1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 STATE PLANS..............................................................................2

CHAPTER 6 STATE PLANS...................................................................................................... 1

6.1.8 State flexibility to choose mass-based and rate-based goals after 2029 .......................... 2

6.1.9 Planning approach for alternative state goals................................................................... 4

6.1.10 Other ................................................................................................................................... 5

6.2 Criteria for Approving State Plans..................................................................................... 13

6.2.1 Enforceable measures........................................................................................................ 13

6.2.2 Emission performance ....................................................................................................... 24

6.2.3 Quantifiable and verifiable emission performance......................................................... 25

6.2.4 Reporting and corrective actions...................................................................................... 26

6.2.5 Other ................................................................................................................................... 27

6.3 State Plan Components......................................................................................................... 34

6.3.1 Identification of affected entities ...................................................................................... 34

6.3.2 Description of plan approach and geographic scope...................................................... 35

6.3.3 Identification of state emission performance level.......................................................... 36

6.3.4 Demonstration that the plan is projected to achieve the state's emission performance 

level................................................................................................................................... 37

6.3.5 Milestones ........................................................................................................................... 42

6.3.6 Corrective measures .......................................................................................................... 42

6.3.7 Identification of emission standards and any other measures....................................... 42

6.3.8 Demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, verifiable, and enforceable ........................................................................ 51

6.3.9 Identification of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.................. 53

6.3.10 Description of state reporting and recordkeeping requirements................................ 68

6.3.11 Certification of state plan hearing.................................................................................. 74

6.3.12 Supporting material......................................................................................................... 74

6.3.13 Other ................................................................................................................................. 77

6.4 Process for State Plan Submittal and Review .................................................................... 81

6.4.1 State plan submittal and timing ....................................................................................... 81

6.4.2 Components of an initial state plan submittal and approvability criteria ................. 233

6.4.3 Process for EPA review of state plans............................................................................ 247

6.4.4 Failure to submit a complete plan .................................................................................. 268

6.4.5 Modification of an approved state plan ......................................................................... 285

6.4.6 Plan templates and electronic submittal........................................................................ 315

6.4.7 Multi-state plans............................................................................................................... 321

6.4.8 Other ................................................................................................................................. 344

6.5 Additional Factors .............................................................................................................. 347

6.6 Resources............................................................................................................................. 381

6.6.1 Decision Support Toolbox - The agency requested comment on the types of tools and 

information that would be helpful for states as they develop their compliance plans.

......................................................................................................................................... 381

6.6.2 Other Resources............................................................................................................... 400

6.7 Other .................................................................................................................................... 411
2

6.1.8 State flexibility to choose mass-based and rate-based goals after 2029

This section addresses states flexibility in choosing the forms of each performance level (i.e., 

rate- or mass-based) for each performance period. Relatively few comments were received, but 

all supported the flexibility given to the states.

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

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

Comment 1: Multiple comments supporting states having the flexibility to choose between a 

rate-based and mass-based performance level.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with comments that a state should have the ability to choose the 

goal type and has provided both rate-based and mass-based goals in the final rule. If a state 

determines that it would like to revise its plan to switch between a rate-based approach and a 

mass-based approach, or vice-versa, between the interim and final periods, it should follow the 

process for modifying an approved state plan, which is discussed in section VIII.E.7 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters supported EPA's proposal that states should have the flexibility to choose between a 

rate-based and mass-based performance level for each performance period. 

Commenters stated that the process for switching between the forms of the goal should be simple 

and short. The commenters suggested that the process could be a letter notification that would 

accompany the last annual report for a given performance period. The commenters stated that for 

example, a state that is using a rate-based goal for the 2030-2032 performance period could 

notify EPA of its intent to switch to a mass-based goal for the performance period starting in 

2033, assuming the goals (mass- and rate- based) have been determined and approved prior to 

such notification.

Commenters similarly stated that, if a state selects a rate- or mass- based goal initially, it should 

be allowed to switch to the other type of goal with advance notice to EPA. According to the 

commenters, this would allow flexibility as states and regions develop more familiarity with, and 

develop new systems for, carbon emission tracking, reporting, and trading.

Commenters stated that EPA should maintain a state's authority to calculate and implement 

either a rate-based performance standard or a mass-based performance standard. The 

commenters argued that a state should maintain the ability to switch between a rate-based and 

mass-based performance standard as it prefers. 
3

Comment 2: Comment disagreeing with comments submitted by State of Nevada (DNR, NDEP, 

PUCN), and agreeing that the EPA proposal allows flexibility for states in crafting state plans.

Response 2: The EPA appreciates the commenters’ support of the rule and agrees with the 

commenters that the flexibilities provided for in the final rule under the emissions standards and 

state measures approaches provide states with considerable discretion in crafting their plans to 

avoid the concerns raised by the “Nevada Agencies” The commenters are correct in that final 

rule does not provide EPA with any authority over the PUNC or the state Energy Office nor does 

it require that entities other than EGU have federally enforceable requirements. For a further 

discussion of state plan approaches see the final rule preamble section VIII.C. For discussion of 

state plan submittal and timing flexibility see preamble section VIII.E. Additional state plan 

considerations are discussed in preamble sections VIII.G, VIII.J, and VIII.K.

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

Commenters addressed comments submitted by the State of Nevada, through the Department of 

Natural Resources, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, the Public Utilities 

Commission of Nevada, and the Governor's Office of Energy, collectively the "Nevada 

Agencies." 

Commenters stated that the Nevada Agencies' comments assume that the EPA will have 

authority over the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) and the Energy Office. The 

commenters stated that because of the robust nod to state flexibility, this is not assumed nor 

supported by EPA's proposal. As delineated in the proposed regulation, the commenters noted 

that the state has the flexibility and discretion to decide how to craft their state plan and what 

elements of that plan become federally enforceable.

The commenters suggested for example, a state could decide that what will be enforceable under 

their submission are the actual emissions reductions for each affected EGU. To make this 

happen, the commenters stated that Nevada could develop a permit based program where the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) exercises its traditional authority to set 

emissions limits for each unit - and owners of the EGUs can decide how best to meet that 

enforceable emissions limit. The commenters noted that the state could decide to authorize 

tradable allowances or credits, whereby EGU owners could meet the carbon limit that has 

become a condition of their operating permit by holding an allowance or a credit representing 

investment in a lower-carbon resource such as renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The commenters stated that the PUCN would then be able to exercise its traditional authority by 

ensuring that the plans made by the owners of the EGUs to meet their "permit conditions" make 

sense. The commenters stated that these policies and implementation strategies become 

enforceable at the Federal level/by citizen suit only if the states choose to make them enforceable 

by submitting them in their plan. In fact, the commenters noted that the Agencies underscore the 

options available to them on page 4 of their comments, noting that the "state commitment 

approach" would not create the enforcement scenarios they are objecting to.
4

6.1.9 Planning approach for alternative state goals

This section addresses approaches to an alternative 2025 compliance goal. Relatively few 

comments were received on this specific topic, all of which disagreed with the 2025 alternative 

goal approach.

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

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

Comment 1: Comments noting flaws and disagreeing with the alternative 2025 performance 

goal approach similar to the 2030 goal approach, and suggesting adjustment of goals under either 

approach, as needed. 

Response 1: See section VIII.B of the final rule preamble for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. See section V.A. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the final BSER 

determination and sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble and the CO2 Emission 

Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for CPP Final Rule for more information 

regarding the final performance rates and goals. See sections VII.B and VII.E of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for more information regarding states adjusting their goals and otherwise 

modifying their plans. The EPA is not finalizing the alternative final goals representing emission 

performance that would be achievable by 2025, so comments on this option are generally moot.

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

Commenters noted flaws with the alternative 2025 performance goal approach similar to the 

2030 goal approach. Commenters suggested adjustment of goals under either approach, as 

needed. 

Commenters noted that EPA requests comment on its alternative state goals and compliance 

timing requirements. The commenters stated that each of the flaws identified with respect to the 

primary proposal apply to the alternative.

Commenters stated that EPA should consider the specific concerns raised by states and by the 

electric utilities that operate in those states and adjust its assumptions and final goals 

accordingly. The commenters noted that one way to recognize state-specific concerns about the 

goals and the assumptions that underpin them would be to allow states to opt to pursue individual 

compliance plans that achieve either the final 2030 or 2025 rate or mass emission levels 

proposed by EPA in the section 111(d) guidelines. 

Importantly, the commenters recommended that the Agency also allow for a continuing dialog 

on these issues with states as they submit compliance plans. The commenters stated that the 

interconnected power system is a complicated interstate machine and the proposed guidelines are 

similarly complex. The commenters noted that even with an extended comment period, states 

may not be able to provide EPA a complete analysis of concerns related to the four Building 

Blocks as they apply to the particular facts and circumstances of each state. The commenters
5

stated that accordingly, EPA should consider any state-specific issues identified in state 

compliance plans, permit modifications to state plans as appropriate and, where necessary, adjust 

final state goals.

Commenters stated that the proposed alternative compliance time frame is impractical with frontloading of the reductions and final achievement by 2025. The commenters stated that this 

alternative would only allow a 5-year window (between 2020 and 2024) to meet the final goal. 

Although the alternative does come with reduced overall and interim goals, the commenters

stated that the proposed time frame is impractical (discussed later) and would likely result in 

greatly increased costs to the ratepayers. The commenters therefore did not support the 

alternative goal approach.

6.1.10 Other

This section addresses general issues related to system reliability. Comments generally express 

concerns that the EPA’s compliance timeline does not allow for adequate assessment of 

reliability impacts. Other related comments address load serving commitment timing (i.e., how 

generators commit generation to the RTOs) and potential adverse impacts of the CPP on existing 

source-specific plans to increase energy efficiency, renewable power and natural gas-fired 

resources.

