consumed in other states. The 

commenters said this issue greatly affects how, when and if companies comply with the rule in 

each state. The commenters fully support the wind energy it purchases from KS to be used for 

compliance in other states, especially those states where its customers are paying for said energy. 

Commenters stated EPA set the South Central regional growth rate at 8%, using the Kansas RPS 

established in 2010 as the benchmark. The commenters said while the RPS requirements of most 

other states are based on retail electric sales, Kansas' standard is based on generation capacity. 

The commenters said EPA mistakenly applied the Kansas RPS requirements as if they were 20% 

of retail electricity sales instead of 20% of generating capacity. The commenters estimated that 

this overstates the benchmark growth rate for the region by approximately 9%. 

Commenters stated under the proposed guidelines' primary approach to determining RE baseline 

and target goals, EPA relies on state RES requirements to create regional RE targets that are then 

applied to individual states. The commenters said this approach may overestimate what is 

achievable in some states, particularly those that do not have existing RES mandates, and ignores 

contrary decisions made in those states. The commenters added, EPA misuses state RES 

programs by failing to recognize RES design elements that can have the effect of reducing the 

amount of in-state generation necessary for compliance. The commenters said EPA fails to adjust 

state RES goals to reflect the fact that generation from existing hydropower generation cannot be 

used for compliance under the proposed 111(d) guidelines. The commenters said EPA also 

delays a decision on the eligibility of biomass resources for compliance, adding further 

uncertainty to the RE assumptions in the proposed guidelines. 

Commenters supported EPA's consumption based approach to renewable energy crediting in 

state compliance plans. Commenters also supported the alternative method for renewable BSER 

calculation, but with a modification to use regional technical and economic potential for each 

technology. Commenters contended that EPA used an arbitrary and unjustifiable methodology 

for determining each state's renewable energy (RE) generating capacity under block 3 of the 

BSER. Commenters stated that EPA failed to offer an adequate justification for two components 

of the RE targets in the BSER: 1) its determination that the average regional RPS reflects an 

adequately demonstrated and feasible system of emission reduction; and 2) its application of a 
416 

uniform RE growth rate to all states within a region, regardless of their baseline RE generation 

capacity. Commenters concluded that EPA failed to prove that the standards in block 3 of its 

BSER have been adequately demonstrated. Commenters explained that RPSs are not an 

inherently accurate reflection of a system of emission reduction that is demonstrated or feasible. 

Commenters stated that while some RPSs may realistically reflect a state's RE growth potential, 

others may be no more than an aspirational goal that does not account for the costs or 

practicalities of achieving the goal. Commenters also objected that in two of EPA's designated 

regions there was only one state with an RPS and in those states, the lone state with a RPS set the 

RE growth rate for the entire region. 

Comment 62: RE potential; based on regional growth; need to base upon specific states ability. 

Response 62: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in determining the proposed and alternate RE generation level goals, U.S. 

EPA first quantified the amount of RE in 2012 in each state scenario, excluding 

hydropower; Ohio's 2012 RE performance level is identified as 1% by U.S. EPA; then, as a 

starting level, U.S. EPA summed these amounts for all states in each of six regions (based on 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and RTOs with adjustments to align 

borders with state borders accounting for "similar power system characterizes as well as 

geographic similarities in RE potential." The commenters said then U.S. EPA estimated the 

aggregate target level of RE generation in each of the six regions assuming that all states within 

each region can achieve the RE performance represented by an average of RPS requirements in 

states within that region; specifically, U.S. EPA averaged the existing RPS percentage 

requirements that will be applicable in 2020 and multiplied that average percentage by the total 

2012 generation for the region. The commenters are raising numerous concerns with the various 

aspects of this approach. 

Commenters stated based on DSIRE, U.S. EPA determined that Ohio's 2020 effective RE level is 

9%; this is the second lowest in our region: PA, 8%; NJ, 22%; MD, 18%; DE 19% and DC 20%. 

The commenters said then U.S. EPA assumes RE generation will begin increasing in 2017 until 

in 2029 the regional RE generation target, which is the average of the 2020 effective RE levels, 

is reached in each state. The commenters said for Ohio's region, East Central, our target is 16%. 

The commenters said then for each region they computed the regional growth factor necessary to 

increase regional RE generation from the 2012 level to the regional. The commenters said this 

regional growth factor is the growth factor used for each state in that region to develop the best 

practices scenario. The commenters wish to note that although four of the six states in our region 

have effective RE levels predicted for 2020 of 18 to 22%, in 2012 the six states in our region had 

RE performance levels of 0 to 3%; and the state that performed at 3%, Virginia, is not even 

considered as part of our regional generation target because they do not have an RPS policy. The 

commenters said the remaining five states in our region achieved anywhere from 0 to 2% in 

2012; this acts to drive our annual growth factor starting in 2017 to be 17%. The commenters 
417 

said the U.S. EPA developed the annual RE generation levels for each state by applying the 

regional growth factor to that state's initial RE generation level, starting in 2017, but stopping at 

the point when additional growth would cause total RE generation for the state to exceed the 

state's maximum RE generation target (2012 generation multiplied by 2020 effective RE level, 

16% for Ohio's region). The commenters said the interim goal is then based on the average 

achieved between 2020 and 2029 and the final goal is the 2029 level; for Ohio, the interim goal 

is 6% and the final goal is 11%16 of RE generation in the state. The commenters said Ohio is to 

grow RE within the state from 1% to 11% under this proposal; because Ohio is a large generator 

of electricity, this represents 13,776 GW-hs. The commenters said while states in our region that 

are small generators, such as Delaware, will only be required to achieve 1,038 GW-hs; the 

commenters find this expectation unreasonable. The commenters said the only way to accurately 

determine RE potential that is technically and economically feasible is to determine it based 

upon the specific states ability. 

Commenters stated supporting data could not be found to allow for replication of the EPA 

calculations used to determine the Alaska 2012 RE generation of 39,958 MWh. The commenters 

said per EPA explanation, the annual RE generation growth factor of 11.426 percent is based on 

the growth of RE generation between 2002 and 2012 in Alaska, but no additional detail is 

provided. The commenters said this supporting data should be clearly identified in the record so 

that the public has the opportunity to verify the EPA calculations. The commenters said 

sustaining this high level of RE generation growth in Alaska through 2030, as EPA assumed, 

does not seem likely. The commenters said retaining this conservative growth rate results in 

lower goals than a more realistic RE generation growth rate; in correcting the Alaska CO2 

Performance Goals calculations, EPA should identify a more representative RE generation 

growth rate. 

Commenters stated EPA used statewide RE generation as a factor in calculating the Alaska CO2 

Performance Goals, regardless of whether that RE generation offsets generation from existing 

affected EGUs. The commenters said Alaska has numerous RE generation projects in remote 

communities that are not connected to the affected EGU electrical grid; in contrast, EPA allowed 

only RE generation that offsets generation from existing affected EGUs to be used to determine 

whether actual CO2 emission are compliant with the goals. The commenters said this 

inconsistency results in the Alaska CO2 Performance Goals being artificially low because RE 

credit taken in calculating the goals cannot be used for demonstrating compliance with the goals. 

The commenters said the calculation methodology and compliance methodology should be 

consistent to increase the likelihood that the calculated goals can actually be attained. 

Comment 63: RE targets on regional basis 

Response 63: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
418 

Commenters stated the proposed rule's calculation of renewable energy targets on a regional 

basis - the average in a particular region - often minimizes renewable energy's potential, whether 

or not a state currently has an RPS in place. Commenters said the rule should be improved by 

setting state-specific goals based on the highest RPS in the region or recognizes the potential for 

renewable energy unique to each state. 

Commenters stated the proposed rule assumes a low growth rate for renewable energy; the rule 

should be improved by adopting a growth rate for renewable energy that reflects renewable 

energy's demonstrated and accelerating growth over the past ten years, which is the market 

reality. The commenters said this growth is proof of renewable energy's ability to scale up and 

provides a substantial amount of new generation to meet low-carbon power demands. 

Commenters stated the rule should be improved by revising the 2020 interim compliance goal; 

the modification of the interim compliance goals would allow states to implement a more 

flexible compliance glide path taking into account their generation mix, reliability needs, 

emission target, renewable resources, and other factors. The commenters said states would still 

be required to comply with the 2030 limits but would do so at a rate that is appropriate for each 

state; as an alternative, the USEPA could set a straight-line compliance target that requires states 

to meet a steadily decreasing emission target but smoothes out reductions over the ten-year 

period rather than front-loading the reductions as in the present, proposed rule. The commenters 

said such an approach allows time for the adoption of effective, thoughtful renewable energy 

integration policies, as well as the construction of grid infrastructure, adaptation of technology 

and business processes and renewable energy facilities at a scale that can provide generation to 

more effectively address all reliability concerns created by the retirement of existing coal-fired 

EGUs. 

Commenters stated a more effective approach is to calculate a renewable energy target for each 

non-RPS state based upon its present renewable energy deployment levels, the recent growth 

rates for renewable energy in each state, and, importantly, each state's actual renewable energy 

potential. Commenters stated such an approach ought to take into account the recent growth rates 

of renewable energy deployment in states with similar potential renewable energy resources. 

Comment 64: Regional goals should be revised. 

Response 64: The EPA has revised the way it quantifies BSER based on comments. 

Subcategory-specific emission performance rates now apply to all units nationwide. See 

Preamble Sections V and VI. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that EPA revise the calculation of the Western regional goal so that 

all states, even those with no established state RE rules and hence a zero target now, are included 

at zero. 

Commenters stated the way that the various state goals are calculated is unfair and pits states 

against states, creating further barriers to the development of renewable energy and jeopardizing 
419 

the ability of states to cooperate on a regional basis to try to achieve the overall goals of the 

proposal. 

Comment 65: Correct calculations for RES - renewable energy standard 

Response 65: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (CO RES) is, as implemented, 

approximately 20 percent by 2020, not, as shown in Chapter 4 of the GHG Abatement Measures, 

30 percent by 2020. The commenters said please make the following corrections: 

1. The CO RES includes multipliers to incent specific technologies, early renewable 

investment, and community-based renewable energy; without multipliers, most Colorado 

utilities' actual renewable capacity will be lower than the RES goals; please reduce the 

RE targets in the proposed rule to reflect these multipliers. 

2. The CO RES varies by type of utility: investor-owned utilities have a goal of 30 

percent, cooperatives have a goal of 20 percent and municipal utilities have a goal of 10 

percent; please weight the goal to reflect these standards. 

The commenters said considering the above and the EPA's approach to determining achievable 

renewable targets, the commenters recommended that EPA utilize an effective Colorado RE 

level of approximately 20% for determining the West region and corresponding Colorado 

compliance targets. 

Comment 66: Regional RE target; RES Design Elements 

Response 66: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in setting a regional RE target as the first step in setting state goal, EPA 

appears to assume that there will be regional or multi-state compliance efforts. The commenters 

said multi-state compliance planning may be valuable in resolving compliance challenges 

identified by some states and utilities; however, EPA cannot set targets assuming that this will 

occur. The commenters said this approach could result in inflated RE goals for states that are not 

able to engage in multi-state compliance plans. The commenters said EPA cannot argue that 

targets predicated on regional efficiencies, or the trading of RE credits from regional partners for 

compliance, are achievable by individual states. 
420 

Commenters stated EPA's regional RE goal calculations do not recognize important elements of 

individual state RES programs, such as the use of out-of-state RECs for compliance, alternative 

compliance payments and credit multipliers for certain resources. The commenters said these 

mechanisms serve to reduce the actual levels of in-state RE generation needed to satisfy RES 

mandates. The commenters said EPA's failure to consider these factors results in inflated state 

RE goals that may not be achievable in certain states. 

Commenters said state RES mandates are not proxies for a state's potential to deploy more RE 

generation, but rather reflect policy choices made in each state with regard to how much and 

what type of renewable resources they want to encourage and at what cost and in what 

timeframe. The commenters said this is underscored by the fact that at least 23 of the 29 states 

with a RES allow compliance deviations due to cost impacts, supply constraints or reliability 

concerns; eleven states allow compliance deviations based on a force majeure finding or if 

utilities have made good faith efforts to comply but cannot because of factors beyond their 

control. 

Commenters said further, 24 states (of the 29 states with a RES) and the District of Columbia 

allow the use of out-of-state power and RECs for compliance. The commenters said the use of 

these important compliance mechanisms enables critical flexibility in achieving the mandates, 

and serves to recognize that, in some cases, resources are more widely available or can be more 

economically developed in other states (and Canada and Mexico), which helps keep RES costs 

lower for customers. The commenters said some state RES programs also allow compliance 

through alternative compliance payments; if EPA uses state RES mandates as the basis for 

setting regional or state RE goals, EPA must adjust RES goals to reflect these design elements in 

recognition of the fact that the RES mandates typically require a lesser amount of in-state 

generation than full compliance amounts. 

Commenters said EPA must take into account that states have not established RES percentage 

targets in isolation, but have thoughtfully and intentionally determined the targeted levels of 

renewable generation for each state in the context of, and in conjunction with, determining the 

resources that are available to meet the target level, the cost of meeting the target level and other 

policy objectives. The commenters said if EPA uses state RES mandates as the basis for setting 

regional or state RE goals, EPA must adjust RES goals to reflect these design elements or enable 

additional compliance mechanisms consistent with existing state RES programs. 

Commenters stated EPA also fails to recognize the credit multipliers that some states apply to 

certain resources to further encourage development of these RE resources; twelve states and the 

District of Columbia have some type of resource-specific credit multiplier. The commenters said 

failure to adjust state RES requirements to reflect these credit multipliers results in overestimated 

RE goals; for example, if a state RES requirement is 20 percent by 2020, and that state provides 

an extra multiplier for solar generation, the actual requirement is less than 20 percent because 

solar resources are double counted. The commenters said any use of state RES mandates used by 

EPA in setting regional or state RE goals should reflect this double counting. 

Commenters stated it is critical to allow the current tracking system utilized for compliance in 

MO and KS to be utilized in other states. The commenters said systems such as the North 

American Renewables Registry are currently recognized by some states to track RECs for 
421 

compliance and sale. The commenters said KS wind RECs are exported to other states and 

tracked through this avenue to prevent double counting. The commenters said EPA's regulation 

recognizes these avenues for tracking and applying RECs for state compliance but is not clear on 

the outcome of the REC under the Proposed Rule. The commenters said during EPA outreach 

meetings and calls staffers have presented confusing material on this subject matter. The 

commenters said since natural conditions in every state are not conducive for RE production, it 

will be essential for the RE and/or RE credits created in one state to be utilized for compliance in 

another state. The commenters said allowing this is critical for the success of the Proposed Rule 

and the commenters strongly support this concept; this will lower utility compliance costs and be 

a valuable asset for states in terms of economic development. 

Commenters stated EPA's approach to calculating states' renewable development potential also 

presents challenges; first, EPA's proposal to take a regional average of state Renewable Portfolio 

Standard ("RPS") targets and apply the average to all states in the region imposes the policies in 

one state on its neighbors. The commenters said it also in effect rewards states who have not 

adopted RPS targets, as their regional average is lower; indeed, regions of the country with the 

highest technical potential for developing renewable resources have some of the lowest targets 

for bringing those resources online, while states with relatively lower technical potential are 

faced with the highest targets in the country. The commenters said in New York, for example, 

the NREL study cited by EPA in its Alternate Approach finds New York has a technical 

potential to meet up to 5 percent of its electricity demand with renewable energy, while its target 

under EPA's proposed rule is five times that (at 25 percent). 

Commenters stated EPA uses a "best practice" approach to set state renewable energy targets, but 

the methodology is flawed; EPA's proposal divides the country into regions and sets the target 

level for all states within a region based upon an average of the 2020 RPS requirements from the 

states within each region that have enacted an RPS. The commenters said in the South Central 

region, only one state, Kansas, has adopted an RPS; as a result, EPA has effectively assumed that 

one state's particular policy decision to adopt an RPS represents a meaningful estimate of the 

"feasibility and cost of the best practices scenario" for Texas and all the other states in the region. 

The commenters said EPA's approach is arbitrary and unreasonable for at least two reasons: 

The commenters said first, EPA's "best practice" method relies on the belief that an individual 

state-passed RPS was based on an assessment of the actual feasibility of generating that level of 

renewable energy within the state; individual state decisions to enact an RPS could have been 

due to a combination of factors, including the presence of renewable energy manufacturers 

within the state, the state's politics, trade-offs with other initiatives on electricity policy, the 

income level of electricity consumers, and other factors combined with the availability of 

resources. The commenters said EPA provides no evidence to support its assertion that state 

legislatures adequately considered whether the levels of renewable energy prescribed by the 

state's RPS would be achievable given cost and resource constraints. The commenters said state 

RPS programs also embrace a wide range of generation technologies that can vary dramatically 

from state to state, and some RPS programs provide increased credit levels for certain types of 

generation; these differences mean that standards - even within a single region - may not be 

comparable. The commenters said Kansas has only 2,713 MW of wind generation compared to 

12,214 MW in Texas; EPA did not take into account the amount of renewable energy produced 

Texas has compared to other states. The commenters said Texas ranks number one in the nation 
422 

for wind energy capacity and if Texas were a country, it would rate number six globally for 

installed wind energy capacity. 

The commenters said therefore, energy production in Texas required by the EPA proposal is 

exponentially greater than other states; in 2030, Texas must achieve over 85 million MWh in 

renewable energy to reach the goals in Block 3 - this is a 153 percent increased from the 2012 

baseline for Texas of 34 million MWh. The commenters said this requirement should be 

compared to the state with the next highest renewable energy increase under the proposed rule, 

which is California with a 37 percent increase to 41 million MWh. The commenters said the 

renewable energy generation goals the EPA has calculated for Texas are unachievable and 

impractical. 

The commenters said second, EPA does not appropriately set the regional RPS targets; EPA's 

RPS-based approach arbitrarily includes the anticipated level of renewable energy for states that 

have adopted a RPS, while ignoring the fact that other state legislatures have considered and 

rejected any level of RPS commitment for their states. The commenters said EPA's approach to 

setting regional "best practice" targets cherry-picks from a single policy decision in Kansas and 

skews the results in the region's five other states, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and 

Nebraska. The commenters said EPA ignores the judgment of these five other states in the South 

Central region, some of which have not adopted an RPS. The commenters said if EPA continues 

the use of the RPS-based approach in the final rule, it should, at the very least, include in its 

regional averages the RPS levels of all states in a region, including those with a state renewable 

energy goal of 0 percent. 

Commenters stated EPA's reliance on historic RE development in only the top 16 states skews 

the resulting benchmark RE development rate. The commenters said those states have typically 

been the most successful in developing RE resources because they have the greatest RE 

generation potential, often at lower development costs for a given RE resource. The commenters 

said they are also likely to have socioeconomic characteristics and electric rates that make RE 

comparatively less costly. The commenters said other states may not have sufficient resource 

potential and/or ability to deliver the energy at a given penetration level to achieve the 

benchmark development rate set by the top 16 states. The commenters said EPA has not 

explained why it is appropriate to assume that the development achieved to date in a select group 

of states is replicable and represents what is achievable in all states; nor has EPA provided any 

rationale for the use of prior growth rates as an indication of achievable future growth, 

particularly given the technical challenges associated with increased penetration of RE on the 

electricity system. 

Commenters said as recognized by EPA, the potential for expansion of hydro and geothermal 

resources in the future is minimal; past development of these resources, therefore, have no 

relationship to the future development of different RE generation sources. 

Commenters said in order to realistically account for differences in RE resource potential among 

states, at a minimum, EPA should use all states to develop an average RE benchmark 

development rate, not just the top 16 states. The commenters said this would provide a better 

estimate of what may be achievable across the country, grounded in what has been demonstrated 

as achievable in the past. The commenters said EPA should exclude data related to the rate of 
423 

development of both geothermal and hydropower resources, as given the limited potential for 

additional development of these resources. 

Commenters said specifically, under the Proposed Rule, MO would be expected to develop RE 

generation within the state, or accomplish this through partnering with other states; currently 

there are new or proposed wind farms, solar farms, and biomass facilities within the state of MO, 

but modeling indicates that MO is not the optimum location for wind or solar installations. 

Commenters stated EPA's regionalized RPS approach to setting projected state RE generation 

levels in 2030 should be corrected for several reasons: 

1) EPA applies its regional growth factor to a state's historic 2012 RE generation starting 

in 2017, this approach ignores existing and planned RE development that has occurred or 

will occur between 2013 and 2016. 

2) EPA assumes that existing state RPS programs represent "a level of renewable 

resource development for individual states... that [is] consistent with policies that a 

majority of states have already adopted based on their own policy objectives and 

assessments of feasibility and cost." The commenters said for many states, this 

assumption is not correct, and, even if it were, EPA's methodology often results in state 

level RE targets that are lower than the targets set by state law. The commenters said this 

is true for 17 of 29 states with existing RPS policies; for example, for Illinois, part of the 

North Central Region, EPA sets a projected 2030 RE generation level (9%) that is sixteen 

percentage points lower than Illinois' 2025 RE target of 25%. The commenters said in 

fact, EPA projects that only one state in the entire North Central region (Wisconsin) will 

actually meet or exceed its state level RPS target by 2030, and even then, by just 0.5% 

above its modest 10% target. The commenters said this is not consistent with EPA's 

acknowledgement in the proposed rule that, on average, states have achieved a 95% RPS 

compliance rate. 75 Fed. Reg. 34869. The commenters said a 95% compliance rate for 

Illinois means that, by 2025, the state should have at least 23.8% RE penetration. The 

commenters said this dwarfs EPA's 9% RE projection for Illinois in 2030. 

3) Five states already have equal or higher RE generation in 2012 than EPA's projected 

2030 target for that state. The commenters said four of those states (IA, MN, ND and SD) 

are clustered in the North Central Region. The commenters said in Iowa, RE currently 

accounts for 25% of its electricity generation; in Minnesota, RE currently accounts for 

18% of its electricity generation; in North Dakota, RE currently accounts for 15% of its 

electricity generation; in South Dakota, RE currently accounts for 24% of its electricity 

generation. The commenters said of those four states, only one, Minnesota, has a state 

level RPS that sets an RE target for 2020 or beyond: 25% by 2025. 

4) EPA does not project any state in the North Central Region, except for the above four 

states that already meet or exceed EPA's 2030 targets, to achieve EPA's regional average 

maximum RE generation target of 15% by 2030. 

The commenters said this misalignment of EPA's RE target setting methodology with actual state 

level RPS goals and actual RE development, deployment and historical growth rates thereby 
424 

greatly underestimates the potential of RE generation to displace fossil-fuel generation and 

carbon emissions across the North Central Region and the United States. The commenters said 

the result of EPA's proposed methodology would be weaker state goals that do not reflect BSER; 

in fact, EPA's approach results in national RE generation levels in 2020 that are below current 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts and RE generation levels in 2030 that are 

only moderately higher than EIA's 2030 Business as Usual projections. 

Commenters stated EPA's use of state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) to determine 

regional renewable energy goals is fundamentally flawed. The commenters said these standards 

are end products of discussions within each state about the need for increased renewable 

generation and decreased emissions from each individual state's power sector. The commenters 

said RPS is a policy-based mechanism for increasing renewable generation but does not 

necessarily represent actual market dynamics for renewable generation within states. 

Comment 67: Regions - inadequate consideration of RE generation

Response 67: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters found fault with the setting of renewable goals as a percentage of total generation, 

inclusive of generation not subject to the proposed rule. The commenters believed that if the 

CO2 emissions of the units to be regulated under the proposed rule are the only emission 

included in the numerator of the goal setting calculations, then generation from renewables and 

avoided generation resulting from EE measures should reflect only what is attributable to those 

regulated units, as well; thus, rather than using 129,745,731 MW-h of net generation in Ohio as 

the basis for renewable goals, a more appropriate and representative 2012 generation value 

would be 110,505,950 MW-h, derived by subtraction of wind, biomass, nuclear, hydro, and solar 

generation (Note that commenters did not separate natural gas combustion from simple cycle 

turbines, which would decrease this value further). The commenters strongly believed that using 

total generation from all sources, including those not to be regulated by the proposed rule and 

indeed considered desired and environmentally beneficial generation, unfairly impacts those 

states who were early adopters of renewable and zero carbon generation technologies, and who 

maintain a robust and multi-faceted generation mix that the commenters believed is an essential 

component of grid stability. 

Commenters stated it is inappropriate that the ambitious 2020 RPS targets of Maryland, 

Delaware, and Washington D.C were given equal weight in the averaging calculation, despite the 

fact that these states contributed far less than 1% of the region's RE and only 7.6% of the region's 

total generation. The commenters said Washington D.C. has a highly ambitious renewable target, 

yet contributed no renewable generation to the grid in 2012. The commenters said despite what 

U.S. EPA describes as similar RE potentials amongst the state in this region, it is clear that these 

states share little in common with the other states in the region in terms of electric generation 

capabilities. The commenters said if U.S. EPA is to pursue regional averaging in setting 
425 

renewable goals (which the commenters did not agree with), a weighted average that takes into 

account the total generation contribution of each state, the renewable contribution of each state, 

and accounts for the fact that several states found the creation of a renewable portfolio to be 

uneconomical must be developed; absent this, the current proposed methodology places great 

burden on those states which generate far more electricity, discounts those states with no 

renewable portfolios, and requires very little of those states with little generation capacity. 

Commenters stated the Nevada Agencies reviewed the State's 2020 RPS to determine an 

effective RPS consisting of components that could potentially be counted as RE for compliance 

with the emission rate goal in the proposed rule and excluding those compliance measures that 

are not contemplated by the proposed rule. The commenters said the results of this analysis 

identified that Nevada's 2020 effective RPS was 14%, not the 22% that was used to calculate the 

regional and state RE goals; additionally, there remains considerable uncertainty that the entirety 

of the effective RPS could be credited because 1) Nevada utilities rely on the flexibility to bank, 

utilize, or sell credits and then bank any surplus credits each year (i.e. retention of all previously

earned carryover credits is assumed) for future RPS compliance; and 2) the Goodsprings 

Recovered Energy Generation Station does not count toward RE in the USEPA proposal. The 

commenters said given the differences between Nevada's RPS program and the proposed rule 

and the underlying assumptions it is based on, the calculated RE target for the western region 

does not reflect a realistic potential for future RE generation under existing state requirements. 

The commenters contended that the proposed method of averaging regional RPS values to 

establish RE generation goal is problematic and does not represent a defensible method of 

achieving a Best System of Emission Reduction. 

Comment 68: States with no RES Requirements 

Response 68: The EPA has revised its block three quantification based on comment. See 

Section V.E of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's calculation of regional RE goals does not recognize that some states 

do not have existing RES requirements. The commenters said for each region, EPA averaged the 

existing state RES requirements for 2020; if a state in the region did not have an RES, EPA 

ignored that state by excluding it from the denominator of the averaging calculation; EPA then 

applied this skewed "average" RES requirement to all states in the region. The commenters said 

this has the effect of making the renewable goal in some regions more stringent than it would be 

if it were an average of all states in the region. The commenters said EPA provided no reasoned 

explanation as to why it ignored states without 2020 RES requirements when calculating 

regional and RE goals. 

Commenters added EPA's BSER goal calculation approach does not appear to recognize that the 

Kansas RES goal is based on peak demand capacity (in MW), whereas state BSER targets are 

based on net electricity generation (in MWh); in addition the Kansas RES applies only to 
426 

investor-owned utilities and cooperatives in the state and includes a factor for installations in 

Kansas. 

Commenters stated applying one state's RES mandate to an entire region, or allowing one state's 

mandate to dramatically increase the regional goal, is inappropriate. The commenters said states 

in the same region do not necessarily have the same RE potential; it is unreasonable to assume 

that one state can achieve the same level of RE deployment as a neighboring state. 

Commenters said RES targets are goals to be met in the future; in many cases, therefore, the state 

with the existing RES target has not yet achieved the goal, yet it is assumed that neighboring 

states will be able to. 

Commenters said EPA inappropriately assumes that state RES requirements are a proxy for RE 

technical potential. 

Commenters said a state's RES requirements not only reflect that state's own policy decisions 

and assessment of the potential to deploy RE generation, but also reflect a range of policy 

choices that have nothing to do with technical RE potential. 

Commenters said if EPA continues to average state RES mandates to derive regional RE 

generation goals, the Agency should include all states in calculating the average, even those 

states with no RES requirements; this would provide an actual average of the state requirements 

in the region and would ensure that one state's RES is not imposed on all other states in the 

region. Commenters said similarly, EPA should control for states with significantly more 

aggressive RES requirements when determining regional RE goals. 

Commenters stated in its proposed approach for determining renewable energy potential in the 

"North Central Region," EPA used the average RPS requirement of the five states with an RPS 

requirement in the nine-state region to arrive at a 15 percent "effective renewable level". The 

commenters said EPA concludes that states in the same region have similar renewable energy 

potential, as measured by existing renewable energy standards adopted by some states in the 

region. The commenters said in this process, EPA has not considered that some states do not 

have RPS programs in-place. The commenters said if EPA's final guidelines continue to apply 

regional RPS levels to determine renewable potential, this assessment should factor in a zero into 

the regional calculation for states without an RES or RPS; this would result in the North Central 

Region's effective renewable level being 8.4 percent as opposed to 15 percent. The 

commenters did not support the alternative approach to renewable energy as published along 

with the proposed rule or, without additional information, the regionalized approach in the 

NODA. 

Commenters stated EPA's approach to averaging state RES mandates to develop a regional RE 

goal is particularly problematic in the Southeast and South Central regions, where many states do 

not currently have RES requirements. The commenters said in the Southeast region, only one of 

the eight states has an RES; in the South Central region, only one of the six states has an RES. 

The commenters said as a result, one state's standard becomes the standard for an entire region; 

this approach ignores whether states have the same potential to deploy an increased amount of 

RE generation. The commenters said further complicating this issue is that the region a state was 
427 

grouped in for the purposes of calculating the RE building block may not, and most likely will 

not, be part of the same multi-state approach for compliance. 

 

Comment 69: Apply regional renewable targets to retail electric sales rather than total electric 

generation

Response 69: See Section V.E of the Preamble for an explanation of how renewable energy is 

treated in the final BSER determination.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposal's approach to setting state goals using renewable energy 

introduces several problems that could make compliance unduly difficult and that may in certain 

cases under or over-estimate the impact of RPS goals on renewable generation. The commenters 

said EPA can improve the proposal's approach to establishing goals based on renewable energy 

in several ways. The commenters said the final rule could apply regional renewable targets to 

retail electric sales rather than total electric generation, which would solve compliance 

controversies and more closely align with the RPS policies the EPA uses to justify its 

approach; or, EPA could recalculate the renewable energy assumptions with better data, or adopt 

the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach detailed in the proposal. 

Comment 70: Credit for regional investments 

Response 70: See Section VIII of the final rule preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated whether or not states choose joint implementation strategies, credit under 

Section 111(d) for cross-border investments in low-carbon generation should be properly 

attributed. The commenters said EPA has requested comments on this issue in the context of the 

methodology for Building Block 3 and how Building Block 3 targets relate to compliance 

options. The commenters stated are particularly concerned with ensuring that credit for 

renewable energy development be allocated to those who have paid for it; in particular, 

Minnesota ratepayers have invested substantially in renewable energy generation to comply with 

Minnesota's RES, including investments in wind energy outside Minnesota (e.g., Minnesota 

Power's Bison Wind Projects in North Dakota). The commenters said the Minnesota Public 

Utilities Commission has approved these investments as well as recovery of the associated costs 

from ratepayers; it is vitally important that Minnesota receive compliance credit under the 

regulations for these CO2 reduction investments that have been paid for by Minnesota 

ratepayers. The commenters urged the EPA to protect the investments of ratepayers in forwardlooking states like Minnesota. 

Commenters stated the compliance system for the Minnesota RES would be compromised if 

Minnesota ratepayer investments in renewable energy were credited outside of Minnesota. The 
428 

commenters said to demonstrate how these investments achieve compliance with the RES, 

Minnesota utilities are required to participate in the Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking 

System (M-RETS); compliance with the RES requires that Renewable Energy Certificates 

("RECs"), each of which represent the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour of 

renewable generation, be retired and transferred to a designated Minnesota RES M-RETS 

account. The commenters said M-RETS Certificates are "Whole Certificates" meaning "none of 

the renewable attributes have been separately sold, given, or otherwise transferred to another 

party by a deliberate act of the Certificate owner." 

Commenters stated the Minnesota RES statute requires that RECs only be used once and that 

eligible technologies be treated equally with no more or less credit to energy based on the state 

where the energy was generated. The commenters said the purpose of requiring registration of a 

"whole certificate" with M-RETS, "is to help ensure compliance with the statutory prohibition 

against double counting of the environmental benefits, and to ensure that ratepayers receive the 

benefits of the renewable energy for which they are paying through their rates." 

Commenters stated the purpose of the Minnesota RES is, in part, to address climate change-it 

was adopted in the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 alongside greenhouse gas emissions 

goals; thus, to respect and make most efficient use of the investments already made by ratepayers 

toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector via RES compliance, existing 

and future RES investments should be given credit under Section 111(d); and since RES 

compliance allows for utilizing out-of-state resources and all of the environmental attributesincluding carbon-from such resources have been allocated to Minnesota utilities for the benefit 

(and at the expense of) Minnesota ratepayers, any Section 111(d) "credit" attributed to such 

resources should also be allocated for the benefit of Minnesota ratepayers. The commenters said 

it would be counter-productive for the Clean Power Plan to undermine the RES or the robust or 

the well-developed system of using RECs to track the environmental benefits of renewable 

resources in the energy industry. 

Commenters stated as EPA is aware, carbon emissions know no border; emissions on the East 

Coast have the same effect as those in the Midwest or the West Coast; similarly, emission 

reductions on the East Coast have the same effect as those in the Midwest or the West Coast. The 

commenters said Quad, like many larger American companies has operations in states 

throughout the country. The commenters said Quad is "doing the right thing" from a carbon 

perspective by working to consolidate its operations in its most efficient facilities, so that it can 

continue to produce product and provide job opportunities, while achieving significant energyefficiency improvements. The commenters said in the final rule, it is critical that EPA recognize 

the significant benefit of nation-wide energy-efficiency initiatives, such as those of Quad, and 

allow national companies to receive credit for their nation-wide energy efficiency initiatives. The 

commenters said this could be accomplished by allowing entities with multiple operations 

throughout the country to group or "bubble" operations together to demonstrate the energyefficiency gains achieved by switching operations to more energy-efficient platforms. The 

commenters said likewise, the EPA should make clear that energy consumers that creates 

demand-side savings have the right to transfer those savings anywhere throughout the country' 

this would create the most efficient market for the transfer and use of those demand-side and 

other carbon savings. 
429 

Comment 71: Interconnected states 

Response 71: The EPA agrees. It has calculated subcategory-specific emission performance 

rates and state goals in this final rule that assesses building block mitigation potential on a 

regional basis. See Sections V and VI of the Preamble for more explanation. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EPA should calculate state emissions goals in a manner that reflects 

states' ability to comply by relying on lower-emitting sources located in interconnected states, 

that recognizes that new renewable generation and energy efficiency should displace existing 

fossil fuel generation rather than simply add to total generation, and that reflects states' ability to 

reduce coal-plant emissions through co-firing with natural gas. 

Comment 72: Purchasing power from another state 

Response 72: See Sections VII and VIII of the Preamble for further discussion. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters urged U.S. EPA to consider allowing states to obtain credit towards the 

determination of the state rate goal when purchasing power from NGCCs from another state. The 

commenters said this would be similar in implementation as proposed in Building Block 3 for 

renewable energy. 

Commenters stated in 2012, 20% of City Water, Light and Power (CWLP)'s energy was from 

wind generated at two Iowa farms, pursuant to two power purchase agreements (PPAs); yet, the 

GHG Rule neither gives CWLP credit for the wind power it has already purchased, nor for the 

wind power it may purchase from these farms in the future. The commenters said this aspect of 

the GHG Rule may violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, according to at least 

one judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, covering appeals from federal courts in Illinois 

and several other Midwest states. 

Comment 73: Importing electricity 

Response 73: See Section V of the Final CPP Rule Preamble. The EPA is not including BB4 in 

the final rule’s quantification of BSER. See Section VIII of the Preamble for a discussion of 

how demand-side energy efficiency measures may still be folded into compliance 

demonstrations and state plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
430 

Commenters stated for importer states, EPA adjusts EE savings requirement in Building Block 4 

by the import amount which seems like a reasonable approach; however, the commenters did not 

believe that North Carolina's generation will actually decrease by this amount. The commenters 

said EPA AVERT model runs indicate that most of the avoided generation from EE and RE will 

take place outside of North Carolina. The commenters said imported electricity is more 

expensive and will be one of the first resources to be displaced. The commenters said EIA 2013 

data confirms this assumption since North Carolina's imports went down from 18% in 2012 to 

9% in 2013; this drop in imports may be due in part to North Carolina's existing EE programs. 

Commenters stated allowing a state to only take credit for in-state CO2 reductions occurring as a 

result of EE programs creates a disincentive for importing states. The commenters said electricity 

imports are generally more expensive and this resource will be displaced first before 

displacement occurs within the state's own sources. The commenters said as an importing state, 

North Carolina EGUs may never achieve a reduction in generation because as additional EE 

measures are implemented, the EE savings would simply come off the electricity imported to the 

state. 

Commenters stated if EPA establishes the same cumulative percent reduction goal in 2030 for 

each state, EPA may be able to avoid adjusting goals for importing and exporting states; for 

instance, if all states must cumulatively reduce electricity sales by 10% by 2030, all states would 

be reducing GHG emissions at power plants fairly from an end user standpoint. The commenters 

said states that import electricity would have to share in the cost of reducing GHGs from EGUs 

located in other states. 

Commenters stated this type of CO2 reduction would not have to be accounted for in the state 

reduction goals as lbs/MWh; it could be implemented more like the best management practices 

under the boiler MACT, which requires tune-ups and energy assessments. The commenters said 

this proposed process could still require EM-V and tracking to ensure actual savings are 

achieved. 

Commenters said this approach would make the cost to reduce CO2 emissions from EE fair to all 

states regardless of whether they are importing or exporting; it simplifies calculating BSER goals 

for each state. The commenters said it simplifies tracking of EE and does not require complex 

negotiations between states to account for importing/exporting and avoided generation. The 

commenters said if states wanted to implement additional EE reductions beyond those required 

by best practices, the additional savings could be counted as avoided generation in a state carbon 

emissions rate. 

Comment 74: Imported electricity from Canada 

Response 74: See Section VIII of the Preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA appears to have neglected to account for the significant amount of 

electricity that is imported to the United States from Canada; the overwhelming majority of this 
431 

power is generated by non-renewable sources, supply that helps to meet U.S. load at emission 

rates lower than that which would be achieved without the imports. The commenters said several 

U.S. states have formally recognized the significant role this imported power plays in reducing 

state electricity sector emissions. Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Connecticut all credit 

Canadian imported hydropower for compliance in state renewable portfolio standards. The 

commenters said if EPA fails to recognize the positive role imported Canadian power plays in 

the United States by allowing for such power to be used to meet state goals, the Agency runs the 

risk of instituting a non-tariff barrier or other trade distortion by dis-incentivizing the current free 

trade of electricity that occurs across the U.S.-Canada border. 

The commenters added under Chapter 9 of the North American Free Trade Agreement 

("NAFTA"), technical regulations and standards must be structured to avoid serving as obstacles 

to trade. (North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex. art. 904(4), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289, 387 (1993) ("No Party may prepare, adopt, maintain or apply any standards-related 

measure with a view to or with the effect of creating an unnecessary obstacle to trade between 

the Parties.")). The commenters stated if the final guidelines essentially mandate a significant 

ramp-up of natural gas-fired generation, without properly recognizing or crediting Canadian 

power imports, it is possible that zero-emitting generation from Canada will be displaced in 

favor of higher-emitting gas-fired generating in the U.S., thus resulting in higher emissions, 

lower imports from Canada, and greater difficulty for a state in complying with its state targets. 

The commenters said If EPA finalizes the Proposed Guidelines, it must explicitly address the 

issue of Canadian imported power. 

Comment 75: Interstate nature of electricity system; electric grid

Response 75: The EPA does not regulate the grid through the final CPP, it simply lays out a 

Best System of Emission Reduction that recognizes the reduction opportunities from shifting 

from reducing generation at given technologies and replacing with generation from other gridconnected sources. The EPA also assesses the cost, viability, and reliability impacts of its final 

rule in a manner that accounts for the interstate nature of the electricity system. See section V of 

the final rule preamble and the Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for CPP Final 

Rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EPA goal-setting formula does not adequately account for the interstate 

nature of electricity system operations, or for the closely related disparity in compliance burdens 

that affects small states that export a significant share of power generated within the State; 

wholesale transactions within this federally- regulated marketplace are outside of state 

jurisdiction. 

Commenters stated EPA's "building blocks" analysis of the "best system of emission reduction" 

is not based on accurate or reasonably demonstrated circumstances in North Dakota and is not 

consistent with the realities of the electric grid. The commenters said regulating the electric grid 

rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") as to wholesale transactions 
432 

and the North Dakota Public Service Commission as to retail transactions. The commenters said 

determining the proper balancing of electric resources to meet the needs of electric consumers 

consistent with the public interest is therefore a state function. 

Commenters stated EPA's "building blocks" analysis of the "best system of emission reduction" 

is not based on accurate or reasonably demonstrated assumptions in Montana and is not 

consistent with the realities of the electric grid.

Comment 76: RE goals for net exporter states, adverse effects. 

Response 76: See Section V of the Preamble for a discussion on building block three and RE 

assumptions for the Best System of Emission Reductions. The subcategory-specific emission 

performance rates calculated in this Final CPP Rule reflect a regional assumption regarding RE 

potential that is allocated to fossil steam and NGCC sources on a pro-rata basis. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA bases its RE goals on generation in a state, but state RPS programs are 

based on consumption in the state; a certain percentage of electricity sales, not generation, must 

come from RE sources. The commenters said for a state that is a net exporter of electricity, its 

RPS reflects, at most, the amount of in-state consumption that must be supplied by RE; therefore 

basing the RE goal on in state generation has a profound adverse effect in states like West 

Virginia or Wyoming which consume in-state less than half of their generation. 

Comment 77: Exporting States

Response 77: See the EPA Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for CPP Final 

rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated a number of states cannot meet their electricity demands without substantial 

imports of power; indeed, many states host electric utilities that have existing contracts with 

distribution companies outside their borders; accordingly, the shutdown of coal plants in an 

exporting state could also constrain power supply in an importing state. The commenters said it 

is evident that EPA failed to consider this "offshoring" of power requirements, and the 

corresponding carbon footprint, when it assigned reduction targets to the states. 

a. The commenters asked why would EPA unfairly penalize those states that have made 

adequate power generation investments, which allow them to help other states achieve 

secure electricity supply. 

b. The commenters said under the proposal, when exporting states must shut down coal 

plants, they could face serious constraints on generation resources, particularly during 
433 

extreme weather; these constraints could create a difficult choice for states: allow their 

utilities to fulfill existing contracts with entities outside the state or service the citizens of 

the home state first. The commenters asked has EPA's Administration considered the 

potential negative impact this proposal could have on commerce within the United States; 

and if so, please explain how EPA proposes to address this issue. 

c. The commenters asked has EPA adequately consulted with the entities charged with 

developing and enforcing reliability standards and with monitoring the bulk power 

system (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)) on the proposal; if so, what did FERC, NERC, 

and/or other such agencies and departments have to say about how the rule will impact (i) 

variable energy resource integration; (ii) baseload generation; and (iii) grid reliability. 

Comment 78: Historical generation and exports 

Response 78: In this final CPP rule, the EPA is finalizing a higher state goal for Arizona (along 

with subcategory-specific emission performance rates). The impacts of these rates on the 

generation level and profile of the Arizona Fleet are discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

and the EPA power-sector modeling for the final CPP Rule 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in 2012, Arizona exported a large portion (30 million MWhs, or 27%) of its 

in-state generation to the neighboring regions. The commenters said using EIA and EPA data, 

total generation in Arizona was 111 million MWh compared to 81 million MWh of consumption 

within the state. The commenters said Arizona's historical net-exporter status is in stark contrast 

to EPA's IPM projections for Arizona to become heavily dependent on imported energy and 

capacity in both the Base Case (without the rule) and under the proposed rule in the future. The 

commenters said EPA has not performed the required studies to support this major shift in power 

flows on the system. The commenters said in a recent study, NERC has raised concerns about the 

sufficiency of the time frame to build necessary infrastructure for transmission and gas pipelines 

(in various regions including Arizona) to accommodate the shift in generation from coal to gas. 

Comment 79: The EPA's Guidelines should achieve meaningful nationwide emission 

reductions. 

Response 79: See Section V of the Preamble for a discussion of the EPA quantified the Best 

System of Emission Reductions in a manner that recognizes the interconnected-nature of the 

grid. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in structuring its guidelines, EPA should take account of the emission 

reductions that are being achieved from the electricity system nationwide through a variety of 
434 

programs, including RGGI and California's similar program, investments in energy efficiency, 

renewable energy programs, and switching to lower-carbon fuels, and also consider the potential 

for contributions from available technologies that are not yet widely deployed in the United 

States, such as offshore wind and carbon capture and sequestration technology. The commenters 

said EPA should recognize that the best system of emission reduction considers the electricity 

system as a whole, and utilizes all the opportunities for reducing emissions from this system. 

The commenters stated the methods of reducing emissions from the fossil fuel-fired electricity 

system can be grouped into two categories; the first category consists of systems of emission 

reduction that reduce the amount of electricity needed from fossil fuel-fired power plants, such 

as energy efficiency programs that reduce the demand for electricity, demand-side management, 

and investments in renewable energy that displace fossil fuel-generated electricity. The 

commenters said second, emissions can be reduced by lowering the carbon intensity of the 

electricity generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants. The commenters said this is done through 

shifting generation from high emitting plants to new or under-utilized lower-emitting plants, and 

using the latest technology to reduce emissions at existing plants. 