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

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

Comment 1: Comments that the EPA must adopt a dynamic reliability safety valve that provides 

the States the flexibility they need to ensure reliability, and that any reliability safety valve must 

be dynamic in that deadlines for SIP submission, as well as compliance targets, must be 

adaptable to recognize the reliability situation within each state and/or region.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final emission guidelines should 

contain a “reliability safety valve” to address the possibility that an un-anticipatable system 

emergency could cause a severe stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the 

multi-year requirements in a state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an 

otherwise unmanageable risk to reliability. The reliability safety valve will allow a state to 

modify the emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. In the final rule, we 

include several additional measures to ensure that the rule does not interfere with the industry’s 

ability to maintain reliability. For example, if a state cannot address a reliability issue within the 

boundaries of an approved state plan, the state can submit a request to the EPA to modify the 

state plan. See section VIII.G.2 of the final rule preamble for a more detailed discussion of this 

issue.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
6

Commenters stated that EPA must adopt a dynamic reliability safety valve that provides the 

States the flexibility they need to ensure reliability. Commenters noted that in the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Rule, EPA recognized that overly aggressive schedules for implementation could 

undermine the reliability of the electric utility sector. The commenters stated that EPA wisely 

provided in that rule for a reliability safety valve under which utilities could seek an additional 

year in which to implement the rule without running the risk of an enforcement action. The 

commenters stated that EPA should recognize that this rule too poses risks to reliability and that 

a safety valve provision is therefore a critical component of any final emission guideline. The 

commenters noted that all of the FERC Commissioners who have spoken publicly concerning 

the proposed rule have supported consideration and/or adoption of a reliability safety valve. The 

commenters noted that the ISO/RTO Council (IRC) and the Southwest Power Pool have also 

asked for a safety valve. The commenters stated that the IRC proposed a reliability safety valve 

(RSV) under which system operators would work with states and relevant reliability regulators 

prior to finalization and approval of a SIP to identify reliability issues and solutions, provide for 

regulatory review and approval of the assessment and solution, and then "accommodate the 

reliability solution under the CO2 rule and/or SIP by providing for appropriate compliance 

and/or enforcement flexibility while a long-term reliability solution is developed and 

implemented. The commenters noted that in explaining the need for a reliability safety valve, 

SPP's vice president of engineering, explained that "If the CPP compliance period begins before 

generation and adequate infrastructure can be added, the SPP region will face a significant loss 

of load and violations of regulatory reliability standards" For these reasons, like FERC and the 

Transmission Operators who are responsible for keeping the lights on in their regions, the 

commenters asked for a reliability safety valve that ensures that states are not forced to adopt 

SIPs that could undermine the reliability of the bulk electric system. 

Commenters noted that the full reliability impacts of implementing the proposed rule will not 

become evident until after states submit their state plans. Although it is likely that some electric 

reliability issues can be addressed with sufficient time and additional investment in transmission 

and generation infrastructure, the commenters indicated that such investments could take time or 

face unexpected permitting or technical challenges. Consequently, the commenters contended 

that it is possible that strict compliance with the EPA's proposed emission targets could lead to 

severe electric reliability impacts during the interim compliance period (2020-2029). The 

commenters argued that a "safety valve" mechanism is therefore necessary to ensure that the 

proposed rule does not compromise electric reliability. The commenters suggested that EPA 

establish a "safety valve" mechanism through which states could adjust their interim emission 

targets and possibly their final goal, if regional reliability studies indicate that implementation of 

approved state plans will compromise electric reliability in the state or region. The commenters

recommended that such studies be undertaken in collaboration with NERC and FERC and, where 

appropriate, include consultation among multiple affected states. 

Commenters similarly suggested that EPA should add a mechanism to address reliability 

constraints. The commenters stated that certain unanticipated events could affect electric 

reliability. The commenters noted an example of a severe weather storm or a shutdown at a 

nuclear power plant could threaten reliability, requiring more carbon-intensive electric 

generation to prevent outages. The commenters stated that similarly, if shortages develop in 

natural gas availability, electric generating use may have to be curtailed in order to allow gas for 
7

residential heating demand. Without a "safety valve" to replace that generation, States could 

potentially face power reliability constraints.

Commenters suggested that states should be allowed to provide "off-ramps" from compliance for 

demonstrated circumstances involving electric system reliability or cost.

Comment 2: Commenters stated that NERC, SPP, ERCOT, and others all call for a reliability 

safety valve. The commenters stated that this is a necessary component of any final rule based on 

this Rule Proposal. However, the commenters stated that a safety valve cannot simply be a 

uniform extension in compliance dates. For example, the commenters stated that EPA in the 

MATS Rule provided a 1-year extension to achieving compliance. The commenters stated that 

unlike the MATS Rule, which generally requires the one-time installation of control technology, 

the Rule Proposal requires an economy wide process progressing over the span of more than a 

decade. The commenters stated that these types of changes cannot be implemented and reliability 

cannot be assured through a 1- or 2-year extension. 

The commenters stated that given the incredible complexity of the rule, there are numerous 

variables that can affect compliance dates and impact reliability. The commenters stated that 

these types of complications can spawn from regulatory and legal impediments (e.g. state 

regulations are not implemented in sufficient time; actions conflict with FERC or other federal 

requirements, permits for new facilities are slowed in the legal process), technical impediments 

(e.g. new generation or demand-reducing technologies fail to meet performance expectations), 

and market impediments (e.g. new generation comes online later than anticipated), amongst 

others. Therefore, the commenters stated that any reliability safety valve must be dynamic. The 

commenters noted that deadlines for SIP submission, as well as compliance targets, must be 

adaptable to recognize the reliability situation within each state and/or region. If not, the 

commenters stated that the country's electric reliability will be put at risk.

Commenters advocated that the final CPP rules should include provisions for suspension or 

modification of compliance requirements in the event that unforeseen circumstances threaten 

system reliability or produce cost impacts that would significantly harm customers. The 

commenters stated that the need for and importance of maintaining a flexible regulatory 

approach with ongoing review was presented in their January 2014 comments. The commenters 

stated that the EPA's proposed regulation of CO2 by the utility sector is part of a larger scheme 

to reduce total greenhouse gases, and the EPA may implement separate regulatory schemes for 

different economic sectors or types of activity. The commenters stated that when establishing the 

parameters for carbon reduction by the utility industry, it is important that the EPA consider the 

flexibility and shifting use of electricity and natural gas in the United States (e.g., if electric or 

natural gas vehicle adoption increases). The commenters noted that changes in the use of 

electricity could arrive without much warning, and it is important that the EPA adopt a 

regulatory scheme with sufficient flexibility to properly account for these changes as they occur. 

The commenters noted, for example, adoption of electric vehicles increases significantly, the 

utility sector would need to increase electric generation to meet the increased demand for 

electricity with a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions. The commenters contended that it 

would be economically inefficient and unfair to allow the entire burden of these increased 
8

emissions to fall on the utility sector and its customers. The commenters stated that the same 

could be said for natural gas. The commenters stated that the impact of new uses for electricity 

would be lessened, but not eliminated, under a scheme focused on carbon intensity rather than 

total utility emissions. The commenters stated that the EPA must establish a scheme with the 

flexibility to properly account for unexpected shifts in the use of electricity or natural gas in 

America. The commenters concluded that a relief valve and process for ongoing evaluation of 

CPP requirements will help assure that the CPP appropriately accommodates potential shifts in 

electric and natural gas usage.

Response 2: The EPA’s approach in this final rule reflects our commitment to ensuring that the 

final rule does not interfere with the industry’s ability to maintain the reliability of the nation’s 

electricity supply. Many aspects of the final rule’s design are intended to support system 

reliability, especially the long compliance period and the basic design that allows states 

flexibility to include a large variety of approaches and measures to achieve the environmental 

goals in a way that is tailored to each state’s energy resources and policies. The final rule 

features overall flexibility, a long planning and implementation horizon, and the widest possible 

range of options for states and affected EGUs to achieve the CO2 emissions goal. Comments 

from state, regional and federal reliability entities, power companies and others, as well as 

consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), helped inform a number of changes made in this final rule to address reliability. A 

more thorough discussion on this topic can be found in Section VIII.G of the final rule preamble

of the CPP.

The EPA agrees with the commenters that the final emission guidelines should contain a 

“reliability safety valve” to address the possibility that an un-anticipatable system emergency 

could cause a severe stress on the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year 

requirements in a state plan may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise 

unmanageable risk to reliability. The reliability safety valve will allow a state to modify the 

emission standards for such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See section VIII.G.2.e of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. 

Regarding the commenters’ concern with the compliance timeframe, we note the EPA has 

extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and has moved the start of the interim 

period from 2020 to 2022. See Section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's compliance timeline does not allow for adequate assessment 

of reliability impacts. The commenters expressed concern that the timeline EPA set forth for 

compliance does not allow for adequate review of electric system reliability. To support this 

concern, the commenters incorporated by reference a number of sources. The commenters

reiterated what they describe as an underlying theme within all of these sources, which is the fact 

that thorough analysis of grid reliability and stability cannot be completed within EPA's 

proposed timeline. Should EPA not grant what the commenters consider the appropriate timeline 

flexibility required for analyzing electric grid reliability and stability in its final rule, then the 

commenters recommended that, at a minimum, EPA provide some form of reliability safety 

valve. The commenters stated that any such reliability safety valve must ensure that the electric 
9

grid can maintain its reliability as the proposed rules force the transition from base load coalfired generation to base load natural gas generation.

Commenters supported a flexible approach that allows sufficient time for system reliability 

impact studies to be conducted after state plans are developed to comply with the Proposal, and 

for reliability mitigation projects to be implemented. 

Commenters stated that NERC, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT among others have already raised 

significant reliability concerns regarding the compliance time frames of the rule. The 

commenters stated if these concerns come to fruition it will not only have major negative 

consequences for the efficacy of the CPP trading markets in the future but also could seriously 

compromise the overall program. Accordingly, the commenters urged EPA to allow for time for 

the RTOs and NERC to conduct the necessary reliability studies.

Commenters noted that in its November 2014 Report, NERC points out that NERC Reliability 

Standards and Regional Entity criteria must be met at all times to ensure reliable operation and 

planning of the Bulk Power System. The commenters supported these NERC standards, and 

noted that stakeholders have expressed to NERC their concerns that EPA's proposed time line 

does not provide adequate time to develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable 

operation of the electric grid by 2020. The commenters supported NERC's recommendation that 

the EPA, FERC, the DOE, and state utility regulators employ the array of tools within their 

respective regulatory authorities to develop a reliability assurance mechanism, such as a 

"reliability back-stop." The commenters stated that these mechanisms should include timing 

adjustments and granting extensions where there is a demonstrated reliability need.

Comment 3: Comment stating that a compliance mechanism should allow for fluctuations in 

generation profiles, weather, infrastructure concerns, and reliability.

Response 3: The EPA shares the commenters’ concerns about weather impacts on generation 

and infrastructure assets, but we recognize that most of those events are of short duration and 

would not require major adjustments to emission standards on affected EGUs or state plans due 

to the length of the interim and final compliance period(s). The EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the final emission guidelines should contain a “reliability safety valve” to 

address the possibility that an un-anticipatable system emergency could cause a severe stress on 

the electricity system for a length of time such that the multi-year requirements in a state plan 

may not be achievable by given EGUs without posing an otherwise unmanageable risk to 

reliability. The reliability safety valve will allow a state to modify the emission standards for 

such EGUs for a maximum of 90 days. See section VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. 

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

Commenters stated that the EPA must allow for a compliance mechanism that allows for year-toyear variations in generation profiles and emissions due to weather, fuel delivery and supply 

shortages, and reliability concerns, etc.
10

Comment 4: Comment stating that the EPA's proposed approach of establishing a dispatchbased mitigation goal that impacts other existing generation types without thorough 

consideration of the impacts to resource adequacy may significantly degrade reliability.

Response 4: The EPA is not requiring a specific type of emission quantification approach or 

model, as long as the one chosen uses technically sound methods that establish a clear 

relationship between electricity grid interactions of the state enforceable measures, affected EGU 

dispatch, generation cost and operations within the time frame outlined in these guidelines. A 

more in-depth discussion of this topic can be found in section VIII.D of the final rule preamble

of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposed approach of establishing a dispatch-based mitigation 

goal that impacts other existing generation types without thorough consideration of the impacts 

to resource adequacy may significantly degrade reliability. The commenters noted that in 

November 2014, NERC issued an initial reliability review entitled "Potential Reliability Impacts 

of EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan" outlining the need for additional evaluations of the bulk 

power system and the resulting impacts from EPA's Clean Power Plan including: resource 

adequacy concerns due to fossil-fired retirements and accelerated declines in reserve margins; 

transmission planning and timing constraints to related to building and integrating new 

infrastructure; changing resource mix including increased reliance on natural gas and renewable 

resources causing increased variability and uncertainty to grid stability; and, the need for a 

reliability assurance mechanism that could allow for timing adjustments and granting extensions 

where there is a demonstrated reliability need. The commenters stated that maintaining reliability 

of the grid is clearly a critical element in the successful implementation of EPA's Clean Power 

Plan. The commenters stated that sufficient long-term reliability can be supported through 

resource planning; however, it is often a local event in daily market operations that impacts 

reliability. The commenters stated that understanding the integrated transmission and generation 

system, while recognizing the differences associated with generation assets, is important in 

assessing potential reliability impacts.

Comment 5: Comment that the EPA should provide states and other stakeholders with 

flexibility to develop the needed policies and practices (e.g., encouraging a high level of banking 

and borrowing in mass-based systems) to support emission reductions while continuing to meet 

Bulk Electric System constraints.

Response 5: The EPA agrees with the commenters in that the increased temporal flexibility 

provided by banking would further help address potential electric reliability concerns, as banked 

ERCs can be used to meet emission standard requirements for an affected EGU. The EPA does 

not agree with the commenters statements in support of borrowing credits to be “repaid” with 

future reductions and we are not making allowances for “borrowing” in the final rule. Banking 

under mass-based emission budget trading programs, and the rationale for banking provisions, is 
11

addressed in the preamble to this final rule, section VIII.C. The final rule provides various 

options for states and regional planning groups to develop rate-based or mass-based emissions 

standards for affected EGUs.

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

Commenters argued that key changes are needed in the final rule to allow state plans to 

successfully use the power system to achieve aggressive emission reductions. The commenters

stated that EPA must provide states and other stakeholders with flexibility to develop the needed 

policies and practices to support emission reductions while continuing to meet BES constraints. 

According to the commenters, in addition to sufficient policy flexibility, EPA should encourage 

and support compliance flexibility to deal with the fact that the BES, in meeting the various 

economic and reliability constraints it must meet, cannot be used to control fuel use and hence 

CO2 emissions with precision. For example, the commenters noted that changes in natural gas 

prices, the loss or retirement of one or several nuclear plants, or changes in economic growth can 

and do create changes in power sector CO2 emissions of magnitudes comparable to those 

contemplated by the Proposal. 

To accommodate such fluctuations within the overall context of effective regulation, the 

commenters suggested that EPA encourage and allow states to include two types of compliance 

flexibility. First, the commenters suggested that EPA allow significant inter-temporal compliance 

flexibility for affected entities and for states as a whole. For example, the commenters suggested 

that EPA allow and encourage a high level of banking and borrowing in mass-based systems, or 

equivalently, longer compliance periods, in recognition of the fact that the total tons of emissions 

in the budget over the 10-year period is of far greater import than the precise number of tons 

emitted each year. Similarly, the commenters suggested that EPA expand and clarify its 

definition of "self-implementing" plans to include mass-based plans with extended, multi-year 

compliance periods or a high level of banking and borrowing, instead of requiring particular 

emissions-per-year "spot checks" and precise interim milestones. The commenters stated that 

natural variability in emissions can be smoothed out and made consistent with overall emission 

reductions under long-term compliance periods or similar measures, but is likely to cause state 

plans to fail specific "spot checks" even when they are working well.

Comment 6: Comment expressing concern about load serving commitment timing (i.e., how 

generators commit generation to the RTOs).

Response 6: The EPA agrees with the commenters. The final rule allows states additional time 

to work with regional planning groups to formulate, review and finalize their plans, as well as 

providing additional time before the start of the first interim goal monitoring period. The EPA 

expects that such added time allows for considerations such as the practice of forward capacity 

marketing that the commenters mention.

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

Commenters expressed concern about load serving commitment timing. The commenters

indicated that EPA should consider how generators commit generation to the RTOs. The 
12

commenters’ understanding was that Ohio units are required to nominate units to serve loads in 

2020 by the fall of 2015. According to the commenters, the owners of these units will have no 

understanding of their compliance obligations under state plans at this time, yet they will have to 

commit to serve load in the compliance year. The commenters argued that EPA's timeline 

appears to give no consideration to this issue.

Comment 7: Comment that the EPA's proposal upsets their company plan to increase energy 

efficiency, renewable power and natural gas-fired resources while reducing reliance on coal-fired 

generation capacity by 32 percent, and would prove to be unworkable. 

Response 7: The EPA is sensitive to the commenters’ concerns regarding existing plans that 

have been designed to comply with existing regulations. For the CPP’s approach to early action, 

please see Section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

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

Commenters stated over the next 5 years, their company plans to increase its use of energy 

efficiency, renewable power and natural gas-fired resources while reducing its reliance on coalfired generation capacity by 32 percent. According to the commenters, by 2020, these changes 

will reduce CO2 emissions by 20-25 percent compared to current levels, while making effective 

use of the company's existing infrastructure and controlling costs. The commenters stated that 

these changes, however, cannot be implemented without some additional cost. The commenters

stated that their resource plan is the most cost effective approach to meeting customer demand in 

light of existing environmental requirements including the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308); 

Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU) and other environmental 

requirements. The commenters stated that they submitted their 2014 Integrated Resource Plans 

(IRPs) to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) on April 1, 2014 and the resource plans 

were presented in a number of public workshops. On November 7, 2014, Commission Staff 

recommended acknowledgement of both resource plans, and is expected to officially 

acknowledge them in the first quarter of 2015. The commenters stated that the company plans to 

offset its reliance on coal with investments in efficient natural gas generation, renewable 

resources and energy efficiency. The commenters stated that their 2014 IRP assumes compliance 

with Arizona's current Renewable Energy Standard (RES) target of 10% by 2020 and Energy 

Efficiency Standard (EES) targets of 22% by 2020, based on a percentage of retail sales. 

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal upsets this carefully balanced plan and would 

prove to be unworkable. 

Comment 8: Commenters suggested that EPA should encourage the states to adopt governance 

policies which require the generating units upgrade to the best available technologies for 

efficient operation. Commenters stated that this usually means upgrades to the plant controls and 

electrical mechanical auxiliary systems, as well as to the basic steam water cycle equipment 

itself. Commenters requested allowing for spreading the cost of such improvements into the rate 

base at nominal levels. Commenters stated that consumers routinely see upward variations to 
13

their essential utilities such as cable TV, internet, cell phones, etcetera, without any greater social 

benefit other than entertainment and the improved profitability of the service providers. 

Response 8: The final rule includes guidance to encourage state and regional planners to include 

many of the commenters’ suggestions when considering approaches to using Building Block 1, 

discussed in more detail in the final rule preamble, section V.C.

6.2 CRITERIA FOR APPROVING STATE PLANS

This section addresses comments on Criteria for Approving State Plans, including Enforceable 

Measures, Emission Performance, and Reporting and Corrective Actions. We have organized the 

comments in this section under five subsections, 6.2.1 to 6.2.5. Responses to the comment topics 

of these subsections are discussed below along with summaries the specific public comments.

6.2.1 Enforceable measures

Comments in this section discuss enforceable measures and enforceability issues, including 

requests for additional information and examples of enforceable measures, differentiation 

between state and Federal enforceability, clarification on how to accommodate state energy 

efficiency programs, and statements of support for state enforceability. 

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters stated that EPA must address enforceability issues.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the EPA must ensure that the carbon 

reductions required by the plan are real and verifiable and that the final rule is clear and 

enforceable. In this action, the EPA is finalizing a requirement that state plan submittals must 

include, either immediately effective or as a plan backstop, federally enforceable standards on 

affected EGUs, and that the plan must demonstrate that each measure under the plan, including 

those that are not federally enforceable, is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, 

and enforceable. The final guidelines include an explanation of how states should demonstrate 

that their plans are enforceable as a practical matter. See section VIII.D.2 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters supported federal enforceability of the state plan requirements. The 

commenters suggested that the EPA ensure that the carbon reductions required by the plan are 

real and verifiable (i.e., that a ton of carbon avoided in one state is treated the same a ton of 

carbon avoided in other states). The commenters stated that EPA should ensure that the final rule 

is clear and easily enforced.
14

Commenters indicated that states need more clarity from EPA on what enforcement measures 

would meet EPA approval under a state or multi-state plan and how such plans are expected to 

be enforced at the time of compliance.

Comment 2: Commenters sought additional information on enforceability of EE, RE and/or redispatch programs. 

Response 2: As explained in section VIII.C.6.d of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA is 

not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments specific to this proposed approach 

to 111(d) state plan design are moot. We are finalizing the option of a state measures plan type, 

which would only require federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs and not on stateonly measures. State-only measures would, however, need to be enforceable as a practical matter 

as defined in the emissions guidelines. See section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble. See 

section VIII.K.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a discussion of emission trading 

programs using credits generated through EE and RE.