The commenters said combined, these two categories, or wedges, of emission reductions can be 

substantial. The commenters said the RGGI states' 40% emission reduction is due to a suite of 

actions that address both wedges, including the RGGI mechanism, investments in energy 

efficiency and other demand-side programs, support for renewable energy, and regulatory 

programs directed at criteria air pollutants and air toxics that have reduced the amount of 

electricity generated by higher emitting plants. The commenters said these programs have 

combined with market forces that have supported a major shift in electricity generation from 

coal-fired to natural gas-fired plants to transform the regional electricity system in the past eight 

years. 

The commenters said by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy and shifting 

generation to more efficient plants, other states and regions should be able to approach the level 

of performance that the RGGI states are already demonstrating. The commenters said EPA 

should evaluate whether and when this level of performance can be achieved throughout the 

United States using the various tools at the disposal of the states; while it may take longer for 

some regions of the nation to achieve comparable levels of performance, EPA should structure 

the emission guidelines to require that states make significant progress in the next decade toward 

achieving the reductions and performance level demonstrated by RGGI to be readily achievable 

by the best systems of emission reduction. 

Comment 80: Application of emissions savings resulting from re-dispatch and increased 

renewable generation 

Response 80: See Section VI of the Preamble for an explanation of the EPA’s treatment of 

increased renewable generation. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
435 

Commenters stated EPA also requests comment on the application of the emission savings 

resulting from re-dispatch and increased renewable generation; specifically, the Agency asks if 

the displaced MWs should be applied solely to the higher generating sources or instead applied 

across all generation assets in a manner weighted to the current mix of generation. The 

commenters generally supported the goal calculations as initially proposed by EPA; and defers to 

the states to further comment on the implications of these tweaks in the goal setting definition on 

their individual state criteria. 

Comment 81: Account for the reduction in fossil plant efficiency due to additional renewables. 

Response 81: As described in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD 

for CPP Final Rule, the EPA does not make unit-level assumptions regarding utilization. The 

calculation for determining subcategory-specific emission performance rates and state goals 

anticipates a reduction in fleet generation levels for particular source categories, but the EPA 

does not expect units remaining in operation to reduce utilization by this identical percentage. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment: 

Commenters stated the CPP did not take into consideration the impacts of low carbon generation 

on the CO2 emission rates of other fossil generation; renewable low carbon electricity generation 

such as wind, although cleaner has much lower capacity factors and more frequent cycles (starts 

and stops) due to the uncertainty of wind duration and speed. The commenters said the 

unpredictability of renewable low carbon wind generation requires more frequent cycling of coal 

and natural gas generation reducing the efficiency of the plants as they cannot maintain optimal 

loads which require additional fuel and additional CO2 emissions. The commenters said the CPP 

in their model did not take into consideration the reduced efficiency of fossil plants to 

accommodate low carbon generation when setting their renewable low carbon targets. The 

commenters said larger units in the coal fleet have CO2 emission rates between 1,818 - 1,929 

lbs./MWh when operated at full load; to accommodate renewables that rate climbs to 1,962 - 

1,994 lbs./MWh at mid-load and 2,035 - 2,171 lbs./MWh during minimum loads; likewise the 

smaller units show increases in emission rates as they reduce load to accommodate renewable 

generation increasing their emission rates from 1,949 lbs./MWh to as high as 2,406 lbs./MWh. 

The commenters said the additions of renewables under the CPP plan will only increase the 

amount of time the fossil units operate at minimum loads. The commenters said the CPP should 

adjust their model and state rates to account for the reduction in fossil plant efficiency due to 

additional renewables. 

Comment 82: Appliance standards 

Response 82: Demand-side energy efficiency measures are not included in the quantification of 

BSER in the Final CPP Rule. See Section V of the Preamble. Section VIII of the final rule 

preamble discusses how states may incorporate demand-side energy efficiency into their state 

plans. 
436 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that several states have their own appliance and equipment efficiency 

standards for products not covered by federal efficiency standards and that EPA should provide 

guidance on how savings from these standards can be calculated. The commenters said savings 

from standards can be estimated using the following formula: Savings = Product sales in the state 

x Energy savings per product x Compliance rate; where: Product sales in the state can be 

estimated from data compiled by trade associations, data compiled by DOE, or data from 

commercial sources; National data can be used with a reasonable way of estimating a state's 

share of national sales (e.g., number of households for residential products or commercial square 

feet for commercial products); energy savings per product can be estimated by comparing the 

average required level of product efficiency to the estimated baseline level of efficiency, e.g., 

one that occurred in the state prior to the standard, or one that is currently occurring in nearby or 

similar states that do not have the standard; compliance rate can be determined by periodic 

surveys of products being offered for sale (for retail products) or products that have recently 

been installed (for contractor products such as heating and cooling systems). 

Comment 83: CO2 emission rate assumptions 

Response 83: See Section V of the Preamble and Chapter 3 of the RTC for a discussion on heat 

rate improvements. The EPA does not make unit-level operating assumptions when quantifying 

the Best System of Emission Reductions. The building blocks are assessed on the regional-level, 

and the fleet is assumed to reduce its emission rate by a given percentage below 2012 levels – 

not each particular unit. The EPA power sector modeling suggest it is more likely that some units 

increase/maintain utilization while others decrease well below the amount associated with the 

heat rate-improvement. Therefore, the operating fleet will not inherently have a lower utilization 

rate as suggested by the commenters. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in calculating the state goals, EPA assumes that each state's coal-fired units 

will emit CO2 at an average rate that is 6 percent lower than their average rate in 2012, and that 

NGCC units will emit CO2 at an average rate that is the same as 2012, even after generation 

from those affected EGUs is re-dispatched under Building Block 2; this assumption is 

unreasonable and implausible. 

The commenters stated in practice, implementation of EPA's proposed BSER will increase the 

average CO2 emission rate of coal-fired EGUs and may also increase the average emission rate 

of NGCC units. 

The commenters stated for coal-fired EGUs, operation at low loads increases a unit's heat rate 

and thus its CO2 emission rate; as discussed in the Cichanowicz Heat Rate Report, operating a 

unit at 50 percent load can negatively impact a unit's heat rate compared to full load by an 

amount greater than EPA claims units can improve heat rate through operating practices and 

equipment upgrades. Cichanowicz Heat Rate Report at 2-1, 2-6. 
437 

The commenters stated EPA itself acknowledges that EGUs have higher heat rates (and thus a 

higher rate of CO2 emissions) when operating as load following units and during periods of 

startup and shutdown. GHG Abatement Measures TSD at 2-5, 2-21. 

The commenters stated in the related NSPS rulemaking for reconstructed coal-fired EGUs, EPA 

observed that subcritical units experience a 10 percent increase in heat rate when operating at 50 

percent load. Memorandum from EPA OAQPS to EGU NSPS Docket, ""Best System of 

Emissions Reduction (BSER) For Reconstructed Steam Generating Units and Integrated 

Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Facilities" at 4 Fig. 2 (June 2014), Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0603-0046 ("2014 Reconstructed EGU TSD"). 

The commenters stated a primary component of EPA's proposed BSER in the Proposed 

Guidelines is to reduce utilization of coal-fired EGUs directly through re-dispatch to NGCC 

units under Building Block 2 and indirectly by increasing renewable energy and decreasing 

demand under Building Blocks 3 and 4; as a result, more coal-fired EGUs will convert from base 

load to load-following units and operate at lower loads, increasing their heat rates and 

counteracting any steps those units take to lower heat rate under Building Block 1. The 

commenters stated therefore, each state's average CO2 emission rate for coal-fired EGUs in the 

state goal calculations should be higher - not lower - than its 2012 level. 

Commenters added EPA must consider the possibility that CO2 emissions will increase from 

load shifting; the state goals as proposed heavily rely on the re-dispatching of baseload units 

from coal-fired EGUs to natural gas units. The commenters stated this shift could in effect force 

coal-fired EGUs to serve as "peaking units" and thus increase the net output rate of CO2 

emissions. 

Commenters added there is great risk to double counting in a Section 111(d) plan using the 

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) trading system currently in place, and therefore reported 

emissions would be lower than actual emissions. The commenters stated EPA should specify that 

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), where RECs are tied to electricity consumed, be included 

as a compliance option for Section 111(d) state compliance plans; these RECs would then be 

retired. 

Comment 84: Economic growth of electricity demand 

Response 84: When quantifying BSER, the EPA examines the cost and feasibility of the 

aggregate system-wide impact through testing the policy emission-rate requirements in a detailed 

power-sector model that accounts for future demand growth. See EPA Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EPA did not allow for economic growth of electricity demand when 

calculating state goals; that could force the needless building of new generation plants, a cost 

which would again be borne by consumers, when existing plants still have spare capacity. The 
438 

commenters said the EPA should revisit this aspect of the CPP; the need for electricity will 

continue to grow as the economy expands. To meet this demand in the most effective and 

economic way, none of our fuel options should be arbitrarily restricted or eliminated. 

Comment 85: Calculation of Net Energy Output and Useful Thermal Energy 

Response 85: As explained in Preamble Sections VI and VIII, Useful thermal output is not 

factored into BSER quantification, but sources are still permitted to convert it to a MWh 

equivalent for compliance purposes. This conversion is explained in Section VIII of the final 

rule preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the January 8, 2014 proposal for NSPS, EPA included equations for the 

calculation of net energy output and useful thermal energy [see proposed rule at Section 

60.46Da(g)(iii)]. The commenters believed EPA should provide similar equations in the 

Proposed Rule to provide clarity on how such calculations should be made. 

Comment 86: Remove technology-specific calculations from state carbon reduction goals. 

Response 86: See Sections IV and V of the final rule preamble for an explanation of the EPA’s 

legal authority and how it translates that into a BSER. The EPA notes that while its method for 

quantifying BSER is determined through an assessment of regional reduction potential 

determined to be cost-effective, it is not prescriptive. States have the flexibility to implement 

reductions through alternative compliance pathways that they view as most appropriate. 

BB1, BB2, and BB3 are all discussed in Section V of the preamble. BB4 is not part of BSER 

quantification in this final rule, as is also discussed in section V.A of the final rule preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recognized that emissions based regulations are most effective when they remain 

technology-neutral. The commenters said as it is currently written, the CPP proposed state goals 

are oriented towards specific technology requirements and provide uneven emissions regulations 

across all states. The commenters said this method of setting emissions goals is more difficult 

and less effective than a technology-neutral solution. The commenters recommended removing 

these technology requirements included in state goal calculations and replacing them with evenly 

applied carbon intensity reduction goals based on the EPA's intended 2030 target of reducing the 

nation's carbon emissions by 30%. 

Natural gas capacity factor 

Commenters stated the CPP predicts capacity factor for natural gas in many states is expected to 

shift from peak generation to baseload generation; this requires plants to increase their operating 
439 

capacity to 70% on average. The commenters said even though this value is achievable with 

Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants and will reduce average emissions intensity across 

a state, this scenario would likely have several negative implications, including a decrease in 

peak generation. 

Commenters stated the cost of natural gas has been volatile at the Henry Hub due to seasonal 

demand for heating; if natural gas is to be used for primary baseload generation, seasonal 

changes could be expected to cause considerable consumer electricity price volatility. The 

commenters said natural gas has historically been used by utilities for power peaking; if 

renewables are employed more widely, as projected in the CPP, the need for demand response 

power peaking will become even more critical than it is today. The commenters said by requiring 

an increase in average capacity factor, the CPP lessens states' abilities to keep natural gas plants 

on standby for power peaking purposes. The commenters said including increases in natural gas 

capacity factor creates an uneven landscape for state carbon reduction goals; a technologyneutral plan would not include this requirement. 

Coal heat rate improvement 

Commenters stated there is a range of coal plant efficiencies throughout the U.S.; according to 

the EIA, in 2012 the average coal plant heat rate was 10,107 Btu, with the top five plants ranging 

from 8,888 Btu to 9,174 Btu. The commenters said the EPA currently suggests a heat rate 

reduction of 4-6%, with 6% corresponding to the proposed plan. The commenters said this would 

require the national average to be decreased to a value of 9,500 Btu; although this is higher than 

the top five plants in the nation, it will be difficult for plants that are already at an optimal heat

rate to make any further improvement. The commenters said by using a blanket approach to 

require all coal power plants to improve their heat rates by 6%, the CPP is disadvantaging states 

that already have very efficient coal plants; these states will not be able to reduce their emissions 

through efficiency improvements and will therefore be required to meet the CPP reduction by 

other means. The commenters said if this type of carbon regulation were technology-neutral, it 

would not demand specific requirements that would unfairly disadvantage some states, such as 

coal heat rate improvements. 

Renewable increases 

Commenters stated the CPP proposes a nationwide goal of achieving 13% of total electricity 

generation from renewable sources by 2030; the commenters supported the development and 

installment of renewable power generation; however, this technology-specific requirement 

creates an unfair landscape for some states. 

Commenters stated according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures Technical 

Support Document, renewable energy projections were based on existing Renewable Portfolio 

Standards (RPS) in specified regions. The commenters said renewable generation targets were 

calculated as averages of all 2020 RPS requirements in a region; because states' RPS timelines 

did not necessarily align to that of the CPP, the EPA had to interpolate its results to the reference 

year. The commenters said this creates a landscape that is not only unrepresentative of any 

existing RPS, but also sets a much different timeline than an individual state would historically 

anticipate. 
440 

Commenters stated due to the effects from interpolating dates and averaging regions, the CPP 

requires 4 states to reduce their renewable generation between 2012 and 2030; a carbon 

emissions reduction plan should not recommend this action. The commenters said this clearly 

reveals the inconsistency in setting state goals using specific technology requirements. 

Energy efficiency 

Commenters stated many states are currently implementing policies to improve energy efficiency 

(EE); according to the EPA, state improvements in EE have ranged from 0% to 2.19% with 

cumulative improvements of up to 15.77%. The commenters said the EPA suggests using three 

different tiers of required EE improvements: over 1.5%, 1.0-1.5%, and less than 1%. The 

commenters said the states that have shown the most initiative in EE will be required to make 

further improvements of over 1.5%. The commenters said while these states have proven their 

commitment to EE, it will be more challenging for them to further increase EE compared to 

states that have made few efficiency enhancements. The commenters said to require certain 

states to make larger increases in EE than others is a disadvantage to those states that are 

expected to achieve a higher level of improvement. In a technology-neutral plan, states would 

have the freedom to decide the necessary level of EE implementation towards attainment of the 

emissions goals. 

Commenters stated EE does not affect the carbon emissions from a power plant directly; 

although EE will help lower the energy demand and thus potentially lower net carbon emissions, 

it does not improve the actual carbon intensity of energy produced. The commenters said the 

proposed version of the CPP focuses on carbon intensity and existing plant emissions, but EE 

only affects the amount of power demanded. The commenters said although EE has its place 

reducing overall emissions, it should not be included in state goal emission calculations; rather, 

EE improvements affecting a state's total energy generation will be credited, by default, as a total 

emissions reduction in the CPP. 

Comment 87: Adjust goals if shift in emissions from one sector to another 

Response 87: See Section VIII of the Preamble for a discussion on state plans and demonstrating 

compliance. The EPA provides a multitude of compliance options to states – including ratebased metrics – that can accommodate growth in generation from existing sources. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the impact of electrification of the transportation sector and solar technology 

in the future cannot be known at this point in time; the manufacture of polycrystalline silicon for 

photovoltaics requires huge amounts of electricity, and one such company is one of the state's 

biggest electricity consumers using approximately 400 MW. The commenters said there should 

be a mechanism to adjust the goals if GHG measures such as vehicle electrification and solar 

panel production cause a shift in emissions from one sector to another. 
441 

Comment 88: Cooperatives burden; rework goals 

Response 88: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated should a state choose to reduce the burden on cooperatives, under EPA's 

approach a state would need to increase the burden on other utility providers, since the state still 

must meet the EPA's goal. The commenters said the solution is for EPA to rework their 

assumptions and set reasonable and achievable state goals as to not provide relief for 

cooperatives at the expense of others. 

Comment 89: Account for demand response by allowing the MWh savings to be incorporated 

into the denominator 

Response 89: See Preamble Section V for a discussion of the building blocks. Demand-side 

energy efficiency is not one of the building blocks informing BSER in this final rule. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should allow the use of demand response programs such as air 

conditioning cycling for purposes of compliance with a rate-based standard; these programs are 

designed to reduce customer electric usage during peak demand time periods and allow utilities 

an additional option to demonstrate compliance. The commenters said if a state elects an 

emission rate compliance approach, demand response will reduce overall emissions, but could 

actually result in an increase in the state rate; for example, if demand response displaces natural 

gas fired peaking units in a state such as Indiana, the overall rate would go up, but the emissions 

would go down. The commenters said to account for this when a state elects an emission rate 

approach, EPA should allow states to account for demand response by allowing the MWh 

savings to be incorporated into the denominator. The commenters said for states that select massbased programs, the reductions are achieved at the stack and thus no adjustment is necessary. 

Comment 90: Recommendations for displacing fossil generation 

Response 90: See Preamble Section VI for a discussion of how the EPA is treating replacement 

generation from building block three. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA seeks comment on the assumptions it should make in displacing fossil 

generation in the emission rate; EPA proposes several options, including: proportional 

displacement of all fossil, displacement of highest-emitting units first, or displacement of coalfired EGUs first. The commenters believed that EPA should first remove steam EGUs from the 
442 

formula the generation by the highest-emitting units, which are typically coal-fired. The 

commenters said this environmental dispatch constraint will yield the lowest target and is 

therefore the best system of emission reduction. The commenters recognized that EPA's 

proposed rule would allow states to take credit for renewable energy generation attributable to 

measures in the state's plan even when it does not result in displacement of in-state EGUs; the 

commenters have advocated that EPA allow states to take credit for energy efficiency savings 

directly attributable to their EE programs, regardless of where the emission reductions actually 

occur. The commenters said once fossil displacement is factored into the state's target, the state 

will have some incentive to design RE and EE measures in a way that causes displacement of instate high-emitting units, so that the state also receives that emission reduction benefit. The 

commenters said designing RE and EE measures in a way that avoids the need for operation of 

baseload coal-fired plants will also reduce the difference between the environmental dispatch 

required to implement the rule, and economic dispatch practices. 

Commenters stated the final rule should use the same total generation that was used to determine 

the final state emission rate goals in the conversion equation. The commenters said the TSD 

proposes to use a lower generation total to determine a state's final mass-based goal than the 

generation total to determine a state's final rate-based goal. The commenters said this artificially 

lowers the overall mass-based goal, which makes the mass-based goal more stringent. The 

commenters said the more appropriate conversion method is the use of the total generation that 

was used to compute the final rate-based state goals, since EPA used that generation in the 

denominator of the final rate-based goal calculation. The commenters said in determining the 

state goals, EPA does not displace any fossil generation with renewable energy generation and 

energy efficiency, so to be consistent with how the rate-based state goal is calculated one should 

use the same generation used determine the rate-based state goal. The commenters said the 

method the TSD uses in this latest proposal is entirely different from the method used to compute 

the rate-based state goals and it depresses fossil generation to such a degree that the mass-based 

emission level is more stringent than the rate-based state goal. 

Comment 91: Improving the EPA analysis and proposal - efficiency and non-hydro 

renewables potential

Response 91: See section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment and more information about Building Block 3 and the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters identified the resource mix base case and the policy case (Option 1); there are 

several key points about the scenario. 

The commenters said first, contrary to the claims of some, all low carbon resources play a part in 

reducing emissions. 

• Nuclear power and hydro are essentially flat in the base case and the policy case. 
443 

The commenters said all nuclear power, currently operating and under construction, is assumed 

to continue to produce electricity, with the exception of a small number of normal retirements 

(2.5% of total output) in the policy period (2020 - 2025). 

• All currently operating hydro power is assumed to continue to do so. 

• Natural gas increases significantly and steadily in the base case through 2030 

(26%); in the policy case it drops slightly (3%); even in the policy case, the output 

of natural gas-fired generation is more than one fifth higher than the base year 

(2012). 

• Renewables grow by over 80% in the base case; however, the additional increase 

in renewables under the policy case is minuscule, less than .5%. 

• Efficiency is the key to the carbon reduction. 

• Output from coal-fired generators is projected to grow slightly in the base case 

(11%); in the policy case, it declines by 27%. 

• The total output in the policy is projected to be 11% lower than the base case; this 

is the effect of efficiency improvements. 

• The efficiency improvement decreases the rate of growth of output from just 

under 1% in the base case to .25% in the policy case; the base case demand 

embodies some efficiency improvement as a result of the kinds of utility programs 

the EPA rule models. 

The commenters said looking at the policy scenario from the point of view of physical quantities, 

80% of the reduction in carbon emissions is due to the reduction in output, even assuming that 

the coal output is 6% more efficient with respect to carbon emissions; thus, in the policy case the 

electricity sector carbon footprint will be defined by: 

• strong growth in renewables as a result of the economic fundamentals in the base 

cases and 

• a much larger reduction in emissions as a result of efficiency stimulated by policy. 

Leaving aside efficiency improvements in the base case, efficiency accounts for 

almost three times as much reduction as renewables. 

The commenters said even looking at the total change in emissions (base case plus policy) the 

reduction of consumption, which must be considered efficiency driven (since the economy is 

assumed to grow), accounts for over 50% of the total reduction in emissions. 

The commenters said it is important to emphasize in the strongest terms possible that EPA has 

set out in the right direction; efficiency is the least cost option. The commenters said the base 

case pattern of changes in the generation mix and level of output are consistent with the 

economic fundamentals discussed earlier. The commenters said wind is the next lowest in cost, 
444 

followed by solar as the cost trends continue to develop. The commenters said the potential 

contribution of these three resources is quite large and other advanced industrial nations have 

achieved much higher levels of carbon reduction utilizing these three resources, while 

transforming their electricity systems to deliver reliable power. 

The commenters said while the contribution of efficiency and renewable to the reduction of 

carbon emissions that results from the combination of the base case trends and the policy case in 

the EPA analysis is impressive, it is well below what the literature reviewed above deems 

economic and achievable. The commenters said according to the Citi projection of base case 

growth, which includes only existing state RPS programs, at least 60% more could be achieved 

with renewables. The commenters said since two-fifths of the states have not adopted RPS 

programs, it is reasonable to assume that a policy case in which the remaining states sought to 

increase renewable energy to roughly the same level, the amount of renewables would double. 

The commenters said the contribution of efficiency could also double, based on the estimates of 

the national experts discussed earlier; in both cases the projected costs are competitive with the 

current cost of natural gas, so these carbon reductions impose very little increase in the cost of 

electricity; this outcome results from the fact that policy helps to overcome the efficiency and 

innovation gaps. 

The commenters said one of the primary sources of untapped carbon reduction from efficiency 

involves appliance efficiency standards, building energy codes and combined heat and power; 

while appliance efficiency standards are frequently adopted at the federal level, states do have 

the ability to adopt their own standards. The commenters said building energy codes are a state 

and local matter; combined heat and power is a local and state regulatory arena. The commenters 

said EPA should adopt a methodology to account and provide incentives for the states to adopt 

higher appliance efficiency standards and building energy codes. 

The commenters said the large potential for additional carbon emissions reductions from low 

cost efficiency and renewables has a major implication for the EPA analysis; capturing just one 

quarter of the potential additional reduction in carbon emissions would offset the loss of 

generation from all of the reactors identified as vulnerable to early retirement plus the 

abandonment of the reactors under construction, which have shown uneconomic. The 

commenters said thus, fixing these two aspects of the EPA analysis results in more carbon 

reduction at a lower cost; this would move the EPA standard in the direction of a "better" system 

of emissions reduction. 

The commenters said as large as the benefit cost ratio is in the EPA analysis of Option 1, the 

commenters believed that when these modifications are made to the economic analysis, the 

potential benefits of a well-designed, least cost performance standard will exceed the costs by a 

much greater margin than EPA's Option 1 analysis suggests. The commenters said when the 

economic analysis is corrected and a third, "high" reduction rule analyzed, the higher standard 

will be very attractive. The commenters said given that so much potential for low cost carbon 

reduction has been left on the table, it appears that a doubling of the contribution of efficiency 

and renewables, as some have suggested, would be readily achievable and yield a substantially 

positive benefit cost ratio. The commenters said whether or not EPA adopts the higher standard, 

having the more rigorous analysis of a higher standard available would serve to expand the range 
445 

of options considered by the states, laying the basis for higher levels of reduction of carbon 

emissions in the future. 

The commenters said in the past month, the U.S. and China made important commitments on 

carbon reduction and the European Union put forward a much more aggressive proposal; these 

announcements help to place the EPA proposal in perspective. The commenters said EPA Option 

1 is consistent with the U.S. China announcement; at the same time, a doubling of the carbon 

reduction would still be considerably less than the target set by the European Union, in spite of 

the fact that the U.S. emissions are more than twice those of the EU per capita and three times 

those of China. 

The commenters said it is critically important at this turning point in global climate change 

policy for EPA and the U.S. to lay a strong foundation for a century of policy; a well-crafted 

performance standard that looks to the future by highlighting the role of efficiency, renewables 

and transformation of the system is an ideal place to start. 

Comment 92: Tribal & Territories - correct assumptions for reductions 

Response 92: For the EPA’s response to this comment, see the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's Supplemental Proposal contains several elements that are critical to 

the successful reduction of carbon emissions from the units located in Indian 

country; accordingly, these elements should remain in the final rule. The commenters supported 

EPA's recognition that APS's closure of three units at the Four Corners Power Plant ("FCPP") 

and SRP's expected shutdown or curtailment of generation at the Navajo Generating Station 

("NGS") by 2019 represent approximately a 30 percent reduction of total 2012 carbon emissions 

on the Navajo Nation. 

4.4.4 Alternative approaches 

Section 4.4.4 covers public comments related to alternative approaches to the proposed emission 

goals. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: NODA - Support the alternative BSER formulation proposed in the NODA. 
446 

Response 1: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the alternative BSER formulation proposed in the NODA. 

Commenters added measures from building block 3 and 4 should explicitly reduce the generation 

from the covered sources in the goal-setting equation; to achieve the maximum emissions 

reductions practicable using the best system of emission reduction, the equation should prioritize 

real reductions from high-intensity carbon emitters. The commenters said the generation from 

building blocks 3 and 4 should be modeled as replacing replace generation from existing affected 

units first. The commenters stated we urge EPA to finalize a goal setting computation that simply 

takes the sum of a state's incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency megawatt hours, 

and subtracts it from the affected coal generation megawatt hours. The commenters added if 

EPA made the adjustment and accounted for the resulting reduced utilization at coal-fired power 

plants by totaling the amount of increased renewable energy and energy efficiency, this minor 

adjustment to the goal-setting equation more accurately reflects how states will comply, treats 

the building blocks consistently, and ensures that the emissions reductions associated with the 

building blocks lead to CO2 reductions from the designated facilities. 

Commenters added when EPA sets final state targets, it should use the corrected formula 

proposed in the Notice of Data Availability. The commenters supported both of these NODA 

alternative approaches, and believes both are valid for BSER state goal setting. The 

commenters encouraged EPA to adopt the first approach, revising the target-setting formula so 

that incremental RE and EE (beyond 2012 levels) directly replace fossil generation and the 

corresponding emissions in proportion to the 2012 fossil generation mix, which could be seen as 

reflecting the potential for states to substitute zero carbon resources and energy efficiency for the 

highest-polluting generation. The commenters stated however, we also support the alternative 

approach, noting that it acknowledges that the addition of incremental RE and EE could replace 

various fossil resource types without strictly replacing fossil in order of decreasing carbon 

intensity. The commenters said if EPA adopts a formula in which renewables and energy 

efficiency displace NGCC and coal- fired generation on a pro rata basis, it must also ensure that 

it corrects the potential emission reductions from building block 2; when renewables and energy 

efficiency displace NGCC generation, this will lower the capacity factor of NGCC plants and 

create additional potential reductions from building block 2. The commenters said these 

additional reductions can be achieved either by displacing fossil generation from blocks 3 and 4 

before calculating block 2 or by doing a true-up to block two to ensure that NGCC plants remain 

at a 70 percent capacity; the formula adjustment will ensure that the Clean Power Plan fully 

reflects the potential for emission reductions achievable under the best system of emission 

reduction. 

Commenters added SEIA supports the second proposal outlined within the NODA that assumes 

renewables and energy efficiency would replace dirtier fossil generation first; this would 

correctly remove from each state's carbon intensity numerator emission reductions to express the 
447 

drawdown in fossil fuel resources when renewables and energy efficiency increase. The 

commenters stated that is, affected EGU MWhs should be removed from the denominator and 

the equivalent number of MWhs should be added back based on low- and zero-carbon generation 

from building block 3, and emissions associated with affected EGUs should be removed from 

each state's carbon emissions numerator. The commenters said this second proposal for setting 

the state goals under building block 3 as outlined in the NODA is consistent with how renewable 

energy would be used under a best system of emissions reductions, as displacing the highestemitting resources first would be the most cost-effective option; to expand upon this, if carbon 

cost were accounted for in generation dispatch decisions, as it may be in some regions as part of 

implementation of BB2, many gas units would be dispatched lower on the supply curve than 

many coal units, putting coal units onto the margin where they will be displaced by renewable 

energy. 

Commenters added in setting state goals, the Proposed Rule treated incremental renewable 

energy (in Building Block 3) and energy efficiency (in Building Block 4) as additional 

megawatt-hours that would be added to the denominator of the rate formula; the Proposed Rule 

would count new renewable generation and energy efficiency as though they will result in more 

total generation, but with the same overall total carbon emissions. The commenters said the 

Goal-Setting NODA invites comment on an alternative and more logical way to account for 

incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency: as replacing existing fossil fuel-fired 

generation, and thus reducing CO2 emissions from the numerator. The commenters said EPA 

should adopt this alternative approach. 

Commenters added valuing incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency as avoided 

emissions, rather than as additional generation, better aligns both with EPA's rationale for the 

"best system of emission reduction" and with how the interconnected electricity system works. 

The commenters said as EPA recognized, increased renewable electricity "provides electricity 

that can be substituted for generation from more carbon-intensive EGUs" and ideally reduces 

CO2 emissions because it "replaces predominantly fossil fuel-fired generation." The commenters 

said similarly, additional energy efficiency programs are intended to reduce generation from 

existing fossil fuel generation, and therefore should reduce overall CO2 emissions. The 

commenters said in most cases, when states add renewable generation and energy efficiency, the 

electric system dispatches less fossil generation and thus reduces the mass of emissions; thus, in 

setting state emissions rate goals, EPA should value these measures as emissions avoided, rather 

than simply treat them as additional generation without a corresponding adjustment to emissions 

in the numerator. The commenters said this approach also is more consistent with EPA's 

approach to Building Block 2, in which existing NGCCs are assumed to replace existing fossil 

generation that is more carbon-intensive, and the numerator of the goal-setting formula is 

adjusted correspondingly. The commenters said in both cases, a reduction in emissions rate 

occurs because higher-emitting sources are dispatched less frequently, not solely because lower 

emitting generation is added; moreover, EPA should be promoting zero-carbon electricity 

sources and demand side reductions not as ends in themselves, but as means to achieve emissions 

reductions; EPA should value these components of Building Blocks 3 and 4 in the way that is 

most consistent with that ultimate goal. 

Commenters stated as noted in EPA's Notice of Data Availability Released on October 27, 2014 

(79 FR 63882-01) EPA must fix the formula for calculating state targets to properly account for 
448 

reductions from renewable energy and energy efficiency. The commenters said making needed 

adjustments to building blocks 3 and 4 will not only achieve reductions, but lead to stronger state 

implementation plans that will encourage the growth of clean, renewable energy sources. 

Commenters stated in order to accurately and fully realize carbon reduction gains that can be 

achieved through the advancement of renewable energy and energy efficiency, EPA must 

properly calculate state targets to completely account for the emissions reductions from these 

sources. The commenters said EPA correctly acknowledges in its October 27, 2014 Notice of 

Data Availability that its original formula used in the proposed does not properly account for the 

emission reductions generated by renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated in the original formula, EPA adds new MWhs of renewable energy 

generation and efficiency savings to the formula, but then fails to reduce corresponding carbon 

pollution that will be avoided from displaced fossil fuel based generation; the formula does not 

account for the reduction in generation at coal and gas power plants that will occur when 

additional renewable energy sources are added to the grid and when demand reductions occur as 

a result of energy efficiency measures. The commenters said EPA should use the corrected 

formula proposed in the Notice of Data Availability so that the CPP and each state's target 

accurately and fully accounts for the potential for emission reductions achievable under the 

BSER. 

Commenters urged EPA to adopt the Alternative Goal-setting Equation Approach for renewable 

energy, outlined in the October 28, 2014 Notice of Data Availability. The commenters said 

specifically, EPA should displace fossil fuel-fired generation in order of emissions rate when 

calculating state targets to reflect increases in renewable energy & energy efficiency. The 

commenters said doing so would help to strengthen Iowa's targets, according to analysis by the 

commenters: Using the M.J. Bradley & Associates' Clean Power Plan Evaluation Tool and 

selecting the "Alternate Goal Setting Equation (BB3&4) Approach , Option 3 (RE/EE Replaces 

Fossil Sources in Order of Emissions Rate, coal->o/g->ngcc)," Iowa's interim target would 

change from 1,341 lbs/MWh to 1,265 lbs/MWh and the state's final target in 2030 would change 

from 1,301 lbs/MWh to 1,194 lbs/MWh. The commenters said this strengthening is necessary 

and significant to ensure Iowa is required to make meaningful carbon reductions under the 

proposed rule. 

Commenters agreed that EPA's methodology of setting targets for Block 2, on the one hand, and 

Blocks 3 and 4, on the other, built in an assumption that total fossil-fuel generation would shift 

from coal- to natural gas-fired plants but overall remain constant, and failed to assume a 

reduction of total fossil fuel-generated power as the result of increased RE and EE. The 

commenters further agreed that EPA should remedy this oversight by adopting a formula that 

replaces historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis with emission reductions achieved 

through RE and EE, which will render the targets more stringent. 

Commenters stated the power sector is moving to cleaner sources of energy like wind and solar 

at a fast clip, and these clean energy sources are displacing coal and other fossil generation; the 

formula used to calculate the carbon pollution rate target for each state should incorporate this 

displacement benefit as other stakeholders have noted [in reference to the NODA]. The 

commenters said for example, the Silver Lake Power Plant in Rochester, MN is retiring because 
449 

it was too expensive to continue running and enough wind power and energy efficiency had 

come online in the area that the plant was not needed for reliability. The commenters said the 

goal-setting equation should reflect the myriad of benefits that this transition creates. The 

commenters said as other stakeholders have suggested renewable energy and energy efficiency 

should be added to both the numerator and denominator of the goal-setting equation, so that 1 

megawatt-hour of renewable energy displaces 1 megawatt-hour of fossil generation. The 

commenters said either using the pro rata method or replacing coal generation first would not 

only be more consistent with the treatment of NGCCs in Building Block 2 it would reflect the 

significant benefit of offsetting the marginally more expensive fossil generators. 

Commenters supported the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) alternative target emission rate 

method whereby any incremental renewable energy and/ or energy efficiency would not only 

displace fossil generation beyond the baseline year(s) but could replace historical fossil 

generation below that baseline level. The commenters said this method puts renewables and 

demand-side efficiency on equal footing with re-dispatching to natural gas combined cycle 

(NGCC) and the commenters believed this method should be utilized to achieve 40% reductions 

by 2030. 

Commenters stated EPA should ensure that the calculation of state targets fully reflects the role 

of renewable energy and energy efficiency in reducing carbon pollution. The commenters said 

the original formula used in the proposed rule failed to account for the reduction in generation at 

coal and gas power plants that will occur when additional renewables are added to the grid and 

when we improve energy efficiency. The commenters said when EPA sets final state targets, it 

should use the corrected formula proposed in its October 27, 2014 Notice of Data Availability. 

Commenters stated the proposed goal-setting formula treats additional natural gas generation as 

replacing coal-fired generation, but treats energy efficiency and renewable energy as merely 

adding to the overall pool of electricity generation rather than displacing anything. The 

commenters said the EPA requested comment on whether it should change how energy 

efficiency and renewables are counted in calculating state targets [NODA]; the commenters said, 

it should; renewables and efficiency should be treated as replacing fossil-fuels, in the order of 

carbon-intensity. 

Commenters stated this modification is one of the most important steps the agency should take 

before finalizing the rule; treating efficiency and renewables as adding to the generation pool 

rather than displacing carbon-intensive fuels results in targets that are far too modest, vastly 

understating the potential of the two policies that should be the centerpieces of the rule. The 

commenters said reducing carbon emissions is the entire point of the rule; the most sensible 

model for calculating carbon-reduction goals, then, is to assume that states will use carbon-free 

sources of electricity to displace carbon-emitting sources. The commenters said failing to treat 

efficiency and renewables as replacing fossil fuels in most instances is at odds with the agency's 

own analysis of the merits of the two strategies for reducing emissions. The commenters said the 

agency rightly includes renewable energy and efficiency in the Clean Power Plan precisely 

because they can displace electricity generation from fossil fuels; moreover, as the agency 

recognizes, that is typically what happens at present; fossil-fuel generation is usually displaced 

first because it has higher variable costs than other forms of generation. 
450 

Commenters stated this change in calculating state goals would significantly strengthen the 

Clean Power Plan; as proposed, the Plan would reduce cumulative U.S. emissions from 2012 to 

2029 from 21.5 billion short tons to 18.2, a difference of 3.3. The commenters said if the targets 

are calculated by assuming that efficiency and renewables will displace fossil fuels, beginning 

with the most carbon-intensive, the Plan would reduce cumulative CO2 emissions by more than 

twice as much-by 7.2 billion short tons, to 14.3; similarly, the proposal would reduce annual 

CO2 emissions by 330 million short tons in 2029 compared to 2030 (from 2,153 to 1,823). The 

commenters said the alternative formula would reduce annual emissions nearly three times as 

much, or 919 million short tons; the difference in annual emissions is a 15.3 percent reduction 

versus a 42.7 percent reduction. 

Commenters stated on October 30, 2014, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

that addressed a concern expressed by several stakeholders - both net renewable energy exporters 

and importers - that there is a tension between setting state renewable energy targets based on instate renewable assets while also allowing states to count imported renewable energy towards 

compliance. The commenters said to address the concern, stakeholders have proposed an 

alternate approach whereby a state's goal would be adjusted to consider its relative opportunities 

for developing out-of-state RE resources; this would "better align RE targets with the proposal to 

allow the use of certain out-of-state renewables for compliance." The commenters said in the 

NODA, EPA solicits comments on this alternate approach. The commenters supported the 

stakeholders' proposed approach, and in general applauds EPA's efforts to consider the best 

mechanisms for including interstate renewable energy generation in states' compliance schemes. 

Commenters stated a careful analysis of the emission reduction opportunities in each of the four 

blocks identified by EPA demonstrates that even greater savings are available from each of the 

four blocks; as discussed in detail in EPA's Notice of Data Availability Released on October 27, 

2014, EPA must also fix the formula for calculating state targets to properly account for 

reductions from renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated in its October 27, 2014 Notice of Data Availability, EPA explains that the 

original formula used in its proposed rule failed to correctly account for the emission reductions 

generated by renewables and energy efficiency; as EPA explains, the formula used in the 

proposed rule failed to account for the reduction in generation at coal and gas power plants that 

will occur when additional renewables are added to the grid and when we improve energy 

efficiency. The commenters said when EPA sets final state targets, it should use the corrected 

formula proposed in the Notice of Data Availability; this is particularly important because it will 

ensure that the Clean Power Plan fully reflects the potential for emission reductions achievable 

under the best system of emission reduction. 

Commenters stated it is important that the final rule reflect a formula that adequately counts the 

effects of renewable generation and energy efficiency on fossil generation, as proposed in the 

October 27, 2014 Notice of Data Availability. 

Commenters stated the EPA should adjust its formula for calculating state targets to fully reflect 

the emissions reductions achievable in a cost-effective way through renewable energy and 

demand-side energy efficiency measures. The commenters said the EPA explained in its October 

27, 2014 Notice of Data Availability that the formula used in its initial proposed rule failed to 
451 

correctly account for emissions reductions that can be achieved through use of renewables and 

energy efficiency programs. The commenters said EPA explained that the formula used in the 

proposed rule failed to accurately account for reductions in generation at coal and gas plants that 

energy efficiency and renewables will cause, and in its Notice of Data Availability EPA 

proposed a corrected formula. The commenters said in issuing its final rule EPA should use that 

corrected formula; doing so will ensure that the targets each state must meet fully reflect the 

potential for reductions in emissions that can be cost-effectively achieved through the use of 

renewables and improved demand-side energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated EPA failed to properly account for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

resources in the goal-setting formula; rather than backing out the equivalent level of existing 

fossil-fired generation that these resources would displace, EPA simply added the generation 

from these resources into the denominator of the lbs/MWh emissions rate. The commenters said 

EPA should adopt the methodology set forth in the NODA to fully capture the emissionsreduction benefits of these resources. 

Comment 2: NODA; support; reduce the NGCC generation of states with existing higher 

amounts of NGCC capacity; won't work in tribal 

Response 2: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the approach in EPA's NODA could help mitigate the significant disparity 

between state goals as proposed in the rule, but only if EPA reduces the NGCC generation of 

states with existing higher amounts of NGCC capacity. The commenters said this may not be 

true for tribal lands. The commenters said EPA should not increase the total amount of NGCC 

generation assumed in the goal calculation, as this would not provide any relief to states with 

existing high amounts of NGCC; this approach would distribute the burden of switching to more 

natural gas generation to all states, and allow states to maintain a more appropriate resource mix. 

The commenters also believed making the corrections to the goal calculations would accomplish 

a more realistic and balanced approach. 

Comment 3: NODA - Further refinements 

Response 3: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
452 

Commenters strongly opposed the suggestion by certain commenters described in the NODA 

that further refinements to the analysis of the potentially interrelated, cumulative, theoretical 

impacts of the four building blocks must be fully reflected in the determination of the state 

targets. The commenters said instead, in order to satisfy Section 111(d), such targets must reflect 

the degree of emission reduction that has been reasonably determined to be available by the 

affected sources, must fully address the complexities of any interrelated system-based elements 

of an emission reduction profile that can lawfully be considered under Section 111(d), and must 

preserve to the states sufficient flexibility to devise Emission Guidelines that are not fully 

prescribed in every detail by the state targets established by EPA. 

Comment 4: NODA - short term relief for states 

Response 4: The EPA has adopted different interim goal dates, and revised its approach to 

incorporating Building Block 3 in a manner more like Building Block 2. See sections I.A., V.A., 

V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate 

and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the NODA released in late-October represents the most significant change to 

EPA's proposal; the NODA raises numerous issues, including potential changes to the 2020-2029 

glide path, revisions to the CO2 performance goal-setting formula, and regional and/or "holistic" 

approaches to calculating the Building Block 2 and Building Block 3 assumptions. The 

commenters said in short, the NODA could result in some short-term relief for the states, but 

with ultimately lower rate-based goals through "potential renewables" and "holistic gas" 

analysis. 

Comment 5: NODA; formula for goal calculation issue; goal setting equation 

Response 5: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA is additionally seeking comment on changes to the goal calculation 

formula. The commenters said presently, for Building Block 2 (shift production to NGCC), the 

proposed formula offsets 1 MWh of fossil steam generation and corresponding emissions from 

the 2012 baseline levels for every 1 MWh of incremental NGCC generation (subtracting 

emissions from the numerator and generation from the denominator), reflecting the assumption 

that the shift to NGCC generation will replace fossil steam generation; however for Building 
453 

Blocks 3 and 4, the formula adds Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency to 2012 baseline 

generation in the denominator, but does not subtract or off set emissions in the numerator. The 

commenters said EPA is requesting comments on two alternatives: 

1. Replace all historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis by assuming Renewable 

Energy and Energy Efficiency generation directly replaces 2012 fossil generation in 

proportion (i.e., pro rata coal and gas) to their historical generation; or 

2. Prioritize replacement of historical fossil steam generation similarly as (1) above, but 

by first replacing fossil steam generation to below 2012 levels and then applying the 

remaining incremental Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency to gas turbine 

generation and emissions. 

Commenters stated their concerns with either of these methodologies are similar. The 

commenters said the EPA assumes that all Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency generation 

will displace existing fossil emissions, which would not necessarily be the case; in the triennial 

Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) filing process required by the Kentucky Public Service 

Commission, the commenters include Energy Efficiency and DSM program as resources to meet 

future energy requirements from consumers. The commenters said for IRP purposes, these 

resources serve to avoid the construction of new electric generating resources rather than reduce 

utilization of existing fossil generation. The commenters said the proposed formula changes for 

the goal calculation therefore would penalize the state's existing Energy Efficiency programs. 

Commenters stated the NODA also requests comment on two additional and more stringent 

methods for calculating the state goals; both approaches would ratchet down state goals even 

beyond the amounts originally proposed; however, EPA does not recalculate state goals under 

these new methods or propose any specific changes to the proposed standards. Commenters 

stated these new approaches only make a bad proposal worse and compound the errors in EPA's 

methodology. The commenters said under them, EPA would use additional renewable generation 

under building block 3 and avoided generation under building block 4 to reduce fossil generation 

below the 2012 levels; this reduction in fossil generation would be in addition to that amount 

mandated under building block 2. Commenters stated EPA does not give any examples of how 

this would work in any particular state or demonstrate that such an approach could work; given 

that building block 2 is a significant driver of Texas's goal, EPA's proposal in the NODA that 

would require additional ratcheting under building blocks 3 and 4 would only ensure that no coal 

generation is left to dispatch; nor would such an approach address growth in the system and the 

economy, and one could expect that grid stability issues would be even further exacerbated. 