The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission standards and 

related plan requirements for its affected EGUs. Consistent with longstanding practice under the 

Clean Air Act, if an affected EGU does not meet one of its requirements, the EPA will address 

the affected EGU’s violation on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate response and 

resolution. Third parties have authority under section 304 of the CAA that is similar to the EPA’s 

authority under section 113(a)-(h) of the CAA. The final emission guidelines require that 

federally enforceable standards only apply to affected EGUs and not measures that apply to 

entities other than affected EGUs that a state may decide to include in its plan. The final rule 

requires that a state demonstrate that each state measure will result in reductions that are 

quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable as a practical matter. The 

final rule defines the criteria that the EPA will use to determine whether a state measure (such as 

EE and RE) is enforceable as a practical matter. These requirements are described in more detail 

at section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

We agree with commenters that water and wastewater utilities are not affected EGUs under this 

rule, but EE projects at water and wastewater utilities may be state measures under the state 

measures plan type or generate credits for emission trading programs. The criteria and 

requirements for state measures and state measures plans are at sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.D.2 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP, and the criteria and requirements for generating credits for 

emission trading programs are at section VIII.K.2.

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

Commenters noted that the EPA has requested comment on whether it should issue guidance for 

the enforcement of state plans against entities other than EGUs. The commenters strongly 

advised the EPA to do so considering the unique aspects of this rule. The commenters asked: 
15

• If, for example, a renewable energy project is used for state credit because it results in a 

reduction in EGU generation, what is the obligation of the owner of that project to 

continue operating and maintaining it? 

• Who is the entity subject to regulation under the state plan, and responsible for ensuring 

the project continues to produce? 

• If the RE project is shut down for whatever reason, who is responsible for the loss of 

energy production and how is that energy generation to be made up and by whom? 

Commenters had questions as to what types of programs, in particular EE programs, would meet 

the definition of "federally enforceable." Commenters requested information on how EE 

programs and other measures contemplated in BSER could be considered enforceable in 

Tennessee's unique regulatory context. Commenters requested information on how EE programs 

and other measures contemplated in BSER could be considered enforceable in Tennessee's 

unique regulatory context. 

Commenters stated that EPA must provide clear guidance on enforcement of RE, EE and redispatch measures. The commenters stated that much of the uncertainty in the enforceability of 

state plans stems from the CPP's proposed inclusion of the RE, EE and re-dispatch as emission 

reduction measures in state plans. While the commenters supported providing states with the 

option of using RE, EE and re-dispatch for compliance, the commenters stated that they realize 

there is uncertainty in how RE, EE and re-dispatch measures in state plans would be enforced 

and encouraged EPA to provide clarity on the issue.

Commenters stated that EPA should provide further guidance on enforceability for programs 

addressing some of the less traditional building block areas, such as demand-side management 

and energy efficiency. The commenters stated that the guidance should ensure that the plans can 

be enforced as a practical matter.

Commenters requested that EPA define enforcement and compliance measures in the rule for EE 

projects undertaken to help reach the CPP's goals. Commenters argued that the proposed 

language is ambiguous and compliance and enforcement measures should be on the state or 

entity managing the overall EE program and not the individual sites implementing EE/RE. 

Commenters wanted EPA to clarify that water and wastewater utilities are only responsible for 

submitting proper monitoring and verification materials to the sponsoring state or electric utility 

and are not considered regulated entities in this rule or subject to CAA enforcement under this 

rule.

Comment 3: Commenters asked about state vs. federal enforceability of state-based allowance 

systems.

Response 3: The final guidelines require state-based allowance systems to be state- or federallyenforceable depending on the source of the allowances. The EPA is finalizing the option of a 

state measures plan approach, which would only require federally enforceable measures on 
16

affected EGUs and not on state-only measures. State-only measures would, however, need to be 

enforceable as a practical matter as defined in the emissions guidelines. See section VIII.K.2 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for a discussion of emission budget trading programs using 

credits generated under a state measures plan. For the requested detailed guidance on required 

plan elements, see section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters encouraged EPA to consider which specific elements of state-based allowance 

systems must be made federally enforceable, and which may remain as state-enforceable 

infrastructure for these programs. In doing so, the commenters recommended that the EPA 

should consider whether key program components - such as the total allowances in the system 

and the requirement that sources hold allowances to cover their emissions should be federally 

approvable while implementation details remain state law matters. The commenters suggested 

that the EPA provide detailed guidance in the final rule to states on the required plan elements. 

Comment 4: Commenters described energy efficiency programs in Washington State and asked 

for clarification on several points related to enforceability.

Response 4: The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission 

standards and related plan requirements, such as the incorporation of EE and RE. As explained in 

section VIII.C.6.d of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

portfolio approach, so comments specific to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design 

are moot. Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standards” plan 

type, which includes only federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, or a “state 

measures” plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a mass CO2 emission goal may be 

partially or entirely achieved through state-enforceable measures that impose requirements on 

entities other than affected EGUs and that are not included in the federally enforceable 111(d) 

state plan, provided the state submits standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected 

EGUs in the form of a federally enforceable “backstop” that would be triggered if the state 

measures fail to achieve the required CO2 emission performance level or the state misses a 

performance milestone. The backstop emission standards constitute the standards of performance 

required by section 111(d), and the state plan provides for the implementation and enforcement 

of such standards of performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under 

which the backstop emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state 

measures plan under section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become federally 

enforceable requirements, which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under 

section 113 and section 304 of the Act, respectively, once triggered and implemented to address 

a shortfall in necessary emission reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 and VIII.C.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. 

The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission standards and 

related plan requirements, such as the incorporation of EE and RE. As explained in section 

VIII.C.6.d of the final rule preamble, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach,

so comments specific to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. Instead, 
17

the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, which 

includes only federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” plan type. 

Under a state measures plan type, a mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or entirely 

achieved through state-enforceable measures that impose requirements on entities other than 

affected EGUs and that are not included in the federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided 

the state submits standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the form of 

a federally enforceable “backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail to achieve 

the required CO2 emission performance level or the state misses a performance milestone. The 

backstop emission standards constitute the standards of performance required by section 111(d), 

and the state plan provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under which the backstop 

emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state measures plan under 

section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become federally enforceable requirements, 

which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under section 113 and section 304 

of the Act, respectively, once triggered and implemented to address a shortfall in necessary 

emission reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 and VIII.C.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The final emission guidelines require that all 111(d) state plans, including state measures plans, 

specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, 

demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable as a practical matter, and contain the process, 

content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress toward 

meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For state measures plans in particular, the 

final emission guidelines also require states to submit annual reports to the EPA that address 

periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. The EPA

intends to review each submitted state plan on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it 

satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability requirements. Final EPA action on any 

submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures plan, is subject to judicial review under 

section 307(b) of the Act.

For a response to the request for clarification of how states can demonstrate enforcement 

capacity, including references to guidance documents, see Section VIII.D.2 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. State plans must meet the listed requirements for demonstrating 

enforceability, but the state may work within these requirements to control costs and navigate 

any feasibility limitations. 

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

Commenters suggested that EPA allow states to rely on provisions with flexible compliance 

mechanisms in state plans and clarify how to address flexible compliance mechanisms when 

demonstrating enforceable achievement of the emission performance targets. 

In order to achieve consistency between EPA regions and speed up the drafting and approvals of 

state plans, the commenters requested clarification in the final rule on acceptable compliance 

mechanisms for state plans to demonstrate enforcement capability. The commenters expressed 

concern that EPA may not approve state laws and public utility commission programs that 

contain measures with flexible compliance mechanisms established to contain costs to ratepayers 

and to reflect what is feasible and achievable by individual utilities. The commenters requested 
18

clarification that EPA will accept cost control and feasibility limitations regarding state 

enforcement in the state plan.

Comment 5: Commenters supported EPA's approach to enforceability and recommended that 

the mechanisms EPA requires in state plans should support existing programs for EE and RE.

Response 5: In response to this and other comments, the final rule provides considerable 

discretion to the states in setting emission standards and related plan requirements, such as the 

incorporation of EE and RE. As explained in section VIII.C.6.d of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments specific to this 

proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option 

to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, which includes only federally enforceable 

measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a

mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or entirely achieved through state-enforceable

measures that impose requirements on entities other than affected EGUs and that are not 

included in the federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided the state submits standards of 

performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the form of a federally enforceable 

“backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail to achieve the required CO2 

emission performance level or the state misses a performance milestone. The backstop emission 

standards constitute the standards of performance required by section 111(d), and the state plan 

provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance by 

specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under which the backstop emission standards 

apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state measures plan under section 111(d), the 

backstop emission standards become federally enforceable requirements, which EPA and 

citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under section 113 and section 304 of the Act, 

respectively, once triggered and implemented to address a shortfall in necessary emission 

reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 and VIII.C.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission standards and 

related plan requirements, such as the incorporation of EE and RE. As explained in section 

VIII.C.6.d of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio 

approach, so comments specific to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. 

Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, 

which includes only federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” 

plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or 

entirely achieved through state-enforceable measures that impose requirements on entities other 

than affected EGUs and that are not included in the federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, 

provided the state submits standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in 

the form of a federally enforceable “backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail 

to achieve the required CO2 emission performance level or the state misses a performance 

milestone. The backstop emission standards constitute the standards of performance required by 

section 111(d), and the state plan provides for the implementation and enforcement of such 

standards of performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under which the 

backstop emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state measures 

plan under section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become federally enforceable 
19

requirements, which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under section 113 and 

section 304 of the Act, respectively, once triggered and implemented to address a shortfall in 

necessary emission reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 and VIII.C.2 of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP.

The final emission guidelines require that all 111(d) state plans, including state measures plans, 

specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, 

demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable as a practical matter, and contain the process, 

content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress toward 

meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For state measures plans in particular, the 

final emission guidelines also require states to submit annual reports to the EPA that address 

periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. The EPA 

intends to review each submitted state plan on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it 

satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability requirements. Final EPA action on any 

submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures plan, is subject to judicial review under 

section 307(b) of the Act. This will allow flexible compliance mechanisms in the state plans. 

See section VIII.C.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the characteristics of an 

enforceable state measure and the existing guidance documents that states may reference when 

designing enforceable state measures, see section VIII.D.2.c of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

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

Commenters specifically appreciated the flexible approach taken by EPA with regard to state 

compliance options. Referring to a December 2013 letter from many of their states, the 

commenters noted that it is important for states with established and proven clean energy and 

efficiency programs to be able to build on those programs for compliance. The commenters

recommended that the enforceability mechanisms that EPA requires in state plans support these 

existing programs, as well as new programs in other states, by minimizing program changes 

required purely to conform with federal requirements, while still providing enough additional 

program review and accounting to ensure that required reductions are achieved.

Commenters stated that this approach to enforceability would enable a state-sanctioned entity or 

state agency to take the lead on ensuring enforcement and compliance.

Comment 6: Comments arguing that states need clarity on how state plans will be enforced.

Response 6: In response to this and other comments, the final rule provides considerable 

discretion to the states in setting emission standards and related plan requirements, including 

regulating the interconnected power system. As explained in section VIII.C.6.d of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments 

specific to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. 

Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, 

which includes only federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” 

plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or 
20

entirely achieved through state measures that impose requirements on entities other than affected 

EGUs and that are not included in the federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided the state 

submits standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the form of a 

federally enforceable “backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail to achieve the 

required CO2 emission performance level or the state misses a performance milestone. The 

backstop emission standards constitute the standards of performance required by section 111(d), 

and the state plan provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under which the backstop 

emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state measures plan under 

section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become federally enforceable requirements, 

which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under section 113 and section 304 

of the Act, respectively, once triggered and implemented to address a shortfall in necessary 

emission reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 and VIII.C.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The final emission guidelines require that all 111(d) state plans, including state measures plans, 

specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, 

demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable as a practical matter, and contain the process, 

content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress toward 

meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For state measures plans in particular, the 

final emission guidelines also require states to submit annual reports to the EPA that address 

periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. The EPA 

intends to review each submitted state plan on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it 

satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability requirements. Final EPA action on any 

submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures plan, is subject to judicial review under 

section 307(b) of the Act. This will allow flexible compliance mechanisms in the state plans. See 

section VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the characteristics of an enforceable 

state measure and the existing guidance documents that states may reference when designing 

enforceable state measures, see section VIII.D.2.c of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters argued that states need clarity on how state plans will be enforced; the commenters

noted that enforcement concerns could limit states' flexibility when choosing among the options 

for state plan design. Related to enforcement concerns, the commenters also stated that EPA 

should recognize the powers reserved to the states in regulating the interconnected power system.

Comment 7: Request for an example of enforceable measures.

Response 7: The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission 

standards and related plan requirements. As explained in section VIII.C.6.d, of the final rule

preamble, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments specific to this 

proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option 

to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, which includes only federally enforceable 

measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a 

mass CO2 emission goal may be partially or entirely achieved through state measures that 
21

impose requirements on entities other than affected EGUs and that are not included in the 

federally enforceable 111(d) state plan, provided the state submits standards of performance for 

CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the form of a federally enforceable “backstop” that would 

be triggered if the state measures fail to achieve the required CO2 emission performance level or 

the state misses a performance milestone. The backstop emission standards constitute the 

standards of performance required by section 111(d), and the state plan provides for the 

implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance by specifying the trigger 

mechanism and conditions under which the backstop emission standards apply to affected EGUs. 

Upon EPA approval of a state measures plan under section 111(d), the backstop emission 

standards become federally enforceable requirements, which EPA and citizens may enforce 

against affected EGUs under section 113 and section 304 of the Act, respectively, once triggered 

and implemented to address a shortfall in necessary emission reductions. See sections VIII.D.3 

and VIII.C.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

The final emission guidelines require that all 111(d) state plans, including state measures plans, 

specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs, 

demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable as a practical matter, and contain the process, 

content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and progress toward 

meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For state measures plans in particular, the 

final emission guidelines also require states to submit annual reports to the EPA that address 

periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. The EPA 

intends to review each submitted state plan on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it 

satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability requirements. Final EPA action on any 

submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures plan, is subject to judicial review under 

section 307(b) of the Act. See Section VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

For the characteristics of an enforceable state measure and the existing guidance documents that 

states may reference when designing enforceable state measures, see section VIII.D.2.c of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters asked if EPA could provide an example of enforceable measures (and stateenforceable measures under the alternative "state commitment approach") for the following 

activities: 

• Programs like Volt Var Optimization to reduce energy on transmission and distribution 

circuits; 

• Solar thermal programs; 

• Waste heat recovery; 

• Participation in energy imbalance markets like the one operated by CA ISO; 

• Performance contracting; 

• Building energy codes; 
22

• Net-metering energy savings; 

• Voluntary RPSs; and

• Re-dispatch (in regulated and non-regulated states).

Comment 8: Commenters stated that the EPA should clarify requirements for "enforceability."

Response 8: We agree with the commenters that federal enforceability (which includes the 

ability of the Administrator and the state to enforce against violations and secure appropriate 

corrective actions pursuant to CAA sections 111(d)(2)(B) and 113(a)–(h), and the ability of 

states and other third parties to enforce against violations and secure appropriate corrective 

actions pursuant to CAA section 304) is distinct from state-only enforceability of state programs. 

See Section VIII.D.2.b of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The EPA is finalizing the option of 

a state measures plan type, which would place federally enforceable measures only on affected 

EGUs. EE, RE, and other measures that are not on affected EGUs would not be federally 

enforceable under this plan type and would only be enforceable by the state. See Section 

VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the characteristics of an enforceable state 

measure and the existing guidance documents that states may reference when designing 

enforceable state measures, see section VIII.D.2.c of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the 

consequences if actual state emission performance does not meet the CO2 emission performance 

rates or state CO2 emission goal, see section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should differentiate EPA or citizen enforcement of "enforceable 

measures" from enforcement by a state, EPA, or citizen pursuant to state programs. The

commenters stated that based on available information, "enforceability" generally refers to EPA 

or citizen enforcement of an "enforceable measure," which is a requirement that could consist of 

(i) state commitments in plans, and (ii) measures for which regulated electric utilities are legally 

responsible (e.g., to meet emission limitations or a state-imposed energy efficiency resource 

standard). Conversely, the commenters stated that at a project level, "enforcement" may refer to 

the means available to a state, EPA, or citizens to ensure program requirements are met and to 

prevent fraud with respect to claimed energy savings of a project. The commenters stated that a 

third party such as a building owner or energy service company may conduct a project 

voluntarily (e.g., the third party action may or may not be a requirement per se), but in pursuing 

incentives or credit, the third party submits the project to accountability and enforcement with 

respect to its accuracy. 

Commenters urged EPA to ensure that any final rule clearly establishes who is ultimately 

responsible for achieving carbon pollution reductions, ensures that the public has the right to 

seek enforcement of those requirements through, for example, citizen supervisions, and sets forth 

clear self-correction provisions and penalties for non-compliance.
23

Comment 9: Support for federally enforceable state plans and measures.

Response 9: We disagree with the commenters that all measures used to achieve the emission 

performance level must be federally enforceable. As explained in section VIII.C.6.d of the final 

rule preamble, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments specific 

to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. In response to requests for 

flexibility for states in designing their plan measures and concerns about federal enforceability of 

measures placed on entities other than affected EGUs, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit 

either an “emission standards” plan type, which includes only federally enforceable measures on 

affected EGUs, or a “state measures” plan type. A state measures plan type would require only 

measures applicable to affected EGUs to be federally enforceable. EE, RE, and other measures 

applicable to entities other than affected EGUs would not be federally enforceable under this 

plan type but must meet requirements for state enforceability. A state measures plan must also 

include a backstop of federally enforceable standards on affected EGUs that fully meet the 

emission guidelines and that would be triggered if the plan failed to achieve on schedule the 

required emission reductions. See Section VIII.C.3 and VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. For the mechanisms in the final emission guidelines that ensure that states keep pace with 

their emissions reductions trajectories, see Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters strongly supported EPA's proposal that all measures relied on to achieve the 

emission performance level be rendered federally enforceable by inclusion in a state plan. The 

commenters stated that federal enforceability of state plan requirements will be critical to the 

overall effectiveness of the rules. While EPA's proposal provided states with flexibility to direct 

which facilities will be responsible to achieving emissions reductions, the commenters stated that 

EPA must have the ability to directly enforce these reductions against individual facilities in 

order to ensure that states keep pace with their emissions reductions trajectories.

Comment 10: Commenters in this summary proposed that CPP penalties should be used to fund 

EE programs.

Response 10: Under this final rule, the entity subject to regulation, and the entity that may be 

subject to federal enforcement if it fails to meet its emission standard, is the affected EGU. The 

EPA will evaluate any instance of noncompliance by an affected EGU on a case-by-case basis, to 

determine the appropriate response and resolution. When assessing civil penalties, the EPA is 

guided by the statutory criteria in section 113 of the CAA. Any civil penalties that may be 

assessed are deposited in the United States Treasury by law. The EPA would not have authority 

to send CAA penalty money to the states without legislative authorization from Congress.

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

Commenters remarked that CPP penalties for noncompliance should not be used to fund 

activities implemented by the EPA. Commenters stated that penalties collected for 

noncompliance with the CPP should be redistributed to the states to fund energy efficiency
24

programs to improve low income housing. Commenters added that entities that are funded by 

penalties are incented to penalize to supplement their budget needs. Commenters explained that 

penalty distribution should be allocated to states on a weighted average income to ensure that 

each state benefits and that states with greater lower income customer have additional funds to 

increase low income housing programs. Commenters concluded by stating that whoever pays for 

the energy efficiency improvements should get the credit.

6.2.2 Emission performance

This section discusses emission performance and emission reduction strategies. 

Commenters have raised issues related to this subsection which are organized by topics 

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

Comment 1: Commenters suggested that "various greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures, 

which could potentially be implemented through offsets mechanisms, align well with the EPA's 

proposed criteria for approvability of state plans." Commenters recommended EPA consider 

CO2 sequestration through forest and land-use practices, mitigation of fugitive methane 

emissions from natural gas in the power sector and emissions of 111(b) EGUs reduced below 

limits as emissions reduction measures which "adhere to the four criteria specified by the EPA 

for approvability of state plans." 

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that out-of-sector offsets such as forest 

and land-use practices and mitigation of fugitive methane emissions may be counted toward 

meeting a CO2 emission performance level for affected EGUs or a state CO2 goal, because outof-sector offsets such as these are not connected to the electrical grid and so cannot reliably 

address stack CO2 emissions from affected EGUs. Given the reason that we are not permitting 

out-of-sector offsets to be counted toward meeting a CO2 emission performance level or state 

CO2 goal, strict standards on out-of-sector offsets could not ameliorate the issue. See Sections 

V.B.3.c and VIII.K.1.b of the final rule preamble of the CPP. However, the EPA agrees with the 

commenters that states may continue to operate cap-and-trade and offset programs that use outof-sector and non-source-based GHG offsets. We are finalizing that state plans may 

accommodate emission budget trading programs (which may include out-of-sector GHG offsets) 

as an option under the state measures plan type. See Section VIII.J.2.d of the final rule preamble 

of the CPP. 