Commenters stated neither of the two options to further remove fossil generation from the goalsetting calculation is appropriate or reasonable. The commenters said in the June proposal, the 

renewable generation and energy consumption reductions were simply added to the denominator 

of the state goal formula. The commenters said the first option for an alternative treatment of this 

incremental increase in renewable generation and energy consumption reductions would be to 

assume that it directly replaces the 2012 fossil generation levels and the corresponding emissions 

on a pro rata basis across generation types. The commenters said EPA fails to provide actual 

calculations demonstrating what the effect of this change would be; the commenters said this 

change would yield more stringent state goals. The commenters said given that Texas's 
454 

renewable goals are disproportionately higher than other states, the Texas emission goals would 

be weighted even more heavily by this change. 

Commenters stated EPA suggests the calculation could be revised by prioritizing the replacement 

of historical fossil steam generation; incremental increases in renewable generation and energy 

consumption reductions would first replace coal-fueled steam generation below 2012 levels 

rather than all fossil generation on a proportional basis. The commenters said any remaining 

increase in renewable generation and energy consumption reductions would replace gas turbine 

generation and the corresponding emissions. The commenters said such an approach would only 

make explicit EPA's apparent goal in this exercise: establish a hard deadline beyond which no 

coal-fueled units could operate. The commenters said mandating shutdown of the very existing 

units for which EPA is supposed to be demonstrating a technology that can reduce emissions is 

ludicrous and well outside EPA's authority under Section 111. The commenters said with only 

66.7 terawatt hours of coal generation left after the re-dispatch under building block 2, the 

removal of coal from the goal setting equation would occur by 2026 with greater than 90% gone 

by 2025. The commenters said EPA has no authority to mandate the shutdown of EGUs under 

the guise of an emission standard. 

Commenters stated the NODA seeks comment on whether EPA should alter its goal computation 

methodology by reducing generation more dramatically from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs (as 

compared to the Proposal). The commenters said in the Proposal, Building Block 2 re-dispatch - 

from coal to natural gas - is computed in the goal calculation by subtracting 1 MWh of fossil 

steam generation (in the denominator) and corresponding emissions (in the numerator) from the 

2012 baseline levels for every 1 MWh of incremental NGCC generation. The commenters said 

that calculation leaves the total level of overall generation in a state unchanged after 

implementation of Building Block 2. The commenters said for Building Blocks 3 and 4, 

incremental RE and EE in the Proposal does not reduce the 2012 baseline levels of fossil 

generation or remove the corresponding emissions; instead, incremental RE or EE is added to the 

denominator of the goal formula. The commenters said now, in the NODA, EPA solicits 

comment on an alternative approach where incremental RE and EE would replace generation 

from fossil fuel-fired sources in the goal calculation. The commenters said this would be 

accomplished by backing out 1 MWh of fossil generation for every incremental MWh of RE 

(generation) or EE (savings) in the denominator of the goal formula, and removing the 

corresponding emissions for the fossil generation in the numerator. The commenters said two 

different approaches for revising the state goal formula are discussed: (i) a pro-rata replacement 

across all types of fossil generation (fossil steam and gas turbine); or (ii) a prioritization of 

replaced fossil generation, starting with fossil steam rather than all fossil; if there were any 

remaining RE or EE after replacing all fossil steam, then replacement of gas turbine generation 

would begin. 

Commenters stated EPA correctly recognizes that adopting this alternative approach would 

necessarily increase the stringency of the state goals (approach (ii) is even more stringent than 

approach (i)) and costs of the proposed guidelines. The commenters said the approach would 

necessarily further reduce the share of a state's generation that could come from existing fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs; in states where that generation would already be significantly reduced under the 

Proposal, this alternative approach could eliminate coal-fired generation completely. 
455 

Commenters opposed this alternative approach. The commenters said EPA utterly lacks the 

authority to establish section111 performance standards based on reduced utilization or 

retirement of a source. The commenters said if EPA desires to pursue this change in the Proposal 

- it has not proposed in the NODA to pursue such change - it must undertake a thorough 

evaluation of the costs and other implications - particularly reliability - pursuant to sections 111 

and 307(d)(3) of the CAA, and allow for proper notice and comment on the proposed change and 

its ramifications. The commenters said at this point, one cannot meaningfully evaluate these 

issues without such additional analyses on the part of EPA; beyond the likely very high 

additional costs, the approach may actually encourage further development of additional fossil 

generation, which might be needed if incremental RE and EE are used to retire existing fossil 

generation. The commenters said doubtless, this is not the consequence intended by EPA. The 

commenters said EPA should not pursue such an aggressive - and under the CAA, unjustified - 

strategy. 

Commenters stated EPA's Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") provided additional 

information on several topics raised by stakeholders. The commenters said the NODA provides 

alternative methodologies for calculating the state goals by applying incremental RE and EE 

reductions to lower fossil generation below 2012 levels in the goal calculation. The commenters 

said the EPA proposed two different approaches for revising the state goal-setting formula using 

this methodology: the first option would replace all historical fossil generation on a pro rata 

basis; the second option would prioritize replacement of historical fossil steam generation. The 

commenters said although the EPA describes the methodology for recalculating the state goals 

under the options, it provided no technical support documents or spreadsheets showing what the 

resulting state goals under the options should be. The commenters said it appears, however, that 

either option will result in more stringent state goals. The commenters said the lack of supporting 

documents showing what results would be, along with the short time available between release 

of the NODA and filing deadline for comments makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, 

for commenters to analyze the options properly so that it might comment intelligently on them. 

Accordingly, the commenters urged EPA not to adopt either option as part of the final rule, 

unless more information and time is provided to address adequately any issues that these new 

options present as to the application and results. 

Commenters stated U.S. EPA proposes two alternatives in the NODA: 

1) Replace all Historical Fossil Generation on a Pro Rata Basis. The state goal 

formula assumes a constant level of fossil generation equivalent to 2012 levels; 

instead of adding incremental EE/RE to the denominator, U.S. EPA proposes to 

assume it directly replaces 2012 fossil generation and the corresponding emissions on 

a pro rata basis across all generation types; US. EPA acknowledges this does not 

change the incremental generation levels for Building Blocks 3 and 4 but it will yield 

a more stringent state goal by replacing fossil steam and NGCC generation in 

proportion. The commenters disagreed with this approach. 

− U.S. EPA acknowledges that the approach under the June 18, 2014 proposal 

and this alternative both replace generation; however in the June 18, 2014 

proposal, new generation is replaced while under this alternative, existing 

generation is replaced. The commenters said this approach would assume 
456 

generation remains constant with 2012 levels indefinitely into the future and 

that will not be the case; this acts to artificially lower state goals based upon a 

false presumption. The commenters said U.S. EPA states the June 18, 2014 

proposal scenario implicitly assumes significant increases in existing fossil 

generation beyond 2012 levels absent Building Block 3 and 4; the 

commenters disagreed with the basic premise. 

− -U.S. EPA is proposing under Building Block 2 that existing NGCC must be 

utilized at 70%. The commenters said it is improper to then require EE/RE 

displace that NGCC capacity; U.S. EPA cannot create a system that will put 

owners of NGCC at risk for noncompliance and possible citizen suit because 

they cannot or do not operate at 70% capacity. The commenters said this 

alternative presumes that owners of existing NGCC would be placed in that 

exact situation; by lowering the rate with this type of assumption, the only 

method states will have to meet the overly stringent state goal rate would be to 

decrease utilization of coal power plants even further as well as NGCC. The 

commenters said U.S. EPA should not be discouraging the use of existing or 

new NGCC and this alternative will do just that; in addition, the issues 

stakeholders raised with respect to stranded assets and the ability for states to 

consider remaining useful life will be further compounded with such an 

alternative. 

2) Prioritize Replacement of Historical Fossil Steam Generation 

− As a second alternative, U.S. EPA proposes to first replace fossil steam 

generation with EE/RE below 2012 levels rather than all fossil generation on a 

pro rata basis; after all fossil steam generation is replaced, any remaining 

incremental EE/RE would replace gas turbine generation levels. The 

commenters said U.S. EPA cannot assume EE/RE will replace generation in a 

manner which U.S. EPA proposes in this alternative; the 

commenters cannot contemplate the method in which compliance with such a 

requirement would be accomplished and U.S. EPA has offered no information 

regarding how it would be implemented in a plan. The commenters said U.S. 

EPA is attempting to control the electricity generation system in a manner that 

will lead to severe reliability issues. The commenters stressed the need for a 

diversified and reliable generation system. The commenters said while 

theoretically this may appear to have merit, practically this approach cannot 

work; U.S. EPA cannot have evaluated the ramifications of such an irrational 

alternative. The commenters said U.S. EPA cannot propose such an 

alternative when Building Block 2 relies on NGCC to be utilized at 

70%; stranded assets and the ability for states to consider remaining useful life 

will be even further compounded under this proposal as it appears in some 

cases, all coal-fired generation will become obsolete quickly under this 

proposal. 

The commenters said U.S. EPA's language detailing these alternate EE/RE approaches, wherein 

higher intensity generation would be displaced by incremental RE and EE generation or demand 
457 

reduction, is incredibly vague. Based on this vague language, the commenters were able to 

assemble at least four separate alternative goal-setting scenarios based on particular 

interpretations of this language. The commenters said depending on the interpretation, state goals 

in Ohio ranged from situations similar to the June 2014 proposal, to situations in which all fossil 

fuel-fired generation in the state of Ohio was eliminated by 2026. The commenters said this 

proposal is not practical and U.S. EPA cannot possibly demonstrate that this concept is feasible; 

such results clearly call for more detailed language regarding these alternate approaches, 

accompanied by detailed calculations from U.S. EPA demonstrating how these alternate goals 

might be applied in each state. The commenters said absent that, the language provided is far too 

vague for the commenters to make meaningful comment, except to point out the impracticality of 

meeting the goal. 

Commenters stated the final mass-based goal is computed by multiplying the rate-based goal by 

the mass equivalent generation calculated for each of the two approaches; under the first 

approach (existing EGUs only), Ohio's illustrative mass-based goals (in thousand metric tons) 

are 74,614 (interim) and 68,751 (final); under the second approach (existing EGUs and future 

demand), Ohio's illustrative mass-based goals (in thousand metric tons) are 79,112 (interim) and 

75,116 (final). 

Commenters analyzed both methodologies proposed by U.S. EPA; the commenters contended 

that both approaches are flawed, first and foremost, by the reliance of setting mass-based targets 

using CO2 intensity goals from the June 18, 2014 proposal; those CO2 intensity goals were 

derived using flawed datasets, incorrect capacity data, unreasonable regional averaging in the 

development of RE and EE goals, amongst other errors and flawed assumptions. The 

commenters said these concerns overlay and exacerbate any and all other issues identified with 

U.S. EPA's rate-to-mass conversion methodologies. 

Commenters stated the primary concern with the first methodology is the static nature of fossil 

generation coupled with the annually decreasing intensity targets. The commenters said under 

this approach, states would still need to implement demand-side EE measures and other 

components of U.S. EPA's BSER to achieve the interim and final goals; thus, states would gain 

almost no flexibility in choosing a mass-based compliance plan following this methodology. The 

commenters also identified that under-construction natural gas generation was included in U.S. 

EPA's calculations, but dispatched at a 55% capacity factor. The commenters said this is 

markedly different than the approach taken under the original rate-based methodology, wherein 

under-construction NGCC units were dispatch at 70% capacity factor; 15% as re-dispatched 

NGCC, and 55% as "other" generation. The commenters said this would imply that U.S. EPA's 

mass target under this approach is not equivalent to a comparable rate-based target. The 

commenters noted that U.S. EPA accounted for existing 2012 renewable generation, but did not 

do so for existing 2012 EE measures; this was not described in U.S. EPA's most recent TSD. The 

commenters can only speculate that existing EE measures were not accounted for in U.S. EPA's 

calculations due to the significant difficulty in measuring and verifying EE measures. 

Commenters stated the second methodology proposed by U.S. EPA is similar to the first 

approach, but includes an incremental demand-growth factor that informs both the interim and 

final mass-based targets. While it is encouraging that U.S. EPA recognizes the need to account 

for demand growth in the development of a mass-based compliance path, the commenters did not 
458 

believe, as stated previously, that a regional growth-rate should be applied. The commenters also 

identified that Ohio's 2012 MW-h sales in the TSD, 153,780,262 MW-h, is not the same value 

used in the original June 18, 2014 proposal; the commenters could find no additional information 

to verify this new 2012 sales figure. Commenters added that the adjusted fossil generation value 

used as part of the second methodology suffers from the same flaws as in the first proposed 

methodology; it appears from U.S. EPA's calculations that after 2030, any additional demand 

growth would need to be met by zero-carbon sources. 

Comment 6: NODA - oppose alternate approaches 

Response 6: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters did not support the alternate approaches presented in Section III.C.1 of the Notice 

of Data Availability (NODA) issued on October 30, 2014. 

Commenters stated these approaches make the ambitious goals of the original proposal even 

more stringent and much more difficult to achieve, and they do not reflect expected demand 

growth in Georgia and other southeastern states. The commenters said for GA, the approach 

proposed in the NODA: Reduces the final goal; in combination with Building Block 2 

redispatch, reduces fossil steam generation (an 83% reduction); also Georgia EPD has estimated 

2030 state-wide demand based on EIA's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projections for the 

southeast (see Table 4 of this comment letter); commenters believe that all of the 2012 fossilfired generation will be needed to meet demand in 2030 and that the new approaches described 

in the NODA are unrealistic for Georgia. The commenters said in summary, the alternative 

approaches presented in the NODA make Georgia's goal much more stringent and they assume a 

reduction in fossil steam generation that would seriously compromise the state's dispatch 

flexibility. The commenters added they do not reflect expected demand growth in Georgia and 

other southeastern states and the need to retain a fossil-fired fleet that is adequate to meet the 

demand growth; EPD does not support the alternative approaches for calculating states' goals 

presented in Section III.C.1 of the NODA. 

Commenters added EPA should not adopt either approach presented in the NODA, as both 

would overestimate the potential emissions reductions from RE and EE because they erroneously 

assume that RE and EE can replace dispatchable fossil generation. The commenters said adding 

RE and EE to a utility system does not directly displace existing fossil generation; variable 

energy resources are inherently different than traditional resources like coal and gas generation. 

The commenters said coal and gas resources provide value across all dispatch categories 

(baseload, intermediate and peaking), but variable energy resources are only available at certain 

times and are operationally inflexible. The commenters said these renewable resources need to 
459 

be backed-up when they are not operating, but EPA does not address how this can be 

accomplished without reliance on some fossil generation. 

Commenters added regarding the consistent calculation of all Building Blocks, it is altogether 

appropriate to assume that existing NGCCs could replace generation from coal units in the 

proposed goal-setting calculation; however, because RE and EE are inherently different in their 

operating characteristics, EPA should not assume that these measures can replace coal generation 

on a one-for-one basis. The commenters said renewable energy and EE serve to meet or avoid a 

portion of load growth to reduce future emissions, not to reduce historic demand and emissions. 

The commenters said revising the state goal formula in this manner would significantly increase 

the stringency of the rule under the NODA approaches. The commenters said for these reasons, 

EPA should not adopt either approach for RE and EE to replace existing fossil generation. 

Commenters added the NODA solicits comment on EPA's goal-setting methodology but does 

not actually propose this change in the NODA, and EPA cannot finalize it as part of any final 

emission guidelines. The commenters opposed this approach for three reasons: (1) EPA has no 

authority to establish a standard of performance based on reduced utilization or retirement of a 

source; (2) if EPA wants to pursue such a dramatic change, it must undertake a thorough 

evaluation of costs and other implications, as required by section 307(d)(3), and allow 

commenters sufficient time to evaluate and comment on those studies; and (3) this is a 

nonsensical approach to EPA's overarching goal of reducing fossil fuel-fired generation because 

it would have the counterintuitive effect of encouraging the construction of new fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs. 

Commenters added this displacement of emissions from fossil fuel generation by the renewables 

and efficiency in the NODA would make each state's emissions rate more stringent; for states 

with a high ratio of renewables to fossil fuel fired generation, the increased stringency is very 

significant to the point of being infeasible. 

Commenters recommended a modification to the NODA displacement assumption so that the 

final targets reflect what is reasonably achievable by the states; specifically, while the 

displacement concept is contemplated by both the NODA and by the rate-to-mass translation 

TSD, Maine strongly recommends that EPA adopt the displacement methodology in only one 

context so as to prevent a duplicative counting of fossil fuel displacement. The commenters said 

in order to maintain consistency across rate-based and mass-based approaches, EPA should 

provide states opting to pursue a mass-based approach with the opportunity to justify the 

appropriate amount of fossil generation that should be displaced (rather than apply an 

assumption that all incremental EE and RE will displace existing fossil fuel-fired generation); 

such an approach is appropriate given that modeling used to convert a rate-based target into a 

mass-based emissions cap will provide fuel mix projections, thereby alleviating the need to 

include a calculation-based displacement assumption as part of those states' respective targets. 

The commenters said to implement this approach, EPA could publish a final rate target for all 

states, which is inclusive of the displacement assumption; a second set of rates, non-inclusive of 

the displacement assumption, could be published as approved inputs for use by states in 

converting to a mass-based emissions cap. 
460 

Commenters added the NODA, while addressing desired transparency, also introduced 

undesirable new options not contained in the original proposal, which have stimulated additional 

uncertainty, potential flux regarding reliability assurance and the risk of even higher consumer 

electricity prices; in order to avoid potential due process implications, EPA should not adopt the 

"cumulative worst case impact" option that could result if the NODA options were included in 

the final rule. 

Commenters added further reducing coal-fired electricity generation in such a manner would 

make the emission reduction targets even less achievable and would exacerbate the grid 

reliability challenges identified above; such an approach fails to account for important 

differences between the Building Blocks. The commenters said EPA provides no basis to support 

an argument that electricity could be shifted away from existing coal-fired EGUs by adding 

renewable energy capacity or reducing demand pursuant to Building Blocks 3 and 4. The 

commenters said first, EPA includes each State's existing renewable energy capacity in Building 

Block 3; those facilities are already producing electricity alongside coal-fired EGUs and, as a 

result, cannot be called upon to displace coal-fired electricity generation. The commenters said 

second, by incorporating new renewable energy generation and energy efficiency measures into 

its BSER analysis, EPA necessarily accounts for new electricity demand that will occur over the 

same time period. The commenters said EPA cannot simply assign all new electricity generating 

capacity (and efficiency-induced demand reductions) toward the displacement of coal-fired 

electricity generation without considering how States will meet new demand; this is particularly 

true for States that already have RPS and EERS programs in place and are relying on them to 

meet at least a portion of the growth in electricity demand. 

Commenters added EPA's NODA proposes to use incremental renewable energy generation and 

DSEE savings from Building Blocks 3 and 4 to displace 2012 generation from affected fossil 

fuel-fired EGUs in state goal calculations, acknowledging that this approach would make state 

goals even more stringent; this alternative approach is based on erroneous assumptions and a 

misunderstanding of the purpose and roles of the types of generation in Building Blocks 3 and 4. 

The commenters said renewable energy generation and DSEE energy savings do not serve the 

same purpose as existing fossil fuel-fired generation and thus cannot reliably or cost-effectively 

replace that generation; for these reasons, it is imperative that EPA not incorporate this newly 

proposed goal setting methodology into its final rule. 

Commenters stated EPA requested comment on whether the goal-setting calculation should 

"back-off" fossil generation in response to the addition of the renewable energy and energy 

efficiency building blocks. The commenters strongly disagreed with this modification as this 

change would artificially place additional emission reductions on many states and thus result in 

further stress to the electrical system. The commenters said while renewable energy and energy 

efficiency have some implications for the utilization of existing sources they also play a key role 

in offsetting the need for new generating sources, and thus a determination that these building 

blocks would solely displace existing fossil generation is not practical. 

Commenters added EPA has not attempted to evaluate how such an approach would affect the 

operation and reliability of the grid as dispatchable fossil resources are needed to support 

voltage, frequency, capacity needs and enable renewable technologies to be deployed. The 

commenters said under the proposed revision to the state goal calculation, some states (e.g. 
461 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Maine) would be left with zero fossil fuel-based generation, which 

significantly impairs the ability of operators to maintain reliability. The commenters said if this 

proposal was expanded further as contemplated within the NODA, and building blocks 3 and 4 

were applied to reduce fossil-steam generation preferentially, such as is done with building block 

2, all fossil-steam generation would be lost in 21 states - even while existing NGCC capacity 

would be assumed to run at a fixed capacity factor. The commenters said EPA has not performed 

any analysis to suggest that the grid could function without these critical capacity resources; as 

such, this potential alternative goal calculation approach should be rejected. 

Commenters added EPA's NODA, published on October 30, 2014, increased, rather than 

decreased, the confusion and uncertainty regarding the goal calculation methodology, and added 

data to the record but failed to provide any insight on the impacts of using alternative base years, 

multi-year averaging, or changing the goal calculation by reducing fossil generation rates as 

renewable and energy efficiency measures are implemented during 2020-2029. The commenters 

provided Appendix D containing a list of the issues upon which EPA requested comments in the 

initial proposal, as expanded by the NODA; most of these requests propose alternative 

approaches or changes that affect the stringency of the state goals, but EPA provided no insight 

into what those impacts would be. The commenters said the two exceptions to this general rule 

are the Option 2 state goals, and the goal calculations provided that rely solely on 

implementation of blocks 1 and 2, both of which were provided in the initial proposal; none of 

the alternatives described in the NODA have been used to calculate new state goals. The 

commenters said there are multiple combinations of the alternatives proposed by EPA, and the 

outcome of each combination can result in unpredictable impacts on the ultimate obligations of 

the states - obligations that EPA says represent immutable standards against which any plan 

submitted by the state will be judged. 

Commenters stated the EPA's possible approaches to adjust the state goal calculation 

methodology for Blocks 3 and 4 discussed in the October 30 NODA would result in severe 

impacts on states, in particular the prioritized adjustment approach in which EPA would take 

generation and CO2 emissions out of the calculation for coal-fired EGUs first before other 

sources. The commenters said the prioritized adjustment approach would zero-out all of Texas' 

coal-fired EGU generation for purposes of calculating the state goal, further restricting the state's 

ability to consider the remaining useful life of the facilities and result in substantially more 

retirements of coal-fired EGUs. 

Commenters stated in the proposed rule, the EPA's state goal calculation applies Block 2 

differently from Blocks 3 and 4; in Block 2, the EPA shifted generation from coal-fired EGUs 

and other higher emitting sources to NGCC units without changing the total generation in the 

state; under Block 3, EPA added renewable generation without taking away generation or the 

corresponding CO2 emissions, increasing the total generation in the denominator; similarly, 

under Block 4, the EPA added the energy savings to the denominator without removing 

generation or the corresponding CO2 emissions. The commenters said in the October 30 NODA, 

the EPA takes comment on ways to change the state goal calculation to make the adjustments for 

Blocks 3 and 4 similar to Block 2; specifically, the EPA would remove the amount of generation 

from fossil fuel-fired EGUs in the denominator of the equation, and the corresponding CO2 

emissions in the numerator, that is equivalent to the incremental renewable energy generation 

under Block 3 and incremental energy savings from Block 4. 
462 

Commenters stated the TCEQ opposes any such adjustment, and in particular, the prioritized 

approached being considered by the EPA in which the adjustment would take away generation 

and CO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs first. The commenters said because the incremental 

increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency savings assumed by the EPA under Blocks 3 

and 4 for Texas is greater than the residual coal-fired EGU generation assumed after redispatching under Block 2, the effect of the prioritized adjustment approach would be to zero-out 

all Texas' coal-fired EGU generation for state goal calculation purposes. The commenters said all 

oil and natural gas steam EGU generation would also zero-out under this approach. The 

commenters estimated that such an adjustment would result in a final state goal for Texas of 

approximately 540 - 550 lb/MWh; additionally, the commenters estimated that 21 other states 

would be similarly impacted by having all coal-fired EGU generation assumed to be removed by 

the prioritized adjustment approach discussed by the EPA in the October 30 NODA. The 

commenters said nationally, applying this adjustment would result in the state goals being based 

on an assumed reduction in coal-fired EGU generation across the country of approximately 60%, 

substantially more than the 26% that the proposed state goals are based on; such a radical 

reduction in coal-fired EGU generation would result in substantially more retirements in the 

coal-fired EGU fleet and further endanger grid reliability; furthermore, building such an 

assumption into the state goal would virtually eliminate Texas' ability to consider the remaining 

useful life of coal-fired EGUs because the state goal would be founded on an assumption that all 

coal-fired EGUs in the state would out-of-service by 2029, including EGUs which have only 

recently come online. 

The commenters also opposed the proportional adjustment approach being considered by the 

EPA for adjusting the state goal calculations for Blocks 3 and 4; if based on a post-Block 2 redispatched generation mix, the TCEQ estimates the proportional approach would reduce the state 

goal for Texas to approximately 720 lb/MWh; while the proportional approach is expected to 

have a lesser impact on the state goal than the prioritized approach, the effect still makes the state

goal more stringent and the TCEQ maintains the final state goal proposed for Texas is already 

infeasible. 

Commenters stated that the CO2 emission rate target proposed for Pennsylvania is already too 

stringent; therefore, any proposed methodology changes in the NODA that result in more 

stringent goals should not be considered. 

Commenters added in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published on October 30, 2014, a 

radically different target methodology was proposed by EPA in which the energy attributed to 

building blocks three and four would be substituted, in a one for one manner, with reductions in 

fossil fuel usage. The commenters said for Washington this would reduce the state's final target 

from 215 lbs/MWh to an estimated 27 lbs/MWh; in essence, this would set Washington's target 

to zero. The commenters did not support this alternative methodology; and notes that the 

proposed approaches for building blocks three and four already "zero out" the emissions from all 

fossil fuel generation in the state, even if a one-for-one substitution does not occur. The 

commenters continued because renewable energy is dependent on some load-following fossil 

resources to shape and firm intermittent resources, the conceptual foundation for this approach is 

lacking. The commenters said EPA has been clear to date that the "building block" approach is a 

methodological approach to generate a fair and equitable implementation of the BSER for setting 

emission rate goals for states; it is not a rigorous modeling approach, which seems to be the 
463 

direction of this suggested modification. The commenters said the "building block" approach 

meets its purpose of balancing simplicity, fairness, and policy neutrality, and should not be 

stretched to cover compliance approaches. 

Commenters opposed the adjustments for making Blocks 3 and 4 similar to Block 2 in the state 

goal calculations presented in the NODA. The commenters said the prioritized adjustment would 

have the effect of zeroing out all coal-fired as well as oil and natural gas steam generation for 

state goal calculation purposes. The commenters estimated this adjustment would drastically 

alter Texas's final goal to approximately 540-550 lbs/MWh. The commenters said this outcome 

would have an even more detrimental effect on reliability than the 791 lbs/MWh emissions goal 

proposed in the original rule; the commenters strongly urge EPA to reject this modification to the 

state goal calculation. 

Commenters stated in the alternative methods outlined in the NODA, the underlying goal-setting 

algorithm governing building blocks 3 and 4 provide emissions reductions through displacement 

of all of New Jersey's coal and oil-fired generation along with a significant amount of existing 

NGCC generation. The commenters said this is not a realistic or a reasonable outcome. The 

commenters said to highlight the extreme nature of the emissions reductions associated by this 

alternative goal-setting algorithm, only 6,755,875 kWh is satisfied by the affected fossil EGU 

generation. The commenters said this is equivalent to 26% of the generation supplied by the 

affected fossil EGUs in 2012. The commenters said all of the coal and oil-fired units would be 

replaced and the existing NGCC fleet would be operating at a 13% capacity factor. The 

commenters said as suggested by EPA, this amount of generation could be satisfied by only 20% 

of New Jersey's existing NGCC operating at a 70% capacity factor; this could result in the 

shutdown of many NGCC units in New Jersey, resulting in greater reliance on out-of-state coal 

units, resulting in higher CO2 and NOx emissions; this is not a reasonable outcome. 

Commenters stated EPA has further expanded the potential to target Texas' coal-fired generation 

in its NODA, with requests for comment on proposed plans to require reductions in fossil-fuel 

generation at a prorate rate as new renewable energy resources are developed and end-user 

efficiency gains are achieved. The commenters said one of these proposals includes requiring 

coal-fired generation to be offset first, then other forms of fossil-fuel generation would be 

targeted; this is an unacceptable approach; it would drive even greater reductions in coal 

generation, and associated mining, leading to additional economic harm and impacts to electric 

reliability; it would also lead to greater risks to reliability, as less electricity would be available 

to meet rising demand. 

Commenters stated regarding the Notice of Data Availability on October 28, 2014, the 

commenters did not believe that any of the adjustments to the timing of the "glide path," nor the 

use of 2012 as the baseline year, nor changes to the rate-based computation methodology are 

necessary. The commenters said the proposed CPP in its original form represents a bold yet 

viable pathway for achieving the nation’s, and our state’s, energy, economic and environmental 

goals. The commenters supported the original proposed Plan as it stands without the need for 

significant changes as represented in the Notice of Data Availability. 

Commenters stated EPA should not consider changing the goal setting formula as suggested in 

the NODA; the suggested changes make the goal calculations more complicated by allocating 
464 

emission reductions to particular generators but do not address the effect of where emissions will 

actually be reduced. 

Commenters added in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published on October 30, 2014, 

EPA solicited comment on stakeholder feedback suggesting changes to the proposed formula to 

establish state goals; according to the NODA, some stakeholders have argued that incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency displaces existing fossil generation rather than 

incremental generation from existing sources. The commenters said if the finalized Clean Power 

Plan agreed with stakeholders on this point, state goals would become significantly more 

stringent in all states, including Oregon. The commenters stated their experience with renewable 

energy and energy efficiency demonstrates that the formula EPA initially proposed more 

accurately accounts for emissions reductions. The commenters said energy efficiency and 

renewable energy in the commenters' system serve to meet load growth and hence avoid new 

generation and emissions. Commenters stated that in 2014, the commenters forecast weathernormalized net load growth of approximately 1%, after accounting for 1.5% in annual 

incremental energy efficiency on the commenters' system; in other words, this year the 

commenters' load has grown by 1% even after achieving an impressive amount of energy 

efficiency. The commenters used renewable energy added to the commenters' system to comply 

with Oregon's RPS to meet the load growth the commenters experienced after energy efficiency. 

The commenters' experience suggests that stakeholder arguments on the goal-setting equation are 

unfounded. The commenters said EPA's proposed goal-setting equation, in which incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency serves to avoid future emissions rather than reduce 

historic baseline emissions, is the correct approach. 

Commenters stated the approach to applying building blocks 3 and 4 to state goals in the 

NODA would result in targets that are in some cases less than zero and that arguably cannot be 

met by feasible state compliance actions; therefore, the commenters did not support the change 

to the state goal calculation described in the NODA. 

Commenters stated EPA's October 28 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) seeks comment on 

whether each state's goal should reflect displaced fossil generation from assumed levels of 

increased renewable energy generation and demand side savings. The commenters said the 

NODA mentioned four options for treating displaced fossil generation; the 

commenters supported the original approach proposed in June in which increased renewable 

energy generation and demand side savings would not displace existing fossil generation. 

Commenters stated EPA should not consider changing the goal setting formula as suggested in 

the NODA. The commenters said the suggested changes make the goal calculations more 

complicated by allocating emission reductions to particular generators but do not address the 

effect of where emissions will actually be reduced.

Commenters stated a pro rata, direct replacement methodology represents a significant change 

from the initial goal-setting formula. Commenters stated EPA concedes that "[a]lthough the 

incremental generation levels assumed for building blocks 3 and 4 would not change under this 

approach, this adjustment to the goal-setting formula would yield more stringent state goals." 

The commenters said this may well offset, or even exceed, any interim benefit obtained from 

potential changes to the glide path calculation; moreover, it places utilities in a difficult and 
465 

unprecedented situation. The commenters said a utility must conduct, evaluate and approve longterm resource planning in a world driven by a CO2 performance goal predicated on a formula 

that directly interchanges baseload generation for intermittent generation or potential reductions 

through energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated from an institutional standpoint, the potential one-for-one tradeout of 

baseload resources for renewable and energy efficiency resources taxes the ability of state air 

regulators beyond the breaking point. The commenters said while a state air regulator has 

primary jurisdiction in the first instances over a Section 111(d) plan, that same regulator has no 

experience or competency with electric reliability or rate impact; a state, therefore, will have the 

institutional choice to make, whether it wants to task its air regulator with becoming a totalistic 

electric resource planner, or not. The commenters said further, as state-specific legal analysis 

shows, in most cases the air regulator does not have state law authority to author and enforce a 

plan using Building Blocks 2, 3 and 4 in any event. 

Commenters stated a CO2 performance goal calculated under the NODA tilts toward greater 

involvement of PUCs with their relative expertise with regard to system reliability, cost recovery 

issues and resource planning in evaluating state plans. The commenters said it further underscore 

the need for some type of adjudicatory process or contested case proceeding for state plans that 

allows these types of issues to be fully- and publicly-vetted. The commenters said, the political 

economy of state regulation may not admit the PUC/air meta-regulator from coming into being; 

traditionally, non-jurisdictional municipal and cooperative utilities have an abiding allergy to 

PUC regulation; investor-owned utilities may prefer PUC primacy because of experience and the 

ability to ensure rate recovery. The commenters said for restructured markets, the NODA 

continues to push toward a multi-state plan (the NODA pushes vertically-integrated states to 

multi-state solutions too, see infra.). The commenters said multi-state solutions suffer from many 

of the same political economy infirmities between the states; state interests for a Section 111(d) 

plan are rivalries; not cooperative. The commenters said to be enforceable, Compact Clause 

issues must be addressed. 

Commenters stated there are several problems with this approach; first, the EPA has no authority 

to establish a standard of performance under section 111 based on reduced utilization (or 

retirement) of a source; second, if the EPA wishes to pursue such a dramatic change in its 

Proposed Guidelines, it must undertake a thorough evaluation of costs and other implications, as 

required by section 307(d)(3) of the CAA, and allow the public a sufficient period of time to 

evaluate and comment on those studies. The commenters said it is highly likely that here will be 

significant costs, including additional stranded assets, as well as additional threats to the reliable

supply of electricity, and added it is not possible to evaluate these issues without the additional 

analyses that EPA has failed to undertake. The commenters said third, beyond the likely very 

high additional costs, this alternative approach seems at odds with the EPA's apparent 

overarching goal of reducing generation from all fossil fuel-fired EGUs because it would have 

the counterintuitive effect of encouraging the construction of additional new fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs relative to the EPA's June 2014 Proposed Guidelines. The commenters said according to 

the EPA, the rationale for its proposed goal computation approach was that the additional RE and 

EE would replace expected generation increases from fossil sources that otherwise occur after 

2012; in other words, RE and EE would be used to meet future generation needs, while leaving 

the existing fossil EGUs to continue serving existing (i.e., pre- 2012) load demand. The 
466 

commenters said the alternative approach described in the NODA would require that incremental 

RE and EE be used first to satisfy existing (i.e., pre-2012) demand by displacing generation from 

existing fossil EGUs; if the incremental RE and EE encouraged by the Proposed Guidelines is 

dedicated to meeting historical demand, any post-2012 increases in demand will need to be met 

by other sources, most likely fossil fuel-fired EGUs because the proposed goals for RE and EE 

under Building Blocks 3 and 4 are already extremely aggressive. The commenters said therefore, 

a likely outcome of the alternative approach discussed in the NODA would be to encourage the 

use of new fossil generation to satisfy future demand rather than RE - a policy outcome that 

seems to be at odds with the EPA's overall goals. 

Commenters stated the revised approaches would make state goals significantly more stringent; 

both proposals are unsound and should not be adopted. The commenters said in reality, the effect 

that additional generation from existing or new NGCC units, nuclear reactors, or RE and EE 

sources will have on emissions from affected fossil fuel EGUs will depend on at least two 

factors: demand for electricity and the attributes (including dispatchability) of the new generation 

source. The commenters said although electricity demand growth has been slow in recent years, 

demand could well increase if state or national economies improve, if weather patterns change, 

or if new technologies (such as electric vehicles) lead to increased demand in the future; for 

example, EIA's baseline projection - which makes conservative assumptions about economic 

growth and other factors leading to increased demand - predicts an annual increase in demand 

growth of 1% through 2040, which will require the addition of 351 GW of new electric 

generating capacity nationwide; moreover, existing generating units whose capital costs have 

already been recovered and whose only going-forward costs are fuel, maintenance, and operating 

costs are usually the lowest-cost source of electricity; therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the 

addition of some incremental generation will displace future generation increases from existing 

sources, rather than reducing existing sources' generation levels below historic levels. The 

commenters said however, in cases where the required increase in NGCC, RE, nuclear, and EE 

generation exceeds demand growth, it is reasonable to assume that some existing generation will 

be "dialed back" relative to historic levels (note that because of the interstate nature of the 

electric grid, the generation that will be dialed back may not be located in state that implemented 

the increase in NGCC, RE, nuclear, or EE generation or savings). 

Commenters stated the ability of any given source of generation to displace generation from 

another source will depend in large part on the attributes of the incremental generation source 

and the characteristics of the existing system; thus, for example, incremental resources such as 

wind and solar power - as well as some EE measures - will preferentially displace natural gas 

generation (including generation at simple cycle turbines that are generally excluded from the 

Proposed Rule). The commenters said the reason for this is that natural gas turbines are uniquely 

capable of quickly ramping up and down to coordinate with fluctuating generation from 

intermittent renewables; coal and nuclear generation, on the other hand, are less likely to be 

displaced by the addition of new non-dispatchable resources. The commenters said increases in 

NGCC generation are likely to displace either other NGCC generation or generation from 

baseload units such as coal and nuclear, as well as some geothermal and biomass facilities, 

because each of these facilities also is capable of operating on a baseload basis. The commenters 

said the location and timing of the incremental generation will also affect the kind of generation 

it displaces, if any; for example, incremental RE or EE that is located in an area that is mostly 

served by NGCCs is far more likely to displace that NGCC generation than it is to displace far-
467 

away coal fired generation. The commenters said by the same token, wind or EE measures that 

operate at night or during periods when natural gas prices are low, are likely to reduce the need 

for baseload generation such as coal, nuclear or hydroelectric generation rather than NGCC 

generation. 

Commenters stated if EPA persists in computing state goals based on an assumption that states 

can implement the four-block BSER, the agency should, at a minimum, base state goals on a 

realistic evaluation of each building block's potential for reducing emissions in each state (in 

light of projected demand and the generation and consumption profile of the state); this 

evaluation must be supported by detailed modeling analyses or other data in support of the 

agency's conclusions. The commenters stated if EPA fails to conduct such an analysis to justify 

the achievability of the state goals, EPA should assume that all additions of incremental 

generation or EE displace future demand in the state. The commenters said because EPA cannot 

show with any certainty that increased NGCC, RE, nuclear, or EE generation will necessarily 

displace generation from affected EGUs (as opposed to displacing generation from future 

increases in demand or from unaffected sources such as simple cycle combustion turbines), EPA 

should not reduce generation from any affected units when adding in generation from additional 

NGCC, RE, nuclear, or EE measures in the goal-setting calculation. The commenters said 

therefore, EPA should not implement the proposal discussed in the October 2014 NODA. The 

commenters added EPA should revise its initial proposal to conform its approach to building 

block two with its approach to building blocks three and four; EPA can do so by adding 

generation and emissions from increases in redispatch to the numerator and denominator without 

reducing historic generation from coal-fired units in step two of the goal computation method. 

Commenters found the NODA approach problematic because, data about technical potential does 

not factor in many restrictions, which could lead to RE targets that may not be feasible to 

achieve. 

Commenters stated in its Notice of Data Availability, EPA proposes various goal computation 

methods that would directly replace existing fossil generation with new renewable energy 

generation or energy efficiency savings. The commenters disagreed with these methods that 

would make the current unattainable targets even more stringent, and therefore EPA should 

decline to adopt these goal-setting formula adjustments. The commenters asked if States are 

forced to eliminate a MWh of fossil fuel-fired baseload generation for each MWh of intermittent 

renewable generation or each increase in energy efficiency, then what will States do when the 

wind fails to blow or the sun does not shine; what will States do if energy efficiency 

improvements are offset by growth in demand for electricity. The commenters said worse than 

failing to respond to reliability concerns raised by the proposed rule, these methods would 

exacerbate them by replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables or 

unpredictable energy efficiency improvements. 

Commenters stated this revised approach, which would make state goals significantly more 

stringent, should not be adopted because it does not represent (or even approximate) the emission 

reductions that are achievable through application of BSER. The commenters said EPA's 

regulations require that state emission guidelines "reflect" the application of BSER; this means 

that EPA's calculation of state emission goals must accurately reflect the degree to which 

application of the BSER building blocks can reduce the emissions of affected EGUs. The 
468 

commenters said contrary to the assumptions that underlie the alternative goal-computation 

methodology described in the NODA, the addition of one MWh of incremental zero-carbon 

generation (or avoided generation) is unlikely to directly displace one MWh of generation from 

an existing affected EGU in the same state; for example, if electricity demand increases in the 

future (as it is expected to do under a business-as-usual scenario), the addition of incremental 

zero-carbon generation or EE could instead be used to meet the additional demand, rather than 

allowing existing EGU s to reduce their generation below baseline. The commenters said 

similarly, incremental RE or EE could displace the need to import power from neighboring 

states, to construct new NGCC capacity, or to operate non-covered units such as peaking cycle 

simple cycle combustion turbines or hydroelectric energy facilities. The commenters said under 

each of these scenarios, the addition of new, incremental RE and EE would not allow a state to 

reduce the emissions of affected units in the state. The commenters said were EPA to calculate 

state goals based on the erroneous assumption that addition of new zero-carbon generation or EE 

always reduces a state's affected unit generation below baseline, EPA would violate the 

requirement that state emission guidelines must reflect the application of BSER. 

Commenters stated adopting the NODA goal computation methodology would lead to 

unreasonable goals for states like Washington and Idaho, which would be expected to achieve 

statewide CO2 emission rates of 0 lbs. CO2/MWh by 2030; in other words, this approach would 

completely tie the hands of regulators and utilities in Idaho, Washington, and perhaps other 

states: no matter how much RE, EE, or nuclear energy these states are able to add in the future, it 

will be mathematically impossible to achieve a 0 lbs./MWh emission rate without closing all of 

their existing fossil EGUs. The commenters said for these states, and perhaps others, the 

Proposed Rule's much-touted "compliance flexibility" would be a total fiction. The commenters 

said such an approach would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the cooperative federalism 

approach laid out in section 111 (d) of the CAA. The commenters said EPA should not adopt the 

NODA's alternative approach to computing each state's emission rate goal. 

Commenters stated EPA should not adopt either approach to change the proposed numeric 

formula; both approaches would overestimate the potential emission reductions from RE and EE 

because they incorrectly assume that RE and EE can replace baseload fossil generation. The 

commenters said at this time, neither EPA nor other stakeholders can demonstrated that this 

would be technically feasible, as neither RE nor EE can provide the full range of essential grid 

services that are fundamental to ensuring the reliable delivery of electricity to consumers. 

Commenters stated [Replacing all Fossil Generation Prevents the Reliable Operation of the 

Interconnected Power System] the two revised approaches for calculating the state goals 

forwarded in the NODA are predicated on the incorrect assumption that all historic fossil 

generation could be replaced by renewable generation and decreased consumption. The 

commenters said while not discussed explicitly in the NODA, replacing all 2012 fossil 

generation in the numeric formula used to calculate the state goals likely would result in some 

state goals that are 0 lb CO2/MWh, meaning that these states would have to cease all operation 

of existing base load fossil generation. The commenters said neither EPA nor any stakeholder 

can demonstrate that, at present, the interconnected power system can be operated reliably 

without these critical base load resources; moreover, new renewable wind and solar resources are 

variable in nature and need to be backed-up when they are not operating. The commenters said 

EPA does not address how such back-up can be accomplished without reliance on at least some 
469 

fossil generation. The commenters said fossil-based baseload units play a critical role in ensuring 

the reliable operation of the bulk power system; at present, this role cannot be replaced by either 

renewable generation or EE measures; all electrons are not fungible. The commenters said RE 

and EE cannot provide key services provided by baseload resources that are essential for 

maintaining reliability, including frequency response, voltage support, load and resource 

balancing and inertia. The commenters said the NODA does not address how the alternate 

approaches to the numeric goal setting calculation would take into consideration these reliability 

considerations or how the interconnected power system could operate without fossil-based base 

load resources. The commenters said EPA cannot use a numeric formula that creates state goals 

that are inherently at odds with the reliable operation of the interconnected power system. 

Commenters stated the proposed state goals - which would be less stringent than goals calculated 

using either approach discussed in the NODA - will result in a dramatically changed electricity 

generation mix that has significant implications for reliability. The commenters said as NERC 

notes, the proposed guidelines "introduce potential reliability concerns that are more impactful 

than prior environmental compliance programs due to the extensive impact to fossil-fired 

generation... the ongoing transformation to the resource mix and corresponding impacts on 

[essential reliability services [ERS]] required to maintain a reliable [bulk power system]. The 

commenters said NERC identified two categories of reliability implications for the proposed 

state-specific emission rate goals: 1) direct impacts to resource adequacy and electric 

infrastructure; and 2) impacts resulting from the changing resource mix that occur as a result of 

replacing retiring generation, accommodating operating characteristics of new generation, 

integrating new technologies and imposing greater uncertainty in demand forecasts. The 

commenters said if the proposed goals, which would allow for some continued operation of 

existing fossil-based generation, create potential reliability concerns, goals that are predicated on 

the replacement of all existing fossil generation with RE and EE sources must raise more 

significant concerns. The commenters said EPA has not addressed how the alternative 

approaches to calculating the state goals are consistent with the reliable operation of the 

interconnected power system; the potential reductions achievable by Building Blocks 3 and 4 

cannot be measured in a vacuum. The commenters said EPA's approach to calculating the state 

goals must consider the potential impact the resulting goals would have on the interconnected 

power system. 