We disagree with the commenters that emissions from 111(b) EGUs should be approvable as 

CO2 reduction measures under the final emission guidelines. New, modified, and reconstructed 

EGUs covered under the CAA section 111(b) final Standards of Performance for Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units rule are not 

approvable sources of electric generation for adjusting the CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU 

under a rate-based state plan. As discussed earlier in section VII.D of this preamble, a key 

concern under this rule is leakage to new units that are not covered by the emission guidelines. 
25

Emissions leakage, or increased CO2 emissions due to increased utilization of unaffected 

sources, is contradictory to objectives of this rule and should, therefore, be minimized. Allowing 

affected EGUs to adjust their emission rates as a result of lower-emitting new NGCC units not 

covered under this section 111(d) rule would not mitigate leakage concerns, and could even 

exacerbate the situation. Consequently, new EGUs covered under the CAA section 111(b) rule 

are not allowable measures in state plans because the EPA believes it would result in increased 

emission leakage.

6.2.3 Quantifiable and verifiable emission performance

This section discusses Quantifiable and verifiable emission performance, as well as tracking and 

confirming carbon pollution reduction.

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

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

Comment 1: Emission performance must be consistent, enforceable, and trackable.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that reductions created through the CPP must 

be consistent, enforceable, and trackable. The final guidelines include detailed requirements for 

evaluation, monitoring, and verification of emission reductions and issuance and tracking of 

emission reduction credits. See Section VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The EPA agrees that the final guidelines must ensure that real and incremental progress is made 

in reducing emissions but disagrees that this requires binding annual targets. Longer averaging 

periods allow for operational and seasonal variability to even out and provide a basis for 

emissions reductions that are more realistic than short term averaging might otherwise 

demonstrate. The final rule specifies that compliance periods for emission standards for affected 

EGUs, on a calendar year basis, must be as follows for the interim period: January 1, 2022 –

December 31, 2024; January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2027; and January 1, 2028 – December 31, 

2029. Starting on January 1, 2030, the compliance period for each emission standard is every 2 

calendar years. See section VIII.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the state plan 

performance periods and section VIII.D.2.b of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

compliance periods for each emission standard for affected EGUs.

The EPA also agrees with the commenters that the final guidelines should ensure accountability 

through strong and equitable enforcement mechanisms. The final guidelines require each state 

plan to demonstrate that each emission standard (under the emission standard plan type) or state 

measure (under the state measures plan type) is enforceable. See Sections VIII.C.2 (for the 

emission standard plan type) and VIII.C.3 (for the state measures plan type) of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. The final guidelines also lay out the consequences if actual emission 

performance does not meet the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goal. See 

Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.
26

The EPA also agrees with the need for clear instructions for tracking and confirming emission 

reductions, which we are providing in the final guidelines. See Sections VIII.D.2.a.4, VIII.F.1, 

and VIII.I of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the CPP must be consistent, enforceable, and trackable. The commenters

stated that since 2004, they have tracked their city's annual GHG emissions to identify progress 

and barriers in working towards long-term reduction goals. Based on this experience, the 

commenters argued that the EPA should offer clear guidance for tracking and confirming carbon 

pollution reductions. Along with tracking mechanisms, the commenters recommended that EPA 

set binding annual targets to make sure that real and incremental progress is being made in 

reducing emissions (and not left until the interim and final compliance years). In this vein, the 

commenters stated that the CPP should outline strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure 

accountability, and that enforcement stringency must apply equally to every state. The 

commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan is most likely to serve its purpose with clear data 

management and reporting frameworks, uniformly equitable enforcement, and clear 

repercussions for noncompliance.

6.2.4 Reporting and corrective actions

This section discusses emissions reporting and corrective actions and addresses the frequency 

and scope of these requirements.

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

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

Comment 1: Reporting and verification of achieved emission reductions should occur annually.

Response 1: The EPA disagrees that reporting and verification of achieved emission reductions 

should necessarily occur annually. Considering comments received concerning the burden of 

annual reporting and the goals of minimizing unnecessary burdens on states and ensuring 

program effectiveness, the EPA has reduced the frequency of reporting of emissions data to 

every 3 years for the first two interim steps and every 2 years thereafter. See Section VIII.F.2 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

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

Commenters stated that reporting and verification of achieved emission reductions should occur 

annually, but in no event less frequently than every 2 years.

Comment 2: Reporting requirements should include anticipated and actual progress.
27

Response 2: The EPA agrees with the commenters that reporting requirements should include 

the components listed by the commenters. See Sections VIII.D.2 and VIII.F.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters addressed EPA's request for comment on the appropriate scope of these reporting 

requirements. 

The commenters stated that reporting requirements should include anticipated and actual 

progress, using projected and actual greenhouse gas performance data as well as projected and 

actual data on implementation measure deployment, toward the compliance milestones 

incorporated in approved State Plans.

6.2.5 Other

This section discusses other issues regarding state plans, including non-air environmental 

impacts and giving deference to states in evaluating and approving compliance plans.

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters suggested procedural and substantive criteria for evaluation of state 

plans.

Response 1: The EPA agrees that some of the suggested criteria must be included in state plan 

submittals, but disagrees that they must be listed as criteria. After reviewing all of the comments 

related to the approvability criteria, the EPA has decided against maintaining the four proposed 

approvability criteria (or additional approvability criteria, as suggested by this commenters) 

separately from the list of components required for an approvable plan, which may be confusing 

and potentially redundant. The EPA has determined that a satisfactory state plan that meets the 

required plan components will inevitably meet the proposed approvability criteria and some of 

the criteria suggested by the commenters. See Section VIII.D.1 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for additional discussion of the proposed approvability criteria and Section VIII.D.2 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for discussion of the required components of a state plan.

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

Commenters suggested that the following criteria be used to evaluate state plans. The 

commenters noted that these criteria are divided into two sections: (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 GHG emissions from 

the power sector. The commenters noted that a state plan need not include all of these elements; 
28

indeed, it would be inappropriate to require inclusion of all of the elements since they are not 

applicable to every state. 

Procedural Criteria 

1. Whether the plan was considered and approved in a regulatory/public process allowing 

for comment from interested parties. 

2. Whether the plan milestones are established and monitored by a competent state entity, 

e.g., the state public service commission (PSC), the state department of environmental 

quality (DEQ), or other recognized governing authority (RGA). For example, the PSC 

may be the state agency responsible for oversight of a RPS program, or may require 

electric generators in the state to submit an integrated resource plan (IRP).

3. Whether the state plan has an appropriate tracking and monitoring system in place and a 

mechanism to reopen or amend the plan at appropriate intervals. 

4. Whether the state plan considered and accounted for the retirement of GHG-emitting 

units prior to 2012, and whether the state plan includes requirements, verifiable through 

legal obligation, for the retirement of certain units between 2012 and 2030. 

5. Whether the state plan includes reasonable projections of future emissions from the 

affected units. For example, does the plan project the construction of new, low-carbon or 

zero carbon generation? What impact does this new construction have on the emissions 

or emission rate of the portfolio of existing units? 

6. Whether the plan requires monitoring and reporting of emissions and energy generation 

from affected units on a periodic basis and the calculation of state progress toward to the 

goal. 

Substantive Criteria 

1. Whether the state PSC, or other RGA, requires a company with affected EGUs to 

consider emissions of GHGs. For example, does the PSC require an estimate of the 

carbon intensity from new or decommissioned units, or an analysis of how a company 

would comply with the 111(d) plan? 

2. Whether the state PSC, or other RGA, requires an electric distribution company to 

support, or achieve, certain levels of energy efficiency from customers; whether the level 

or cost threshold for such programs is appropriate. 

3. Whether the state PSC, or other RGA, has a renewable portfolio standard, capacity 

standard, tax incentives or other renewable promotional programs; whether the state plan 

appropriately seeks to establish or expand such programs; whether the RPS creates a 

verifiable legal obligation.

4. Whether the state plan includes an analysis of the potential to retire or reduce the 

utilization of older, high-carbon EGUs and consider the construction or increased 
29

utilization of lower carbon EGUs, taking into consideration costs, energy requirements, 

electric system reliability, remaining useful life, technical feasibility due to transmission 

constraints, contractual limitations, etc. 

5. Whether the state has converted EPA's rate-based goal to a mass-based goal and provided 

the methodology for this conversion. 

6. Whether the state is participating in a multi-state emissions trading program designed to 

achieve GHG emission reductions over the applicable time period; whether the plan is 

structured in a way that will allow it to achieve emission reductions or emission rate 

improvements.

7. Whether the state is participating in a multi-state program to cooperate on elements of the 

state's compliance program, such as accounting for use of renewable energy capacity or 

credits, or measurement and verification of energy efficiency programs. 

8. Whether other elements of the plan will help reduce the GHG emissions or carbon 

intensity of the electricity supply. 

The commenters noted that it is not necessary for a state to include all of these criteria in its plan; 

a selection of these (or similar) substantive or procedural criteria will allow EPA to determine 

that a state is taking the appropriate, state-specific measures and steps to achieve a reduction in 

GHG emissions from existing EGUs. The commenters noted that importantly, using such an 

approach is consistent with the structure and intent of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to 

allow the states to set the performance standards for their own sources based on the unique 

circumstances of the state.

Comment 2: Comments requesting that EPA provide more detail regarding the criteria it will 

use to approve or reject state plans.

Response 2: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the distinction between the proposed 

criteria and proposed plan components was unclear. After reviewing all of the comments related 

to the approvability criteria, the EPA has decided against maintaining the four proposed 

approvability criteria separately from the list of components required for an approvable plan. The 

EPA has determined that a satisfactory state plan that meets the required plan components will 

inevitably meet the proposed approvability criteria. See Section VIII.D.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters requested that EPA provide more detail regarding the criteria it will use to approve 

or reject state plans. The commenters stated that the proposed criteria are too vague and therefore 

give the agency too much discretion to reject plans that in fact comply with the statute.
30

Comment 3: EPA should consider non-air environmental impacts when approving compliance 

plans.