Commenters stated [Limiting the Reliable Integration of New RE Generation into the Grid] RE 

and EE not only cannot replace base load fossil generation in providing essential reliability 

services, but also place additional reliability demands on the interconnected power system and 

system planners. The commenters said as NERC notes, the proposed guidelines seek to more 

than double the energy capacity that currently is provided by variable energy resources, like 

wind and solar. "[W]ind projects will significantly increase the demand for reactive power and 

ramping flexibility"; further, "as the penetration of variable generation increases, maintaining 

voltage stability can be more challenging." The commenters said these demands, which must be 

met to ensure the reliable integration of variable renewable resources into the grid, are met only 

by fossil-based resources. The commenters said the proposed guidelines could prohibit the 

building of new natural gas-based units in some states because the emission rate goals are less 

than the emission rate to permit these units under CAA section 111(b). The commenters said 

under the alternate approaches to calculating state goals, many state goals would become 
470 

increasingly more stringent, further limiting the future construction of new units to support 

renewables integration. 

Commenters stated [Building Block 2 Reductions Compared to Reductions Achieved by 

Building Blocks 3 and 4] while these comments raise significant concerns about the level of redispatch that is possible under Building Block 2, to the extent that NGCC units are able to 

provide the same essential reliability services that are provided by existing coal-based units, it is 

appropriate to assume that generation from existing NGCCs could replace generation from coalbased steam EGUs in the proposed goal computation equation. The commenters said because RE 

and EE cannot provide the same services, EPA should not use a goal-setting calculation that 

assumes that these measures can replace fossil MWh on a one-for-one basis; for example, NGCC 

units do not have the same level of reliability as coal-fired units because onsite fuel storage is not

available. The commenters said it is appropriate to have different approaches to the different 

Building Blocks when calculating the state goals, as this recognizes the role that different 

measures can play in the reliable operation of the interconnected power system. 

Commenters stated the proposed approach to the numeric goal calculation is inconsistent with 

how utilities forecast load; as in the proposed numeric calculation, incremental RE and EE serve 

to meet (or avoid) load growth, avoiding new generation and the related emissions. The 

commenters said incremental RE and EE are used to reduce future demand and emissions, not 

typically reduce historic demand and emissions. 

Commenters stated essentially, U.S. EPA describes a calculation procedure that sums 2012 fossil 

generation (coal, natural gas combined cycled (NGCC), under construction NGCC, oil/gas steam 

and other), then subtracts from that the generation expected in 2029 from RE, EE and under 

construction nuclear, and then adds to that total 2029 generation from Building Block 3 (RE, 

nuclear) and Building Block 4 (EE). [TSD, Page 5, 6] This approach does not account for growth 

of any kind (with the exception of U.S. EPA's overly ambitious RE and EE mandates). The 

commenters said it is apparent that this approach ignores the multitude of projections by experts 

in the field, including the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the various Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO); 

electricity demand will increase, and generation will necessarily increase to meet this growing 

demand. The commenters said this TSD suggests that U.S. EPA is placing a limit on generation. 

Indeed, the document itself states, "the first concept is to recognize that the deployment of BSER 

measures will reduce generation from affected fossil fuel fired sources." The commenters said 

U.S. EPA cannot legally limit electricity generation and usage under a Section 111(d) regulation. 

Commenters stated EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") on October 28, 2014; 

the NODA seeks comment on a variety of proposed changes to the states "goal" setting without 

providing a revised rule or the associated time to fully comment on the proposed changes. The 

commenters said in the case of Wyoming, these potential "changes" may result in a significant 

further increase in the stringency of any final Wyoming and Montana compliance obligation, and 

with any increase to the stringency of the standard comes the incremental and unavoidable costs 

of compliance. 

Commenters were concerned about the significant impact of the very recent additional EPA 

proposal for creating a minimum value of re-dispatched coal to non-existent NGCC power plants 
471 

or to co-firing natural gas in existing coal-fueled boilers; further, EPA is proposing another 

potential means for increasing the stringency of a state "goal" by adding incremental renewable 

energy and energy efficiency to the "goal" which replaces coal-fueled generation pro-rata or 

prioritizes the re-dispatch of coal-fueled generation based on historic emissions. Commenters 

said in addition to the issues noted above as to the fundamental concerns associated with the 

Proposed Rule, EPA's NODA also discusses that the anticipated emission rate reductions 

calculated under building block 2 are inconsistent from state to state because certain states have 

little or no NGCC affected EGUs. Commenters said EPA then asserts that one way to address 

this discrepancy would be to require a floor on the amount of re-dispatch in each state; finally, 

EPA argues that for states with little or no existing NGCC units this floor could be achieved 

through the construction and utilization of new NGCC units. Commenters said there is nothing in 

the text of CAA 111(d) that even remotely suggests that EPA has the authority to set limits or 

require emission reductions for existing sources premised on the construction of new sources nor 

does EPA have the authority to require re-dispatch; accordingly, EPA is precluded from applying 

this approach in any final rule. 

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA briefly discusses the concept of using a regional 

approach to the redispatch of coal generation to natural gas generation under Building Block 

2; EPA provides absolutely no specifics on how such a regional approach would work, what the 

regions would be, how the approach would impact individual state goals, or how regional NGCC 

resources would be allocated in the context of individual state compliance determinations. The 

commenters said given the lack of detail (or support) in the NODA, the commenters cannot 

meaningfully comment on this concept; because EPA lacks the authority to require re-dispatch, it 

is precluded from setting standards in any final rule utilizing this approach. 

Commenters objected to the lateness of the NODA-raised issues in the comment period for the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters said it is especially concerning that EPA would seek comment 

on changing the goal without providing a new proposed rule; instead, EPA merely states "this 

adjustment to goal-setting formula would yield more stringent state goals." 

Commenters stated to modify the calculations to further reduce existing generation in the manner 

suggested by the NODA would be tantamount to dedicating all assumed incremental renewable 

generation and assumed incremental energy efficiency to displace generation from EGUs 

identified by EPA; thus, to the extent that load growth continues, emissions would simply 

increase from new generation resources and existing generation that the EPA has not identified 

as affected EGUs; however, the June 2014 proposed equation for establishing Mandatory Goals 

results in a megawatt-hour denominator for each State that is greater than the associated 2012 

baseline generation from the EGUs; as such, the June 2014 approach effectively assumes that the 

resources reflected in the building blocks are serving existing load as well as some level of load 

growth. 

Commenters stated further reducing generation from EGUs in the manner suggested by the 

NODA would, as a practical matter, result in cuts to existing generation much more drastic than 

anything contemplated by the Proposed Regulation. The commenters said this scenario would 

greatly exacerbate cost and reliability concerns. The commenters said in Virginia's case, the 

adjustment suggested by the NODA would produce Mandatory Goals that effectively represent 

52% (interim) and 75% (final) reductions in the 2012 levels of EGU 9 generation. The 
472 

commenters said such reductions obviously were not evaluated in any reliability analysis 

comparable to what federal law requires because they would undoubtedly produce capacity 

reserve deficiencies and the need for substantial transmission reinforcements, among other 

reliability concerns. Indeed, reductions of this magnitude are not contemplated in any of the 

analyses, technical support documents, or other information accompanying the Proposed 

Regulation. The commenters said such reductions would cut into the combined-cycle generation 

fleet in Virginia that EPA assumes would increase - not decrease - production as a result of the 

Clean Power Plan. The commenters urged the EPA to not modify its goal-setting formula in such 

a manner to effect further reductions in the Mandatory Goals. 

Commenters stated under this NODA, U.S. EPA is taking it a step further by now suggesting that 

co-firing of natural gas might be a practical option for consideration in goal setting. The 

commenters said U.S. EPA bases this new consideration on stakeholder's identifying the cobenefits of: reducing NOx, SO2, particulate and hazardous air pollutant emissions; providing 

additional operational flexibility for coal-fired units regularly used at less than full load or that 

cycle; allowing quick ramp-up and down providing an opportunity to take advantage of low fuel 

prices; allowing additional time for implementation of other building blocks that take more time; 

and low capital investment. The commenters said this suggestion faces the same problem as this 

entire proposal in that it is not practical, feasible or technically achievable to require coal-fired 

EGUs to use natural gas when there may not even be sufficient supply. The commenters said this 

cannot be a serious consideration when U.S. EPA has not even performed an analysis of 

technical feasibility or subsequent impacts on system reliability and natural gas costs. The 

commenters said U.S. EPA cannot use the co-benefit of reducing pollutants unrelated to the 

pollutant addressed by this proposed regulation, CO2, as justification for establishing a BSER. 

The commenters said if U.S. EPA is going to seriously consider a co-firing approach, it must 

abide by the APA and conduct a detailed analysis and re-propose this element. 

Commenters stated any further downward adjustment in the emissions rate goals will intensify 

reliability and excessive cost impacts of the CPP; EPA cannot legally lower emissions rate goals 

any further. 

Commenters stated the EPA offers several alternatives in establishing the BSER for each state 

and solicits comments on all of them. The commenters said the EPA lays out several options for 

establishing the BSER using combinations of the building blocks. The commenters strongly 

opposed the option of setting the BSER as only the first two building blocks55 (p.34836), 

because it would exclude the potential for renewables and efficiency to deliver significantly 

greater emissions reductions at reasonable cost. 

Commenters stated the impact of the NODA's two proposed calculations-both of which require 

states to reduce coal-based generation in proportion to incremental gains in renewable energybased generation and incremental emission avoidance supplied by increased energy efficiencywould be to reduce the amount of coal-fired generation states can rely on to meet electricity 

demand. Commenters said as with its proposed modification to Building Block 2, the NODA 

broadens the reach of its compulsory CO2 emission reduction provisions in a way that compels a 

fundamental redesign of the electric generation system in North Dakota. Commenters said in a 

state experiencing significant power demand growth, a compulsory reduction in any fossil-fueled 

power generation, whether it be coal or natural gas, will necessarily assure decreased system 
473 

reliability. Commenters said the tremendous amount of development taking place in western 

North Dakota Bakken oil fields is expected to increase power demand by more than 2,000 MW 

over the next several years. See Kadrmas, Lee and Jackson, Inc., Power Forecast 2012: Williston 

Basin Oil and Gas Related Electrical Load Growth Forecast 18-19 (October 2012). Commenters 

said reducing power generation, as proposed by EPA, is exactly the wrong thing to do and would 

place a severe stress on growth and development in the state. 

Comment 7: NODA; adds more confusion; The Public Cannot Reasonably Comment on 

Response 7: The EPA appreciates the public comments received on the NODA. The EPA is 

adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as described in the NODA. See 

sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has frustrated any ability of states to make an informed choice in 

response to the Proposed Rule; on October 28, 2014, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) for the Proposed Rule, which introduces substantial amounts of uncertainty into the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters said the press release accompanying the document states that 

such notices "do not change a proposal." The commenters said the NODA opens up the 

possibility of measuring attainment regionally rather than statewide. The commenters said the 

Proposed Rule itself was quite clear that emissions would be measured statewide; such lastminute shifts only worsen the situation for states, which cannot even plan ahead to know whether 

they will be measured on their own or, for example, combined with their neighbors. The 

commenters said indeed, the NODA acknowledges this dilemma and explains that EPA has no 

good answer for the problem of states isolated by regional pacts. The commenters said EPA 

solicits comments on how the BSER is calculated for each state, tacitly acknowledging that its 

numbers were calculated badly, but remains notably silent on the mandatory nature of the BSER; 

now state goals are left uncertain until the final rule is promulgated - at which point they will be 

set in stone. 

Commenters stated in a belated response to widespread criticism for the flaws in the Proposed 

Rule, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for the Proposed Rule (Docket No. 

EPA-HQOAR- 2013-0602; FRL-9918-53-OAR; RIN 2060-AR33) on October 28, 2014, 

soliciting comments on additional matters included in the Proposed Rule. The commenters said 

the press release accompanying the document states that such notices "do not change a proposal." 

The commenters said the NODA introduces substantial amounts of uncertainty into the Proposed 

Rules, for example opening up the possibility of measuring attainment regionally rather than 

statewide.175 The Proposed Rule itself was quite clear that emissions would be measured 

statewide.176 Such last-minute shifts only worsen the situation for states, who cannot even plan 

ahead to know whether they will be measured on their own or, for example, combined with their 

neighbors. The commenters said indeed, the NODA acknowledges this dilemma and explains 

that EPA has no good answer for the problem of "Balkanization": the prospect of states isolated 
474 

by regional pacts. The commenters said an individual state would be forced into a pact with other 

states or regulated on its own while other states combine with neighbors to average out their 

emissions. The commenters said the NODA does not at any point change the binding nature of 

the state goal determined by EPA. The commenters said EPA solicits comments on how the 

BSER is calculated for each state, tacitly acknowledging that its numbers were calculated poorly, 

but remains notably silent on the mandatory nature of the BSER; now state goals are left 

uncertain until the final rule is promulgated - at which point they will be set in stone. 

Commenters stated EPA has requested comment on numerous alternative approaches to setting 

BSER, computing state goals, and implementing state plans in both the October 2014 NODA and 

the Proposed Rule itself. The commenters said the sheer number of alternatives and the 

uncertainty involved in predicting how each alternative - both alone and in combination with 

other alternatives - would affect states and EGU owners is more reminiscent of an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking than a proposed rule. The commenters said more importantly, the 

proposal of all of these alternatives - some of which could significantly affect state goals and 

EGU obligations - fails to provide sufficient notice to the public to enable commenters to provide 

meaningful comments. The commenters said unless EPA provides additional notice of the 

potential impact of these alternatives and their effect on stakeholders, EPA should not adopt 

these alternatives; to do so would violate the spirit of CAA section 307(d), which requires EPA 

to specify the basis of its decisions in order to provide the public with sufficient notice and 

opportunity to comment. 

Commenters stated in the event the NODA approach is pursued, the commenters urged the EPA 

to provide stakeholders the opportunity to comment on this issue. 

Commenters stated the issues presented in the NODA have far ranging implications; in fact, EPA 

acknowledges that the various alternative approaches the Agency is now contemplating in the 

NODA could fundamentally alter the proposed emission guidelines and lead to more stringent 

goals for all or some states. The commenters said EPA also recognizes that many issues in the 

NODA - and the four Building Blocks generally - "interact with each other." The commenters 

said until EPA provides greater certainty on its preferred approach, states and impacted 

stakeholders cannot determine the ultimate stringency of a state's final goal; because of this 

fundamental ambiguity, EPA cannot finalize any of the changes discussed in this NODA without 

issuing a supplemental regulatory proposal that clarifies the Agency's position and provides the 

basis and purpose for its approach as required by Section 307(d)(3) and the APA. The 

commenters added in addition, the myriad of questions contained in the NODA confirms that 

EPA has not collected sufficient technical data to analyze the impact of the proposed guidelines; 

it is improper for stakeholders to comment on incomplete concepts that are devoid of contextual 

background and contain vague set of criteria. 

Commenters acknowledged and appreciated the issuance of the Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) issued October 28, 2014, and the Notice of Additional Information Regarding the 

translation of Emission Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents issued November 6, 

2014. While the commenters will be addressing some of the recently-released information, given 

the late issuance of the new information against the comment deadline of December 1, 2014, 

commenters stated the comments on this additional information should be considered only 

preliminary since it is not feasible to understand all of the potential impacts of this latest 
475 

information on the State of Nevada's goal or how it may impact companies' resource plans going 

forward. The commenters further noted that subsequent notices issued after the initial proposal 

seem to indicate that the Agency may be considering recalculation of state baselines and 

reduction targets, based in part on the outcome of stakeholder discussions conducted during the 

initial public comment period and/or other considerations; if the Clean Power Plan proposal were 

to be altered in any significant way and/or the state goals were to be materially different than the 

original proposal, then the commenters respectfully requested a subsequent review and public 

comment period be offered after such changes are incorporated. 

Commenters stated EPA's last-minute NODA only adds to the confusion and fails to remedy the 

flaws in EPA's original proposal. The commenters said in the NODA, published October 30, 

2014, EPA describes some selected stakeholder feedback it has received on the original proposal 

and solicits additional comment on selected topics; in fact, the NODA is not simply a "notice" of 

available data; it suggests substantive changes to EPA's approach. The commenters said indeed, 

EPA acknowledges that many of the concepts in the NODA would affect the stringency of the 

rule; however, EPA does not provide a quantification of how the state goals would change nor 

does it provide information indicating that EPA has evaluated the feasibility of the revisions, 

such as through modeling. 

Commenters stated EPA is coming to grips with the many infirmities and fundamental flaws in 

its original existing source proposal and attempting to shore up its rule before finalizing; but the 

NODA only scratches the surface of EPA's errors and fails to address at all the fundamental 

flaws in the rule. The commenters said to make matters worse, the NODA suggests substantive 

changes but does not provide any new proposal or changes to its original proposal - only a series 

of questions about topics that EPA apparently did not consider before and has no coherent view 

on how to proceed now. The commenters said the timing of the NODA is also prejudicial to the 

vast majority of stakeholders other than perhaps the selected stakeholders that EPA is choosing 

to address. The commenters said EPA is suggesting substantive changes to the rule but only 

providing 32 days to comment, a clearly insufficient time to fully review and develop thoughtful 

and meaningful responses to the new concepts and data. The commenters said the NODA also 

necessitates a further extension of the comment deadline on the original proposal so that 

commenters can attempt to understand how the NODA would affect the comments already under 

development. 

Commenters stated even in the limited time available, EPA's misconceptions are apparent in the 

NODA. The commenters said the NODA provides discussion and requests comment around 

three specific areas: the 2020-2029 glide path, certain aspects of the building blocks, and 

implementation of the goal-setting equation; but without sufficient information about the how 

EPA would revise its goal calculation and any analysis of how these undefined changes would 

affect electricity generation, grid reliability, and cost, the commenters can only provide limited 

general comments regarding these options. The commenters said should EPA decide to alter its 

original proposal in any way based on information in the NODA, it is required by the CAA to 

issue a new proposal and seek public comment. 

Commenters stated U.S. EPA has yet to provide stakeholders with a legitimate and workable 

approach that stakeholders can provide meaningful comment on regarding a rate-to-mass 
476 

conversion. The commenters said U.S. EPA must re-propose an approach that addresses 

stakeholder concerns and questions including the legality of the entire approach. 

Commenters expected that EPA will make substantial changes to the proposal as necessary based 

on data and technical corrections and in response to public comments. The commenters said 

states and other stakeholders deserve the opportunity for further review and comment after 

significant changes, such as adjusted goals and fundamental changes to the building blocks 

methodology and framework of the rule. The commenters strongly suggested that EPA issue a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA), or multiple notices as needed, that provides any corrections 

and the adjusted goals for review and comment several months prior to rule finalization. 

Commenters stated EPA's NODA seeks comment on a variety of proposed changes to the states 

"goal" setting without providing a revised rule or the associated time to fully comment on the 

proposed changes; in the case of Colorado, these potential "changes" may result in a significant 

further increase in the stringency of any final Colorado compliance obligation, and with any 

increase to the stringency of the standard comes the incremental and unavoidable costs of 

compliance. 

Commenters were concerned about the significant impact of the very recent additional EPA 

proposal for creating a minimum value of re-dispatched coal to non-existent NGCC power plants 

or to co-firing natural gas in existing coal-fired boilers. The commenters said further, EPA is 

proposing another potential means for increasing the stringency of a state "goal" by adding 

incremental renewable energy and EE to the "goal" which replaces fossil generation pro-rata or 

prioritizes the re-dispatch of fossil generation based on historic emissions; in addition to these 

substantive infirmities in the NODA, the commenters objected to the lateness of the NODAraised issues in the comment period for the Proposed Rule. The commenters said it is especially 

concerning that EPA would seek comment on changing the goal without providing a new 

proposed rule; instead, EPA merely states "this adjustment to goal-setting formula would yield 

more stringent state goals." 

Comment 8: NODA; EPA solicited comments; responses 

Response 8: The EPA is revising the interim goal dates and adopting the alternative approach 

from the proposal, modified as described in the NODA. See sections I.A., V.A., V.D., V.E, and 

VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the NODA published on October 28, 2014, EPA solicited comment on a 

variety of issues in addition to commenting on the June 18, 2014 proposal regarding carbon 

emission guidelines for EGU units. The commenters provided comment in the paragraphs below 

on issues brought forth in the NODA. 
477 

Commenters stated regarding Building Block 2 and NGCC re-distribution, EPA solicited 

comment on whether to establish some minimum value as a floor for the amount of generation 

shift for purposes of Building Block 2; EPA also solicited comment on what this value should 

be, and how this approach (to add a minimum requirement for states that currently have little or 

no NGCC capacity) should relate to the proposed approach in the June 18, 2014 proposal. The 

commenters did not believe there should be a minimum value as a floor regarding a generation 

shift of current fossil fuel generation to NGCC; this obstructs flexibility that EPA has 

championed in the June proposal, and establishing a NGCC minimum for Wyoming is beyond 

the scope and jurisdiction of any regulatory authority under Section 111(d) of the CAA. The 

commenters believed if EPA is going to continue with the methodology of Building Block 2, 

EPA should only use the output of CPGS (95 MW) in this step of the proposal. 

Commenters stated EPA requested comment on various issues regarding the costs and potential 

benefits of co-firing natural gas at existing coal plants. The commenters believed requiring any 

co-firing at any existing coal plants is another obstruction to both innovation and flexibility in 

meeting the proposed requirements of this rule. 

Commenters stated EPA also requested comment and justification on several assumptions 

regarding a new, regionalized approach for RE generation that has been suggested in other 

comments. The commenters believed it is impractical to justify a change to regional groupings 

when the data used for individual states is in question; additionally, the commenters were not 

able to comment on other stakeholder proposals that involve Wyoming, as such proposals will 

not be available until after the comment period. Therefore, the commenters did not have the best 

available data to accurately determine any potential regional groupings in just over a month, 

when EPA has had over a year to develop and hone the regional groupings utilized in this 

proposal. The commenters said to further comment on other potential groupings that EPA is 

seeking comment on, the commenters believed that any state which becomes "isolated," if a new 

regional grouping is accepted, should be allowed to stay isolated given the unique characteristics 

and challenges that led the state to not be grouped in the first place. The commenters said in 

continuing the regional grouping of states, the commenter believe Wyoming should not be 

grouped with other states for purposes of NGCC, RE development, or a combination thereof, due 

to Wyoming's unique energy portfolio, current infrastructure, and land ownership issues. The 

commenters believed any change to the regional grouping of states is inappropriate and only 

adds further obstacles to state flexibility. The commenters said EPA should focus on ensuring the 

NGCC and RE potential in each individual state is correct. 

Commenters believed any changes to the current BSER structure in the original proposal 

requires this proposal to be re-proposed for additional comment; EPA may not ask for additional 

comments on alternate methodologies so late in the commenting period without allowing 

additional time for a thorough evaluation. The commenters believed there should be more time to 

respond to these additional requests for comment, which stem from earlier comments by other 

stakeholders responding to this proposed rule; to ask for this quantity of comments on alternate 

proposals at this time, for both the Proposed Rule and the NODA, suggest that EPA has not 

adequately defined BSER; thus, EPA must re-propose this rule after reviewing all the comments 

received by December 1, 2014 for this rule and the supporting literature therein. 
478 

Commenters stated EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") on October 28, 2014; 

the NODA seeks comment on a variety of proposed changes to the states "goal" setting without 

providing a revised rule or the associated time to fully comment on the proposed changes. The 

commenters said in the case of North Dakota, these potential "changes" may result in a 

significant further increase in the stringency of any final North Dakota compliance obligation, 

and with any increase to the stringency of the standard comes the incremental and unavoidable 

costs of compliance. 

The commenters were concerned about the significant impact of the very recent additional EPA 

proposal for creating a minimum value of redispatched coal to non-existent NGCC power plants 

or to co-firing natural gas in existing coal-fired boilers. The commenters said EPA is proposing 

another potential means for increasing the stringency of a state "goal" by adding incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency to the "goal" which replaces fossil generation pro rata or 

prioritizes the re-dispatch of fossil generation based on historic emissions. In addition to these 

substantive infirmities in the NODA, the commenters objected to the lateness of the NODAraised issues in the comment period for the Proposed Rule. The commenters said it is especially 

concerning that EPA would seek comment on changing the goal without providing a new 

proposed rule. Instead, EPA merely states "this adjustment to goal-setting formula would yield 

more stringent state goals." 

The commenters stated their position on issues raised by the NODA are: 

1. EPA should eliminate the interim goal. 

2. lf EPA retains an interim goal, EPA should allow North Dakota credit for early 

adoption of renewable energy in demonstrating compliance with the interim goal. 

3. EPA should adjust the interim goal to account for the realities associated with 

increased utilization of natural gas generation. 

4. Any final rule must allow states to consider remaining useful life and other factors in 

applying standards of performance to any particular source. 

5. EPA has not undertaken the technical or economic analyses required to adjust the 

Building Block 3 and 4 methodologies. 

6. EPA cannot reply on an unidentified "regional approach" to calculating renewable 

energy requirements in any final rule. 

7. EPA lacks the legal authority to establish emission rate requirements premised on the 

redispatch of coal-fired generation to new natural gas combined cycle EGUs. 

8. EPA has failed to adequately demonstrate that co-firing with natural gas at existing 

coal-fired EGUs represents BSER; the fact that no lignite-fired units in North Dakota 

have co-fired with natural gas, and, to our knowledge, no lignite-fired plants anywhere in 

the U.S. have co-fired with natural gas, indicates that for the significant subcategory of 

lignite-fired plants, co-firing with natural gas has particularly not been "adequately 

demonstrated" to be considered BSER. 
479 

9. EPA cannot proceed with utilizing a regional approach for Building Block 2 without 

providing greater specificity and undertaking the required technical and economic 

analyses. 

10. The commenters believed EPA must provide greater specificity regarding the impacts 

of utilizing baseline data from 2010 and 2011 on individual state requirements 

Comment 9: NODA - BB 3 & 4 Calculation 

Response 9: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the NODA requests comment on how the goal-setting calculation should be 

implemented with respect to the application of building blocks 3 and 4; the USEPA proposes 

either replacing 2012 fossil generation on a pro rata basis or prioritizing replacement of 2012 

coal-fired generation for goal setting. The commenters said both approaches assume that 

incremental renewable energy generation and generation avoided through energy efficiency 

measures are equivalent to fossil generation; however, neither RE nor EE can be used to meet 

baseload requirements because of their variable nature and can only supplement existing fossil 

fuel-fired generation. Therefore, the commenters supported the use of a goal-setting equation that 

applies RE and EE to the denominator. 

Commenters did not recommend that EPA change the approach used to estimate a state's RE for 

goal setting, other than making the refinements in the methodology described previously in these 

comments. 

Commenters added EPA's approach to including Building Blocks 3 and 4 in the goal calculation 

as proposed on June 18, 2014, is more appropriate than the alternatives proposed in the NODA. 

The commenters said as EPA indicates, its original approach allows states to use EE and RE to 

offset load growth that may result in increased usage of the affected EGUs. The commenters said 

in Arizona, which is a growing state with population expected to grow by 36 percent from 2012 

to 2030, accounting for such growth is important. The commenters said since EPA has not 

provided for any other allowance for load growth in the goal calculation, the 

commenters believed that EPA's original approach at least provides for some level of growth in 

the goal setting. 

Commenters stated it would be inappropriate to adjust the EPA's proposed goal calculation to 

assume the displacement of fossil generation with energy provided by Blocks 3 and 4. The 

commenters said first, EPA cannot assume that variable renewable generation and energy 

efficiency have equal capability in replacing base load power resources; second, this poses 
480 

significant risk to reliability because of the role that fossil-fuel generation supports in the 

interconnected bulk power system including: resource adequacy; load balancing, and supporting 

ancillary grid services for voltage and frequency response; third, the EPA has not demonstrated 

that this qualifies as BSER, let alone is technically feasible. The commenters said for these 

reasons, it would not be appropriate to treat Block 2 the same as Blocks 3 and 4; therefore, EPA's 

proposed approach in the NODA to calculate state goals should not assume incremental 

renewables and energy efficiency replace fossil generation using either methodology (pro-rata or 

prioritization). 

Commenters stated in the October 2014 NODA, the EPA requests comment on an alternative 

approach to calculating state goals in which generation from incremental EE and RE (in Building 

Blocks Three and Four) would be assumed to displace historic fossil-fueled generation. The 

commenters said this revised approach would make state goals significantly more stringent; the 

EPA should not adopt this approach because it would not reflect the emission reductions that are 

actually achievable through application of the BSER. 

Commenters stated under the EPA's regulations, state emission guidelines must "reflect" the 

application of the BSER. The commenters interpreted this requirement to mean that the 

quantification of state emission goals must accurately reflect the degree of emission reductions 

from existing EGUs that can be achieved in reality through application of the BSER Building 

Blocks. The commenters said in practice, the degree to which Building Blocks Two, Three, and 

Four can reduce emissions at existing fossil-fueled generating units will depend on a number of 

factors, including regional load growth, the attributes of the existing electricity generation and 

transmission system, and the attributes of each particular Building Block measure. 

Commenters stated for example, if electric load increases significantly in the future due to 

economic growth or new technologies (such as electric vehicles), the addition of incremental 

NGCC or RE generation or implementation of additional EE savings could have little or no 

effect on emissions from existing EGUs-especially if load growth equals or exceeds the 

additional expected generation from the BSER Building Blocks; on the other hand, where the 

proposed increases in NGCC, RE, nuclear, and EE generation exceed expected system-wide 

electrical demand, it is reasonable to assume that some existing fossil generation will be reduced 

below historic levels so that electrical supply and demand remain in balance. 

Commenters stated the system's attributes will also have a significant effect on the ability of the 

Building Blocks to reduce emissions; for example, because electricity markets operate across 

numerous states, the addition of NGCC or RE generation in one state may lead to reduced 

generation in a neighboring state, while having no impact on generation in the "home" state; 

similarly, the addition of new wind or solar generation or EE could displace the need for 

additional generation from simple cycle combustion turbines (which generally are not regulated 

by the Proposed Rule), rather than affected coal-fired or NGCC EGUs. 

Commenters stated thus, the ability of each Building Block to reduce emissions from affected 

EGUs is highly dependent on the attributes of the system in which it operates, the timing, 

location, and characteristics of the Building Block measure, and other factors such as weather, 

technology, and economic growth; rather than attempting to project or quantify each of these 

variables, the EPA's initial approach to quantifying what emission reductions may be achievable 
481 

reflects a reasonable assumption that future increases in NGCC generation will tend to reduce 

coal-fired emissions below baseline, whereas incremental RE and EE will, on average, enable the 

generating system to meet future increases in electricity demand, but will not significantly reduce 

the emissions of existing EGUs below historic levels. The commenters said in contrast, EPA's 

proposal to change the goal computation methodology in the October 2014 NODA would reflect 

the unrealistic assumption that every MWh of added RE or EE can displace an equivalent 

amount of existing fossil generation in the state. The commenters said this assumption is unlikely 

to be reflected in states' actual emission performance. The commenters added it would lead to the 

arguably undesirable result that states like Washington and Idaho would be expected to achieve 

an emission rate of 0 lbs. CO2/MWh by 2030. The commenters said the EPA should retain its 

original proposal for quantifying the expected emission reductions from application of the four 

Building Blocks, and should not adopt the alternative discussed in the October 2014 NODA. 

Commenters stated EPA should not implement either of the alternative proposals for changing 

the accounting of building blocks #3 and #4 mentioned in Sections III.C.1.a and III.C.1.b of the 

October NODA. The commenters said EPA's primary proposal in the June draft rule is an 

oversimplification of the electricity sector because it implicitly assumed that increased renewable 

electricity and energy efficiency generation are used to offset future increases in electricity 

generation from existing fossil generating units; however, it's a superior option to the alternatives 

proposed in Section III.C.1 of the October NODA. 

Commenters stated it would be a mistake for EPA to interpret increases in renewable energy and 

energy efficiency generation as decreases in generation from existing fossil generation for the 

setting of state carbon emission rate targets without also incorporating electricity generation 

growth into the model; there is little proof that either renewable electricity generation or energy 

efficiency reduces generation from existing power plants; instead, both resources are more likely 

to avoid increases in electricity generation from fossil fuel-fired power plants. 

Commenters stated it would be a gross oversimplification of the electricity sector to assume that 

new renewable energy and energy efficiency generation can offset fossil generation on a one-toone basis because of the different characteristics of the resources; for instance, most renewable 

energy generation is variable depending upon the natural resource being utilized and is not 

dispatchable, limiting its ability to completely replace most coal and natural gas combined cycle 

generation that operates as baseload electricity generation. The commenters said similarly, the 

impacts of energy efficiency are typically felt differently throughout the day, depending upon the 

type of efficiency measure implemented and when during the day and year it has the most impact 

on electricity consumption. 

Commenters stated using either alternative proposal from Section III.C.1 would require EPA to 

tailor assumptions for each state to anticipate what percentage of future electricity consumption 

growth would be met from existing electricity generating units in a business as usual scenario, 

which would vary from state to state depending upon a number of factors; EPA would also need 

to develop state-specific assumptions for how much renewable energy and energy efficiency 

generation would be able to offset fossil generation in the state and/or region. The commenters 

said the end result would be a significantly more complex methodology for determining a state's 

interim and final emission rate targets that would likely not be significantly different from the 

draft rule targets nor would they be any better an approximation of the impact of the proposed 
482 

Clean Power Plan for existing generating units than the draft rule. The commenters said EPA 

should stick to the simple methodology used in the draft rule for how to treat building blocks 3 

and 4. 

Commenters stated in the October 28 NODA, EPA requests comments on approaches for 

revising the state goal-setting formula to address the concern that incremental renewable energy 

and energy efficiency do not replace existing fossil generation in the building block calculation; 

some EPA stakeholders claim that this approach would more closely align incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency with increased natural gas dispatch under Building 

Block 2 that replaces existing coal generation. The commenters said in other words, EPA is 

requesting comments on approaches that would not just add incremental renewable energy and 

energy efficiency to the denominator of the state goal-setting formula, but that would 

simultaneously offset fossil steam generation and emissions from the denominator of the 

formula. The commenters said this proposed approach would reduce emissions in the numerator 

without adding (or adding only a portion) of the incremental renewable energy or energy 

efficiency to the denominator. Commenters opposed this type of approach to calculating state 

goals for incremental renewable energy, because new renewable energy sources (and energy 

efficiency) compete against new generation to accommodate load growth (i.e. incremental 

generation) and belongs only in the denominator of the goal-setting equation without a 

corresponding reduction in the emissions from the numerator. The commenters said if there were 

emissions associated with new incremental generation from one of the building blocks, then 

these would be included in the numerator; however, emissions from new fossil generation (i.e. 

from new natural gas plants) would be subject to the Clean Air Act Section 111(b) standards for 

new sources and would therefore fall outside the calculation methodology for determining a 

state's emission reduction goal using the best system of emission reduction for existing sources. 

The commenters said essentially, incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency offset 

incremental load growth and emissions that would otherwise be addressed by new fossil 

generation plants, whose emissions standards would fall outside the authority of the proposed 

rule for existing sources. The commenters said applying this rationale would allow only the 

increased utilization of existing natural gas generation to displace other existing fossil generation 

in the building block formula, which is how EPA has constructed the goal-setting building 

blocks in the June 2014 proposed rule. 

Commenters stated EPA should assume that incremental RE and EE first displace growth in 

fossil generation and then replace generation from either NGCC units or from the fossil fleet on a 

pro rata basis, if EPA assumes these incremental measures displace fossil generation at all. The 

commenters said EPA solicits comment on approaches to apply generation from building blocks 

3 and 4 to reduce fossil generation in the goal calculation; they discuss approaches to displace 

either historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis or prioritizing fossil steam generation and 

also ask whether incremental RE and EE should first be assumed to displace future growth in 

fossil generation. The commenters said if EPA assumes that incremental RE and EE displaces 

fossil generation in the goal calculation formula, they must assume that this incremental 

generation would first displace growth in fossil energy sources (i.e., new fossil generation) 

before displacing any existing generation. The commenters said an alternative means of 

determining how RE and EE displaces generation is to model these actions along with the other 

building blocks; a modeling exercise will show how actions offset generation though the entire 

electric supply system. The commenters said if EPA assumes that these incremental measures 
483 

(RE and EE) displace fossil generation, they should be assumed to do so in a pro rata (i.e., 

proportional) manner or be assumed to replace NGCC generation. The commenters said it is 

completely unrealistic to assume these measures would preferentially displace coal steam 

generation; RE generation is inherently intermittent and tends to displace other, more easily 

dispatchable electricity sources such as NGCC units instead of baseload coal power. The 

commenters said EPA often assumes that NGCC units are the marginal units on the grid, so it is 

more likely that incremental RE and EE would displace these units; at the very least, EPA should 

assume that incremental RE and EE displace fossil generation on a pro rata basis. The 

commenters added if EPA uses any calculations of future growth rates in its goal-setting 

methodology, they should use growth rates that are derived from the ISOs and RTOs, rather than 

the regional estimates from EIA. The commenters said MISO, the Midcontinent ISO that 

includes Wisconsin, uses a growth rate of 0.8% per year for states in the ISO, whereas EPA used 

a much lower estimate of 0.40% per year based on EIA's estimates for the MRO East region. The 

commenters said the ISOs and RTOs are in the best position to forecast future growth, and EPA 

should rely on them for any growth rates used. The commenters said this question also highlights 

the importance of EPA conducting a system-wide analysis of the impacts of applying all of the 

building blocks together rather than the piecemeal analysis they have done. 

Commenters stated EPA seeks comment is how Building Blocks 3 and 4 are treated in setting the 

state emission goals in the NODA. The commenters said Building Block 3 involves EPA's 

treatment and assumptions regarding RE and nuclear energy generation; in particular, EPA 

projects that states can achieve a certain level of RE over the 2020-2030 time frame. The 

commenters said in the Proposed Rule, electricity generated by RE is added to a state's baseline 

(2012) generation level; this number is then divided into the state's GHG emissions to produce an 

emission rate goal, expressed in lbs CO2/MWh. The commenters said as more RE generation is 

added to the generation (denominator), with no change to the emissions (numerator), the effect is 

to make the emission rate goal more stringent. The commenters said under Building Block 4, EE 

is treated similarly; as energy efficiency measures are installed, EPA projects that the measures 

reduce electric consumption by some amount; that reduced consumption (MWh) similarly is 

added to the denominator, making the emission rate goal more stringent. 

Commenters stated EPA notes that it had received comment from some stakeholders suggesting 

that EPA should adjust the numerator and denominator downward based on the assumption that 

the proposed RE and EE activities will result in a decrease in generation and emissions from 

existing fossil units; EPA also seeks comment on whether EPA should (1) presume that coalfired generation is displaced first, or (2) use an average emission level based on all fossil 

generation; the effect of either would be to make both interim and final state emission rate goals 

substantially more stringent. 

Commenters objected to this approach; the approach simply is not based in reality, over 

estimates the effect of EE and RE on emissions, and completely ignores load growth on electric 

systems. The commenters said EPA has set unrealistic RE goals; EPA projects an RE growth rate 

for Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas based on a regional average that ignores the lack of RE 

potential in these states. The commenters said in the Proposed Rule, EPA incorrectly has stated 

that it expects there to be no increase in electric demand as a result of the EE programs that EPA 

effectively is mandating. The commenters have been implementing EE programs in some of its 

states for many years and, contrary to EPA's assumption, load and electric demand continue to 
484 

increase. The commenters said assuming that the EE programs will reduce existing fossil 

generation is simply wrong; at most, EE will slow the growth in electricity demand over the next 

decades. The commenters said as for RE, EPA's projections of RE potential are dramatically 

overstated. The commenters stated simply do not have such RE potential; thus, for EPA to 

presume that hypothetical (but unattainable) RE generation will reduce existing fossil generation 

would be arbitrary and capricious. 

Commenters stated EPA seeks comment on whether it should presume that emissions from coalfired generation should be preferentially used when adjusting the numerator or whether some 

weighted average of all fossil emissions should be used. The commenters said EPA should do 

neither; however, if EPA elects to adjust the numerator, EPA must recognize that electric 

systems (whether a utility, ISO, or other balancing authority) will reduce generation from the 

highest variable cost units first and not, as EPA suggests, based on the fact that "because fossil 

steam generation has higher carbon intensity, it should be replaced before NGCC 

generation." The commenters said thus, as RE comes online, the units that will be backed off 

generally will be legacy oil and gas steam units, peaking combustion turbine units, NGCCs, and 

then baseload coal units; in some cases, where few peaking and NGCC units are available, loadfollowing coal units may be used to reduce generation. 

Commenters stated EPA's NODA published on October 30, provides another approach to the 

goal setting calculation that would include accounting for displacement of fossil generation by 

renewable generation (Block 3) and energy efficiency (Block 4); the NODA (79 Fed. Reg. at 

64,552) seeks comment on alternative approaches whereby incremental renewables and energy 

efficiency would (1) be assumed to replace 2012 steam generation and NGCC generation levels 

on a pro rata basis (i.e., in proportion to each generation type's historical generation) or (2) be 

assumed to displace fossil steam generation below 2012 levels first and then replace all fossil 

generation pro rata. Commenters believed it would be inappropriate to adjust the EPA's proposed 

goal calculation to assume the displacement of fossil generation with energy provided by Blocks 

3 and 4. The commenters said little, if any, of the Block 3 and 4 energy would be available to 

displace fossil generation, as most or all of the energy would likely be required to meet the 

growth in electrical load after 2012. The commenters said this can be demonstrated using EPA's 

goal calculation spreadsheet and the data file provided with EPA's Technical Support Document 

"Translation of the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based 

Equivalents," published on November 6, 2014. 

Commenters stated as of 2029, the EPA's goal calculation spreadsheet shows a nationwide total 

of approximately 313.6 million MWh of incremental RE generation and 380.6 million MWh of 

EE avoided generation, for a total of 694.2 million MWh of energy from Blocks 3 and 4. 

Commenters stated the analysis in the EPA's rate-to-mass translation data file shows an increase 

in the need for annual generation of approximately 577.1 million MWh between 2012 and 2029; 

this is equivalent to over 83 percent of the energy assumed to be provided by Blocks 3 and 4. 

The commenters said however, this comparison understates the amount of additional generation 

that would actually be required, since the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) forecast on which it is 

based is net of the effect of energy efficiency measures. Commenters stated since the Block 4 

calculation determines the total, rather than incremental, potential for energy efficiency, existing 

energy efficiency measures must be removed from the AEO forecast, resulting in higher load 

growth than assumed by EPA; therefore, it is likely that most or all of the energy from Blocks 3 
485 

and 4 will be required to serve new load, leaving little or no energy available to displace existing 

fossil generation. The commenters said as a result, EPA should retain its treatment of Block 3 

and 4 energy, as originally proposed. 

Commenters stated in the event that EPA nonetheless determines that some or all of the energy 

from Blocks 3 and 4 should displace fossil generation in the goal-setting calculation, EPA's 

spreadsheet analysis is too simplistic to accurately account for the interaction between the four 

blocks used to achieve the CO2 rate goal. The commenters said it is one thing to simulate redispatch from coal and oil/gas steam EGUs to NGCCs in a simple spreadsheet, since these are 

dispatchable resources which can operate at intermediate or baseload duty cycles; however, it is 

entirely different to include renewables and energy efficiency, which are typically nondispatchable. 

Commenters stated the alternative approach that the Agency presents in the NODA - to apply 

generation from building blocks 3 and 4 to reduce fossil generation below 2012 levels in the goal 

calculations - would only serve to exacerbate the infeasibility and inflexibility of the currently 

proposed performance goals, and should therefore not be incorporated. The commenters said 

while fossil fuel generation is a steady source of base load power, renewable energy generation is 

intermittent and there are not sufficient EE reduction opportunities to make up for loss of base 

load power, taking into account the projected increase in electricity demand. 

Commenters stated both proposals [2 options for revising the goal calculation methodology 

presented in NODA] are unsound and should not be adopted. The commenters said in reality, the 

effect that additional generation from existing or new NGCC units, nuclear reactors, or RE and 

EE sources will have on emissions from affected fossil fuel EGUs will depend on at least two 

factors: demand for electricity and the attributes (including dispatchability) of the new generation 

source. The commenters said first, although electricity demand growth has been slow in recent 

years, demand could well increase if state or national economies improve, if weather patterns 

change, or if new technologies (such as electric vehicles) lead to increased demand in the future; 

for example, EIA's baseline projection-which makes conservative assumptions about economic 

growth and other factors leading to increased demand - predicts an annual increase in demand 

growth of 1% through 2040, which will require the addition of 351 GW of new electric 

generating capacity nationwide. The commenters said existing generating units whose capital 

costs have already been recovered and whose only going-forward costs are fuel, maintenance, 

and operating costs are usually the lowest-cost source of electricity; therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect that the addition of some incremental generation will displace future generation increases 

from existing sources, rather than reducing existing sources' generation levels below historic 

levels; however, in cases where the required increase in NGCC, RE, nuclear, and EE generation 

exceeds demand growth, it is reasonable to assume that some existing generation will be "dialed 

back" relative to historic levels (note that because of the interstate nature of the electric grid, the 

generation that will be dialed back may not be located in state that implemented the increase in 

NGCC, RE, nuclear, or EE generation or savings). 

Commenters stated second, the ability of any given source of generation to displace generation 

from another source will depend in large part on the attributes of the incremental generation 

source and the characteristics of the existing system; thus, for example, incremental resources 

such as wind and solar power - as well as some EE measures - will preferentially displace natural 
486 

gas generation (including generation at simple cycle turbines that are generally excluded from 

the Proposed Rule). The commenters said the reason for this is that natural gas turbines are 

uniquely capable of quickly ramping up and down to coordinate with fluctuating generation from 

intermittent renewables. The commenters said coal and nuclear generation, on the other hand, are 

less likely to be displaced by the addition of new non-dispatchable resources; on the other hand, 

increases in NGCC generation are likely to displace either other NGCC generation or generation 

from baseload units such as coal and nuclear, as well as some geothermal and biomass facilities, 

because each of these facilities also is capable of operating on a baseload basis. The commenters 

said the location and timing of the incremental generation will also affect the kind of generation 

it displaces, if any; for example, incremental RE or EE that is located in an area that is mostly 

served by NGCCs is far more likely to displace that NGCC generation than it is to displace faraway coal fired generation. The commenters said by the same token, wind or EE measures that 

operate at night or during periods when natural gas prices are low, are likely to reduce the need 

for baseload generation such as coal, nuclear or hydroelectric generation rather than NGCC 

generation. 

Commenters stated as a general matter, the Proposed Rule fails to justify any of the methods of 

calculating state goals that EPA proposes; although all approaches make implicit assumptions 

about future changes in demand, neither approach attempts to quantify or predict the level of 

increased demand states will face in the future, or to evaluate whether the implicit assumptions 

about demand are accurate. The commenters said similarly, both approaches fail to quantify the 

likely impact of implementing each particular BSER measure in light of the existing 

characteristics of the power grid and the projected characteristics of the incremental generation 

source or EE measure. The commenters said EPA's failure to examine the actual impacts of 

implementing the BSER as proposed renders this aspect of the rule arbitrary and capricious given 

that there is no factual foundation established in the record for the alternative methodology for 

the goal calculation. The commenters said if EPA persists in computing state goals based on an 

assumption that states can implement the four-block BSER, the agency should, at a minimum, 

base state goals on a realistic evaluation of each building block's potential for reducing emissions 

in each state (in light of projected demand and the generation and consumption profile of the 

state). The commenters said this evaluation must be supported by detailed modeling analyses or 

other data in support of the agency's conclusions. 

Commenters stated if EPA fails to conduct such an analysis to justify the achievability of the 

state goals, EPA should assume that all additions of incremental generation or EE displace future 

demand in the state; because EPA cannot show with any certainty that increased NGCC, RE, 

nuclear, or EE generation will necessarily displace generation from affected EGUs (as opposed 

to displacing generation from future increases in demand or from unaffected sources such as 

simple cycle combustion turbines), EPA should not reduce generation from any affected units 

when adding in generation from additional NGCC, RE, nuclear, or EE measures in the goalsetting calculation; therefore, EPA should not implement the proposal discussed in the NODA. 

The commenters added EPA should revise its initial proposal to conform its approach to building 

block two with its approach to building blocks three and four; EPA can do so by adding 

generation and emissions from increases in redispatch to the numerator and denominator without 

reducing historic generation from coal-fired units in step two of the goal computation method. 
487 

Commenters stated it would be inappropriate to adjust the EPA's proposed goal calculation to 

assume the displacement of fossil generation with energy provided by Blocks 3 and 4. The 

commenters said little, if any, of the Block 3 and 4 energy would be available to displace fossil 

generation, as most or all of the energy would likely be required to meet the growth in electrical 

load after 2012. The commenters said this can be demonstrated using EPA's goal calculation 

spreadsheet and the data file provided with EPA's Technical Support Document "Translation of 

the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents," published 

on November 6, 2014. 

• As of 2029, the EPA's goal calculation spreadsheet shows a nationwide total of 

approximately 313.6 million MWh of incremental RE generation and 380.6 

million MWh of EE avoided generation, for a total of 694.2 million MWh of 

energy from Blocks 3 and 4. 

• The analysis in the EPA's rate-to-mass translation data file shows an increase in 

the need for annual generation of approximately 577.1 million MWh between 

2012 and 2029; this is equivalent to over 83 percent of the energy assumed to be 

provided by Blocks 3 and 4. 

• However, this comparison understates the amount of additional generation that 

would actually be required, since the Annual Energy Outlook forecast on which it 

is based is net of the effect of energy efficiency measures. 

The commenters said since the Block 4 calculation determines the total, rather than incremental, 

potential for energy efficiency, existing energy efficiency measures must be removed from the 

AEO forecast, resulting in higher load growth than assumed by EPA; therefore, it is likely that 

most or all of the energy from Blocks 3 and 4 will be required to serve new load, leaving little or 

no energy available to displace existing fossil generation. As a result, EPA should retain its 

treatment of Block 3 and 4 energy as originally proposed. 

The commenters said in the event that EPA nonetheless determines that some or all of the energy 

from Blocks 3 and 4 should displace fossil generation in the goal-setting calculation, EPA's 

spreadsheet analysis is too simplistic to accurately account for the interaction between the four 

blocks used to achieve the CO2 rate goal; it is one thing to simulate "redispatch" from coal and 

oil/gas steam EGUs to NGCCs in a simple spreadsheet, since these are dispatchable resources 

which can operate at intermediate or baseload duty cycles; however, it is entirely different to 

include renewables and energy efficiency, which are typically non-dispatchable. 

Commenters stated in its original Proposal, EPA determined that states should be able to reduce 

their carbon intensity by "re-dispatching" coal and natural gas units in favor of more gas 

generation and less coal generation; with respect to building blocks 3 and 4, addressing 

renewable, nuclear, and energy efficiency resources, EPA did not require any increases to 

displace the use of fossil resources in its goal calculations. The commenters said EPA recently 

released a Notice of Data Availability that asks whether that displacement should be required. 

The commenters opposed that approach; due to EPA's aggressive assumptions in its building 

block analysis, the goals are already far more stringent than necessary or appropriate, and 

applying a displacement approach to building blocks 3 and 4 would only increase that stringency 
488 

even further. The commenters said if EPA does decide to require the improvements expected 

under building blocks 3 and 4 to displace fossil generation, EPA should also provide some other 

means for addressing load growth; otherwise, EPA's proposal will essentially assume load 

growth will not occur, which is an unreasonable assumption, despite the requirements likely to 

be imposed under EPA's Proposal. 

Commenters stated in its NODA, EPA acknowledges widespread concern with the goal-setting 

calculations from blocks 3 and 4, and seeks comment on whether it should revise its 

computations. The commenters said under EPA's original proposal, addition of one MWh of 

natural gas generation would "back off" a MWh of coal generation, as well as the emissions from 

that generation; however, the addition of a MWh of renewable energy or energy efficiency 

(blocks 3 and 4) is not assumed to "back off" generation from fossil resources. The commenters 

said EPA is requesting comment on whether it should change the way it calculates state goals 

such that EPA would "back off" additional fossil generation as additional MWh of new 

renewable energy and energy efficiency are added to the system; such a change will have the 

effect of making all state goals more stringent than they already are, and will exacerbate the 

inherent unfairness of the goal computations. 

Commenters stated EPA should adopt the alternative (technical and economic) renewable energy 

Building Block 3 approach included in a June 2nd Technical Supporting Document, with the 

modification detailed in the October 28th Notice of Data Availability (NODA) to calculate the 

economic renewable resource potential on a regional instead of a state-by-state basis. The 

commenters said the regionalized NODA technical and economic approach is vastly superior to 

the other proposed methods for calculating renewable energy's contribution for state targets'; 

however, EPA should make improvements to this approach to make it more accurately reflect the 

cost-effective level of renewable energy deployment that can be achieved under the BSER, 

including the following modifications: 

1. Remove the "technical resource" step in which it imposes an arbitrary cap on the 

percentage of the technical renewable resource that can be developed in a state or region; 

2. In quantifying which renewable energy resources are economic, EPA should begin 

with current, real-world data on the cost of renewable energy technologies; 

3. For projecting changes in the economics and performance of renewable energy through 

the year 2030, EPA should rely on the detailed and thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and 

performance projections developed through the Department of Energy and the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory; 

4. In its economic modeling, EPA should not impose a firm cap on the percentage of 

variable (wind and solar) renewable energy that can be deployed in a state or region, but 

rather should economically model the cost of renewable curtailment that could occur at 

extremely high renewable energy penetrations; 

5. Changes to the generation mix and other power system changes that are expected to 

occur between now and 2030, including those that are triggered by the provisions of 
489 

111(d) itself, should also be included in the analysis of the economics of higher 

renewable penetrations; and, 

6. Because many planned transmission lines will have been placed in service by 2020, 

they should also be included in EPA's analysis. 

Commenters stated EPA's NODA provides another approach to the goal setting calculation that 

would further include accounting for displacement of fossil generation by renewable energy 

("RE") generation (Building Block 3) and energy efficiency ("EE") (Building Block 4). The 

commenters said the NODA seeks comment on alternative approaches whereby incremental 

renewables and energy efficiency would (1) be assumed to displace 2012 fossil steam generation 

and NGCC generation levels on a pro-rata basis (i.e., in proportion to each generation type's 

historical generation) or (2) be assumed to displace fossil steam generation below 2012 levels 

first and then utilize any remaining RE and EE to displace NGCC generation. The 

commenters believed it would be inappropriate to adjust the EPA's proposed goal calculation to 

assume the displacement of fossil fuel generation with energy provided by Building Blocks 3 and 

4. The commenters said little, if any, of the Building Block 3 and 4 energy would be available to 

displace fossil fuel generation, as most or all of the energy would likely be required to meet the 

growth in electrical load after 2012. The commenters said this can be demonstrated using EPA's 

goal calculation spreadsheet and the data file provided with EPA's Technical Support Document 

"Translation of the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based 

Equivalents," released on November 6, 2014.17 As of 2029, the EPA's goal calculation 

spreadsheet shows a nationwide total of approximately 313.6 million MWh of incremental RE 

generation and 380.6 million MWh of EE avoided generation, for a total of 694.2 million MWh 

of energy from Building Blocks 3 and 4. The commenters said the analysis in the EPA's rate-tomass translation data file shows an increase in the need for annual generation of approximately 

577.1 million MWh between 2012 and 2029; this is equivalent to over 83 percent of the energy 

assumed to be provided by Building Blocks 3 and 4; however, this comparison understates the 

amount of additional generation that would actually be required, since the Annual Energy 

Outlook ("AEO") forecast on which it is based is net of the effect of energy efficiency measures. 

The commenters said since the Building Block 4 calculation determines the total, rather than 

incremental, potential for energy efficiency, existing energy efficiency measures must be 

removed from the AEO forecast, resulting in higher load growth than assumed by EPA; as a 

result, it is likely that most or all of the energy from Building Blocks 3 and 4 will be required to 

serve new load, leaving little or no energy available to displace existing fossil fuel generation. 

Commenters stated EPA should revise its target-setting formula to correctly account for 

emissions reductions from energy efficiency resources. The commenters said EPA failed to 

properly account for energy efficiency in the target-setting formula; rather than backing out the 

equivalent level of existing fossil-fired generation that energy efficiency measures would 

displace, EPA simply added the MWh of generation or energy savings from these resources into 

the denominator of the lbs/MWh emissions rate. The commenters said EPA should revise its 

methodology in line with the information released in its NODA to capture the emissionsreduction benefits of efficiency programs. 
490 

Commenters stated EPA failed to properly account for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

resources in the goal-setting formula; rather than backing out the equivalent level of existing 

fossil-fired generation that these resources would displace, EPA simply added the generation 

from these resources into the denominator of the lbs/MWh emission rate. The commenters said 

EPA should adopt the methodology set forth in the NODA to capture the emission-reduction 

benefits of these resources fully. 

Commenters stated in the Proposed Rule EPA calculates a reduction in states' overall CO2 

emission rates premised on increased renewable energy usage and energy efficiency measures; as 

part of this calculation, EPA maintained fossil fuel generation levels constant at 2012 levels. The 

commenters said in the NODA EPA states that certain commentators have argued that EPA 

should have assumed a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel generation similar to the 

methodology used in Building Block 2, and requests comments on whether this alternative 

methodology should be used in calculating state requirements in the final rule. The commenters 

said this methodology would result in significantly more stringent emission limits for states; this 

in tum would necessitate additional premature retirements of fossil fuel-based EGUs resulting in 

substantial economic costs and further degradation of the reliability of the electric grid as a result

of the replacement of dependable base-load units with variable energy resources. The 

commenters said to date, EPA has not undertaken any technical or economic analysis of the 

impact of these more stringent emission requirements; accordingly, EPA has not in any sense 

"adequately demonstrated" that these new limits, and the alternative Building Block 3 and 4 

methodologies on which they are based, represent the "best system of emission reduction" as 

required under the Act. The commenters said therefore, EPA is precluded from using these 

methodologies to impose more stringent requirements in the final rule. See 42 U.S.C. Section 

7607(d)(6)(C) ("promulgated rule may not be based (in part or whole) on any information which 

has not been placed in the docket"); Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 484 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 

("An agency commits serious procedural error when it fails to reveal portions of the technical 

basis for a proposed rule in time to allow for meaningful commentary.") (quoting Connecticut 

Light and Power Company v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 673 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 

1982). 

Commenters provided comments that are somewhat outside the scope of this section. The 

commenters stated they think that the goal setting formula should correctly account for emission 

reductions. 

Commenters commented that the EPA failed to properly account for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy resources in the goal-setting formula. The commenters explained that, rather 

than backing out the equivalent level of existing fossil-fired generation that these resources 

would displace, the EPA simply added the MWh of generation or energy savings from these 

resources into the denominator of the lbs/MWh emissions rate. The commenters stated that the 

EPA should adopt the methodology in line with the information released in its NODA to fully 

capture the emissions-reduction benefits of these resources. 
491 

Commenters stated that in the NODA, EPA proposes to adjust state goals to incorporate 

reductions in fossil generation as a result of increased utilization of renewable energy and energy 

efficiency as a way to "reflect the full potential, under BSER, for incremental RE and EE to 

replace fossil steam generation." Commenters said EPA thus proposes two ways to calculate a 

generation shift resulting from the application of Building Blocks 3 and 4, either by replacing all 

historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis or by replacing historical fossil generation on a 

prioritized basis. Commenters said that EPA requests comment on which approach better reflects 

the BSER. Commenters said that in their view, neither approach reflects the BSER and EPA 

should not adopt either one. Commenters said that BSER is a system of emissions reduction - it 

is not a system of generating-source elimination, nor is it a system of maximum emissions 

reductions. Commenters said that they believe that the approach EPA used in the June 2014 

proposal is appropriate and should not be changed in the final rule. Commenters said that EPA 

explains that the change in methodology proposed in the NODA may be warranted in order to 

ensure consistency in application among the various building blocks. Commenters said that such 

an understanding assumes that incremental renewable generation and incremental generation 

avoided through energy efficiency are equivalent to fossil generation. Commenters said in 

reality, incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency cannot meet baseload requirements 

due to the variable nature of these resources. Commenters said the best system of emission 

reduction is most appropriately based on a system that augments - not replaces - historical fossil 

generation. Commenters said this allows states to achieve meaningful emissions reductions by 

prioritizing operation of less carbon-intensive resources while using baseload fossil generation to 

backstop functionality and reliability of the national electric system. 

Commenters stated that to strengthen overall state targets, EPA should amend its goal-setting 

methodology under building blocks 3 and 4 to offset fossil fuel generation. Commenters said in 

the Notice of Data Availability issued October 28, 2014 ("NODA"), EPA identified stakeholder 

concerns regarding disparate treatment of changes in generation under building blocks 2 and 

under blocks 3 and 4. Commenters said as currently proposed, the state goal-setting formula 

assumes a constant level of generation from fossil-fuel sources even as incremental renewable 

energy and energy efficiency are added to the system. Commenters said in contrast, as fuel is redispatched from coal-fired EGUs to Natural Gas Combined Cycle EGUs, generation is assumed 

to be offset. Commenters said that Minnesota's Clean Energy Organizations agree with other 

stakeholders that offsetting fossil fuel generation as incremental renewable energy and energy 

efficiency are added to the system better reflects the reality of what will happen as the Clean 

Power Plan is implemented. Commenters said to truly reflect the Best System of Emissions 

Reduction, generation should be presumed to be offset first from those sources with the highest 

carbon intensity rather than on a pro rata basis. Commenters said only after those sources have 

been completely offset with renewable energy and energy efficiency would offsets move to less 

intense sources such as gas turbines. 

Commenters stated that these amendments to the way EPA calculates goals under building 

blocks 3 and 4 would result in more stringent targets, which, as discussed above, are necessary to 

achieve more meaningful emissions reductions. 
492 

Commenters argued that regarding EPA's NODA proposal to tie renewable energy and energy 

efficiency directly back to emission reductions for the purposes of meeting BSER, the 

information used by EPA to estimate Blocks 3 & 4 and calculate the resulting state goal under 

the CPP did not assume that all renewable energy and energy efficiency displaced fossil-fueled 

generation. Commenters said instead EPA simply added all renewable energy and energy 

efficiency to the denominator, regardless of whether it displaced fossil sources, to come up with 

the state emissions goals. Commenters suggested, if EPA is proposing to change the formulas, or 

what renewable energy and energy efficiency count towards compliance, the state goals must be 

revised accordingly. 

Comment 10: NODA - 2nd Approach Concerns

Response 10: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA notes in the NODA that some stakeholders have suggested that EPA 

should revise the goal-setting equation to reflect a consistent approach to accounting for 

incremental generation from existing NGCC, incremental renewable generation, and energy 

efficiency savings; specifically, some stakeholders have suggested that state goals should reflect 

the potential for renewable and energy efficiency to displace existing fossil steam generation. 

The commenters said in their discussion of the alternative goal-setting methodology, EPA 

includes two options for revising the formula: (1) assume that renewable and energy efficiency 

directly replace all historic fossil generation on a pro rata basis; or (2) assume that renewable and 

energy efficiency first replace fossil steam generation below 2012 levels and then replace gas 

turbine generation if any incremental renewable and energy efficiency remain. 

Commenters stated concern with the second approach is that the electric system does not 

function by selectively replacing one type of fuel over another as renewable MWhs are added to 

the grid or demand-side energy efficiency measures are implemented. The commenters said 

renewable generation and energy efficiency may displace fossil MWhs or other zero-carbon 

sources. Therefore, the commenters would oppose altering the building block formula to first 

replace fossil steam generation below 2012 levels and then replace gas turbine generation if any 

incremental renewable and energy efficiency remain. The commenters said regardless of the 

formula used in the final rule, it is essential that EPA ensure that each state target is achievable, 

and ensures a states, companies, and grid operators can maintain a reliable electric system and 

the necessary voltage support; for example, if EPA were to pursue the alternative goal-setting 

methodology discussed in the NODA, it may want to consider limits to the amount of renewable 

generation and energy efficiency relative to the amounts in the proposed rule to account for the 

increased stringency. The commenters said under the proposed or alternative goal-setting 

methodology, we encourage EPA to consider reliability impacts given the interactions among the 

building blocks. 
493 

Commenters stated the second approach suggested in the NODA would set a minimum level of 

re-dispatch for states with little or no NGCC capacity, regardless of the currently available 

NGCC capacity in each state. The commenters said although EPA asks for comment on a wide 

range from zero to 55 percent, the NODA specifically identifies a level of 12 percent, the value 

of the lowest quartile from EPA's prior analysis on how much each state's generation would shift 

from higher-emitting generation to lower-emitting generation under the proposed Building Block 

2 methodology. The commenters generally supported the concept of applying a minimum level 

of re-dispatch; however, the commenters have many issues related to EPA's assumed dispatch to 

natural gas potential under BSER Building Block 2. The commenters said for those reasons, if 

EPA were to set a minimum dispatch level across all states for purposes of mitigating concerns 

regarding the disparity of dispatch requirements across different states, this approach should not 

be additive to the amount of dispatch EPA has already assumed in states above this minimum 

threshold. The commenters said to the extent EPA adopts this approach, the 

commenters requested that EPA reduce the coal-to-gas shift in state goals for states that currently 

have higher amounts of NGCC capacity and set more moderate dispatch goals in those states so 

that the total nationwide amount of dispatch required as currently proposed is not increased. 

 

Comment 11: NODA - BB 3 & 4 - state-by-state 

Response 11: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A, V.E, and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA has asked for comments on an alternative approach to setting renewable 

energy targets that is based on each state's renewable energy technical potential and realistic 

development rates and that takes into consideration market and economic factors. The 

commenters said the alternate method for Building Block 3 is a two-step process; the method 

uses each state's "technical potential" for utility scale solar, on-shore wind, geothermal, and 

hydro renewable, as determined by the 2012 NREL study, multiplied by a benchmark 

development rate percentage equal to the average development rate for each renewable 

technology in the top one-third performing states; then, the method conducts an IPM model run 

to identify how much renewable generation would be built with a defined savings or avoided 

cost of 530/MWh; the target is then set as the lesser of the two. The commenters said EPA's 

alternate proposed approach addresses some of the key flaws in the proposed approach, at least 

in concept. The commenters supported a state-by-state assessment of RE technical and market 

potential. 

Commenters stated EPA should tabulate the renewable energy already developed in a state for 

purposes of carbon reduction and allow the emission-reduction effects of those facilities to be 

utilized in complying with the rule. The commenters said just as EPA should evaluate the scope 

and net effect of a state's RPS, it should also acknowledge that, in a state that has already taken 
494 

steps to develop renewable energy, it is a mistake to believe that future increases in the 

renewable portion of an energy portfolio will occur along a linear, each-step-is-the-same-as-thelast, path. The commenters said because of the variable, weather-dependent, and unpredictable 

generation patterns of wind and solar facilities (the most common and scalable renewable 

technologies), the growth of renewables in a portfolio is accompanied by an ever-intensifying set 

of operational, dispatch, and transmission challenges; whereas one or two wind farms in a 

traditional fossil- or hydro-based portfolio may be incorporated into that portfolio with relative 

ease, a 20%, 30%, or 40% level of renewables in a portfolio brings new operational demands and 

sizeable investments in ancillary support, such as for energy imbalance and regulation and 

frequency response. The commenters said EPA should drop its proposed general and formulaic 

approach, i.e., using a regional average of current renewable portfolio levels in its emission goal 

calculation, in favor of an approach that recognizes previous renewable development on a stateby-state basis. 

Comment 12: NODA; BB 3&4 - Support 

Response 12: The EPA appreciates the comments of support and is adopting the alternative 

approach from the proposal, modified as described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., 

and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on October 27, 2014 in 

which EPA requested comments on the issue of whether some or all of the energy efficiency 

credits and renewable energy generation that states add to the denominator in their CO2 

emissions rate calculation would reduce fossil generation from existing power plants, and 

whether and how this should be incorporated into the numeric calculation of state targets. The 

commenters believed it is reasonable for the EPA to assume that a portion of the generation 

provided by incremental energy efficiency and renewable generation will be used in the future to 

displace new fossil generation (either from new or existing power plants) that would otherwise 

be necessary to serve population and economic growth (i.e., growth in the demand for energy 

services), and a portion will be used to displace historical generation from existing power plants. 

Commenters suggested a methodology where it is first assumed that incremental energy 

efficiency and renewable generation offsets new fossil generation, with any remainder displacing 

historical generation from existing power plants. The commenters supported the option presented 

in Section C(a) of the NODA where remaining energy efficiency and renewable generation 

replaces historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis; this is most consistent with what is likely

to take place in the real world in our view where decisions about displaced generation are made 

for both economic and environmental reasons. 

Commenters stated EPA should ensure the calculation of state targets fully reflects the ability of 

renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce carbon pollution. The commenters said while 

the EPA proposal correctly finds that efficiency and renewable energy directly reduce fossil 
495 

generation, the formula used to set state targets does not reflect this reality. The commenters said 

when EPA adds new renewables generation and efficiency savings to the formula it does not 

reduce tons of carbon pollution from fossil generation; this minimizes the impact of renewables 

and efficiency on emissions and leads to weaker emissions goals, particularly in the later years of 

the plan. The commenters said altering the formula would deliver better emissions reductions 

and create more incentives for investment in sustainable energy technologies. The 

commenters noted that EPA has discussed this issue in the notice of data availability and under a 

revised formula the target in the out-years becomes stronger; the commenters hoped that the 

revised approach will be adopted in the final rule. The commenters believed that these 

improvements to the Clean Power Plan will strengthen the plan and deliver better longer term 

results to the economy. The commenters said as evidenced over the last ten years, renewable 

energy and energy efficiency not only provide more predictable and lower energy costs to the 

industrial, commercial and residential sectors, but they also provide great amounts of new, wellpaying jobs for Americans. The commenters said with better incentives for renewable energy and 

energy efficiency as a compliance pathway, the Clean Power Plan will help ensure U.S. 

leadership in the growing dollar 250 billion global clean energy market. 

Comment 13: Oppose alternative RE approach, support NODA methodology 

Response 13: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should not use the alternative method for calculating building block #3 

that it is outlined in the Alternative RE Approach Technical Support Document (TSD). The 

commenters said the alternative approach, which relies on estimating building block #3 based on 

the technical and market potential for renewable electricity in each state, is flawed because it 

does not take into consideration transmission and grid balancing constraints. The commenters 

said many regions of the country with significant technical potential for renewable energy 

generation lack the necessary transmission capacity necessary to deliver the renewable electricity 

generation to areas of significant electric load; as a result, EPA's alternative approach 

overestimates the economic potential for developing more remote areas of significant renewable 

energy potential. The commenters said under the alternative approach, Montana would have a 

goal of generating eight times as much renewable electricity in 2029 as it did in 2012, which 

would be equivalent to generating enough renewable electricity to meet 74% of Montana's 2012 

retail electricity sales; such a result is impractical, both technologically and economically, 

especially if EPA decides to require renewable electricity to be consumed in the state in order to 

demonstrate compliance. The commenters said given that a large percentage of Montana's 

electricity generation and consumption comes from hydroelectricity, EPA's alternative renewable 

electricity goal would actually exceed the percentage of the state's retail electricity consumption 

that is generated from fossil fuels. The commenters said if EPA is to use technical and market 

potential to estimate a state's renewable electricity generation potential, it should use a 
496 

regionalized approach, like the one described in the October 28th Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA); however, in-state electricity demand and out-of-state transmission capacity will still 

need to be factored into a regionalized technical and market potential target in order to avoid the 

mistakes made in the Alternative RE Approach TSD. 

Comment 14: NODA - Replace Fossil Generation 

 Response 14: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.D. and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the 

final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended EPA should allow states to credit end use efficiency measures that 

reduce demand on the carbon-free hydroelectric power system and subsequently offset fossil fuel 

generated power as emission reduction measures in a state compliance plan. Commenters stated 

energy efficiency reduces the need to generate electricity. Commenters stated economic dispatch 

of generating resources generally means that resources with incremental fuel costs, primarily 

fossil-fuel generation, will be the first resources to curtail generation in response to lower 

demand as a result of energy efficiency measures. Commenters stated even when energy 

efficiency is acquired in an Oregon utility territory served by the carbon emission-free FCRPS, 

that reduction in demand will reduce output from fossil-fuel generation throughout region. 

Commenters stated EPA should allow Oregon to credit these energy efficiency investments in its 

compliance plan. 

Commenters stated EPA's methodology for calculating Oregon's building Block Four goal sends 

the correct signal to customers served by Oregon's consumer-owned utilities using the 

hydroelectric power system because their energy efficiency measures result in reduce emissions 

from fossil generation within the entire WECC region. Commenters stated for parity between 

this appropriate construction of Block Four in the BSER and a state compliance plan, Oregon 

must take full credit for its energy efficiency investments on the hydroelectric power system 

regardless of whether the emission reductions are directly attributable to in-state fossil-fuel 

generation resources. Commenters stated this approach allows for continued recognition of 

energy efficiency measures' influence on the carbon intensity resource mix within the WECC 

region and signals that energy efficiency, investments that affect demand on the hydroelectric 

power system should continue in Oregon. 

Commenters stated that the October 30, 2014 NODA describes comments EPA has received that 

propose calculating building blocks three and four by assuming incremental renewable energy 

and energy efficiency would displace existing levels of fossil generation rather than growth in 

demand for fossil generation. Commenters did not support this approach. Commenters stated this 

alternative method would result in rate targets with unrealistic compliance expectations, for 

example, a state could have a zero or even a negative rate-based target, and yet serve load with a 

substantial amount of fossil-fuel generation. Commenters stated the approach to calculating 
497 

building blocks three and four in EPA's June 2, 2014 proposal of the Clean Power Plan 

appropriately accounts for incremental RE and energy efficiency. 

 

Commenters stated EPA's proposed numeric approach to calculating state goals should not 

assume that incremental RE and EE replace fossil generation below 2012 levels because this 

approach ignores the role of base load generation in ensuring the reliable operation of the power 

system. Commenters stated EPA should not adopt either approach, pro rata replacement or 

prioritization replacement, to change the proposed numeric formula when calculating final state 

goals. Commenters stated both approaches overestimate the potential emission reductions from 

RE and EE because they incorrectly assume that RE and EE can replace base load fossil 

generation. Commenters stated that at this time, neither EPA nor other stakeholders can 

demonstrate that this would be technically feasible or adequately demonstrated, as RE nor EE 

cannot provide the full range of essential grid services that are fundamental to ensuring the 

reliable delivery of electricity to consumers. 

 

Commenters stated EPA cannot assume that renewable generation and energy efficiency can 

replace all fossil generation because this will prevent the reliable operation of the interconnected 

power system. Commenters stated the two revised approaches for calculating the state goals 

forwarded in the NODA are predicated on the incorrect assumption that all historic fossil 

generation could be replaced by renewable generation and decreased consumption. While not 

discussed explicitly in the NODA, commenters indicated replacing all 2012 fossil generation in 

the numeric formula used to calculate the state goals likely would result in some state goals that 

are 0 lb CO2/MWh or even lower, meaning that these states would have to cease all operation of 

existing base load fossil generation. Commenters stated neither EPA nor any stakeholder can 

demonstrate that, at present, the interconnected power system can be operated reliably without 

these critical base load resources. Moreover, commenters noted that renewable wind and solar 

resources are variable in nature and need to be backed-up by dispatchable resources when they 

are not operating. Commenters stated EPA does not address how such back-up can be 

accomplished without reliance on at least some fossil generation. 

Commenters stated fossil-based base load units play a critical role in ensuring the reliable 

operation of the bulk power system and cannot be replaced on a MW for MW basis by either 

renewable generation or EE measures. Commenters stated RE and EE cannot provide key 

services provided by base load resources that are essential for maintaining reliability, including 

frequency response, voltage support, load and resource balancing and inertia. See generally ERS 

Report; see also Initial Reliability Review at 13. 

Commenters stated the proposed state goals, which would be less stringent than goals calculated 

using either approach discussed in the NODA, will result in a dramatically changed electricity 

generation mix that has significant implications for reliability. Commenters stated NERC 

identified two categories of reliability implications for the proposed state-specific emission rate 

goals: (1) direct impacts to resource adequacy and electric infrastructure; and (2) impacts 

resulting from the changing resource mix that occur as a result of replacing retiring generation, 
498 

accommodating operating characteristics of new generation, integrating new technologies and 

imposing greater uncertainty in demand forecasts. See Id. Commenters stated EPA has not 

addressed how the alternative approaches to calculating the state goals are consistent with the 

reliable operation of the interconnected power system. Commenters indicated the potential 

reductions achievable by Building Blocks 3 and 4 cannot be measured in a vacuum. Commenters 

stated EPA's approach to calculating the state goals must consider the potential impact the 

resulting goals would have on the interconnected power system. 

Commenters stated, for example, while EE provides benefits to the grid, the services EE 

provides are different and have very different performance parameters. Commenters stated EE 

cannot provide reliable operation services and, therefore, are not a perfect substitute for "steel in 

the ground" generation resources. Commenters noted PJM has attempted to address performance 

limitations inherent in demand response (DR) products by setting limits on the amount of DR 

procured in its forward capacity market (see PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order Accepting 

Tariff Revisions, 146 FERC 61,052 (Jan. 30, 2014)), and PJM's action is a direct response to the 

reality that the deployment of large amounts of EE, including DR, can create operational 

discontinuities that may challenge ongoing reliable system operations. Commenters stated the 

impacts of DR and EE modeling practices and assumptions on reliability planning studies are 

still evolving, but it is widely recognized that they cannot be treated as direct replacement for 

generation resources. 

 Commenters stated the NODA does not address how the alternate approaches to the numeric 

goal setting calculation would take into consideration these reliability considerations or how the 

interconnected power system could operate without fossil-based base load resources. 

Commenters stated EPA cannot use a numeric formula that creates state goals that are inherently 

at odds with the reliable operation of the interconnected power system. 

 Commenters noted that with respect to whether EE displaces coal vs. natural gas, nuclear or 

renewable energy generation, EPA seeks comment on how to account for the fact that EE 

programs may displace emissions from non-affected EGUs such as nuclear, gas or renewable 

units. Commenters stated that implementation of effective EE programs that actually reduce 

demand for electricity results in a reduction of whatever generation provides their power. 

Commenters stated that this means EE programs indiscriminately displace generation of any 

type, including EPA's preferred non-CO2 emitting generation. Commenters stated as we 

mentioned earlier, EPA seems to ignore that impact when setting the state goals. 

Commenters stated that EPA incorrectly assumes savings from energy efficiency programs 

displace fossil generation and CO2 emissions and, rather, EPA would assess the impact of 

efficiency programs through reduction in electricity sales and estimate the impact of efficiency 

programs at the statewide-level, rather than at the plant-level because it is impossible to 

determine whether a particular generator's electricity sales were reduced due to energy 

efficiency. Commenters noted that EPA cannot assess whether the megawatts from energy 

efficiency displace fossil generation or renewable generation. Consequently, commenters stated 

that it is uncertain whether energy efficiency actually reduces CO2 emissions-which is the basis 

for including efficiency a best system of emission reduction measure in the proposed rule. 
499 

Commenters noted the state goal setting formula currently assumes a constant level of generation 

from fossil-fuel sources even as incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency is added to 

the system, but in contrast as fuel is re-dispatched from coal-fired EGUs to Natural Gas 

Combined Cycle EGUs, generation is assumed to be offset. Commenters agreed that EPA must 

offset fossil fuel generation as incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency added to the 

system to accurately reflect the reality of what will happen as the CPP is implemented. 

Commenters believed that generation should be presumed to be offset first from those sources 

with the highest carbon intensity rather than on a pro rata basis and only after those sources have 

been completely offset with renewable energy and energy efficiency would offsets move to less 

intense sources such as gas turbines. 

Comment 15: Adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating building block three of the BSER 

to reflect the reduced utilization of affected fossil fuel-fired units through displacement by 

renewable energy; make BB2 and BB3 consistent. 

Response 15: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.D. and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the 

final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated when incorporating increased utilization of existing natural gas combined 

cycle (NGCC) facilities into building block 2, in the draft rule, EPA assumed that NGCC units 

back down coal units, thus changing numbers in both the numerator and denominator used to 

calculate individual state targets. The commenters said in contrast, for building block 3 related to 

renewable energy, despite the fact that adding renewable energy to the grid also backs down 

fossil units, EPA proposed only adding the MWhs of renewable energy into the denominator and 

not changing the fossil generation emissions rate numbers in the numerator, which has the effect 

of artificially weakening the proposed emission performance standards. The commenters said as 

discussed in the NODA, and consistent with EPA's approach in block two, in calculating 

building block three of the BSER, emissions and MWhs associated with affected fossil fuel-fired 

units should be removed from the numerator and the denominator and the equivalent number of 

MWhs should be added back based on displacement of those units by zero-carbon generation. 

Commenters encouraged EPA to review the numeric formula for calculating each state's ratebased goal to ensure consistency in the application of BSER for building block 2 compared with 

building blocks 3 and 4. The commenters said this approach is identified in the Notice of Data 

Availability and would better reflect likely reductions from fossil steam generation than the 

proposed approach. The commenters said modifying the rate-based calculation in this way would 

also provide consistency with the treatment of building blocks 2, 3 and 4 as proposed by EPA in 

the Translation of the State-Specific Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents 

technical support document. 
500 

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA noted that its original proposal treated renewable energy 

resources (BB3) differently from redispatch to natural gas generators (BB2) when building the 

target. The commenters said as the NODA suggests, renewable energy actually operates to 

reduce dispatch from other generators, just as shifting to gas generators would; therefore, the two 

building blocks should be calculated in the same way - by reducing tons of carbon dioxide from 

the numerator, not only adding megawatt - hours to the denominator. 

Commenters stated when incorporating increased utilization of existing natural gas combined 

cycle (NGCC) facilities into building block 2, in the draft rule, EPA assumed that NGCC units 

back down coal units, thus changing numbers in both the numerator and denominator used to 

calculate individual state targets; in contrast, for building block 3 related to renewable energy, 

despite the fact that adding renewable energy to the grid also backs down fossil units, EPA 

proposed only adding the MWhs of renewable energy into the denominator and not changing the 

fossil generation emissions rate numbers in the numerator, which has the effect of artificially 

weakening the proposed emission performance standards. The commenters said as discussed in 

the NODA, and consistent with EPA's approach in block two, in calculating building block three 

of the BSER, emissions and MWhs associated with affected fossil fuel-fired units should be 

removed from the numerator and the denominator and the equivalent number of MWhs should 

be added back based on displacement of those units by zero-carbon generation. 

Commenters stated when incorporating increased utilization of existing natural gas combined 

cycle (NGCC) facilities into building block 2, in the draft rule, EPA assumed that NGCC units 

back down coal units, thus changing numbers in both the numerator and denominator used to 

calculate individual state targets; in contrast, for building block 3 related to renewable energy, 

despite the fact that adding renewable energy to the grid also backs down fossil units, EPA 

proposed only adding the MWhs of renewable energy into the denominator and not changing the 

fossil generation emissions rate numbers in the numerator, which has the effect of artificially 

weakening the proposed emission performance standards. The commenters said as discussed in 

the NODA, and consistent with EPA's approach in block two, in calculating building block three 

of the BSER, emissions and MWhs associated with affected fossil fuel-fired units should be 

removed from the numerator and the denominator and the equivalent number of MWhs should 

be added back based on displacement of those units by zero-carbon generation. 

Commenters stated the formula the EPA developed for calculating the adjusted emissions rate is 

inconsistent in its treatment of zero-carbon generating sources and does not adequately account 

for expected emissions reductions from developing those resources. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA improve the consistency in the emissions rate formula by treating 

Building Blocks 3 and 4 similar to Building Block 2. 

Commenters stated the EPA also requested comment in the NODA on whether Building Blocks 

3 and 4 should be treated in the same manner as natural gas fuel switching in Building Block 2 

by counting the emission reductions for renewables, nuclear, and efficiency in the numerator of 

the emission rate formula rather than just the generation in the denominator. The 

commenters agreed with this approach as these technologies are clearly reducing CO2 by 

displacing fossil generation and it's a more consistent and equitable approach with how natural 

gas fuel switching is treated; however, only the CO2 reductions from new and incremental 

renewables (including hydro), nuclear and efficiency should be counted, as the CO2 reductions 
501 

from existing renewables (including hydro),nuclear and efficiency are already embedded in the 

baseline emissions and generation mix. The commenters believed that the incremental generation 

from zero carbon options should be assumed to displace fossil fuels (and the associated CO2 

emissions) on a pro-rata basis, which is a better representation of the BSER and consistent with 

the treatment of incremental NGCC. 

Comment 16: NODA - load and resource balance requirements 

Response 16: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A. and V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated contrary to the fundamental electric system planning principle that supply 

and demand must be matched across state borders, in applying building blocks 3 and 4 EPA 

assumes an increased amount of in-state generation from renewable energy and energy efficiency 

at rates that are not linked to increases in demand or load growth. The commenters said for some 

states, the result is that strict application of building blocks 3 and 4 would require the 

development of significantly greater amounts of energy than what is projected to be needed to 

serve load in that state; as a consequence, this surplus energy would need to be exported to other 

states where the energy could be consumed. The commenters said even though EPA proposes to 

allow renewable energy to be credited from out of state resources for compliance purposes, the 

result of the BSER assumptions is that a state like Wyoming, with little retail load and significant 

generation, is severely limited in its ability to utilize building blocks 3 and 4 as a way of 

reducing the state's emission rate. The commenters said even if Wyoming were to aggressively 

pursue new renewable development that it may claim for compliance purposes, the instate 

demand would not be sufficient to consume this incremental energy, unless there was a 

significant reduction in output from existing coal resources within the state; as a result, the 

flexibility that EPA believes is inherent in its BSER formulation is simply not available for 

Wyoming or similarly situated states. Commenters stated EPA has recognized this issue in the 

NODA and proposes two different approaches for revising the state goal-setting formula to 

address this concern; however, EPA's options do not effectively address the load and resource 

balance requirement issues. The commenters said EPA proposes to either assume the 

replacement of all historical fossil generation on a pro rata basis or prioritize replacement of 

historical fossil steam generation with renewable and energy efficiency resources; both of the 

solutions proposed in the NODA will exacerbate the problem because they over-simplify the 

operational realities that will ultimately influence the energy displaced by additional renewables 

and energy efficiency. The commenters said to develop a realistic and achievable emissions 

reduction goal that incorporates energy displaced by additional renewables and energy 

efficiency, EPA would need to consider the generation resources that would actually be 

displaced as a result of additional deployment of renewables and energy efficiency, as may be 

determined via utility resource planning and system operations modeling. The commenters said 

this would necessarily include the assessment of resources across state borders. The commenters 
502 

said the actual result of EPA's proposed additional layer of specificity in calculating the goal 

(assuming, unrealistically, that energy will be displaced from a limited type of resources located 

inside the borders of a particular state) would make the state goals less achievable; it would also 

severely limit the compliance flexibility that EPA has stated it intends to provide. Commenters 

stated to address the issues related to the mismatch between resources and load, EPA should not 

develop more prescriptive and aggressive emission reduction goals, but rather should allow 

states and operators the flexibility, for compliance purposes, to credit renewables and energy 

efficiency across their system(s) via resource planning and compliance reporting mechanisms to 

be developed under state 111(d) compliance plans. 

Comment 17: NODA - Displacement of Fossil Fuel-Fired Generation by the RE and EE 

Components 

Response 17: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated goal setting using the simplistic methodology of replacing the in-state fossil 

fuel-fired generation with incremental RE and EE in each state's goal setting calculation leads to 

absurd results. The commenters said EPA improperly assumes that RE and EE directly replaces 

in-state "affected" fossil fuel-fired generation. The commenters are seriously concerned about the 

potential displacement of fossil generation with the RE and EE components of the BSER 

evaluation. The commenters said Building Block 2 in the CPP completely eliminates the small 

portion of fossil fuel-fired steam generation within the state of New Jersey; the redispatch of 

existing NGCC capacity only brings the state average NGCC capacity factor to approximately 

44%. The commenters said the displacement of any additional fossil fuel-fired generation by the 

RE and EE components would decrease the operation of the state's NGCC existing capacity and, 

dependent on the RE methodology selected by EPA, this decrease could be significant. 

Commenters stated the RPS methodology results in the displacement of 10,147,466 MWhrs in 

2030; the majority of the renewable energy credits ("RECs") to meet New Jersey's RPS comes 

from out-of-state sources; most of the out-of-state RE capacity comes from wind; therefore, in 

reality the true displacement of fossil generation would occur in another state. The commenters 

said wind is more likely to be located in the Midwest, Central and South Central regions - areas 

with significant amounts of coal-fired generation. The commenters said due to its production 

characteristics, wind is more likely to displace base load and load following plants; the marginal 

plants during off-peak hours are most vulnerable to being displaced by wind - in the Midwest 

this would be mostly coal, but may also impact nuclear and NGCCs during some hours. The 

commenters said in general wind is less reliable than solar, and ramping (variations across hours) 

can be significant - causing a need for spinning reserves / fast response resources to maintain 

grid reliability. 
503 

Commenters stated the regional potential methodology outlined in the NODA results in the 

displacement of approximately 5,559,000 MWhrs in 2030. The commenters said a large portion 

of the RE generation to satisfy this target would be from out-of-state sources (including wind 

capacity); this causes the displacement of fossil generation to occur in another state. 

Commenters stated the in-state potential methodology (Alternative) results in the displacement 

of 1,372,000 MWhrs in 2030; this consists solely of solar resources. The commenters said solar 

has a different production profile than onshore wind (PJM summer capacity value of 38%); solar 

production is highest during summer and shoulder months and least during winter months. The 

commenters said fixed tilt solar photovoltaic ("PV"), if optimized for annual production (facing 

south), will peak at noon; if optimized for peak demand (facing west) it can have an increased 

impact on mid-to-late afternoon peak demand; solar PV with single-axis trackers can optimize 

annual production and also increase its ability to meet peak demand periods. The commenters 

said solar is more likely to be located in eastern PJM because eastern PJM states have the largest 

solar mandates / subsidies, with New Jersey, Maryland, and Pennsylvania all having solar carve 

outs (stipulation that a portion of the required RE percentage or overall retail sales be derived 

from solar resources) in their RPS regulations. The commenters said due to its production 

characteristics, solar would impact both load following and peaking plants - mostly gas-fired 

generation. EPA's assumption that RE generation could directly impact "affected" fossil unit 

generation is incorrect. 

Commenters stated regarding the displacement of fossil fuel-fired generation through EE 

programs, EPA's assumption is flawed in two ways; first, similar to RE, EPA cannot assume that 

EE programs will directly displace "affected" fossil unit generation under the CPP. The 

commenters said EE programs could potentially displace generation from simple cycle 

combustion turbines or new plants not covered by the rule, especially during the summer season; 

second, for those states that are net importers of electricity, the displaced generation may come 

from out-of-state sources. The commenters said under EPA's BSER analysis, implementation of 

Building Block 4 would result in an additional displacement of 5,889,520 MWhrs in New Jersey. 