Response 3: The EPA agrees with the commenters that, under CAA Section 111(d), the EPA 

must take into account “any non-air quality health and environmental impact” in determining the 

BSER and whether it is adequately demonstrated. See Section V.A.1 of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP. The EPA has taken non-air quality health and environmental impacts into account in 

determining BSER and finalizing each of the three final building blocks. See Section V.A.4 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should evaluate the potential for such impacts 

when approving state plans. The EPA is providing states with great flexibility in developing 

approvable plans under CAA section 111(d), including the ability to impose source-by-source 

limitations reflecting the BSER performance rates to each affected EGU or to adopt rate-based or 

mass-based emission performance goals, and to rely on a wide range of CO2 emission reduction 

measures, including measures that are not part of the BSER. States have the option to include 

renewable generation such as wind power in their plans. See Section VIII.C.4 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP.

We note, however, that state plans must include a certification of a hearing on the state plan to 

ensure that states meaningfully engage with all members of the public, including communities, 

during the plan development process. This could include topics such as potential non-air 

impacts, among others. See Section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should consider non-air environmental impacts when approving 

compliance plans. The commenters stated that under Section 111(d), state plans must establish 

standards of performance that reflect the degree of emissions limitations achievable through the 

application of BSER that takes into account not only the costs of performance but also any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. The commenters stated 

that while non-air health and environmental benefits are discussed as they pertain to building 

blocks 1, 2, and 4, the commenters noted that EPA minimizes the broader positive environmental 

and public health benefits of renewable, pollution-free energy generation, such as wind energy. 

The commenters stated that in particular, even though EPA acknowledges that generation from 

renewable energy, including wind energy, has associated non-air health and environmental 

benefits, the agency does not state that it will factor these benefits into its review of state plans. 

The commenters stated that wind energy should be given consideration in the agency's review 

because its generation produces no solid waste, requires no cooling water, and lacks a fuel 

supply that brings its own environmental and health impacts, in addition to numerous other nonair health and environmental benefits. The commenters noted that DOE has stated that wind 

power has the potential to reduce national electric-sector water withdrawals (6 percent in 2020, 

15 percent in 2030, and 20 percent in 2050) and consumption (6 percent in 2020, 16 percent in 

2030, and 28 percent in 2050), which helps reduce competition for scarce water resources in 

water-stressed areas. The commenters stated that these benefits are one of the driving reasons for 

the broader implementation of renewable generation, alongside the reduction of carbon 

emissions. The commenters requested that EPA ensure that state compliance measures do not 
31

impose greater non-air health and environmental benefits than would be the case if, for example, 

renewable generation were used as a compliance tool rather than switching to another energy 

source.

Comment 4: EPA should give deference to the states in evaluating and approving plans that can 

reasonably and credibly be expected to meet the mass-based target.

Response 4: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the success of the Clean Power Plan 

depends on the ability of states to find flexible and cost-effective clean energy programs to 

achieve emission reductions. The EPA is providing states with great flexibility in developing 

approvable plans under CAA section 111(d), including the ability to impose source-by-source 

limitations reflecting the BSER performance rates to each affected EGU or to adopt rate-based or 

mass-based emission performance goals, and to rely on a wide range of CO2 emission reduction 

measures, including measures that are not part of the BSER. However, we disagree that state 

resource planning modeling showing that emissions will meet the target and the state economic 

regulator’s approval are sufficient for the EPA to approve a state plan. They do not provide 

sufficient information for approval and they do not meet the statutory obligations under the 

CAA. The EPA is interpreting CAA section 111(d)’s requirement that plans “provide for 

implementation and enforcement” of the standards of performance by making rules that set out 

the minimum elements that are necessary for a state plan to be “satisfactory” in meeting this 

statutory requirement. This does not intrude on the state’s ability to decide what mix of measures 

should be used to achieve the necessary emission reductions or on the state’s ability to decide 

how to satisfy a component, and thus provides the desired flexibility. See Section VIII.D.2.d of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should give deference to the states in evaluating and approving 

plans that can reasonably and credibly be expected to meet the mass-based target.

In a March 2014 comment resubmitted following proposal, commenters stated that the 

environmental, economic and political success of the section 111(d) program depends on the 

ability of states to find flexible and cost-effective clean energy programs to achieve emission 

reductions. The commenters stated that the EPA should not undercut the opportunity for success 

by imposing overly burdensome oversight on the states as they develop and implement their 

plans. The commenters suggested that if the state resource planning modeling shows that the 

emissions will meet the target, and the state economic regulator has approved the resource plan 

and its forecast emissions, the state's action should be a sufficient demonstration to EPA that the 

section 111(d) plan can be approved.

Commenters stated the EPA rule must be federally enforceable and enforced. Commenters said 

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to set guidelines for the "best 

system of emission reduction" available for existing, stationary sources of dangerous air 

pollution. Commenters stated each state is then required to develop a state plan that complies 

with those EPA guidelines. Commenters said the EPA reviews those plans, and may approve or 
32

reject them. Commenters stated that states have the primary responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing their plans, a process that could require establishing new laws and regulations if 

needed, and then taking enforcement action against violators. 

Comment 5: Commenters addressed the four general plan approvability criteria and twelve 

required components for a state plan that the EPA proposes to use to determine whether a state’s 

plan is “satisfactory” under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A) and, thus, approvable.

Response 5: After reviewing comments concerning the four proposed approvability criteria, the 

EPA has determined that listing approvability criteria separate from the 12 required plan 

components is potentially confusing and redundant. The EPA has concluded that a satisfactory 

state plan that includes the required components will meet the proposed approvability criteria 

and is not finalizing the criteria separate from the required plan components. See sections 

VIII.D.1 and D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters addressed the four general plan approvability criteria and twelve required 

components for a state plan that the EPA proposes to use to determine whether a state’s plan is 

“satisfactory” under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A) and, thus, approvable. The four proposed 

approvability criteria are: (1) Enforceable Measures; (2) Emission Performance; (3) Quantifiable 

and Verifiable Emission Performance; and (4) Reporting and Corrective Actions. 

Regarding the four general state plan approvability criteria, commenters stated that EPA has 

clear authority to approve or disapprove state compliance plans and emission reduction glide 

paths. As a preliminary matter, the commenters stated that EPA should clarify that it will not 

disapprove any plan that satisfies the four approvability criteria set forth in the proposal.

Commenters noted that section 111(d) directs EPA to approve a state plan if it is "satisfactory." 

Commenters stated that these criteria are more demanding than the "satisfactory" criterion in 

CAA section 111(d) (2) (A). The commenters argued that EPA cannot bootstrap the statute's 

single "satisfactory" criterion into something far more demanding. 

The commenters stated that EPA notes that the approvability criteria and required components of 

a section 111(d) plan can differ from those required for a SIP under section 110 and EPA 

acknowledges that there are material differences between state plans submitted under Sections 

110 and 111. Commenters argued that EPA fails to recognize, however, that the "satisfactory" 

criterion under section 111(d) is far more permissive than the substantive requirements of section 

110. The commenters stated that the requirements of section 110, moreover, are themselves 

minimal. The commenters stated that nevertheless, the four criteria and twelve components 

frequently appear to require more of states than submission of a "satisfactory" plan and arguably 

more than could be required pursuant to section 110. 

Commenters argued that because "section 111(d) gives states the primary responsibility for 

designing their own state plans for submission to the EPA" EPA cannot disapprove a plan simply 
33

if it does not conform to the four plan types it has identified. The Proposal and EPA's State Plan 

Considerations Technical Support Document ("State Plan TSD") identify the four types of plans 

that EPA believes will be approvable: (1) rate-based CO2 emission limits applied to affected 

EGUs; (2) mass-based CO2 emission limits applied to affected EGUs; (3) a state-driven portfolio 

approach; and (4) a utility-driven portfolio approach. 

Commenters argued that EPA must approve state plans unless they are arbitrary or capricious 

and the EPA must have a reasoned basis for disapproving a state plan in whole or in part. See 

North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750 (holding that EPA's refusal to consider existing pollution 

control technology in use at a plant because it had been voluntarily installed was arbitrary and 

capricious). The commenters stated that although EPA can use the four criteria to judge the 

adequacy of state plans, the EPA cannot second-guess state decisions on how to reduce CO2 

emissions. See 40 FR 53340, 53343. 

The commenters argued that because states have the primary role in designing plans, the EPA 

should not be able to disapprove a state plan because EPA would have chosen different measures 

or applied the building blocks in a different way, or because it does not conform to the plan types 

the EPA has identified. Commenters stated that courts have consistently recognized a state's 

primary discretion in setting the pace of implementation under the Act. [See, e.g., Bethlehem 

Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036 ("Congress has given the states the initiate and a 

broad responsibility regarding the means to achieve those ends through state implementation 

plans and timetables for compliance...The Clean Air Act is an experiment in federalism, and the 

EPA may not run roughshod over the procedural prerogatives that the Act has reserved to the 

states...") See also CAA section 110(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2) ("Each implementation 

plan shall-(A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or 

techniques as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act..."); The issues pertaining to the types 

of state plans, timing of the plans and flexibility of the plans are also implicit in the Agency's call 

for comments in the NODA. Commenters stated that APPA's comments on natural gas 

infrastructure for building block 2 also respond to the NODA.

Comment 6: Comments that in approving plans, EPA should take into account plan features for 

continuous improvement and partnerships with local governments in implementing EE 

programs.

Response 6: The EPA’s EM&V requirements must be applied to any EE activity that is used to 

generate ERCs or otherwise adjust an emission rate.

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

Commenters advocated a flexible mechanism for reviewing state plan adequacy that to rewards 

plans on a continuous improvement basis and plans that demonstrate effective partnerships with 

local government implementers.
34

6.3 STATE PLAN COMPONENTS

This section addresses comments on the twelve State Plan Components. We have organized the 

comments in this section in subsections 6.3.1 to 6.3.13, corresponding to each of those twelve 

components. Responses to the comments topics of these subsections are discussed below along 

with summaries of the specific comments.

6.3.1 Identification of affected entities

This section discusses the proposed plan component: identification of affected entities, including 

how identification applies to energy savings performance contract projects and allowing state 

flexibility in developing compliance plans.

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

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

Comment 1: EPA should clarify how the identification-of-affected-entities as a state plan 

element requirement applies to Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) projects.

Response 1: The commenters requested that the EPA clarifies how the identification of affected 

entities in a state plan element requirement applies to Energy Savings Performance Contract 

(ESPC) projects. As explained in section VIII.B.2 of the final rule preamble, the EPA is not 

finalizing the portfolio approach which would have included non EGU as affected entities. In the 

final rule only EGUs are considered to be affected sources. In the state plan submittal, states 

must identify the applicability of state plans only to affected EGUs as defined in the regulations. 