Commenters stated in New Jersey, implementation of BSER along with displacement through 

RE and EE could lead to absurd results; in total, the displacement of NGCC generation in New 

Jersey could range from a high of 14,756,271 MWhrs to 5,980,805 MWhrs. The commenters 

said based on EPA's target equation, existing NGCC generation in 2030 in New Jersey is 

expected to cap at 22,762,692 MWhrs in 2030; the displacement through RE and EE could result 

in up to a 65% reduction in EPA's projected generation from existing NGCC generation in New 

Jersey. The commenters said a reduction of this magnitude could result in the retirement of the 

majority of existing NGCC EGUs in New Jersey because it can be assumed that NGCC CHP 

plants would continue to operate. The commenters said this raises significant concerns regarding 

reliability because all of the baseload and load following fossil fuel-fired EGUs could be 

eliminated in the state of New Jersey. The commenters said EEI describes the critical role fossilbased units play in ensuring the reliable operation of the bulk power system because "RE and EE 

cannot provide key services that baseload resources can provide which are essential for 

maintaining reliability, including frequency response, voltage support, load and resource 

balancing and inertia." 
504 

Commenters stated under the NODA approach, it is assumed new sources contribute an amount 

of incremental generation that is equivalent to projected demand growth; note that it is assumed 

under both approaches that incremental resources under Building Blocks 3 and 4 replace 

historical generation from affected fossil fuel-fired sources so those incremental resources are 

unavailable to meet new demand. The commenters said to calculate future demand, U.S. EPA 

uses the EIA 2013 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2013) growth rates based on regional demand 

projections. The commenters said U.S. EPA calculates projected sales for future years by 

multiplying 2012 historical sales by the regional annual growth rate for that year. The 

commenters said projected sales are then converted to incremental generation, giving 

consideration to under construction NGCC and transmission losses. The commenters said this 

generation is then added to the generation level for existing affected sources quantified. While 

the commenters believed that accounting for demand growth will be a critical factor in 

developing mass-based compliance approaches, this co-proposed approach is flawed. The 

commenters did not agree with the application of regional average growth rates. The commenters 

said U.S. EPA must allow states the flexibility to determine their individual state's potential 

growth; furthermore, U.S. EPA must include the flexibility for states to alter their goals if 

circumstances warrant. 

Commenters stated that while EPA considers the displacement of coal and steam generation by 

re-dispatched NGCC generation in building block 2, EPA does not take into account the 

displacement of NGCC and other fossil generation by new renewables and energy efficiency per 

Building Blocks 3 and 4. The commenters stated that in practice, these measures, which have 

zero fuel costs, would indeed displace fossil generation, which does have fuel costs. The 

commenters noted EPA has requested comment on this issue in its recent Notice of Data 

Availability ("NODA") released on October 27, 2014. [79 Fed. Reg. 64,543] 

Comment 18: NODA 100% RE and EE displacement of fossil generation. 

Response 18: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA discusses some stakeholders' desire to have EPA set state 

goals by requiring 100% of the EE and RE building blocks to replace existing fossil generation; 

in the NODA, EPA acknowledges that this methodology will be significantly more stringent and 

less cost effective than the original proposal. 

Commenters stated experience does not demonstrate that 100% of EE and RE measures are 

displacing existing fossil generation. Significantly, Connecticut is a net exporter of electricity in 

a deregulated regional power market; accordingly, market forces and energy demand outside of 

Connecticut determine the amount of generation - including fossil generation - that operates in 
505 

Connecticut. The commenters said in 2012, approximately 17% of Connecticut's generation 

served load outside the state's borders. 

Commenters stated conceivably, Connecticut could reduce its in-state demand to zero but its 

generation fleet could still run to serve load in other states. The commenters said requiring 100% 

of EE and RE to displace existing generation would necessarily require states like Connecticut to 

deploy greater amounts of EE and RE than contemplated in the rule. The commenters said the 

two methods proposed to establish RE targets are based upon state potential and regional RPS 

requirements. The commenters said proposed EE goals were developed based on the level of 

efficiency achieved by leading states; requiring all states to implement RE and EE to 100% 

offset existing fossil generation would necessarily require states to go beyond what has been 

adequately demonstrated; this is particularly true for leading states such as Connecticut. The 

commenters said for these reasons, Connecticut believes that the presumption that 100% of EE 

and RE directly replace existing fossil generation has not been adequately demonstrated and 

should not be the basis for state goal setting as discussed in the NODA. 

Commenters added to the extent that EPA includes a requirement that EE and RE displace 

existing fossil generation, EPA must work with the states to accurately reflect the extent such 

replacement actually occurs in that state and consider factors such as growth in energy demand 

and net imports and exports. 

Commenters added Connecticut objects to the assumption found in the Rate to Mass Technical 

Support Document, that100% of incremental RE and EE will supplant existing fossil fuel 

generation; Connecticut does not believe that this has been adequately demonstrated. 

Comment 19: NODA; It is unlikely that Building Blocks 3 and 4 will meaningfully displace 

existing fossil fuel-fired generation. 

Response 19: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's NODA provides another approach to the goal setting calculation that 

would further include accounting for displacement of fossil generation by renewable energy 

("RE") generation (Building Block 3) and energy efficiency ("EE") (Building Block 4). The 

commenters said the NODA seeks comment on alternative approaches whereby incremental 

renewables and energy efficiency would (1) be assumed to displace 2012 fossil steam generation 

and NGCC generation levels on a pro-rata basis (i.e., in proportion to each generation type's 

historical generation) or (2) be assumed to displace fossil steam generation below 2012 levels 

first and then utilize any remaining RE and EE to displace NGCC generation. 
506 

Commenters believed it would be inappropriate to adjust the EPA's proposed goal calculation to 

assume the displacement of fossil fuel generation with energy provided by Building Blocks 3 and 

4; little, if any, of the Building Block 3 and 4 energy would be available to displace fossil fuel 

generation, as most or all of the energy would likely be required to meet the growth in electrical 

load after 2012. The commenters said this can be demonstrated using EPA's goal calculation 

spreadsheet and the data file provided with EPA's Technical Support Document "Translation of 

the Clean Power Plan Emission Rate-Based CO2 Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents," released on 

November 6, 2014. The commenters said as of 2029, the EPA's goal calculation spreadsheet 

shows a nationwide total of approximately 313.6 million MWh of incremental RE generation and 

380.6 million MWh of EE avoided generation, for a total of 694.2 million MWh of energy from 

Building Blocks 3 and 4. The commenters said the analysis in the EPA's rate-to-mass translation 

data file shows an increase in the need for annual generation of approximately 577.1 million 

MWh between 2012 and 2029; this is equivalent to over 83 percent of the energy assumed to be 

provided by Building Blocks 3 and 4; however, this comparison understates the amount of 

additional generation that would actually be required, since the Annual Energy Outlook ("AEO") 

forecast on which it is based is net of the effect of energy efficiency measures. The commenters 

said since the Building Block 4 calculation determines the total, rather than incremental, 

potential for energy efficiency, existing energy efficiency measures must be removed from the 

AEO forecast, resulting in higher load growth than assumed by EPA. The commenters said as a 

result, it is likely that most or all of the energy from Building Blocks 3 and 4 will be required to 

serve new load, leaving little or no energy available to displace existing fossil fuel generation. 

Comment 20: NODA - regions approach

Response 20: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A. and V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA attempts to address some of these disparity issues in its very recently 

released Notice of Data Availability (NODA) through which it solicits comment on two potential 

changes to its assumptions regarding re-dispatch to natural gas as applied in BSER Building 

Block 2. The commenters said one approach would be to apply there-dispatch from coal to 

NGCC on a regional basis rather than a state-by-state basis. The commenters said EPA asks for 

comment on the appropriate regional framework and how to allocate the regional goals to 

individual state; (EPA is also soliciting comment on an alternative approach to set regional 

renewable targets under BSER Building Block 3 based on regional renewable potential that 

would then be allocated among individual states in the region.) The commenters said these 

regional concepts may better address the interstate and regional structure of the electric 

generation and electricity markets but there is not sufficient time to comment thoroughly on the 

NODA. The commenters said these concepts are complicated and will require more than the 

mere 45 days EPA has allotted for response to the NODA. The commenters said if EPA is 
507 

considering a more regional approach to setting the emission reduction targets, it should either 

withdraw the current proposal and solicit comment on these alternative regional approaches (and 

other changes EPA has discussed in the NODA) through an ANPR or extend the conm1ent 

period on the current proposal to allow additional time to respond to the NODA. 

Commenters stated the NODA requests comment on two variations to EPA's proposed approach 

to quantifying the level of reductions that are achievable from building block two and the RE 

component of building block three, in which EPA would calculate the amount of additional 

NGCC or RE generation on a regional basis and then allocate shares of the emission reductions 

from this generation among states within the region; however, EPA has not specified what 

regions it would use or how it would allocate expected emission reductions from these building 

blocks among the states in the region. The commenters said without additional details on these 

alternative proposals, it is impossible to comment on whether these approaches would be legal or 

in the public interest. The commenters suggested that the EPA provide additional details about 

these proposals, and solicit additional comment, before selecting these alternatives in the final 

rule. 

Commenters were unable to take a position in favor or against EPA's alternative proposal raised 

in Section III.B.2 of the October NODA regarding a regionalized approach to setting state 

renewable energy targets without first understanding what the potential renewable energy targets 

are for Montana between 2017 and 2030; however, if EPA opts to use the alternative approach 

outlined in Section III.B.2 of the October NODA in conjunction with a compliance methodology 

based on renewable energy consumption and RECs instead of renewable electricity generation, 

then each states' share of the regional renewable energy target should be based on retail sales in 

the state rather than generation. The commenters said to set the goals based on total generation 

would fail to address the concern expressed by many states, and recognized by EPA, that the 

draft rule could potentially saddle renewable electricity exporting states with more aggressive 

renewable energy targets than renewable electricity importing states. 

Commenters stated if EPA opts to use the regionalized renewable energy target methodology 

outlined in Section III.B.2 of the October NODA, EPA should favor the creation of larger 

regions, such as North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions, for setting 

regional renewable energy targets to better capture the significant amounts of electricity, and in 

particular renewable electricity, that travel long distances from their generating source to their 

eventual purchaser and consumer. The commenters said if selected, the regionalized approach to 

setting state renewable electricity targets should be applied to all renewable electricity 

generation, both existing and new, in order to reflect that purchasers of existing renewable 

energy generation are often not in the same state that the electricity is generated in and that this is 

likely to continue to be the case going forward with future renewable energy developments. 

Commenters stated EPA should not incorporate existing hydropower generation into the 

alternative regionalized renewable electricity target methodology outlined in Section III.B.2 of 

the October NODA; the inclusion of existing hydropower will only add further complexity or 

variability to the renewable energy targets, particularly in any smaller geographic regions where 

good and bad hydro years could create boom and bust renewable electricity years for the entire 

region. 
508 

Commenters were concerned about the lack of detail on the reallocation criterion for 

apportioning target RE generation to states within a region. 

Commenters stated in its October 28, 2014, NODA, EPA requests feedback on third option for 

setting RE targets, a proposed "regionalized approach". The commenters said EPA requested 

comment on three key methodological assumptions to this new approach: 

1. What would the regional structure be, as well as a justification for that structure. 

2. Criteria to be used for reapportioning state RE targets within given regions and 

justification for those criteria. 

3. What components of state RE targets should be regionalized under such an approach. 

Commenters stated EPA requested comment on the concept of aggregating RE generation 

potential across states within regions, and then reapportioning the aggregate identified RE 

generation to individual states. The commenters said it is hard to imagine a scenario where the 

states in EPA's proposed North Central Region could agree to such a complex and potentially 

contentious scheme in time to meet the 2017 multi-state plan deadline. The commenters said 

EPA suggests in its NODA that regional structures could be informed by existing regional 

constructs such as NERC regions or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

Planning Regions, RTOs and current regional renewable energy credit tracking systems. The 

commenters said the idea of using an existing organizational footprint established on some other 

technical, economic, or political basis to determine RE potential for goal setting purposes should 

be dismissed out of hand. The commenters said if one accepts the premise that a state's RE 

potential should be used for RE goal setting, the number of regions (and within those regions, 

sub-zones), would need to be much greater than currently proposed. 

Commenters stated in the Midwest, RE technical potential is primarily a function of wind 

resources; in fact, EPA's own alternative RE technical potential approach reported very little, if 

any, contribution from Solar PV to Wisconsin's RE goal achievement. The commenters said in 

reviewing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Wind Resource Map, it is readily 

apparent that wind resources in EPA's proposed North Central Region are starkly different both 

East to West and North to South. The commenters suggested that EPA's North Central Region 

should be divided into three to four sub-zones for RE goal setting purposes. The 

commenters proposed that Wisconsin and Michigan would comprise one of those sub-zones; this 

is not to say that Wisconsin would not consider acquiring or supplying RE resources to states in 

the region for state plan development purposes, for to do so may trigger a violation of the 

Dormant Commerce Clause. The commenters also suggested that state RE goals be informed by 

current state renewable portfolio standards in that they reflect a feet on the ground technical and 

economic assessment of RE development potential. 

Commenters stated Maine already produces more than half of its electricity from renewables - 

much of which is exported to the rest of the region, which has helped the Northeast be a leader in 

carbon reduction. The commenters said the final 111(d) rule, accordingly, must use a metric that 

regionalizes state goals, with hydro and biomass correction; any renewable goals must be 

regionalized to be fair to states with existing renewables that serve regional needs. 
509 

Commenters stated relative to Building Blocks 2, 3, and 4, the original proposed rule utilized 

inputs and assumptions for existing and potential resources for reduction of CO2 from affected 

electric generating units on a state-specific basis to develop a state-specific target emission rate. 

The commenters said the concepts of the NODA do not change the inputs and assumptions for 

each state; however, the NODA applies them on a regional basis instead of a state-specific basis. 

The commenters said the shift from a state implementation plan to more of a "regional 

implementation plan" is to "levelize" the emission targets both regionally and nationally. The 

commenters said one of the proposed regional options in which Kentucky is listed is in the SERC 

Region along with Illinois, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and parts of Louisiana, Virginia, and Arkansas. The commenters said this inflates the 

average amount of NGCC and renewable energy that could be applied to the state's 2030 goal 

calculation. 

Commenters stated the regional considerations offered in the NODA relative to renewable 

energy (Building Block 3) would change the original renewable energy target for Kentucky. The 

commenters said the NODA would increase the renewable energy component from Building 

Block 3's target calculation from 2% up to 13% for the state. The commenters said in comments 

filed by EPRI in the docket for this rule, EPRI accurately points out that assuming state 

equivalency for regional calculations of renewable resources is problematic. The commenters 

said each state has drastically different renewable resource potential. The commenters added the 

concerns regarding transmission capacity and double counting for importing renewable energy 

from the original proposal is clearly exacerbated by the regional approach in the NODA. The 

commenters said EPA should not adopt a regional approach in the calculation of Building Block 

3 effects on Kentucky. 

Commenters stated a regional concept of reductions associated with energy efficiency programs 

(Building Block 4) would increase EPA's calculation component of avoided MWs under 

Building Block 4 for Kentucky from 10% to 13%. The commenters believed the energy 

efficiency component was overstated by at least 75% based on Kentucky's energy efficiency 

potential identified by the Cadmus study; increasing the calculation for Kentucky to 13% will be 

even more problematic for the state. The commenters urged EPA to avoid utilizing a regional 

approach for Building Block 4. 

Comment 21: Regionalization: Building Blocks 2 and 3

Response 21: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA seeks comment overall on an appropriate regional structure to use in 

determining the frameworks and the appropriate manner in which goals can be derived under 
510 

building block 2 and allocated to states; apparently, some stakeholders have expressed concerns 

that disparate impacts could create distortions in the electricity markets. The commenters said as 

an initial matter, the rule is unclear as to whether this proposal would replace the existing 

proposal or would be an additional option available to states; the NODA simply does not provide 

adequate detail upon which a regional alternative can be evaluated. 

Commenters believed that states should have the option of participating in a multi-state or 

regional program to comply with the CPP; however, making such an approach mandatory 

introduces a host of legal issues and other impediments that would need to be addressed. The 

commenters said for example, the proposal contemplates an allocation of responsibility for the 

revised targets; such an approach will necessarily create winners and losers and thus is likely to 

be unworkable. The commenters said in any event, FERC has responsibility over both the 

electricity markets via the RTOs and the reliability of the grid. 

Commenters stated EPA seeks comment on whether and how "book life" might be used as a part 

of the basis for the development of an alternative emission glide path for Building Block 2 or to 

evaluate alternative glide path approaches to address stakeholders' stranded investment concerns. 

The commenters said "Book life" is a regulatory accounting concept tied to depreciation tables 

and cannot be a substitute to the CAA's requirement that consideration under Section 111(d) be 

given to "useful life". The commenters believed that remaining useful life is the appropriate 

measure to determine the timeline for retirement of coal facilities and the ramping up of natural 

gas combined cycle units for base load type operation. The commenters said EPA correctly 

recognizes the CAA's requirement to develop guidelines based on the remaining useful life of 

affected units; however, in imposing interim targets, the proposal ignores this statutory 

requirement and will result in the retirement of coal units prior to the end of their remaining 

useful life in order to achieve such interim targets. The commenters said the only ways to 

properly incorporate the remaining useful life of affected units is to eliminate the interim targets 

altogether and allow states to address remaining useful life in their individual state plans. 

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA explores setting state level renewable energy (RE) targets 

based on regional potentials for RE; EPA reports that stakeholders are interested in target setting 

methodologies that take into account interstate exchanges of RE. The commenters said one 

proposed method involves setting regional RE targets which would then be apportioned to each 

state. The commenters said EPA specifically requests comment on different methods for 

apportioning RE targets to states such as proportional to total state electricity sales; however, the 

methodology used to set renewable energy targets under a so-called "regionalization" approach 

fails to contain sufficient detail or information to evaluate the regulatory, financial and 

achievability implications of such an approach. 

Commenters stated there are a number of legal and technical infirmities associated with the 

concept of using RE to set targets under the rule and a regionalization approach merely 

compounds those problems; specifically, based on an analysis of the example provided by the 

EPA, the renewable responsibility for Missouri would nearly double under this alternative and be 

about 8 times more than what is included in the current goal setting for Missouri; thus, this 

proposal will unnecessarily increase the cost of the rule. 
511 

Commenters stated while EPA attempts to address concerns arising from its originally proffered 

approach, it raises an entirely new set of problems and exacerbates problems with the originally 

proposed approach; for example, any allocation method chosen will simply create new sets of 

winners and losers, and thus merely shift grievances rather than eliminate them. 

Commenters stated the third general area of interest in the NODA is alternatives for calculating 

goals under building blocks 3 and 4; stakeholders on this topic are critical that EPA's method for 

calculating goals under blocks 3 and 4 are different from those under block 2. The commenters 

said specifically, that under block 2, EPA assumes that NGCC generation offsets coal-fired 

generation; this is accomplished under block 2 by discounting CO2 and megawatt-hours (MWh) 

from coal generation and adding in CO2 and MWh from NGCC unit increased utilization. The 

commenters said in building blocks 3 and 4, EPA does not assume that RE and EE replace coal 

generation and only adds MWh into the denominator of the goal setting calculus. 

Commenters believed this proposal is flawed on multiple levels: first, it incorrectly assumes that 

RE will replace fossil generation MWh for MWh; in reality, such replacement does not occur 

due to the intermittent nature of RE generation and as a consequence fossil generation is needed 

to back up RE; further, the offset approach envisioned by EPA incorrectly assumes that the value 

to the system of each MWh of RE is equal to fossil fired generation - but it is not. The 

commenters said that RE and fossil generation are not equal is demonstrated by how RE is 

counted when determining capacity value in RTOs; specifically, wind generation in MISO is 

valued at only 14% of its nameplate capacity while coal-fired generation is valued at what is 

known as its Unforced-Capacity (UCAP or its net dependable capacity) which varies by plant but 

is in the range of 80-95% of its nameplate capacity. The commenters added since RE is 

intermittent and less reliable than fossil-fired generation, it cannot provide ancillary services 

such as load following and operating reserves; thus, the proposal to treat RE and fossil 

generation as if they are interchangeable is clearly flawed; moreover, such an approach would 

serve to only increase the cost of the rule for both Missouri and Illinois. 

Comment 22: NODA - Computation of Energy Savings Credits 

Response 22: The EPA is not including Building Block 4 in the goal calculations for the final 

CPP rule. See section V.A of the final rule preamble for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters supported the proposed approach of adding energy efficiency savings to the 

denominator if a state chooses to comply through the rate based approach; this approach is 

simpler and likely to be more accurate than estimating the CO2 emissions reductions from 

energy efficiency policies and programs and subtracting this from the numerator, given the 

uncertainties regarding the actual time of energy savings and defining which specific power 

plants cut their generation as a result of end-use energy savings. The commenters said moreover, 

it is essential to provide such credits under a CO2 emissions rate approach so that states are not 

discouraged and penalized for implementing energy efficiency initiatives that tend to reduce the 

operation of cleaner power plants. 
512 

Commenters stated in applying energy savings credits to the denominator in the emissions rate 

calculation, end-use energy savings should be adjusted upwards to account for electricity losses 

in the transmission and distribution grid (i.e., to represent electricity savings at the point of 

generation). The commenters said this should be allowed for electricity savings from both utility 

and non-utility energy efficiency programs; furthermore, these T&D loss adjustments should be 

based on actual values for a utility or a state. 

Commenters stated in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) issued on October 27, EPA 

requested comments on the issue of whether some or all of the energy efficiency credits and 

renewable energy generation that states add to the denominator in their CO2 emissions rate 

calculation would reduce fossil generation from existing power plants, and whether and how this 

should be incorporated into the numeric calculation of state emissions rate targets. The 

commenters believed it is reasonable for the EPA to assume that a portion of the generation 

provided by incremental energy efficiency and renewable generation will be used in the future to 

displace new fossil generation (either from new or existing power plants) that would otherwise 

be necessary to serve population and economic growth (i.e., growth in the demand for energy 

services), and a portion will be used to displace historical generation from existing power plants. 

The commenters suggested a methodology where it is first assumed that incremental energy 

efficiency and renewable generation offsets new fossil generation, with any remainder displacing 

historical generation from existing power plants. And regarding the latter, the 

commenters supported the option presented in Section C(a) of the NODA where remaining 

energy efficiency and renewable generation replaces historical fossil generation on a pro rata 

basis; this is most consistent with what is likely to take place in the real world in where decisions 

about displaced generation are made for both economic and environmental reasons. 

Commenters stated for the determination of energy savings credits, it is essential that the EPA 

define whether utilities and other energy efficiency program implementers are supposed to use 

gross energy savings or net energy savings in determining energy savings credits; without such 

direction, there will be confusion about which type of savings to use among states and utilities 

and in all likelihood a lack of consistency among states. The commenters said the EPA has 

proposed using net savings to calculate credit towards state emissions rate targets; net savings 

include estimates of and adjustments for free riders and in some cases spillover effects; gross 

savings exclude these factors. The commenters said gross savings are simpler to calculate and 

are a more appropriate methodology for both setting state goals and determining credit towards 

the realization of those goals. The commenters recommended that the EPA base the computation 

and credit on gross energy savings rather than net energy savings for the following reasons: 

• Actual CO2 emissions reductions result from gross energy savings, not net 

savings; the attribution of savings is not relevant to the issue of providing fair 

credit to energy efficiency measures for the role they play in reducing emissions, 

when the emissions rate approach is used; States and utilities will benefit from the 

CO2 emissions reductions due to gross energy savings under a mass-based 

approach, and the same basis for savings should be used under a rate-based 

approach. 

• Some utilities only calculate gross savings, and not net savings, at this time; this is 

particularly true for municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives that are not 
513 

subject to PUC regulation; in addition some IOUs report gross savings in response 

to energy savings standards or goals based on gross savings. 

• Net-to-gross savings ratios are imprecise and not consistent from utility-to-utility; 

furthermore, net-to-gross savings ratios are rarely estimated or applied to nonutility efficiency policies and programs including building energy codes, state 

appliance standards or public sector energy efficiency programs. 

• Gross savings are easier to determine than net savings and will facilitate states 

implementing, and receiving credit for, a wide range of energy efficiency policies 

and programs; States will not have to deal with the challenging question of 

estimating net savings resulting from building codes, state financing or financial 

incentive programs, public sector energy efficiency programs, and the like-a 

question they have no experience or interest in addressing; requiring states to 

estimate and report net savings from non-utility programs would increase EM&V 

costs and lead to greater uncertainty and inconsistency in savings claims and 

credits, compared to using gross savings. 

• If states and utilities are provided energy savings credits based on net rather than 

gross savings, they have the opportunity to claim substantial "spillover effects" 

(i.e., energy savings stimulated by a policy or program outside of direct 

participation in the policy or program) that may be uncertain or of questionable 

validity; by definition spillover effects are excluded from the determination of 

gross energy savings. 

• Many states define their energy efficiency standards or goals in terms of net 

savings; it will not be difficult for utilities or states to report gross energy savings 

to the EPA while at the same time determining net savings for the purpose of 

complying with state standards or goals; in general net savings are determined by 

first estimating gross savings for a program, and then applying a net-to-gross 

energy savings ratio to this value. 

Commenters stated it should be acknowledged that there are a limited number of efficiency 

programs where commonplace savings evaluation techniques yield net rather than gross energy 

savings; in particular, this is the case for behavior change programs where savings from a 

treatment group is compared to savings from a control group. The commenters recommended 

that the energy savings for programs where savings is evaluated in this manner be treated as 

gross savings for the purpose of calculating energy savings credits under the Clean Power Plan. 

Commenters stated in calculating gross energy savings, the EPA should clarify that states and 

utilities are not allowed to count savings from and receive credits for efficiency measures 

installed outside of participation in those energy efficiency policies and programs included in 

state plans, except in the specific case of market transformation programs; market transformation 

programs are by definition designed to have broad market impacts by increasing the availability 

of certain energy efficiency measures, educating consumers, influencing codes and standards, 

and other techniques such as those practiced by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(NEEA). The commenters said the impacts of market transformation programs often extend in 
514 

time beyond the program implementation period. The commenters said the EPA should allow 

states to implement and receive energy savings credits for market transformation programs, and 

should issue a specific protocol for evaluating the energy savings impacts of such efforts; this 

protocol can and should be based on existing impact evaluation methodologies such as those 

used by NEEA. 

Commenters stated if the EPA agrees to use gross savings, gross savings should be used 

consistently in the Building Block 4 input to the emissions rate reduction goals, state plans for 

achieving the Clean Power Plan targets, and the energy efficiency credits claimed during the 

implementation period. The commenters said utilizing gross savings will increase the credit 

utilities and states receive for Building Block 4 savings by 10-15% relative to utilizing net 

savings; in other words, 1.5% savings on a net savings basis is equivalent to about 1.65-1.7% 

savings on a gross savings basis. The commenters said thus, if the EPA accepts the 

recommendation to move from net energy savings to gross energy savings, it should modify its 

Building Block 4 calculation, using a ramp up to 1.7% savings per year for utility programs only 

and preferably a ramp up to 2.2% savings per year from the combination of utility and non-utility 

programs. 

Commenters stated it is also important for utilities, other program implementers, and those 

conducting energy efficiency program evaluations to establish an accurate baseline to measure 

savings against. The commenters said the EPA should ensure that states and utilities utilize best 

practices in determining baselines, and in this regard we recommend that the EPA endorse the 

guidance regarding selecting baselines in the SEE Action Network's Energy Efficiency Program 

Impact Evaluation Guide. The commenters said this Guide was developed by leading energy 

efficiency impact evaluation experts, is highly credible, and is widely used and referred to in the 

energy savings evaluation work. The commenters said providing guidance concerning baselines 

that differs from these well-established best practices would cause confusion for utilities and 

other non-utility program implementers, as well as those responsible for energy efficiency 

program evaluation. 

Comment 23: NODA - correctly does not include nuclear

Response 23: The EPA is not including Nuclear in the goal calculations for the final CPP rule, 

please see section V.E. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for more information about 

Building Block 3. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the EPA addressed the inconsistent treatment of renewable energy and 

energy efficiency when it published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in October 2014; it 

noted that renewable energy and energy efficiency can be used to reduce fossil generation and 

hence also emissions; and the NODA also provides a second option for using RE and EE to 

displace fossil fuels. The commenters recommended a variant that would use energy efficiency 

to displace generation on a pro rata basis and renewable energy to displace fossil fuel generation 

starting with coal and then oil and gas boilers, with any remaining RE to be used for displacing 
515 

NGCC generation. The commenters said the calculation methods published for comment in the 

NODA deal only with RE and EE to displace fossil generation; they do not explicitly deal with 

nuclear energy. The commenters said this omission of nuclear is appropriate since the CPP has 

noted that "nuclear generating capacity is also relatively expensive to build compared to other 

types of generating capacity, and little new nuclear capacity has been constructed in the U.S. in 

recent years." The commenters said nuclear should not be part of the best system of emission 

reductions. 

Commenters stated so far as nuclear energy is concerned, the EPA should estimate generation in 

each year based on the reactors that are expected at the time of publication of the final CPP to 

have licenses the year for which the target rate is being calculated; for instance, this means a 

reduction in nuclear generation by about 30 percent in the year 2030 compared to 2012. The 

commenters said nuclear energy should not be part of the best system of emission reduction. 

 

Comment 24: NODA - BB1 HRI 

Response 24: See section V.A and V.C of the preamble for further discussion of building block 

one and the GHG Mitigation Measures TSD. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the NODA also requests comment on whether EPA should phase in Block 1 

heat rate improvements for coal-fired units; this approach does not address the issue that heat 

rate improvements are best addressed on a unit-by-unit basis, thereby making any assumed 

approach by EPA to phase-in these reductions arbitrary and generic. The commenters said to 

appropriately phase-in heat rate improvement projects EPA should allow for state plans to 

develop this schedule by conducting case-specific analyses. The commenters provided Appendix 

D that includes supporting information related to these technical issues including work practices 

conducted by Alliant Energy and summaries describing the potential impacts of load, cycling and 

degradation. 

Comment 25: NODA - EPA Should Incorporate Co-Firing With Natural Gas and Other Types 

of Fuel Switching in Building Block 1. 

Response 25: See sections V.C. and V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment and more information about Building Blocks 1 and 2. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the Goal-Setting NODA, EPA also requests comments on whether it 

should consider re-dispatch from steam generation to existing NGCC units, re-dispatch to new 

NGCC units, or co-firing natural gas in existing coal-fired boilers in calculating the emissions 

reduction goals for Building Block 2; companies may also convert coal-fired steam boilers to 

natural gas, as EPA notes in the NODA. The commenters said EPA suggests that this could be 
516 

accomplished by establishing a minimum percentage for dispatch switching from coal-fired 

generation for Building Block 2, which would increase the emissions reductions required in 

states with existing coal-fired units but little or no excess existing NGCC capacity. The comment 

said as part of the proposal, EPA requests comment on the issue of whether co-firing with natural 

gas and other forms of fuel switching (e.g., to higher ranked coal or biomass), as well as 

conversion, should be considered as part of the BSER, generally, including in Building Block 1. 

Commenters agreed that co-firing with natural gas and converting coal units to natural gas units 

are feasible mechanisms to reduce CO2 emissions that are frequently being implemented today 

even without a price on carbon emissions; therefore, EPA should consider these mechanisms for 

emissions reduction in the BSER and increase the stringency of state emissions reduction goals 

accordingly; however, co-firing with natural gas is best applied as an element of Building Block 

1 to increase the percentage reduction of emissions from coal-fired power plants attributable to 

measures that can be implemented at those plants. 

Commenters stated as EPA notes, industry is currently rapidly converting or replacing the 

existing coal-fired fleet to utilize natural gas or to allow co-firing of existing boilers with natural 

gas; as of January 2013, well before the proposal of the Clean Power Plan, plants representing 

5,384 MW of coal-fired capacity located in five NERC regions were involved in conversion 

projects; since that time, additional conversion plans have been announced; likewise, a number 

of existing coal-fired power plants have made changes or announced plans to accommodate cofiring so that they can run on natural gas, coal, or both. 

Commenters stated repowering and co-firing projects are occurring today without regard to a 

specific federal requirement to reduce CO2 emissions from existing sources; dramatically lower 

natural gas prices and increased development of shale gas resources arising from directional 

drilling capability have made these projects more feasible; co-firing also reduces maintenance 

requirements and increases operational flexibility by allowing the coal-fired plants to increase 

and decrease their output more readily to respond to changes in load demand. The commenters 

said many companies initiating these projects have indicated that they are using natural gas 

conversion or co-firing as low-cost mechanisms to reduce emissions of conventional and 

hazardous air pollutants to comply with the requirements of MATS, CSAPR, the regional haze 

program, and other state and federal environmental requirements. Indeed, some of these projects 

have allowed companies to continue to rely on coal-fired facilities that would otherwise have 

retired; therefore, EPA has a reasonable basis to include increased natural gas use through cofiring and conversion as cost-effective mechanisms in determining BSER. 

Commenters said the widespread availability of shale gas means that co-firing and conversion is 

available, or could be available, at coal-fired units located across the continental U.S. 

Commenters said the availability of nearby existing pipelines should not be considered a 

limitation on use of these mechanisms to reduce CO2 emissions; many new pipelines have 

recently been built, are under construction, or have been announced, including FERC-regulated 

interstate pipelines, intrastate public utility commission-regulated pipelines, and unregulated 

pipelines characterized as "gathering lines."; in addition, FERC certificates pipelines relatively 

quickly - based on data other commenters have amassed, we understand pipelines generally 

proceed from application to in-service in under 16 months. 
517 

Commenters added temporary changes in natural gas demand such as that created by last winter's 

polar vortex should not exclude co-firing as a basis for setting multi-decade average emission 

reduction goals; because units equipped to co-fire natural gas and coal can readily switch fuels, 

adjusting goals to call for a minimum percentage of co-firing would not impair reliability during 

limited extreme weather events like the polar vortex; indeed, the additional flexibility provided 

by dual-fuel units can enhance reliability. 

Commenters stated although EPA has suggested that co-firing could be considered as a part of 

the goal-setting for Building Block 2, the better approach is to consider natural gas co-firing, like 

other available forms of fuel switching, as part of Building Block 1. The commenters said fuel 

switching and materials separation are well-established mechanisms that must be considered 

under other Clean Air Act provisions in establishing technology-based, unit level emissions 

limitations; like heat rate improvements, fuel switching occurs "inside the fence" through 

modification of the existing individual unit. The commenters said co-firing involves modifying 

existing steam boilers solely to accommodate a less carbon-intensive fuel rather than switching 

the type of unit altogether; by contrast, Building Block 2 relies upon the system response of 

changing dispatch from one type of facility (coal steam) to another type (NGCC). 

Commenters added because efficiency improvements and co-firing can occur on the same unit, 

employing both measures will produce greater emissions reductions than applying either 

measure alone; while emission reductions from these two methods will overlap to some degree, 

considering both techniques will still lead to more reductions at the unit than six percent on 

average, and thus will result in more stringent state goals. The commenters said while EPA will 

need to assess the degree of additional emissions reduction that can be achieved through cofiring, there are many coal-fired plants located over shale plays, and these units could use natural 

gas for 20 percent to 100 percent of their operation in less than two years, based on the pipeline 

construction timeframe discussed above and more thoroughly in other organizations' comments. 

The commenters said this revision to Building Block 1 would also help address the disparity in 

emissions reduction goals between states with little existing NGCC capacity but significant coalfired capacity, since it would have a proportionately larger impact on the emissions goals for the 

states with limited excess NGCC capacity. 

Commenters stated EPA should consider co-firing and other fuel switching strategies as one of 

the mechanisms that it might employ in determining what emissions reductions can be achieved 

under Building Block 1, and it should calculate revised goals reflecting these strategies. 

Comment 26: NODA; reliability concerns 

Response 26: See section I.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP 

Final Rule supporting the final CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
518 

Commenters stated regarding the proposed glide path for emission reductions, the EPA asks for 

comments on ways to adjust interim goals that include a phase-in of block one and two specific 

approaches for a phase-in of block two: (1) developing a phase-in schedule on the basis of 

whether and to what extent any additional infrastructure improvements are needed, and (2) using 

book life of the original generation assets and any upgrades to those assets in the development of 

a glide path. Commenters appreciated the EPA's consideration of reliability implications 

associated with the currently proposed glide path and willingness to consider ways to adjust the 

glide path. The commenters did not believe that the approaches for which the EPA seeks 

comments in its NODA do enough to address reliability concerns; the commenters remain 

concerned with the timing of the EPA's proposed schedule. The commenters said the current 

schedule of issuing a final rule by June 2015, allowing state plans to be developed by as late as 

2018, and interim goals that begin in 2020 does not allow sufficient time to evaluate, design, and 

construct infrastructure needed to allow compliance in a reliable fashion. The commenters said it 

takes about eighteen months to evaluate transmission needs for a set of modeled assumptions 

and it has taken as much as eight and a half years to study, plan for and construct transmission 

facilities. The commenters said while adjusting interim goals such that the proposed glide path is 

less stringent could reduce the need for additional infrastructure at the onset of the compliance 

period, it is not possible to determine the appropriate infrastructure needed before the issuance of 

the final CPP by June 2015. The commenters said reliability can only be maintained if the EPA 

takes into consideration the length of time it will take to plan for and construct both generation 

and transmission infrastructure; without such consideration, reliability will be at risk for interim 

goals established to begin in 2020. The commenters continued to believe that the best way to 

address the reliability concerns expressed in its initial comments and those expressed by others is 

to extend the imposition of interim goals from 2020 to at least 2025. 

Commenters added a reliability safety valve would allow system operators and planners to 

maintain reliability by evaluating and addressing reliability issues on a state-by-state basis both 

during and after the development of state plans; inclusion of a reliability safety valve in the final 

rule would better ensure that all reliability risks, not just those being considered by the NODA, 

be addressed before the implementation of state plans. 

Commenters stated EPA's proposals to reduce fossil-fuel generation by the pro-rata amount of 

new renewable energy generation violates the CAA and would trigger serious reliability 

concerns. The commenters said stakeholders have allegedly "raised concerns that the proposed 

numeric formula for calculating each state's goal is not consistent in its application of the BSER 

for incremental generation from existing NGCC units under building block 2, as compared with 

incremental RE generation and [energy efficiency] generation avoidance under building blocks 3 

and 4," and therefore, have "suggested an alternative approach of applying generation from 

building blocks 3 and 4 to reduce fossil generation below 2012 levels in the goal 

calculation." The commenters said to address these "concerns," EPA has outlined two proposals 

where "incremental RE and EE explicitly replaces generation from fossil fuel-fired sources in the 

goal calculation;" one proposal includes replacing all historical fossil-generation on a pro rata 

basis and the other proposal includes replacing historical fossil-generation, but prioritizing the 

replacement of historical fossil-steam generation. The commenters said the underlying 

"concerns," and EPA's proposals to address them, are fundamentally flawed, legally invalid, and 

would create significant reliability concerns in numerous states. The commenters said for 

example, under Block 3 of EPA's existing Rule Proposal methodology, Texas is expected to 
519 

increase renewable generation by a staggering approximately 52 million MWh, comparing 2012 

to 2030 totals; this is after Block 2 is supposed to leave only -67 million MWh of coal generation 

in 2020. The commenters said either of EPA's two pro-rata proposals would leave very little 

existing coal generation in Texas. The commenters said this is especially true under the proposal 

where coal-generation is targeted first. The commenters said while EPA admits that these 

changes would reduce emissions targets, precise reductions are unclear; this makes it impossible 

for stakeholders to effectively comment on EPA's proposals. The commenters said though, it 

appears that only roughly 15 million MWh of coal generation - and likely even less - would 

remain if EPA implemented these pro-rata proposals; this would create extreme reliability 

concerns. The commenters said netting out coal-generation with RE generation would generate 

incredible shortfalls in electricity supply, as the Rule Proposal's model is predicated on coal (and 

other fossil generation) being available as the Rule Proposal's requirements are implemented. 

The commenters said already, the Southwest Power Pool ("SPP") and ERCOT are predicting 

electric shortfalls under the Clean Power Plan as proposed. The commenters said losing an 

additional 52 million MWh of base-line and affordable coal would severely exacerbate these 

reliability concerns. The commenters said either pro-rata proposal would effectuate the apparent 

underlying goal of EPA's Rule Proposal and BSER methodology - the shutdown of coal 

generation in the U.S. and in states with diverse energy supplies, such as Texas, Louisiana and 

Mississippi; however, EPA has no basis or right to take these actions. The commenters said EPA 

does not have the authority to require even 1 MW of coal-generation to shut down as a means of 

emission control, let alone an entire state's coal fleet; EPA's attempt to curtail natural gas 

generation would suffer the same legal flaws; just as with coal, EPA does not have the authority 

to force the shutdown of natural gas generating units - or any existing source - under the CAA. 

Commenters stated throughout the Section 111(d) proposal and NODA, it is apparent that the 

proposals have been designed as though the electric generation system and both short and longterm electricity demand can be predicted and controlled to a very small degree of variation. The 

commenters said these additional proposals and alternatives do not consider the actual dynamic 

infrastructure that is needed to keep electricity reliable and affordable. The commenters said the 

best energy forecasters at the Energy Information Agency consistently err in their forecasts 

despite their immense technical expertise; U.S. EPA has not demonstrated its predictions (in a 

field outside U.S. EPA's primary area of expertise) will be any better than the experts in the field 

and therefore this overall proposal is flawed. 

Comment 27: NODA; BB2 concerns 

Response 27: The EPA is adopting interim goal dates of 2022-2029, with illustrative phase-in 

emission values for 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029 and a phase-in approach for Building 

Block 2. See sections I.A. and V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information. 

Commenters do not appear to disagree with EPA proposed categorization of Cane Run unit 7 as 

an existing unit. EPA maintains this likely affected EGU categorization for the unit in the final 

rule. 
520 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA requests comment on whether it should change the 

proposed goal computation methodology to address stakeholder concerns about the feasibility of 

implementing all of building block two by 2020. The commenters said if EPA decides to set 

interim 10-year goals in addition to final 2030 targets (as currently proposed), the agency should, 

at a minimum, provide for a longer phase-in period for implementing emission reductions from 

all of the building blocks, including reductions from heat rate improvements, redispatch, and 

"under-construction" nuclear energy. The commenters said EPA's assumption that all emission 

reductions from building blocks one and two and under construction nuclear can be implemented 

by 2020 is not adequately supported by the record; moreover, the use of this assumption in EPA's 

goal-setting computation will lead to overly stringent front-loaded interim goals. The 

commenters said meeting these overly stringent goals will require a significant number of early 

retirements of coal-fired EGUs, will increase the cost of natural gas, and will lead to negative 

impacts on jobs and electric reliability; therefore, if EPA declines to eliminate the interim goal, 

EPA should mitigate the potential for such impacts by including a longer phase-in period for 

obtaining emission reductions from these components of BSER, as it has already proposed to do 

for other BSER components such as RE and EE. The commenters said as with RE and EE, EPA 

should gradually phase in the emission reductions it projects for building blocks one and two and 

under-construction nuclear over the 10-year interim compliance period. The commenters said a 

gradual phase-in of these emission reductions would give states, utilities, and EGU operators 

more time to make the investments in new equipment, transmission, and pipeline capacity that 

will be necessary to achieve EPA's projected reduction targets without compromising reliability 

and with fewer shocks to electricity related jobs. The commenters said a longer phase-in period 

during the interim period would still allow states to reach EPA's target 2030 emission rates; thus, 

this adjustment would neither fundamentally alter the basic purposes of the Proposed Rule nor 

compromise its environmental integrity. 

Commenters stated Building Block 2 that EPA utilized in the original proposal implements a 

shift of generation to existing natural gas combined cycles assuming an increase from a national 

average utilization factor of 55% to 70%. The commenters said Cane Run 7 is the only affected 

unit in Kentucky under Building Block 2, the generation shift is only assumed to be 2% of total 

fossil fired generation for the state. The commenters said the concepts for consideration in the 

NODA expand the utilization of natural gas to include co-firing natural gas, in addition to 

eliminating more existing coal-fired generation to be replaced by new NGCC. The commenters 

said the NODA discusses increasing the gas re-dispatch/utilization for Kentucky's goal 

calculation and considers a range for a regional shift of between 12% and 55%. The commenters 

said at the minimum value, which EPA discusses in the NODA, Building Block 2 for Kentucky's 

calculation would increase the loss of existing coal generation from about 2% up to 12% and 

potentially as high as 45%. In addition the commenters were concerned about the capacity of the 

existing natural gas infrastructure to accommodate such an increase in use and the lack of such 

infrastructure at all the coal plant locations necessary for co-firing. The commenters said the 

increased utilization of natural gas posited in the NODA significantly aggravates the NERC 

concerns expressed in their November 2014 report, "Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA's 

Proposed Clean Power Plan," which stated: "... the EPA concludes that the power industry in 

aggregate can support higher gas consumption without the need for any major investments in 

pipeline infrastructure. However, here are a few critical areas that likely will need additional 
521 

capital investments." The commenters said further, NERC states: ""Timing of these investments 

is also critical as it [can] take three to five years to plan, permit, sign contract capacity, finance, 

and build additional pipeline capacity, in addition to placing replacement capacity (e.g., 

NGCC/CT units) in service. The proposed CPP timelines would provide little time to add 

required pipeline or related resource capacity by 2020." 

Commenters stated the interim rates are based on the assumption that, while increased renewable 

energy and energy efficiency will be gradually phased in during the interim period, affected 

EGU s will be able to fully implement Building Blocks 1 and 2 by 2020. The commenters said in 

the NODA, however, EPA acknowledges that full implementation of Building Block 2 by 2020 

may not be technically achievable. The commenters said, re-dispatching from coal to existing 

NGCC is not simply a matter of turning down one resource and turning up another; significant 

infrastructure development both in terms of new gas lines and new transmission lines must occur 

in order to accomplish this strategy; this infrastructure development is costly and takes 

significant time, particularly in light of the political and legal barriers to building new gas 

pipelines and electricity transmission lines. Commenters stated in the Proposed Rule, EPA fails 

to account for the challenges associated with building all of this new infrastructure. The 

commenters said to rectify this shortcoming, EPA needs to re-assess whether the 70% NGCC 

utilization assumption is realistic. The commenters said at the very least, EPA needs to build 

additional time into the rule to account for the need to build new pipelines and transmission 

capabilities. The commenters said the simplest and most prudent way to address this issue is to 

remove the interim limits altogether; short of this, EPA should utilize a phase-in period for 

Building Block 2 similar to the one used for Building Block 3 that realistically accounts for the 

time that it will take to build additional infrastructure needed to meet the 70% assumption set 

forth in the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters stated that, EPA's NODA recognized a number of issues with its building block 

methodology and did not address the key problems of the building blocks. Commenters said 

EPA's NODA seeks comments on the disparate treatment in the state goals it has proposed that 

exists between states with significant amounts of NGCC capacity and states with little or no 

NGCC capacity. Commenters agreed with EPA that should not decide how much coal generation 

should be reduced in a state based on how much NGCC generation. 

Commenters stated that, the Proposed Rule requires state goals to include a minimal generation 

shift from higher-emitting to lower-emitting sources for states containing some fossil steam 

generation. Commenters said that this approach veers off into illegal territory because the 

Proposed rule dictates how existing generation is dispatched and direct some states to build 

certain types of generation that presently do not exist. Commenters said this type of "system" has 

not been "adequately demonstrated". 

Commenters stated, in the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) issued on October 30, 2014, 

EPA requests comment on using NGCC to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector as a 

whole - either through new generation or co-firing - and just for re-dispatch from fossil fuel-fired 

generation. Commenters said, it is blatantly unlawful for EPA to require the construction of new 

generation assets as part of BSER for existing sources. Commenters said, additionally, requiring 
522 

co-firing is tantamount to fuel switching, which EPA has stated is not BSER. Commenters said, 

at the very least, requiring facilities to build co-firing capacity would result in a modification to 

or reconstruction of an existing source. Commenters said, it is absurd to think that Section 111(d) 

authorizes EPA to require facilities to make such dramatic changes that the facility then becomes 

subject to double-regulation under Section 111(b). 

Commenters stated, EPA also seeks comment on whether and how NGCC targets should be 

established regionally. Commenters said, nothing in Section 111(d) gives EPA any authority to 

set regional generation or emission targets. Commenters said, section 111(d) only provides 

authority for the establishment of state-specific standards of performance, and it expressly 

reserves to the individual States the authority to set those standards. Commenters said, specifying 

targeted levels of generation shift under Building Block 2 for multi-state regions would thus be 

unlawful. 

Comment 28: NODA - Phasing in the Increased Utilization of Existing NGCC Units 

Response 28: The EPA is adopting interim goal dates of for 2022-2029 and illustrative phase-in 

emission values for 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029 and a phase-in approach for Building 

Block 2. See sections I.A. and V.D. of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated despite the fact that the interim goals are average goals that can be met on an 

average basis for the 2020-2029 period, the structure of the numeric calculation for establishing 

the state goals assumes that all changes in dispatch between existing coal- and gas-based units 

has occurred by 2020; this front-loads reductions related to Building Block 2, creates significant 

technical challenges and limits state flexibility in designing compliance plans. The commenters 

said to address these concerns, EPA suggests that Building Block 2 reductions could be phased 

in; in the NODA, EPA seeks comment on two approaches for creating a phase-in schedule for 

Building Block 2. The commenters said the first would examine whether, and to what extent, any 

additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure is needed to support increased use of existing 

natural-gas based generation; the second would consider the book life of existing generation 

assets, including any major upgrades to the assets, like pollution control retrofits. 

Commenters stated as a preliminary matter, phasing in reductions under Building Block 2, 

similar to the phase-in of reductions under Building Blocks 3 and 4, could address some of the 

near-term compliance challenges discussed in these comments for some states. The commenters 

said in general, phasing in these reductions is more reasonable than assuming that all changes in 

dispatch between coal- and gas-based occur before 2020. The commenters said as EPA 

recognizes in establishing the Building Block 3 and 4 goals, it is appropriate to give states and 

electric utilities sufficient time to make system changes or create new programs; a phase-in of 

Building Block 2 reductions could allow for the necessary expansion of natural gas infrastructure 
523 

to support increased utilization of existing NGCC units and could provide competitive markets 

time to review and adjust market rules, if needed. 

Commenters stated it is not clear from the NODA exactly how EPA would structure a phase-in 

schedule for Building Block 2. The commenters said under the first option, EPA would account 

for the needed expansion in natural gas pipeline infrastructure, but the Agency has not provided 

any details as to how the Agency would determine which states need new capacity and how 

quickly it could be built; at minimum, EPA should recognize that it takes three to five years to 

plan, permit, sign contract capacity, finance and build additional pipeline capacity; however, in 

general, it is difficult to see how the Agency could determine a phase-in rate for new pipeline 

capacity that would make sense for each state or accurately reflect state-specific infrastructure 

circumstances. The commenters said eliminating the interim goal so that states can determine the 

most appropriate phase-in schedule for Building Block 2 reductions would be simpler and better 

address state-specific concerns. 

Commenters stated EPA's second approach, which would focus on the remaining book life of 

existing coal-based units, also could be a useful way to address glide path concerns in some 

states and would, as EPA notes, avoid stranding investments recently made in pollution control 

retrofits for coal-based units. The commenters said while not clearly stated in the NODA, it 

appears that EPA would consider the remaining book life of certain coal-based units when 

calculating the re-dispatch potential available in a state. The commenters said consistent with the 

requirements of section 111(d), EPA should recognize the remaining useful life of units, 

including recent upgrades and major pollution control installations, when setting standards; 

however, while this approach may be very important in some states as a way of providing a 

smoother glide path that does not strand investments, it would not address the 2020-2029 

concerns of many other states with respect to the assumed changes in dispatch between coal- and 

gas-based units. The commenters said in particular, it would not address any of the natural gas 

infrastructure concerns identified by electric utilities and states. The commenters said if EPA 

determines to recognize remaining useful life when calculating state goals under Building Block 

2, it should be coupled with other approaches to address the full range of near-term compliance 

concerns. 

Comment 29: NODA; timing and glide path; interim goals 

Response 29: The EPA is adopting interim goal dates for 2022-2029 and illustrative phase-in 

emission values for 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-2029. See section I.A. of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the October 28, 2014 Notice of Data Availability (NODA), the EPA 

acknowledged stakeholder concerns regarding the rigidity of the 2020 to 2029 glide path, and 

requested additional stakeholder comments to ensure that the overall framework includes 

sufficient flexibility. The commenters said the EPA presented two suggestions for addressing the 
524 

glide path implementation in the NODA; the first approach the EPA requested comment on was 

the option to allow credit for early CO2 emission reduction. The commenters said in theory, this 

approach is appropriate and would recognize the steps already taken by those states or EGU's 

that were engaged in early-action to reduce CO2; however, the reality is that the EPA only 

intends to make this early-action credit available to actions that reduce emissions after 2012 but 

before the beginning of the 2020 glide path. The commenters said this approach for eligibility of 

early-action credits provides no additional benefit, since by the very nature of the goal-setting 

and compliance determination calculations proposed in the June 2014 proposal, a state that 

reduces emissions after 2012 but prior to 2020 would in fact be "credited" for those emissions by 

default when calculating their emission rates for compliance in 2020. The commenters said the 

only approach that would provide an actual benefit to states engaged in early-action, would be a 

credit for CO2 emission reduction activities performed prior to 2012; since the EPA's goalsetting formula applies building blocks to each state's 2012 carbon emission rate, states that took 

action to reduce CO2 emissions prior to 2012 are forced to further reduce carbon emissions with 

the same intensity as states that have not already made investments in carbon reduction. The 

commenters urged the EPA to consider early-action credit for those CO2 reductions that 

occurred prior to the EPA's selected baseline year of 2012. The commenters said their early 

actions include the economic-based transition of coal plants to targeted operation during peak 

demand periods between 2005 and 2012, various heat rate improvements including a turbine 

energy efficiency project at Merrimack Station's Unit 2 in 2008, and the conversion of Schiller 

Station's 50 MW coal-fired EGU to a biomass-fired EGU via the Northern Wood Power Project 

in 2006. 

Commenters stated U.S. EPA states the intent of the June 18, 2014 proposal was to provide 

states with a ten-year averaging period and other flexibility so states could have a reasonable 

glide path to compliance with final goals. The commenters said to have several 

concerns regarding this perceived flexibility, or lack thereof; U.S. EPA states there is flexibility 

to include certain pre-2020 reductions or states could implement goal requirements early to 

reduce the amount of reductions needed during the interim period. The commenters raised 

several concerns regarding the use of pre-2020 reductions that include inconsistencies and 

confusion over which reductions are applicable and with respect to U.S. EPA's overestimation of 

the availability of early reductions to be achieved. The commenters said stakeholders expressed 

concerns specifically with respect to the difficulty in creating significant shifts from coal to 

NGCC by 2020 and that higher levels of utilization of existing NGCC units are not feasible in 

the early years of the 2020-2029 compliance period due to infrastructure constraints and recent 

significant capital investments at some existing coal-fired units; the commenters shared these 

concerns. The commenters said therefore, U.S. EPA is seeking comment on two additional 

adjustments to the interim goal calculations to allow a more gradual phase-in of Building Block 

2. The commenters said to have concerns over infrastructure capabilities and reliability 

considerations. The commenters said U.S. EPA proposes the methodology could be adjusted to 

account for how quickly additional infrastructure could be developed; U.S. EPA is proposing 

two parameters for consideration. The commenters said defining the amount of utilization shift 

that can occur by 2020 and defining how quickly that amount could grow until full utilization 

could be achieved; yet, U.S. EPA did not provide any indication of who would determine an 

adjustment due to reliability concerns was warranted, how the adjustment would be determined, 

and when would this process occur. The commenters said such an analysis is beyond the scope 

of U.S. EPA or the state's ability. The commenters added while it is obvious that there is a 
525 

necessity for such a consideration, this further reinforces the notion that U.S. EPA is attempting 

to control the entire electricity generation, transmission, and distribution system through a 

Section 111(d) proposal. 

Commenters appreciated that EPA's NODA has sought comment on the potential to alter the 

glide path and provide a "more gradual phase-in" of building blocks, evidencing its recognition 

of the widespread concern over this issue; however, EPA's response suggests accommodation 

primarily by permitting states to begin the glide path earlier which serves only to make the goals 

more stringent and impracticable by requiring action in an even shorter time frame. The 

commenters said for each state with an affected EGU, EPA mandates that states begin meeting 

the interim goals in 2020 and meet the targeted reduction goal for the state by 2030; additionally, 

beginning in 2030, the targeted greenhouse gas emission standard must continue to be met 

continuously and indefinitely, regardless of growth or other outside impacts. The commenters 

said this glide path does not allow sufficient time for the states with affected EGUs to implement 

and begin meeting the demands or targets of a state program; the BSER measures that are to be 

used to achieve the interim goals of the glide path demonstrate this shortcoming. 

Commenters stated the recently-released NODA recognizes that many stakeholders have 

concerns about the near-term compliance challenges created by the proposed guidelines; in 

particular, EPA notes, consistent with the concerns raised in these comments, that "calculating 

the interim goals on the basis of achieving the shift in generation assumed under building block 2 

by 2020...requires states to achieve such a significant portion of the required CO2 emission 

reductions early in the interim period that it defeats the intended purpose of providing states 

flexibility in how they may achieve the required emission reductions. In additional, we have 

heard that there may be technical challenges associated with achieving all of the reductions that 

state would be required to make as early as 2020, when the interim period commences." 

Commenters stated because of these concerns, EPA is interested in considering additional 

stakeholder ideas, such as those regarding the 2020-2029 glide path, to ensure that the final 

guidelines provide states with flexibility to address concerns about the timing of reductions, can 

develop cost-effective compliance plans and can respond to unexpected demands on the power 

system. The commenters said eliminating the interim compliance goal and allowing states to 

choose a reasonable glide path to achieve the 2030 goals would provide states the flexibility 

needed to design cost-effective strategies to reduce emissions and would eliminate the significant 

technical challenges associated with requiring the majority of the reductions to be achieved on or 

before 2020. The commenters said it also would allow states, electric utilities and system 

operators to plan for and implement changes to the interconnected power system in a way that 

would support reliability in the case of unexpected demands on the power system, such as 

extreme weather events. 

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA discusses two ways of addressing concerns raised by 

stakeholders about the glide path: 1) allowing states to credit early CO2 emission reductions; and 

2) phasing in the increased utilization of existing NGCC units under Building Block 2 over time, 

similar to the phase in of reductions under Building Blocks 3 and 4. The commenters said each 

of these options, could address some of the concerns about the 2020-2029 glide path that have 

been raised by states and electric utilities; however, neither provides states the same flexibility to

design cost-effective compliance plans that are consistent with the technical realities of shifting 
526 

generation between existing coal- and gas-based units that would be provided by eliminating the 

interim goals. 

Commenters stated in the Proposed Rule EPA Sets interim CO2 emission rate requirements for 

each of the states for the period from 2020-2029. The commenters said in most instances these 

interim requirements are nearly as stringent as the proposed final requirements that are set to take 

effect in 2030. The commenters said in the NODA EPA recognizes that there are a number of 

questions as to whether these interim goals can be achieved and requests comment on whether 

they should be adjusted. The commenters agreed with these concerns and requests that EPA 

eliminate the interim goals so that states, companies, and entities overseeing the operation of the 

country's electric generation and transmission system have adequate time to assess the massive 

changes to the system that EPA is proposing and ensure that consumers continue to have access 

to reliable, affordable power. 

Comment 30: NODA; Use of 2012 as a single data year for baseline; releasing data for 2010 

and 2011. 

Response 30: See section VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in its recent NODA, EPA seeks to address stakeholder concerns over the use 

of 2012 as a single data year for calculating interim and final goals by releasing data for 2010 

and 2011 and asking if a different single year or combination of years should be used. The 

commenters said while, in general, the use of additional years in the baseline may in some cases 

reflect reductions that have already been made, providing this conceptual alternative does not 

resolve the concerns stated above. The commenters said given the multi-year projections EPA is 

trying to make, using only three years of historical data is not sufficient to capture recent 

reductions; however, meaningful comment on this concept is practically impossible to develop 

with only a thirty-day comment period left to evaluate and no specific numeric proposal on 

which to comment. The commenters said EPA should provide a more thorough explanation of 

how the goals would be modified and extend the comment period for the NODA. 

Comment 31: NODA and Mass Based Calculations

Response 31: See section VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

the EPA’s response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
527 

Commenters stated EPA has issued a NODA and Mass Based Calculation supplements to the 

CPP. The commenters said in the NODA, EPA is taking comments on the "Implement of Goal -

Setting Equation" which questions the proposed numeric formula for calculating each state's 

goal. The commenters stated EPA states that for building block 2, the formula subtracts 1 MWh 

of fossil steam generation and corresponding emissions from the 2012 baseline levels for every 1 

MWh of incremental NGCC generation; however, from renewable energy (RE) and energy 

efficiency (EE), the formula adds incremental RE and EE to the baseline generation levels in the 

denominator of the formula but does not reduce the 2012 baseline levels of fossil generation in 

the denominator. The commenters said by implementing this change, it will make the standard 

more stringent (lower) than the original lb/MWhr rate stated in the proposed rule. Commenters 

stated EPA then developed mass based calculations for the state as an alternative to the rate 

based standard which included this approach in the NODA which has yet to be commented on 

and considered by EPA. The commenters said it appears that EPA has accepted this comment 

prematurely without comments on the NODA's change to the calculations. The commenters said 

when the mass based limit is calculated for Louisiana, it is a 52% reduction in CO2 emissions 

based on 2013 data and a 54% reduction from 2012 baseline emissions; the rate based reduction 

is 40% from 2012 to 2030; thus, EPA has required the state to make even further reductions 

compared to the rate based equation, if the mass based calculations are used. The commenters 

said in regards to the NOD A's Implementation of Goal-Setting Equation, it is uncertain to the 

commenters if EPA's intended goal is to be consistent, as there are a number of major 

assumptions that are inconsistent in this proposed rule. Commenters said for example: 

• The IPM does not provide an hourly dispatch model, which is how the real world 

of electric utilities works' therefore, the additional infrastructure and generation 

sources that would be required to simultaneously meet reliability standards and 

the CPP are not included. 

• The IPM shows a natural gas usage of 14 trillion cubic feet in 2030 at a 70% 

NGCC factor; the EIA data shows 9 trillion cubic feet. It is unknown how, or if, 

the natural gas cost could be impacted. 

• For Building Block 1, the heat rate improvements were based on gross heat rate; 

however, the rate based calculation was based on the net heat rate. 

• In the rate based equation, renewables are allowed to use another state's 

generation for their goal; however, for example, if a fossil fuel fired unit in 

Louisiana provides energy to Arkansas, then it is charged against the state of 

Louisiana, not the receiving state of Arkansas. 

• New NGCC is not included in the rate equation yet new renewables and Energy 

Efficiency are used. 

• No hydro generation is included, yet almost all other sources of fossil fuel and 

renewables are included. 
528 

• There is a mis-match between EPA's 19% nationwide reduction from this rule 

from 2012 to 2030, yet EPA's mass based approach is closer to 40% reduction 

nationwide. 

• A comparison of the mass based calculations (using CAMD 2012 data for the 

CO2 baseline) is more stringent than the rate based reductions 

• EPA assumes that states will be able to develop RPS, Energy Efficiency goals and 

switch fuels even though many states will have to go through a legislative, 

regulatory, and/or legal process to accomplish the goal, which is not at all a 

certainty. 

Commenters stated in the recently released technical support document [NODA] in which EPA 

calculated potential total mass CO2 emissions for each state, EPA also calculated total mass CO2 

emissions for each state assuming that new NGCC can be counted for mass emissions approach 

compliance. The commenters stated that there is no place in a mass-based approach for new units 

of any kind, but particularly not new NGCC. The commenters said as EPA has consistently 

explained, the mass-based approach allocates mass emissions limits to existing fossil units only; 

new units must only meet the 111(b) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) if applicable. 

The commenters supported keeping new NGCC and all other forms of new generation separate 

from existing fossil generation subject to the total mass limits. 

Comment 32: NODA - results in goals more stringent than NSPS 

Response 32: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The EPA disagrees with the comparison between stringency of state goals and NSPS rates as the 

two metrics are not apples-to-apples. The metric for the NSPS limits are different than the 

metric for the Existing source limits and should not be compared to each other. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in the alternative methods outlined in the NODA, the underlying algorithm 

that combines all four building blocks provides a state-wide emission rate target that is even 

more stringent than EPA proposed for existing and new power plants; that is not a realistic or 

reasonable outcome. The commenters said to highlight the extreme nature of this final result, 

New Jersey has calculated a final goal of 336 lb/MWh under this alternative approach, which is 

significantly more stringent than the 531 lb/MWh final goal set by EPA in the proposed rule. The 

commenters said when viewed from a statewide performance perspective, as appropriate with 

CO2, EPA is requiring more stringent emission reductions from existing sources than new 

sources; specifically, EPA is subjecting existing sources to a standard that is 66% to 69% more 

stringent than it is proposing for new sources; this is not a reasonable outcome. 
529 

Comment 33: NODA - Bank early emission credits for use during the interim compliance 

period; credit for energy efficiency 

Response 33: See sections VI and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated another way that EPA could provide credit for early action would be to allow 

emission reductions that occur before 2020 to be "banked" and counted toward compliance with 

state goals. The commenters said as EPA recognizes in the NODA, stakeholders have suggested 

that allowing states to bank early emission credits for use during the interim compliance period 

could mitigate the negative impacts of EPA's proposed assumption that all emission reductions 

from heat rate improvements, redispatch to NGCC units, and under-construction nuclear can be 

implemented by 2020. Although the commenters recommended that EPA revise its unreasonable 

assumptions about the timing of these building block measures to allow for a more gradual 

implementation period, the commenters also supported allowing states to count early reductions 

toward compliance with the interim goal. 

Commenters supported the proposal contained in the October 2014 NODA that would allow 

states to take credit for early actions that achieved emission reductions. The commenters said 

providing full credit for these early actions recognizes the important emissions reductions states 

have already achieved and it continues to incent incremental reductions between the date of the 

proposal and the date of compliance. The commenters supported an outcome whereby the final 

rule clearly states that early emission reductions occurring prior to 2020 can be credited towards 

compliance with the 2030 target; such reductions should not need to relate directly to the 

proposed building blocks so long as they contribute to achieving a state's emissions target. The 

commenters said for example, development of renewable energy and implementation of energy 

efficiency programs, as identified in Building Blocks 3 and 4, will certainly continue prior to 

2020 and should be credited towards compliance with the 2030 targets. 

Commenters stated EPA should also ensure that states receive full credit for their current energy 

efficiency savings under the proposed rule. The commenters said like renewable generation, 

energy efficiency savings do not displace fossil fuel-fired generation demand under the EPA's 

proposed goal-setting calculations. The commenters said in order to capture the true potential of 

cost effective, energy efficiency measures, the commenters encouraged EPA to adopt the method 

for calculating energy efficiency savings outlined by EPA in the recent, October 28, 2014 Notice 

of Data Availability, which displaces fossil fuel energy demand with added energy efficiency. 

Commenters stated in the NODA, EPA notes that some stakeholders have suggested that "early 

reductions could be used as a way to ease the 2020-2029 glide path." The commenters said EPA 

also notes that the proposed guidelines seek comment on whether credit for certain pre-2020 

reductions could be used to reduce the overall amount of reductions that need to be achieved 

during the interim period; the NODA also seek comment on whether states could choose early 
530 

implementation of state compliance plans, which would allow states to achieve the interim goals 

by making some reductions earlier. The commenters said EPA asserts that either of these 

approaches would allow states to phase in reductions. 

Commenters stated allowing states to recognize early action that reduces emissions between 

2012 and the start of the interim compliance period is an important tool that could be useful to 

some states when designing compliance plans. The commenters said as EPA notes, it is 

important to recognize early reductions so as not to create disincentives for pre-2020 

reductions; the final guidelines should recognize that states have the flexibility to recognize early 

reductions. Commenters stated this flexibility does not address fully the concerns about the 

interim compliance goal and the magnitude of reductions that are required before 2020. The 

commenters said EPA notes that allowing states to credit some early reductions or state 

compliance periods earlier than 2020 would make it possible for "at least some states to take 

advantage...of RE and demand-side [EE] projects already under development and scheduled to 

be implemented prior to 2020 or by expediting other projects." The commenters said while states 

may be able to use some reductions from RE and EE measures, it is unlikely that these 

reductions would be significant enough to offset the need to increase significantly utilization of 

existing NGCC units to meet the interim goals. The commenters said credit for early RE and EE 

reductions also does not address infrastructure concerns or other technical challenges associated 

with increasing the utilization of existing NGCC units. The commenters added given the timing 

challenges states face in submitting timely compliance plans for EPA approval, it is unlikely that 

states would be able to begin compliance plans early in order to take advantage of pre-2020 

reductions. The commenters said if states would like to do so, the final guidelines should make it 

clear that this is an option; providing this flexibility, however, does not obviate the need to 

eliminate the interim compliance goals. 

Comment 34: NODA - way BSER applied in calculation of goals 

Response 34: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.A., V.D., V.E., and VI of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said the NODA explored the possibility of changes to the manner in which the 

BSER is applied during the calculation of the state performance goals. The commenters urged 

the Agency to ensure the application of the BSER to calculate state performance standards does 

not exacerbate existing problems with the rule as originally proposed. The commenters said any 

changes to the formula that would be premised on the capacity for energy efficiency programs to 

replace existing capacity are not realistic in relation to the best practices model EPA has 

established. The commenters said the programs and measures covered by Building Blocks 2, 3, 

and 4 are sufficiently different from one another, and the presumption that each should be 
531 

applied in the exact same manner when calculating state performance goals is illogical. The 

commenters said any changes that result in a more stringent energy efficiency requirement would 

only intensify the underlying challenges of the proposal. The commenters said the existing 

formula already raises concerns that a more holistic policy structure, which supports innovation 

and assures cost effective solutions will be elusive under the Clean Power Plan. The commenters 

said state capacity to implement sufficient measures to comply with state performance goals will 

be stretched to the limit and these measures, regardless of their cost effectiveness, will be viewed 

as necessary. The commenters said a more stringent energy efficiency requirement and 

subsequently a more stringent performance standard will exacerbate rather than mitigate 

implementation issues. 

Comment 35: NODA - Tribes & Territories oppose approach 

Response 35: The EPA is adopting the alternative approach from the proposal, modified as 

described in the NODA. See sections V.D., and VI of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the 

CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the 

final CPP for more information. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters opposed the alternative approach for the goal-setting equation that would treat RE 

and energy efficiency ("EE") in Building Blocks 3 and 4 in a similar manner to the transfer of 

coal-based load to natural gas in Building Block 2. The commenters said RE and EE should not 

be treated in a similar fashion for two main reasons. The commenters said first, both coal and 

natural gas generation are dispatchable, which is not the case with RE or EE; therefore, absent 

widespread use of energy storage that is not envisioned, RE and EE are not comparable to 

NGCC. The commenters said second, for those jurisdictions with available NGCC, a transfer 

from coal to existing NGCC could potentially be implemented quickly; those locations could 

achieve reductions from 2012 emission levels in a time frame where CO2 emission reductions 

can be directly tied to the reduced coal generation. The commenters said deployment of RE and 

particularly EE, on the other hand, require much longer time frames to develop. 

Comment 36: General recommendations to equation 

Response 36: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation. 

Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 
532 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated that it can be reasonable to assign states different starting and ending points 

for emission rate reductions, particularly during an initial period of carbon regulation; such an 

approach takes into account the diverse characteristics of geography, policy and existing 

generation portfolios in the different states; over the longer term, however, all costs are variable 

costs. The commenters said to the degree that states transition away from carbon-intensive 

generation, states should move towards a lower mean carbon emissions rate, and disparities 

reflected in historic policy differences also should narrow. The commenters said a rule taking 

into account (indeed, promoting) this longer-term shift in technology should not permanently 

establish very high allowed emissions rates for some states, and low ones for others; from the 

start, it should be designed to mitigate extremes, and to include mechanisms for adjustment 

towards a reasonable lower mean. The commenters said the narrowing of real-world disparities 

in emissions rates under rule implementation is itself a reasonable basis to mitigate the extreme 

state-by-state differences in emissions rate goals under the Proposed Rule. 

Commenters stated it is reasonable and necessary for EPA to adjust its goal-setting formula in 

ways that tend to bring "outlier" state goals towards the mean, that provide more time and/or 

flexibility for those states with large goals to comply, and that establish clear and definite 

pathways for multistate cooperation or interstate compliance. The commenters thus provided the 

following general recommendations regarding the goal-setting formula: 

• EPA should consider setting upper (and possibly lower) limits on the size of the 

goal any particular state must meet that will bring individual state goals closer to 

the average goal. 

• For states with a more stringent goal, EPA should consider establishing a longer 

compliance period, and particularly a less stringent interim goal, thereby allowing 

states a reasonable opportunity to plan for major changes; alternatively, or in 

addition, EPA could establish a ramp-rate for its assumptions about redispatch 

from coal to gas, as further detailed below, to allow a more realistic timeframe for 

public utility planning. 

• EPA should establish a suite of "safe- harbor" compliance strategies, including 

particularly multistate or national compliance strategies (such as standard 

recognition of a Purchased Power Agreement for RE and a recognized RE credit 

market strategy) to help avoid conflict between states and to promote compliance 

generally. 

Comment 37: Alternative approaches - RGGI Program Example 

Response 37: The EPA appreciates the RGGI Program as an example for changes to the goal 

calculation equation. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP for more information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 
533 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in response to the release of a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) from 

EPA on October 28, 2014, the commenters recommend that EPA "follow the RGGI example". 

The commenters said the RGGI Program was amended by: 

1. Lowering the regional 2014 cap to 91 million tons (2012 baseline); 

2. Maintaining the original 2.5 percent per year reduction to the regional RGGI cap for 

the years 2015 through 2020; 

3. Applying budget adjustments to draw down the private bank of allowances that were 

allowed to be carried forward into the program in 2014 (representing early reductions 

from the former, higher original baseline); and 

4. Retaining a 3-year compliance period, although interim compliance periods were 

added. 

Commenters stated from 2010 to 2011 to 2012, RGGI total emissions declined each year; for the 

amended 2014 regional cap, RGGI States chose 2012 as a baseline, resulting in the most 

stringent (lowest) cap level. The commenters said EPA's NODA provides data for 2010 and 

2011; if EPA were to allow states to choose an alternative baseline (either 2010 or 2011 or a 3-

year average), then the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) would be less stringent than it 

otherwise would have been using the originally proposed 2012 baseline. The commenters said 

also, an alternative baseline would create an inequity between RGGI States, all of which would 

continue to implement the RGGI Program based on a 2012 baseline, and non-RGGI States, all of 

which could choose a less stringent baseline. The commenters recommended that EPA retain the 

originally proposed 2012 baseline; some stakeholders have expressed concern that goals based 

on a single year baseline do not account for year-to-year variability in emissions. The 

commenters said the RGGI Program provides compliance flexibility by implementation of a 3-

year compliance period, rather than basing the regional cap on a 3-year average. The commenters 

recommended that EPA also implement a 3-year compliance period in order to address 

stakeholder concerns. 

Comment 38: Alternative approaches - PA Whitepaper 

Response 38: The EPA appreciates the PA Whitepaper recommendations to the goal calculation 

equation. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 

Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final 

CPP for more information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's draft rule proposes a number of approaches for Pennsylvania to 

achieve a very aggressive reduction target of 32% below 2012 levels, based on a number of 

assumptions, including that existing plants can (and will) become significantly more efficient, 
534 

that existing and new natural gas plants can (and will) run significantly more often, and that 

Pennsylvania can (and will) deploy considerable renewable assets and energy-efficiency 

measures beyond those already required by law. The commenters said each of these "building 

blocks" will come with a cost; there remain significant questions as to the ability of Pennsylvania 

to comply with this target without additional shutdowns of coal-fired facilities. The commenters 

said the proposal put forward by EPA is unlike any other emissions reduction strategy ever 

developed, and we believe the sort of approach envisioned in a recent Pennsylvania DEP 

whitepaper [Recommended Framework for the Section 111 (d) Emissions Guidelines Addressing 

Carbon Dioxide Standards for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants. Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, April 10, 2014. 

http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-100322/2700-UKDEP4446%20combined.pdf], where achievable reductions at fossil-fuel generating plants are 

identified, with so-called "outside the fence" measures made available - but not required- to 

achieve compliance, is a more appropriate strategy. 

Comment 39: Alternative approach - general 

Response 39: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation. 

Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters recommended that EPA consider other options that states could choose as an 

alternative. 

Commenters stated one approach would be to eliminate the renewable energy "penalty" for early 

(pre-2012) movers that EPA effectively uses when calculating states' 2012 emissions rates. The 

commenters said under this approach, early moving states would receive appropriate credit for 

renewable energy sources installed before 2012, and would not have their early actions drive 

final goals that require them to do comparatively more than other states. 

Commenters added another approach would be to allow states to meet an alternative goal that 

reflects significant investments in renewable energy, which could be voluntarily utilized in lieu 

of the cited BSER. The commenters said it is obvious to look at renewable energy, as these 

sources are truly carbon neutral, and investments in these sources result in significant carbon 

reductions; this compliance option could be based on the idea that a certain percent of the electric 

generating fleet must be carbon neutral. The commenters said this simple alternative emissions 

cap would reward early actions by setting a reasonable carbon pollution standard that broadly 

requires a percentage of renewable generation based on a baseline year; for example, 25% from 

2012 baseline levels by 2030. The commenters said this simple approach would focus 

exclusively on zero carbon resources and allow states to simply and efficiently meet their goal by 

demonstrating a certain percentage of renewable energy; and, because natural gas combined 

cycle turbines are needed to support high penetrations of variable renewable sources, such an 
535 

approach would have the added effect of automatically promoting re-dispatch to natural gas, and 

other efforts that reflect the state's commitment to addressing greenhouse gases. The commenters 

said in Colorado's experience, efforts that willingly and intentionally go beyond federal 

regulatory requirements are often more likely to succeed, achieve real reductions and do so 

earlier than mandated requirements; ultimately, such efforts can be more beneficial for the 

environment and public health. 

Commenters added EPA's final rule should appropriately include an alternative compliance 

demonstration that is simpler than the proposed BSER, while still arriving at the policy goals set 

forth in EPA's proposal. The commenters believed that such alternatives could provide flexibility 

and simplicity, reward early movers, level the playing field, and address technical feasibility and 

cost issues, all while signaling support for other early emission reduction efforts. 

Commenters added in finalizing the Clean Power Plan, when applying a corrected, consistent 

displacement approach for calculating state goals, EPA may also consider whether adjustments 

to any other building block parameters are appropriate; for example, EPA could consider 

inclusion of new NGCC units in calculating state targets, as well as alternatives to the 

assumption of 70% NGCC utilization in 2020; however, as EPA considers these kinds of 

adjustments, it must bear in mind the importance of strengthening the near-term environmental 

outcome in 2020 and the goal of significantly strengthening the emissions outcome between 

2020 and the final compliance date. 

Comment 40: Alternative approach - mass-based allowance trading system. 

Response 40: The EPA appreciates the mass-based allowance trading system recommendations 

to the goal calculation equation. Please see section VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP for more information about the mass based final goals and how they were 

calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated a mass-based allowance trading system provides the most effective, efficient, 

and affordable approach to implementing EPA's state goals for this industry. The commenters 

stated EPA should provide states with incentives to adopt mass-based allowance trading systems 

with a cap. 

The commenters proposed a simple and transparent approach for calculating state mass goals 

that are consistent with EPA's reduced utilization approach to BSER and that builds on the 

Agency's goal data computation methodology ("GDC"). The commenters said this methodology 

was developed for CATF by NorthBridge, and is more fully described in its whitepaper Bruce 

Phillips, "Translating Emission Rate Goals into Mass Goals under the Clean Power Plan," dated 

December 1, 2014. The commenters said specifically, under the CATF/Northbridge suggested 

approach, 2012 retail sales are grossed up to account for lines losses, reflecting total 2012 

generation, to which a [business-as-usual] BAU load growth rate (between 2012 and 2030) is 
536 

applied; this produces an estimate of total state generation needs for 2030. The commenters said 

the 2012 retail sales assumptions in these calculations are taken from the GDC and the load 

growth data are taken from the EPA's Integrated Planning Model cases issued as part of its June 

2014 Regulatory Impact Analysis. The commenters said this approach to incorporating load 

growth factors in the goal development process is analogous to the EPA's approach taken in the 

NOx SIP call. 

Commenters added next, demand and supply resources are deployed sequentially to meet total 

state generation needs; all four building blocks, along with generating resources not covered 

under the CPP, are represented in this analytical process; in this way, working back through the 

application of the building blocks, total resources are balanced with total energy demands, and 

the utilization of existing affected sources is reduced. 

Commenters added finally, to create the state's emission budget, the amount of energy produced 

by each fossil source covered under the rule is multiplied by the average state emissions rate for 

that fossil source in 2012. The commenters said the one exception to this process is the coal 

emission rate, which is assumed to be 6 percent lower than 2012 levels consistent with building 

block 1 of the GDC. 

Commenters said this methodology is a "first principles" approach to mass-based calculation; it 

starts with fundamental generation demand and resource data, along with the building block 

assumptions used by EPA in the GDC process, using them to determine the EPA's proposed 

emission rate goals. The commenters said because it is based on complete and balanced 

estimates of electric demand, energy efficiency and generation in future policy years, it is simple, 

intuitive, and fully transparent; and, because it relies on the same assumptions and calculation 

process used by the EPA, the resulting annual CO2 mass goals are consistent with the EPA's 

definition of BSER and equivalent to the proposed rate goals. 

Comment 41: Alternative approaches - include federally enforceable shutdowns into goals 

Response 41: The EPA appreciates the recommendation to include federally enforceable 

shutdowns into the goals. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP 

and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information about the final goals and how they were 

calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA assumes that in-state natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units will be 

preferentially dispatched before in-state coal units; this approach is not a concern for Washington 

as part of the final goal in 2030, as long as Washington has a mechanism to address changes to 

in-state emissions caused by out of state coal plant closures; however, EPA's dispatch 

assumption creates challenges for meeting Washington's interim goal for 2020-2029. 

Commenters stated Washington's only coal power plant, the Centralia Power Plant, is required, 

by terms of state law, binding agreements, and the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP), 
537 

to cease operation by the end of 2025; as a consequence of the law and other binding documents 

(including the SIP), the plant has full legal authority and a contractual obligation to operate and 

provide power to in-state utilities through the end of 2025. The commenters stated the law 

requires one unit to cease operation by the end of calendar year 2020 and the other unit by the 

end of 2025; the requirements of the state law have been incorporated into a BART decision that 

has been included as part of the existing Washington SIP; as part of the SIP, this closure 

schedule is also directly enforceable by EPA and private citizens. 

The commenters said based on the BART FIPs and SIPs approved by EPA across the country, 

there are a number of other coal power plants where individual coal units or whole power plants 

will be ceasing operation between now and 2029; EPA has made all of these unit/plant 

shutdowns federally enforceable by their inclusion in state SIPs, as a result, these federally 

enforceable closures should be incorporated by EPA when finalizing the interim goals for the 

various states. 

The commenters added specific to Washington, we have evaluated the effects of including the 

operation of the Centralia Power Plan on the interim goal; using the EPA goal setting 

spreadsheet (including EPA's proposed NGCC emission rate), we have estimated that 

Washington's interim goal would increase from 264 lbs/MWh to 3411bs/MWh; the final goal 

would remain unchanged as a result of this request.

The commenters stated the operation of this coal plant, whether at the capacity factor achieved in 

2012, the levels in other years, or the company's expected 84-percent capacity factor, will tend to 

increase the CO2 emissions used to calculate the interim emission standard for Washington. The 

commenters said with the 2025 closure of this plant, Washington will eliminate its in-state coal 

based emissions, which supports the goal of the proposed rule. The commenters said their 

requested modification would only affect the interim goal setting process; we will still expect to 

be held accountable to achieve the final 2030 goal regardless of how the Centralia plant's 

emissions are addressed. 

The commenters added EPA could adjust the interim emission standards of other states in a 

similar manner to what we have suggested; we would suggest that such an adjustment be based 

on the same type of legally binding, federally enforceable requirements that Centralia has; such 

an adjusted approach should still achieve the 2030 goal, even if the interim goal is modified. 

The commenters added as a preferred alternative to adjusting the interim standard as proposed 

above, EPA could instead use an average based on no adjustments to the dispatch order in 2020 

and to full preferential dispatch of natural gas generation in 2029. The commenters said in the 

NODA published October 30, 2014, EPA has asked for input on ramping the NGCC/coal 

redispatch in a manner similar to that proposed for renewable energy. The commenters said they 

advocate that the interim goal be based on such an approach starting with no NGCC redispatch in 

2020 and ramping to full NGCC red is patch no later than 2029; this would accommodate the 

adjustments suggested above. 

Comment 42: Alternative approach - "Small Public and Cooperative Utility" Category 
538 

Response 42: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation for a 

small public and cooperative utility category. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for 

CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information about the final goals and how 

they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated if EPA creates an alternative category for small public or cooperative 

than utilities meeting the qualifications for that category would quantify for an alternative, utility

specific goal in the state plan, rather than participating in the general state plan. 

The commenters said the alternative state plan would require the qualifying small public or 

cooperative utility to undertake the following during the Interim Goal period: 

• Achieve all reasonably cost effective heat rate improvements on any nonachieving unit(s) (not just coal-fired ones); 

• Redispatch any NGCC units it owns until 70% annual capacity is achieved; 

• Install renewable energy or obtain RECs equal to 10% of the non-achieving 

unit(s) capacity within 5 years of plan approval or 2025, whichever is earlier; 

• Meet one-half of the general state plan energy efficiency goal, if the small public 

or cooperative utility has local distribution; and 

• Achieve reductions equal to the lesser of the state Final Goal or 15% of total 

carbon emissions across the small public or cooperative utility's portfolio by 

2030, with at least 33% of that reduction to occur by 2020 or within three years of 

plan approval, whichever is earlier. 

Comment 43: EPA should prepare a third option for consideration on the high side of the two 

presented

Response 43: The EPA appreciates the comments on the goal calculation equation. Please see 

sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more 

information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated as large as the benefit cost ratio is in the EPA analysis of Option 1, when 

these modifications are made to the economic analysis, the potential benefits of a well-designed, 

least cost performance standard will exceed the costs by a much greater margin than EPA's 

Option 1 analysis suggests. The commenters said when the economic analysis is corrected and a 
539 

third, "high" reduction rule analyzed, the higher standard will be very attractive. The commenters 

said whether or not EPA adopts the higher standard, having the more rigorous analysis of a 

higher standard available would serve to expand the range of options considered by the states, 

laying the basis for higher levels of reduction of carbon emissions in the future. 

Comment 44: Alternative approach - to set tighter emission targets 

Response 44: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation to set 

tighter emission targets. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and 

the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting 

the final CPP for more information about the final goals and how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters constructed a Climate Protection Scenario in order to illustrate that the EPA can set 

much tighter emission targets using only resources that have low-cost or negative cost resources 

(like efficiency) for reducing CO2 emissions; using the following principles and incorporated the 

following features in constructing the IEER Climate Protection Scenario: 

• AEO 2014 projection for fossil-fuel-based electricity generation and also the 

overall national total for affected generation in 2030. 

• Examined state efficiency goals and selected a 1.5 percent rate of efficiency 

improvement per year, starting in 2017, and assumed a ramp up by 0.5 percent per 

year between 2015 and 2017. 

• Chose utility solar PV (urban and rural) and land-based wind since these have low 

CO2 costs that are much lower than new nuclear; assume that in the near-term 

distributed solar will also be part of the implementation of the plan. 

• Maintained the groupings of the states chosen by the EPA for renewable target 

setting; selected the highest renewable portfolio standard in each group as the 

target for each state. 

• Adopted the goal set out in the 2012 Executive Order by President Obama that 

called for "a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost effective 

industrial CHP in the United States by the end of 2020." 

• Reduced nuclear power according to the present license expiry dates. 

• Kept overall natural gas use a little below 2012 levels. 

• In calculating the target rates, adopted a variant of the approaches published by 

the EPA in its October 2014 Notice of Data Availability. 
540 

Commenters stated in the IEER Climate Protection Scenario, renewable energy targets were set 

through a stepwise process: 

1) using the EIA generation data from all renewable energy sources (wind, solar thermal 

and photovoltaic, geothermal, wood and wood derived fuels, and other biomass) for the 

period from 2008 to 2012, derived a trend line for renewable energy generation. 

2) from 2013 to 2016, extrapolated the trend but cap the growth at 10 percent; from 

2017, followed the EPA's method of assigning states to regions (East Central, Northeast, 

North Central, South Central, Southeast, and West) and, based on the maximum target 

among the states falling into that region, set a renewable energy target for each of the 

regions; these percentages are: East Central - 20%, Northeast - 40%, North Central - 

30%, South Central - 20%, Southeast - 20%, West - 33% and a note that Maine target 

includes hydropower. 

3) applied these fractions to the projected sales for 2030 after adjusting for the projected 

efficiency improvements to obtain a target for renewable energy generation in each state; 

then calculated a growth rate for renewable energy generation by assuming that the target 

is met in 15 years starting from the 2012 level (available in the EIA's 2014 Annual 

Energy Outlook). 

4) starting from 2017, assumed that RE generation in each state grows at this calculated 

rate until the target is met, at which point it is assumed to grow linearly, i.e., at the same 

rate as the previous year. 

 

Comment 45: EPA hould adopt UAMPS' Retirement Calculation Methodology for Coal Plants 

Retired Before 2030 

Response 45: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to adopt the UAMPS’ retirement 

calculation methodology for coal plants retired before 2030. Please see sections VI and VII of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for more information about the 

final goals and how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated The CPP acknowledges the need to provide compliance credit for the 

retirement of affected EGUs subject to the Proposal, but the Proposal lacks definition on how 

compliance credit will be recognized by EPA in its approval process of State plans. The 

commenters requested that EPA adopt UAMPS Retirement Calculation Methodology as 

described below; adoption of UAMPS' Retirement Calculation Methodology will provide States 

with the guidance necessary for States to compile an approvable State plan and help reduce the 

likelihood of disapproval actions. The commenters said the UAMPS Retirement Calculation 
541 

Methodology strives to more accurately reflect the actual reductions achieved from affected 

EGUs while achieving the primary goal of reduced CO2 emissions set forth in the CPP. The 

commenters said for example, assume power plant X (1,640 MW), Utah's largest single source of 

CO2 emissions, and another power plant Y (189 MW) are shut down; Utah's affected EGU CO2 

emissions in 2012 totaled 30.8 million tons; after plants X and Y are shutdown, Utah's CO2 

emissions will drop to a total 19.5 million tons; Power plant X is replaced with a new 1,200 MW 

NGCC, but because new units are not affected EGUs, these emissions are not included in Utah's 

compliance calculation; by utilizing Utah's affected EGU MWh from 2012 (including MWh 

from Plant X and Y), Utah achieves an emissions rate of 1,189.97 lb/MWh, surpassing EPA's set 

target by 132.07 lb/MWh. The commenters believed this methodology appropriately accounts for 

the reduction in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs - the goal and legal scope of the CPP - by 

retention of the MWh associated with the retirement of Plants X & Y in the compliance 

calculation. The commenters said removing the MWh associated with these plant retirements 

fails to accurately reflect the CO2 emission reductions under a rate-based approach; removing 

these MWh and associated CO2 emissions results in a emission rate for the State of 1518 lbs of 

CO2/MWh, which is substantially above Utah's proposed target of 1322 lbs of CO2/MWh. The 

commenters said it should be noted that these plant retirements would result in Utah achieving its 

State goal under a mass-based approach assuming a target of 21,747,459 tons of CO2 (applying 

the conversion calculation proposed by EPA in June 2014) or 20, 384,000 tons of CO2 under 

EPA's newly minted November approach to doing the conversion from rate-based to mass 

based; EPA needs to reconcile how a State's decision to adopt a rate-based versus a mass-based 

approach may result in the State being deemed not to be in compliance with its proposed goal. 

Comment 46: Subsequent NODA needed to evaluate alternative scenarios 

Response 46: The EPA appreciates the recommendation to publish an additional NODA in 

regards to how a Federal Implementation Plan might be structured and implemented. For more 

information please see section II.G of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposal did not include any information on how a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) might be structured and implemented. The commenters said it is 

appropriate to include language in a subsequent Notice of Data Availability (NODA) regarding 

this issue so that states can take this into consideration in evaluating alternative scenarios for 

states to comply with the final rule. 

Comment 47: The EPA should allow states to utilize non-BSER mechanisms in compliance 

plans. 

Response 47: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation. 

Please see sections VI, VII, and VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP and the CO2 Emission 
542 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule supporting the final CPP for 

more information about the final goals, how they were calculate, and state compliance plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA's 111(d) proposal allows states to "include measures in their plans 

beyond those that the EPA included in its determination of the BSER." The commenters said for 

example, non-BSER compliance options could include affected unit-specific measures to further 

reduce emissions and/or measures that would result in reductions at non-affected units. The 

commenters supported this flexibility and agrees these types of measures may be appropriate to 

include in a state plan to achieve CO2 emission reductions from affected EGUs. 

Comment 48: Alternatives approaches - to several of BB 

Response 48: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation 

regarding the building blocks. Please see sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule 

supporting the final CPP for more information about the final goals and how they were 

calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated an alternative approach to setting the goal for Build Block 1 would be to 

allow states to demonstrate pre-base-year heat rate improvements secured through specific plant 

upgrades, technologies, or new plant construction, and provide data on other plant changes that 

have affected net heat rates, so that EPA can use this information in determining improvement 

potential for that state and use this potential for calculating the state goal. The commenters said 

in some states, this may result in an even higher heat rate improvement then calculated, as some 

coal-fired EGUs may be able to exceed the estimated six percent increase in heat rate. The 

commenters said if this type of approach based on more in-depth analysis is used however, it 

should also account for other opportunities to increase efficiency in goal setting (e.g. 

environmental dispatch of existing units, or increased co-firing of natural gas); ultimately, this 

could result in greater emission reductions from this Building Block, especially for states who 

have not taken any actions prior to 2012 to improve or upgrade their coal-fired EGUs. The 

commenters said this may also be an opportunity for the EPA to recognize the early action of 

some states that many utilities and state regulators are concerned with. 

Commenters stated EPA has invited comment on whether they should consider re-dispatch to 

new NGCC resources (as opposed to existing, under-utilized NGCC resources), the potential to 

co-fire with natural gas at existing coal-fired EGUs, or convert coal to natural gas at existing 

coal-fired EGUs. The commenters recommended that the EPA recognize these pathways as 

compliance measures explicitly, and to consider them in setting carbon reduction goals, as they 

are already being deployed across the country. While the commenters took the position that the 

existing proposal allows states to pursue these compliance measures as options, and EPA should 

consider these three pathways as part of the BSER for Building Blocks 1. 
543 

Commenters’ analysis has shown that an environmental dispatch, that is, the re-dispatch of 

generation from less-efficient to more efficient coal-fired EGUs, could alone account for a 5% 

improvement in Wisconsin overall emissions per unit output for coal-fired EGUs in 

Wisconsin; there is no reason to believe that this strategy is unique to Wisconsin and could easily 

be replicated by other states. 

Commenters stated the method employed by the EPA to calculate the renewable energy goal for 

each state is based on a regional average of existing state renewable energy portfolio standards 

(RPS); RPS are a widely used and understood policy mechanism used by states to meaningfully 

develop renewable energy resources in their respective states. The commenters said that a 

technical potential analysis would be more appropriate in setting the renewable energy goal for 

each state, as it does a better job at accounting for the specific circumstances for each state and 

better illustrates the enormous potential that Wisconsin and states have to develop their own 

renewable energy resources. 

Commenters stated as a baseline, endorses the Union of Concerned Scientists' "Demonstrated 

Growth Approach" to the renewable energy aspect of Building Block 3. The commenters said 

this entails: (1) setting a national benchmark renewable energy growth rate of 1% of electricity 

sales/year based on demonstrated growth in the states from 2009 to 2013; (2) full compliance 

with existing RPS standards; and (3) accounting for actual and expected renewable energy 

growth between 2013 and 2017. The commenters said states below the benchmark ramp-up to 

1% by 2020, and states at or above benchmark growth ramp-up to a maximum rate of 1.5%; this 

approach is stronger than the EPA's proposal, but is still easily achievable by the states. The 

commenters would at least like to see this approach adopted by EPA in setting Building Block 3. 

Commenters stated that EPA is undervaluing the potential of renewable energy as a compliance 

measure. The commenters said EPA's technical-economic analysis of renewable energy potential 

does not use the most recently available data, which suggests that the costs of renewable energy 

are decreasing and are less than the estimates used in EPA's analysis; by using the most recent 

cost and economic data, the value of renewable energy as a compliance measure will increase 

and greater emissions reductions can be achieved. 

Commenters stated other approaches to setting the renewables portion to the state targets, such as 

the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) demonstrated renewables growth approach, show 

double the amount of renewable energy potential using the correct data for renewable energy. 

The commenters said the UCS demonstrated growth approach would improve on the EPA's 

proposed approach by incorporating the following core components: 

• Setting a national renewable energy growth rate benchmark based on 

demonstrated growth in the states from 2009 to 2013 

• Assuming full compliance with current state RES policies, as set by law, that 

require certain percentages of electricity to come from renewable sources 

• Accounting for actual and expected renewable energy growth between 2013 and 

2017. 
544 

The commenters said the UCS state-level renewable energy targets begin in 2017, the proposed 

start date for state implementation plans, and ramp up through 2030; to determine each state's 

2017 generation levels, the UCS uses actual generation data from 2013 (the EPA's approach uses 

2012 data) and adds projected generation from wind and utility-scale solar projects known to be 

under construction through 2016. 

Comment 49: Alternative approach - BB1 - if no additional HRI is technically feasible 

Response 49: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation in 

regards to Building Block 1. Please see sections V.C., VI and VII of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final 

Rule supporting the final CPP for more information about Building Block 1, the final goals, and 

how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated Building Block 1 focuses on heat rate improvement ("HRI") at coal-fired 

EGUs; more specifically, EPA has proposed an across-the-board 6% HRI for all coal-fired 

generation as a BSER. The commenters suggested if no additional HRI is technically feasible at 

a unit, the Final Rule should recognize such unit as having already met BSER, and such unit 

should be excluded from the state reduction goal calculation as is currently the case with nuclear 

generation. 

Comment 50: Alternative approach - BB1 - modified and reconstructed consideration in 111(d) 

approach 

Response 50: The EPA appreciates the recommendations to the goal calculation equation in 

regards to Building Block 1. Please see sections V.C., VI and VII of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final 

Rule supporting the final CPP for more information about Building Block 1, the final goals, and 

how they were calculated. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated U.S. EPA took a different approach under the modified and reconstructed 

proposal to at least acknowledge unit specifics should be considered; specifically, U.S. EPA 

proposed two options, both considering unit specifics. The commenters said first, U.S. EPA 

proposed to use a unit-specific rate, either the single best annual emission rate or the best three 

consecutive year average emission rate, based on unit-specific data from the 2002 to the point of 

modification. [79 FR 34987, 34974] The commenters said U.S. EPA then proposed a 2% HRI be 

added to that rate. While the commenters did not agree with this approach, it is a step in the right 

direction of considering unit-specifics that U.S. EPA has not taken under this proposal. The 

commenters said second, U.S. EPA proposed the emission limit for modified sources would be 
545 

determined by the Section 111(d) implementing authority based on the sources expected 

performance after implementing unit-specific EE improvements taking into account what is 

technically feasible. [79 FR 34965, 34988] Commenters asserted this is the exact provision that 

should be occurring under this Section 111(d) plan. The commenters believed this type of 

flexibility is what is necessary in order to address issues that will arise as states develop and 

implement Section 111(d) plans. The commenters said the only method that should be used for 

determining emission limits under Section 111(d) is through the states determination (such as an 

energy audit) of what is technically and economically feasible at a particular unit given the 

history of what efficiency improvements have already been completed. The commenters said 

approaches under the modified and reconstructed proposal, of setting a limit and requiring an 

additional 2%, or approaches under this Section 111(d) proposal of assuming 6% can be 

achieved on average, based upon inappropriate application of studies and averaging historical 

rates without any consideration for unit-specific feasibility is wrong, unworkable and can lead to 

individual facilities in some cases being imposed with requirements that are beyond the BSERs. 

Comment 51: Alternative approach - BB2 EPA should impose a minimum gas generation share 

target by state 

Response 51: See Preamble Section V.A for a discussion of BB2 in the final rule. Section VI 

explains the regional application of the building blocks. The EPA’s calculations of subcategory 

rates does assume that fossil steam generation will continue to operate in all Interconnections as 

the least stringent region used to set the subcategory-specific rates has a significant amount of 

fossil steam generation. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters believed that several of the issues with the redispatch step may be addressed by 

requiring a minimum share of gas by state, and then adjusting other state requirements to provide 

actual flexibility in developing compliance plans. The commenters said this would allow states 

such as Mississippi the ability to preserve some coal-fired generation. The commenters said a 

modified goal setting methodology with minimum state gas generation shares - or alternatively, 

maximum coal generation shares or maximum average emissions rates - would also provide real 

flexibility to states such as Mississippi to maintain some generation diversity and would help to 

minimize overall compliance costs because states would not be forced into potentially 

irreversible actions to ensure compliance on a single-state basis. The commenters have not 

evaluated what minimum share level could be appropriate, but believes such modification could 

increase true flexibility, enhance opportunities for coordinated state action, and decrease the 

overall economic burden of the Clean Power Plan, while maintaining overall emissions reduction 

goals. 

Comment 52: Alternative approach - Use of NSPS NGCC Rate in Goal Setting 
546 

Response 52: The EPA’s use of historical NGCC emission rate is appropriate for estimating 

future annual NGCC emission rates. It disagrees that using a higher emission rate than reported 

is consistent with the notion of a Best System of Emission Reductions. Moreover, see section V 

for a discussion of why 111(b) and 111(d) rates are not apples-to-apples metrics. Finally, while 

the 111(b) NGCC rate references reflects a maximum allowable amount, the emission rate 

assumed in quantifying BSER for 111(d) is an annual average. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters noted that in places EPA has used an NGCC emission rate, in lb/MWh, in 

calculating the Interim and Final Goals for some states that is lower than the rate specified in 

EPA's pending NSPS for EGUs. The commenters said in Arizona, EPA used an NGCC emission 

rate of 900 lb/MWh, based on the average performance of Arizona's NGCC units in 2012; the 

commenters believed that this is unreasonable. The commenters said for purposes of goal setting, 

an existing NGCC unit should not be expected to perform at a better level than a new, post-NSPS 

unit with newer technology; even if the existing NGCC unit is temporarily exhibiting a better 

level of performance, it is not clear that such performance would continue over the life of the 

NGCC unit or would survive the change in operating regime from an intermediate or peaking 

load unit to baseload usage (as contemplated by EPA's proposed redispatch). While the 

commenters believed that use of the graduated NSPS rates would be best, for purposes of 

simplicity in goal setting, the commenters believed that use of the 1,000 lb/MWh in the proposed 

NSPS would be an acceptable solution given that most NGCC units would be subject to the 

1,000 lb/MWh limit if they had been constructed post-NSPS proposal. 

Comment 53: RE alternatives - use Union of Concerned Scientist approach 

Response 53: See Preamble Section V.A of the final rule preamble. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters have reviewed the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) "Demonstrated Growth 

Approach," and recommends for determining the BSER in the EPA's renewable energy building 

block; the UCS approach: 1) addresses inadequacies of EPA's Proposed and Alternative 

approaches as discussed previously; 2) better reflects the current and projected market 

development trends for renewable energy (nationally and in the southeast); and, 3) is technically 

and economically feasible for southeastern utilities. The commenters said UCS viewed the EPA 

Proposed and Alternative RE approaches as an underestimation of the actual potential RE can 

and should play in reducing U.S. carbon emissions from the electric power sector; as a result, 

UCS developed and proposed a more realistic method which relies on several core components, 

including: 

• Setting a national renewable energy growth rate benchmark based on 

demonstrated growth in the states from 2009 to 2013; 
547 

• Assuming full compliance with current state renewable electricity standard (RES) 

policies, as set by law, that require certain percentages of electricity to come from 

renewable sources; and 

• Accounting for actual and expected renewable energy growth between 2013 and 

2017. 

The commenters said UCS found that the national average annual increase for state renewable 

energy growth from 2007-2013 was about 1% of electricity sales per year, and therefore set that 

rate as the minimum growth rate that would be required starting in 2020. The commenters said 

states below the 1% historic growth rate would have from 2017-2020 to achieve the rate, and 

states above the 1% would have to maintain their growth rates from 2017-2030, up to 1.5%; 

further, states would have to meet the greater of two goals - the UCS growth rate or their 

individual RES target (if they have one), with an overall cap of 40% of any single state's 

electricity sales. The commenters said another key difference in the UCS Approach compared to 

EPA's Approaches is that UCS used actual 2013 data (including distributed generation) plus 

projected generation from utility-scale solar and wind projects under construction through 2016, 

to determine each state' 2017 baseline generation levels. 

Commenters stated the U.S. has experienced a boom in renewable (particularly solar and wind) 

energy development over the past several years; this has been driven in part by policies, and 

largely by technology advancements and declining costs. The commenters said a critical 

component to the UCS approach is in being more consistent with actual market trends; where the 

EPA uses 2012 RE generation as a baseline for 2017, UCS uses actual 2013 data (which includes 

distributed generation), and expected RE generation for wind and solar projects under 

construction through 2016. The commenters said further, RE growth rates are state-specific 

(within the 1-1.5% range or based on existing RPS compliance rules), and are therefore not 

limited to any one state or region's RPS rules; this is particularly true for the Southeast, where 

there is only one state with an RPS, yet several other states are pursuing renewable energy 

independent of RPS mandates. 

The commenters said in the Southeast, the UCS Approach results in 14% of electricity sales 

being met with renewable energy by 2030, as opposed to 7% under EPA's Proposed 

Approach; the Southeast has more than enough technical potential from renewable resources to 

meet this level of penetration, and current market growth is already occurring. 

The commenters said solar energy development is booming across several Southeastern states 

and this is anticipated to increase with continued price declines and the approaching roll back of 

the federal ITC at the end of 2016. The commenters said some examples of minimum expected 

solar development in southeastern states - note that North Carolina is the only state listed here 

with an RPS: North Carolina, the only of these states with a mandatory RPS, is already 

anticipated to install 300 MW-ac in 2014, and Duke Energy alone is already planning to add 

nearly as much in 2015; North Carolina will have close to, if not exceeding, 1000 MW-ac of 

solar installed by the end of 2015; Georgia will go from less than 20 MW-ac of installed PV 

capacity in 2012 to nearly 900 MW-ac by the end of 2016; The Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) has over 260 MW-ac of solar installed or under contract, and assuming that solar 

programs remain at 2014 levels, TVA will have nearly 500 MW-ac total by the end of 
548 

2016; South Carolina recently passed the Distributed Energy Resource Program Act, which is 

expected to bring at least 300 MW-ac of additional solar online in the state by 2021; further the 

commenters were aware of substantial commercial solar development activities in Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida. The commenters said the opportunity for solar energy in the Southeast is 

so great, as demonstrated by the DOE SunShot Vision Study, that if solar prices achieve analyst 

projections by 2020, nearly all of the UCS's 2030 RE generation level for the Southeast could be 

met with solar. 

The commenters said wind technology is already capable of meeting significant levels of the 

Southeastern electricity generation, due to currently available "Class III" turbines, and in fact 

developers have been prospecting these states over the past couple years; southern utilities are 

already purchasing over 2,500 MW of wind capacity from out-of-state projects, and transmission 

lines are in the process of being developed to transmit several gigawatts of wind to several 

southeastern territories. 

The commenters said biomass also represents a unique opportunity to leverage low-emitting and 

dispatchable power production resources in the Southeast. 

Commenters stated EPA should amend the renewable energy goal-setting methodology in the 

final rule so that the Clean Power Plan drives renewable energy growth in all states; Minnesota's 

RES requires 25% of retail sales for all but the state's largest utility to come from renewable 

energy sources by 2025; the state's largest utility, Xcel Energy, has a more aggressive goal of 

30%; in contrast, the Clean Power Plan sets Minnesota's renewable energy penetration goal at an 

unreasonable level of 15% by 2030; in other words, the Clean Power Plan does nothing to drive 

renewable energy development in Minnesota and instead acts to weaken Minnesota's overall 

target. Minnesota is not the only state in this position. 

Commenters urged EPA to consider a renewable energy goal under building block 3 that 

considers historical performances and also drives future change. The commenters said as stated 

by the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS"), "the Clean Power Plan could deliver much 

deeper reductions in emissions, especially by taking greater advantage of cost-effective 

renewable energy options." The commenters said the UCS's "Demonstrated Growth" approach 

uses "the latest available market data, demonstrated rates of growth in renewable energy, and 

existing state commitments to deploy renewables." 

Commenters stated the UCS analysis showed that the levels of renewables reached through 

compliance with the Clean Power Plan are lower in 2020 than what the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration ("EIA") predicts would occur under a business-as-usual approach. The 

commenters said this circumstance highlights the need for a more robust renewable energy goal 

under the Clean Power Plan; moreover, the Clean Power Plan's 2030 estimated reductions are 

only marginally higher than the EIA's projections. The commenters said trends prove that we can 

do better; in particular, Minnesota can do better and has proven so; for example, Minnesota's 

actual renewable energy generation in 2013 already exceeds the Clean Power Plan's goal for 

renewable energy generation in 2030. 

Commenters stated although EPA included an alternative approach to calculating the renewable 

energy portion of building block 3, EPA's alternative approach does not reach even the EIA's 
549 

business-as-usual level of renewable energy generation in 2020 and results in a similar level of 

renewable energy generation in 2030. The commenters said in contrast, the UCS "Demonstrated 

Growth" approach uses current figures to calculate a baseline renewable energy generation for 

each state and adds reasonable incremental levels of growth. The commenters said this results in 

a renewable energy target under building block 3 that can drive states in the right direction. The 

commenters said a stronger renewable energy target based on what states can realistically 

achieve will demonstrate a state implementation pathway that promotes the type of energy 

infrastructure that will ultimately be needed to stabilize our climate; EPA should therefore 

prioritize renewable energy by making renewable energy targets stronger and more realistic. 

Comment 54: Alternative approaches - BB3 RE 

Response 54: See Preamble Section V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble for discussion of 

building block three. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in setting rate targets, EPA should subtract emissions reductions due to 

energy efficiency (and renewable energy) from emissions in the numerator of the rate; when 

states are calculating rates from actual generation and emissions, electricity savings due to 

energy efficiency (and renewable energy) should be added to generation in the denominator of 

the rate. The commenters said to the extent efficiency and renewables reduce use of the covered 

plants, adding them to the denominator of the rate undercounts them. The commenters said in 

setting the targets, the emissions reduction due to efficiency and renewables (beyond renewables 

in 2012) could be subtracted from the numerator. The commenters said when calculating the 

emissions after redispatch (the numerator of the target rate), the generation would be reduced by 

the amount of efficiency and renewables available; as the calculation in the draft rule maximizes 

use of natural gas, this will first reduce the assumed use of coal generation. The commenters 

said the efficiency and renewables cannot result in negative covered generation, and one could 

assume a minimum amount of covered fossil generation will remain to help ensure grid 

reliability. 

Commenters stated a simpler alternative might be to calculate the emissions reduction from 

efficiency and renewables using the emissions rate after Blocks 1 and 2 have been applied; this 

will in effect assume the reduced covered generation is from the mix of coal and natural gas after 

redispatch. The commenters said, one would prevent emissions from being reduced below zero 

or another minimum. 

 

Comment 55: Alternative approaches - BB3 RE 

Response 55: See Preamble Section V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble for discussion of 

building block three. 
550 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the following three alternative methods, all of which are as equally valid as 

EPA's, show just how unrealistic EPA's renewable goal is for South Dakota. 

• The first method would be for EPA to sum the renewable energy portfolios in the 

North Central Region and divide by the total number of states within the region; 

using this method, the average renewable generation target would be 

approximately 8.4 percent for each state. 

• The second method is to average the actual renewable energy production of the 

five states with renewable portfolios based on their actual renewable energy 

production in 2012; the average percentage of renewable energy production for 

the five states is 5.1 percent; a third of what EPA proposed for all of the states 

within the region. 

• The third method would be to average the renewable energy production in 2012 

for all of the states within the North Central Region; this results in an average 

state goal of approximately 7.1 percent. 

The commenters said all three alternative methods produce a renewable goal for South Dakota 

that is far less than 15 percent and therefore allow for a greater likelihood of successful 

implementation; therefore, South Dakota suggests that EPA's calculation for renewable energy 

for South Dakota is seriously flawed and should be withdrawn. The commenters said if EPA 

decides not to withdraw their renewable energy goal, South Dakota recommends EPA use one of 

the above three methods for calculating renewable energy goals. 

Comment 56: Alternative approach - BB3 RE 

Response 56: See Preamble Section V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble for discussion of 

building block three. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters see two potential ways to improve the proposal's approach to renewable energy. 

1) Apply renewable targets to retail electric sales. The commenters said EPA already used retail 

sales data in the application of Building Block 4; changing Building Block 3 to a load-based 

calculation would not dilute national emission reductions and would more closely align with 

existing RPS policies upon which the renewable assumptions are based. The 

commenters recommended keeping the regional renewable energy targets the same - 21% in the 

west, 25% in the northeast, etc. - but the proposal would apply those targets to 2012 retail 

electric sales data for each state. The commenters said the goal-setting calculation would assume 

that each state would meet half of its regional target by January 1, 2020, 75 percent of its target 

by January 1, 2025 and its entire regional target by January 1, 2030. The commenters said such a 

"stair-step" approach aligns with many RPS policies in the country and reflects the fact that new 
551 

renewable energy typically enters the grid in sizeable chunks as a result of utility-scale projects. 

The commenters said this approach would not assign existing renewable resources to any 

particular state for purposes of goal-setting; as a result there would be no disruption of the 

existing REC trading system if states wanted to use it for compliance purposes and no concerns 

about data errors in determining the physical location of the generating units. 

2) Recalculate Building Block 3 goals with proper data and attribute renewable resources 

consistently. The commenters said Building Block 3 could also be improved by changing two 

data sets; first, the hydropower on the Oregon/Washington and Oregon/Idaho border should be 

evenly split between the border states; this approach would be most consistent with EPA's 

proposed approach of applying regional targets based on the physical location of generation. The 

commenters said second, the 2012 stock of non-hydro renewables in each state should be 

adjusted to be consistent with existing RPS policies; for example, renewable projects located in 

Oregon that serve California load should be used to set California's target; renewable projects 

located in Washington to serve Oregon load should be used to set Oregon's target. The 

commenters said data from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council on the recipient of 

non-hydro renewable energy generated in the Northwest is available. The commenters said 

moreover, FERC Form 1 and FERC's Electric Quarterly Report contain the information needed 

to make most or all of the data corrections needed. The commenters said alternatively, if the final 

rule retains the current approach of including all renewables physically within a state in the 

calculation of each state's goal, then EPA should issue clear guidance that any such renewables 

included in a state's baseline and goal calculation shall be available to that state for compliance 

purposes. 

Comment 57: Alternative approach - BB43- exported renewables 

Response 57: See Preamble Section V.A and V.E of the final rule preamble for discussion of 

building block three. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated one way to address the exported renewables included in the 2012 state total 

is to simply count them in the calculation of Wyoming's goal compliance going forward, but 

without applying a growth factor; in other words, the starting point for the calculations leading to 

the glide path would remain 4,369,107 MWh, but the 3,702,895 MWh would not be escalated; 

the goal in 2029 would then be 3,702,895 MWh plus 666,212 MWh escalated by 1% annually. 

The commenters said Wyoming would be indifferent to use of the second approach as long as 

variations in the exported renewables did not add to Wyoming's burden to increase renewables to 

meet the EPA goal. The commenters said this could occur through fluctuations in output, through 

expiration of contracts, and through transfers of interests, among other possibilities; for example, 

if an existing purchase agreement expired and rights to the production were acquired by a 

purchaser out of state, the result may be to credit those renewables to a different state. The 

commenters said one way to address these possibilities would be by State-proposed adjustments 

in filings demonstrating compliance; transfers could simply be retroactively eliminated from the 
552 

state goal and increases in production could be retroactively added; the common thread in these 

adjustments would be the state's absence of control over the exported renewables. 

The commenters said without an adjustment to the compliance goal, Wyoming's original goal 

would be too high; we also anticipate EPA's ground rule for new renewable projects will 

eventually apply to existing projects as the reality of Section 111(d) compliance begins to press 

on utilities and states. 

Comment 58: Alternative approach - RE calculation that relies on a state-by-state evaluation 

Response 58: See Preamble Section V.A.4.c for a discussion of the building block three 

quantification in the Final CPP. This final methodology estimates the regional potential based 

on the aggregate state-level potential. Section VI of the Preamble then explains how the 

replacement potential of this regional generation is assigned to different generating technologies. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated if U.S. EPA keeps building block 3, the commenters preferred the 

incorporation of an alternative RE calculation that relies on a state-by-state evaluation which 

considers each state's capacity for various types of RE measures. The commenters said a stateby-state approach, rather than a calculation that focuses on regional goals which may 

overestimate RE capacity in some states, would ensure that RE targets are more tailored to each 

state's unique circumstances; however, the commenters insisted that state RE goals must be both 

attainable and realistic, both from a capacity and cost-effectiveness standpoint. 

The commenters did not support the RE approach suggested in U.S. EPA's Alternative RE 

Approach TSD; the calculation used in the alternative RE approach measures technical potential 

by using the NREL database, which doesn't take into account important variables like cost or 

grid limitations; further, this calculation includes a benchmark calculation based on the top third 

of states in a given type of renewable electricity. The commenters said this is problematic 

because it may lead to unrealistic and unachievable RE goals. The commenters said in Indiana's 

case, the alternative RE calculation sets a goal of 19% RE by 2025 and 2030, which is highly 

unlikely; the BSER calculation for Building Block 3 has a final goal of 7% RE by 2030. The 

commenters said the final goal in the alternative RE approach is more than twice the RE number 

in the original calculation. The commenters did not believe this goal is at all realistic, especially 

since Indiana currently has no way to mandate RE measures; further, due to the timing of the 

proposed rule and proposed date for state plan submittal, Indiana does not have the time to 

pursue legislative action in order to obtain proper authority to implement this Building Block. 

The commenters stated they would prefer an alternative RE calculation that specifically focuses 

on each state's unique characteristics, rather than one that includes benchmarks or calculations 

based off of regional characteristics, to be incorporated into the state rate. 

Comment 59: Alternative approach - BB4 EE 
553 

Response 59: EPA did not include BB4 in its quantification of BSER for the final CPP. See 

section V.A. of the preamble for further discussion. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated on page 34873 and 34875 of the preamble, EPA is taking comments on 

alternative approaches for setting state goals concerning demand-side energy efficiency. The 

commenters disagreed with the use of building block 4 because neither EPA nor the states have 

the authority to make it enforceable; however, if EPA decides to implement building block 4, the 

1.5 percent goal needs to be lowered because existing programs in South Dakota have shown that 

even 0.7 percent over a period of years is overly optimistic. 

4.4.5 Treatment of data years 

Section 4.4.5 covers public comments related to the treatment of data years in the proposed 

emission goals computation procedure. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics.

Comment 1: eGRID Data 

Response 1: The EPA has made some unit-level and methodological changes based on 

comment. In addition to unit-level changes, the EPA updated the methodology to gap-fill 

generation data at plants where EIA data listed the net electricity generation as negative; 

performed additional quality assurance checks to examine units with unusually high or low CO2 

emission rates (i.e., greater than 10,000 or less than 500 lbs. CO2 per MWh); added categories 

indicating units that were under construction or commenced operations in 2012; and used 

updated Part 75 emissions data. As described in Appendix 9 of the CO2 Emission Performance 

Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule, combined cycle units are considered a 

single system and emissions from all components are summed and distributed to the generators 

(the steam parts and turbine parts) based on the proportion of nameplate capacity. This approach 

was chosen given the best available data at the time, because the generator-specific and the 

prime-mover-specific generation and emissions data are not always available from EIA-923 and 

Part 75. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated in EPA's "Data File: 2012 Unit-Level Data using the eGRID Methodology" 

dataset, EPA used aggregate data rather than generator-specific data for NGCC units, which may 

deviate from the methodology described in the "Description of 2012 Unit-Level Data using 

eGRID Methodology" Technical Support Document (hereinafter "TSD"). 
554 

Commenters stated in analyzing EPA's "Data File: 2012 Unit-Level Data using the eGRID 

Methodology" dataset, the commenters noted that certain data elements appear to be derived 

without following the methodology (including the methodology for data priority) described in 

EPA's "Description of 2012 Unit-Level Data Using eGRID Methodology" TSD. 

Commenters stated EPA aggregated Combined Cycle Steam Part (hereinafter "CA") and 

Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Part (hereinafter "CT") data before performing 

calculations instead of using available generator-specific data or performing prime-moverspecific calculations; this resulted in loss of generator- specific accuracy and misapplication of 

data priority as described in the TSD at the following facilities: 

• Dell Power Station generator units CTG1, CTG2, and STG 

• Harry L. Oswald generator units 1-9 

• Hot Spring Generating Facility CT1, CT2, and Steam Turbine (hereinafter "ST")1 

• Magnet Cove Gas Combustion Turbine (hereinafter "GCT")1, GT2, and ST1 

• Pine Bluff Energy Center generator units CT01 and CT02 

• Thomas Fitzhugh generator units 1 and 2 

• Union Power Partners LP generator units CTG1 - CTG7 and STG1 - STG452

 

Commenters stated while this treatment of NGCC data may seem negligible at a facility level, 

the cumulative effect would have a 26 lb/MWh difference in Arkansas's final goal. 

Commenters sought clarification on the rationale behind EPA's departures in the methodology 

used to derive generation and emissions data for these units from the methodology as described 

in the "Data File: 2012 Unit-Level Data using the eGRID Methodology" TSD. The commenters 

said any necessary corrections to the dataset should be made before this data is used in the final 

goal computation for Arkansas. 

Commenters stated some units in the eGrid database have CO2 emissions rates well beyond 

3,000 lbs/MWh, given the CO2 emissions and net energy output data provided in the file. The 

commenters asked what circumstances would result in such high CO2 emissions rates. 

Comment 2: 2010 and 2011 data 

Response 2: See Section VI of the Preamble for the EPA’s discussion why we relied on 2012 

data as the starting point for forming its baseline. We did make some adjustments to reflect 

commenters’ concerns, and in the case of hydro – these adjustments reflect data going back to 

1990. However, in general, the EPA believed the rate-based nature and the regional nature of the 

subcategory rate derivation make recent year data robust to random annual unit-level variation. 

The EPA believes starting with 2012 data and only making limited adjustments uses the best 
555 

available historical data and most accurately reflects an appropriate baseline from which to 

evaluate BSER potential. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

 Commenters asserted EPA must provide greater specificity regarding the impacts of utilizing 

baseline data from 2010 and 2011 on individual state requirements. 

Commenters stated EPA has provided 2010 and 2011 operating data as a supplement to the 2012 

year data used to establish the baseline in the Rule Proposal. The commenters said this is an 

insufficient amount of data, particularly for states like Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi with 

such large and diverse generation fleets. The commenters said in EPA's other recent rulemaking, 

far more data was provided regarding historical operations - at least five years. The commenters 

said for a rule of this significance, operational and emissions data should cover many more years, 

in order to properly assess and determine a baseline; importantly, if EPA does desire to amend its 

baseline - which affects every substantive requirement of the Rule Proposal - it can only do so by 

issuing a new proposal and seeking full public comment on any changes. 

 

4.4.6 Other 

Section 4.4.6 covers all other public comments related to the proposed emission goals 

computation procedure. 

Commenters have raised a number of issues related to this subsection which are organized by 

topics (comments) below. Responses are provided for these topics. 

Comment 1: The EPA should perform periodic reevaluation of the BSER 

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that under section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA 

must review standards of performance for new sources every eight years. While there is no 

requirement that the EPA review standards of performance for existing sources under section 

111(d), the EPA anticipates that changes to performance standards for new sources may prompt 

the EPA to review standards of performance for existing sources as well. Whether such 

coordination is warranted, however, will depend upon the nature of any changes proposed for 

new sources when the EPA conducts its periodic review.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated EPA should consider developing a time line and approach for periodically reevaluating this regulation; similar to the 8-year reevaluations done for New Source Performance 
556 

Standards, EPA could periodically reassess the BSER to ensure it continues to reflect the range 

of measures that have been adequately demonstrated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from 

power plants. The commenters said this reevaluation might also provide a mechanism for 

updating the fleet of facilities subject to the regulation so that it does not gradually decline into 

irrelevance but instead continues to achieve significant emission reductions from fossil-fuel 

power plants. 

Commenters stated a regular review of the "best system of emission reduction" should be 

conducted to ensure that EPA's plan prioritizes cost-effective solutions that bring maximum 

pollution reductions while maintaining reliable electric service and minimizing harm to and costs 

of human health and the environmental impacts. The commenters said this analysis will be 

critical as EPA establishes the next set of reduction targets post 2030. 

Commenters stated the Proposal would be strengthened by a commitment from EPA to 

periodically reevaluate the state targets; while 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not explicitly 

require this, other sections of the Clean Air Act do (111(b)(1)(B)) and there is nothing 

prohibiting EPA from regularly updating performance standards for new sources as advances 

provide technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The commenters said updating the BSER 

would support a "no backsliding" to ensure the standards sustain or increase the stringency of the 

goals. The commenters added the impressive pace of technological advancement in renewable 

energy, clean distributed energy technologies, energy efficiency, and grid technologies provide 

another reason for reviewing and revising the BSER and state targets. 

Commenters stated based on the experience of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) 

program, periodic reviews of progress and targets are important to keep the program on track. 

The commenters said this is especially true when, as here, the CPP relies on assumptions about 

evolving energy market and technologies that can be subject to unforeseen changes and outside 

forcing agents. Therefore, the commenters urged EPA to have a required review of the overall 

program target and each building block target four years after the 2018 regional SIPs are 

submitted, and at the time updated SIPs submitted are submitted in 2023. 

Comment 2: Adjustments to goals to address errors in the EPA assumptions or new information/ 

Mid-term review process 

Response 2: See Section VIII of the preamble and the discussion of the reliability safety valve. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

 Commenters stated EPA should allow that, upon a demonstration that significant transmission 

upgrades are reasonably necessary for a state to operate its NGCC fleet at the average annual 

capacity utilization rate within the Final Rule, and that no reasonably sufficient alternative is 

available to gain the same carbon reductions, its goal or interim goal should be adjusted to 

account for the time needed for such upgrades. 

Commenters stated the final goals need to include the flexibility necessary to adjust for any 

deviations that may occur between forecasted assumptions and actual conditions; the 
557 

commenters recommended EPA allow for interim and final goals to be adjusted as states work 

through developing a state implementation plan that the state determines to be the most cost 

effective for its citizens. 

Commenters stated EPA's final rule should expressly permit a state to seek an adjustment of its 

2030 emission performance target at any time to account for either late discovery of errors in 

EPA assumptions or material new information that becomes available to the state after the close 

of the comment period on the CPP. The commenters said EPA stated in the preamble to the CPP 

that "[o]nce the final goals have been promulgated, a state would no longer have an opportunity 

to request that the EPA adjust its CO2 goal." The commenters said EPA's position is flawed for a 

number of reasons. 

Commenters stated on a fundamental level, EPA's proposal sets standards that are dependent not 

an a specific unit's control options, which are relatively ascertainable, but on the wide range of 

evolving energy system components, which require various energy supply and demand 

assumptions and are much less predictable. The commenters said when asked by Congress about 

the possibility of an independent reliability study of the CPP, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) Chair, Cheryl LaFleur, noted that such a study would require "making 

many assumptions on key factors, such as the extent and distribution of load reductions from 

energy efficiency, the number and location of new NGCC generation, and economic conditions 

such as fuel prices" and ""could be more speculative than informative, especially for later years." 

The commenters said accordingly, EPA cannot "fix" a state's future target because it cannot 

predict the future; either an overly aggressive assumption or a change in circumstances affecting 

the availability of emission reduction opportunities could render the performance goal 

unachievable for a state; in that way, EPA's proposed refusal to allow later adjustments to the 

2030 state goals could directly harm the affected EGUs subject to emission standards within a 

state and it could indirectly harm major consumers of electricity within a state, including NCC 

members. 

Commenters stated precluding later adjustments to a standard that is based on future projections 

has both policy and legal implications; it would be harmful, from a policy perspective, to 

preclude updates to the state-specific predictions and assumptions upon which EPA based the 

state goals because it may render the CPP targets unachievable (either by the state or by EPA 

exercising its federal implementation plan (FIP) authority). 

Commenters stated from a legal perspective, EPA has the initial burden of demonstrating that its 

standards under section 111 are achievable; to the extent that the standards are based on 

projections that are later found to be inaccurate, this undermines EPA's BSER determination and 

the achievability of its standards. The commenters said the data collection and analysis 

conducted for EPA's proposal is massive in scope and far more complex than prior 111 

rulemakings, given EPA's attempts to predict energy supply and demand. The commenters said 

for these reasons, EPA must allow the states to work with EPA to regularly track and test the 

assumptions and to update the targets, accordingly.

Commenters added on page 34893 of the preamble, EPA indicates a state goal will not be 

changed unless a state can demonstrate one building block cannot be achieved plus demonstrate 

the other building blocks cannot make up the difference. The commenters said Section 111(d) of 
558 

the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine best system of emission reductions based on the 

best available data; Best available data does not include correcting errors in one building block 

by making up the difference using other building blocks. The commenters said if a state can 

adequately demonstrate a building block used to establish the state's goal is in error, there is no 

authority in the Clean Air Act for EPA to require the states to demonstrate it can or cannot be 

made up by the other building blocks. The commenters said EPA should recalculate the state's 

goal if the state or others can demonstrate the data or assumptions made by EPA are in error. 

Commenters stated the final rule should include a mid-term review process to ensure the target 

state goals and time line remains realistic and achievable without sacrificing the reliability, 

affordability, flexibility, and sustainability of the electricity market. The commenters supported 

including a process similar to what was adopted in the 2011 CAFE agreement, to ensure policy is 

based on accurate data and not outdated projections and estimates. The commenters said EPA 

has made clear that the rule aims to provide flexibility to states and the commenters believed a 

mid-term review of the goals is important to ensure that the rule works as intended. 

Commenters stated it most prudent for EPA to provide itself and all complying entities, 

including states, with the flexibility to adjust, or suspend those standards going forward if 

circumstances jeopardizing reliability so warrant. The commenters said in order to preserve this 

flexibility, EPA should clarify in the Final Rule that the "binding nature" of the targets does not 

foreclose the potential for suspension or modification of the requirement to meet that target (such 

as the interim targets and the related "glide-path" trajectory) should reliability issues which 

cannot be addressed during the compliance period interfere with strict achievement of an average 

emissions rate or total mass determination for a given state during the compliance period. 

Comment 3: Fly ash 

Response 3: See Section VIII of the Preamble for a discussion of State Plan components relying 

on alternative compliance mechanisms.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

 Commenters stated the amount of greenhouse gas generated by the combustion of coal for 

generation of electricity represents a gross quantity which must be reduced by the amount of fly 

ash used in cement production and concrete mixtures. The commenters said the computation of 

greenhouse gas reduction is a result of calculating the following. 1) Avoided production of 

Portland cement (including avoided mining of virgin materials to produce Portland cement). 2) 

Reduction of greenhouse gas due to avoided landfill activities. The commenters said according to 

the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the 

calculated values above result in a reduction of 25 MTCE (metric tons of carbon equivalent) for 

every 100 tons of fly ash recycled into cement production and concrete mixtures. 

Comment 4: Reducing water usage/ coal ash 
559 

Response 4: While water usage optimization is not a component of BSER quantification, the 

EPA believes the Clean Power Plan will encourage both energy efficiency and renewable 

generation technologies which put downward pressure on the water-intensity of electricity 

generation.

While not part of the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) under 111(d), the EPA does 

consider the coal combustion residual requirements from other EPA regulations in its power 

sector modeling. Therefore, these constraints are factored into the EPA’s estimate of systemwide impacts and least cost compliance modeling. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated one key factor seems to be lacking sufficient coverage in the EPA Clean 

Power proposal; there is no attempt in the proposal to minimize the usage of water and 

simultaneously balance the sources of energy generation to best reduce CO2; but this could be 

done as part of determining the best system for emissions reduction. The commenters said in a 

state like New Mexico it would make sense to use more renewable zero emission to NOx 

contribution and thus less fossil fuel generation of electricity, thereby reducing the use of water. 

Commenters stated another key factor in determining the cost of the power plant is the final 

requirement for disposal of coal ash; new regulations for coal combustion residuals could force 

further new investments in New Mexico to support coal fired plants. 

Comment 5: Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction (SSM) 

Response 5: The periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not exempted from the final 

goals. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters stated the proposed rule does not provide for exclusions from the CO2 emissions 

limit for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM). The commenters said the CO2 

emissions from an EGU during SSM events could be much higher than during normal 

operations, if the emissions are measured on a lb/MWh basis, because there may be little or no 

electricity generated during such events. The commenters recognized that such events may be 

limited and ultimately may not have much effect upon a 3-year rolling CO2 standard; however, 

there appears to be no overriding reason to include emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction events in the compliance determination, particularly considering that CO2 mass 

emissions would likely be small during these events. The commenters said given the risk of 

elevated CO2 emissions (when measured on a lb/MWh basis) during SSM events, if EPA 

chooses to include such events in determining lb/MWh emissions, then the state goals that EPA 

promulgates should also reflect the impact of SSM events on lb/MWh emissions. 

Comment 6: Use of Significant Digits in the EPA Calculations 
560 

Response 6: The Excel spreadsheets demonstrating the calculations provided as an appendix to 

the Goals Computation TSD at Proposal and the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal 

Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule show the exact calculations and numbers if a stakeholder 

wishes to follow the math through. The EPA does not round calculations until it arrives at the 

final subcategory-specific interim and final emission rates. The nuclear assumption referenced is 

no longer included in BSER quantification as explained in Section V of the Preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

 Commenters stated EPA's calculations of the state-specific CO2 emission goals would be more 

transparent and easier to follow if EPA were more consistent in the use of significant digits in the 

proposed rule, technical support documents, and data files. The commenters said for example, in 

many documents, EPA refers to an "at-risk" nuclear capacity of 6%, but in some documents EPA 

refers to a capacity of 5.8%. After several weeks of being unable to recreate EPA's calculations, 

the commenters discovered that EPA used a value of 5.84264%, not 6%. The commenters said 

had the percentage been used more consistently throughout the documents or more clearly noted, 

significant time and confusion could have been avoided. The commenters said the same can be 

said of EPA's use of a North Central renewable energy goal of 15.114% in its calculations, when 

it is referred to in the proposed rule and technical support documents as 15%. The 

commenters encouraged EPA to revise the preamble and its technical support documents to 

make the calculations and percentages used as clear as possible. 

Comment 7: Concomitant Research 

Response 7: The EPA will work closely with the states in developing state plans that are 

appropriate for each state.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:

Commenters said that, the nontraditional nature of the rule in calculating the CO2 performance 

goal requires concomitant research into the regulatory institutional arrangements in states. 

Commenters said, a traditional state-level regulatory approach, with an environmental regulator 

issuing an emission limit permit will no longer suffice, or will only suffice with the most 

draconian outcomes. 

Comment 8: Cross-subsidies 

Response 8: See section VIII.C. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the EPA’s response to 

this comment and more information about multi-state plans and compliance costs. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
561 

Commenters said that, in ensuring utility rates are set according to the "cost-causer, cost-payer 

principle that costs are assigned to each class of customer (e.g., residential, commercial, and 

industrial) in accordance with costs incurred to provide service to the class. Commenters said, 

anytime one class of customer pays more than its respective allocated costs, the class is crosssubsidizing other classes. Commenters said, the Proposed Rule sets an emission rate for all 

"affected EGUs" in the state, rather than the specific affected EGUs, cross-subsidies may occur 

amongst ratepayers of the various utilities in the state. Commenters said while cross-subsidies 

may be sorted out in context of setting rates for a single utility that sorting out the allocation of 

compliance costs amongst several utilities may prove challenging.