A state adopting a state measures plan approach must provide as a part of the supporting 

documentation of its plan submittal, a description of all the state enforceable measures the state 

will rely upon to achieve the mass-based state goal, the applicable state laws or regulations 

related to such measures, and identification of parties or entities implementing such state 

measures. A state measures plan submittal that relies upon RE and demand-side EE programs 

and projects must also demonstrate in its supporting documentation that the minimum EM&V

requirements apply to those programs and projects, including ESPC projects. See section 

VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the components of a state plan submittal.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should clarify how the identification-of-affected-entities state 

plan element requirement applies to Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) projects. 

Commenters recommended that the states only be required to identify building or facility types 

(e.g., state-owned buildings, hospitals, universities, etc.) targeted for ESPCs and to provide a 

reasonable estimate (developed by the state or a qualified third party) of savings to be achieved 

from anticipated ESPC projects.
35

Comment 2: The final CPP should afford states maximum flexibility in developing compliance 

plans.

Response 2: The commenters suggested that the final Clean Power Plan afford states the 

maximum flexibility in developing compliance plans to the extent allowed under Title I of the 

CAA. The EPA agrees with the commenters and believes that the final emission guidelines offer 

states extremely broad flexibility and latitude in developing compliance plans and tailoring those 

plans to meet their respective energy, environmental and economic needs and goals, and those of 

their local communities. In particular the state measures plan type option provided in the final 

rule, would allow the state mass CO2 emission goals to be achieved by affected EGUs in part, or 

entirely, through state measures that apply to affected EGUs, other entities, or some combination 

thereof. “State measures” refer to measures that the state adopts and implements as a matter of 

state law. Such measures are enforceable only per state law, and are not included in and codified 

as part of the federally enforceable state plan. See section VIII.C of the final rule preamble for 

more information on the plan approaches available to states that afford the flexibility suggested 

by the commenters. 

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

Commenters suggested that the CPP afford states the maximum flexibility in developing 

compliance plans to the extent allowed under Title I of the CAA. Commenters noted that such 

flexibility allows for states to authorize voluntary participation of non-affected sources of GHG 

emissions in state emission-reduction programs, and would enable affected sources to partially 

satisfy their performance obligations by securing emission reductions from such sources, 

providing that any voluntary emission reductions satisfy established standards as permanent, 

surplus, quantifiable and enforceable.

Commenters stated that the opportunity to meet the goals by including entities other than 

affected EGUs is an option that should be available to states in developing their plans. 

Commenters asserted that such guidance should include potential affected entities such as 

transmission line owners/operators, simple cycle turbines, gas-fired reciprocating internal 

combustion engines and other EGUs that are not specifically named affected entities under the 

proposed rule. Commenters believed the guidance should be issued simultaneously with the final 

rule so state agencies have ample opportunity to utilize the guidance in developing the state plan.

6.3.2 Description of plan approach and geographic scope

[No comments were received on this topic.]
36

6.3.3 Identification of state emission performance level

This section discusses Identification of state emission performance level and comments on the 

requirements multi-state compliance plans to ensure their robustness.

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters recommended that the EPA require that multi-state compliance 

plans contain some key elements to ensure their robustness.

Response 1: The final CPP offers states extremely broad flexibility and latitude in developing 

state plans and tailoring those plans to meet their respective energy, environmental and economic 

needs and goals, and those of their local communities. One of such flexibilities is that states may 

choose to meet the requirements of the emission guidelines and CAA section 111(d) by 

submitting multi-state plans that address the affected EGUs in a group of states. The EPA is 

finalizing three types of multi-state plan approaches, described in as described in section 

VIII.C.5 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

These multi-state plan approaches are result of the broad support in comments the EPA received 

for allowing states to implement multi-state plan approaches. The EPA agrees with the 

commenters that that the EPA require that multi-state compliance plans contain some key 

elements to ensure their robustness. The EPA agrees that each state plan submittal must provide 

for the implementation and enforcement of the plan and the EPA in the final rule is requiring

specific components to be included in the state plan submittal to the EPA, see section VIII.D.2 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP for the components of a state plan submittal. States that 

choose to participate in multi-state plans must adequately address all applicable plan components 

across all participating states in the multi-state plan.

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

Commenters recommended that the EPA require that multi-state compliance plans contain some 

key elements to ensure their robustness and noted that multi-state compliance plans should 

include:

• An aggregated emissions reduction target that is equivalent to the combined emissions 

reductions that would accrue from the individual states' targets and otherwise meets the 

EPA guidance, 

• A multi-state tracking and reporting system for emissions that meets standards set by the 

EPA, 

• Multi-state enforceability provisions (for example, if the combined group of states falls 

short of the target, then all states must cut emissions proportionally to ensure 

compliance), and
37

• A multi-state plan for ensuring adequate low-carbon resources, and the transmission to 

support them, is being planned, built and deployed.

6.3.4 Demonstration that the plan is projected to achieve the state's emission performance 

level

This section discusses the state plan component requiring demonstration that that plan is 

projected to achieve the states’ emission performance level. Commenters requested clarification 

on these requirements and offered suggestions on the types of assessments needed and the role of 

ISOs and RTOs.

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

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

Comment 1: Request for clarification on what EPA envisions for the "demonstration" that the 

state plan is projected to achieve the state's emission performance level. Commenters requested 

that EPA provide assistance to states to help conduct their modeling, or allow states to use 

modeling conducted by third parties. Without Federal assistance, commenters said this 

requirement would equate to an unfunded mandate on the states.

Response 1: The commenters requested clarification on what the EPA envisions for the 

“demonstration” that the state plan is projected to achieve the state’s emission performance level. 

The type of demonstration required in a state plan depends upon the approach chosen by the state 

to adopt and implement. If a state chooses an emission standard approach, the state plan needs to 

include emission standards applied to affected EGUs that ensure the applicable performance 

rates or state goal will be achieved. A projection of plan performance is not required unless the 

state chooses to apply rate-based emission performance standards to individual affected EGUs at 

a rate that differs from the CO2 emission performance rates or the state's rate-based CO2 goal. A 

projection of plan performance is required for states that choose a state measures approach. The 

final rule provides information regarding the necessary components to demonstrate a plan will 

meet the corresponding emission performance level in Sections VIII.D.2.b.3 and VIII.D.2.c.4 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP. For more information about projections see also chapter III of 

the Technical Support Document for the CPP Final Rule: Incorporating RE and Demand-Side 

EE Impacts into State Plan Demonstrations.

The commenters also requested that the EPA provide assistance to the states to help conduct 

their modeling, or allow states to use modeling conducted by third parties. The EPA is not

requiring a specific type of emission quantification approach or model, as long as the one chosen 

uses technically sound methods that establish a clear relationship between electricity grid 

interactions of the state enforceable measures, affected EGU dispatch, generation cost and 

operations within the time frame outlined in these guidelines. States are free to use third parties 

to conduct modeling on their behalf. Multi-state modeling efforts would be the most cost 

effective way for states to conduct their analysis. EPA is developing a host of resources to help 
38

states develop approvable plans in addition the President’s FY 2016 Budget includes a $25 

million increase to support states as they implement the requirements of the President’s Clean 

Power Plan. Of this increase, $17.5 million will be provided to support states’ Clean Power Plan

modeling, technical analysis, and training efforts under CAA Section 103 authority and $7.5 

million will be allocated to states for Clean Power Plan activities under CAA Section 105

authority. 

The President’s FY 2016 Budget also includes a $4 billion Clean Power State Incentive Fund to 

support states that choose to go beyond the minimum requirements established in the Clean 

Power Plan for the pace and extent of carbon pollution reductions from the power sector.

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

Commenters requested clarification on what EPA envisions for the "demonstration" under 

section 60.5740(a) (4) that the state plan is projected to achieve the state's emission performance 

level. Commenters asked whether EPA meant for states to include modeling inputs and/or 

outputs. If so, commenters noted that many states do not have the resources available to conduct 

their own IPM or utility dispatch modeling. Commenters requested that EPA provide assistance 

to states to help conduct their modeling, or allow states to use modeling conducted by third 

parties. Without Federal assistance, commenters said this requirement would equate to an 

unfunded mandate on the states.

Comment 2: EPA should require states to seek an assessment of the potential impacts of the 

proposed State Plan on state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability from ISOs/RTOs.

Response 2: In response to these and similar comments, the EPA is requiring in the final rule 

that each state demonstrate as part of its state plan submission that it has considered reliability 

issues while developing its plan, and recommends that a particularly effective way in which a 

state can make this demonstration is by consulting with the relevant ISOs/RTOs or other 

planning authorities as they develop their plans and documenting this consultation process in 

their state plan submissions. See section VIII.G.2.c of the final rule preamble of the CPP for 

EPA’s for additional information on the requirement to address reliability in a state plan.

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

Commenters, in response to EPA's request for comments on the components of a State Plan, 

recommended that EPA require states to seek an assessment of the potential impacts of the 

proposed State Plan on state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability from ISOs/RTOs in 

market areas and the NERC-registered entities responsible for reliability in the state and/or 

region, e.g., reliability coordinator, planning coordinator, etc. with independent review by NERC 

or the Regional Entity, in non-market areas. Commenters stated that this assessment should 

occur before the State Plan is submitted to EPA for review. Commenters noted that reliability 

assessments performed at this stage will: (1) enable interested stakeholders to identify grid 

reliability challenges and develop mitigation strategies that minimize impact to the timeline for 

achievement of state targets and (2) enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the development 
39

and/or revision of State Plans by ensuring that such plans account for transmission and 

generation usage and patterns, and other relevant operational and planning information available 

from system operators and planners. Commenters provided the following example: 

If State A receives a state-specific emissions target, and it develops its State Plan to meet the 

target without a reliability assessment, its State Plan could limit the run-times of its resources or 

even drive unit retirements, which may impact reliability in State B, a net importer from State A. 

Without a reliability assessment of the proposed State Plan that is coordinated with the entities 

responsible for reliability in the state and/or region, e.g., reliability coordinator, planning 

coordinator, etc., such an impact to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability would not be 

identified until the implementation of the State Plan, requiring State Plan modifications by States 

A and B, additional reviews by EPA, and potential impacts to interim goals, when other, more 

available corrective actions could have been taken if the issue had been identified earlier. 

To effect this proposal, commenters recommended that EPA revise the Proposed Rule to require 

that State Plans include a component that describes the evaluation of potential impacts to state, 

multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability. According to commenters, this component would 

include an assessment/description of the assessment performed, the results of such assessment, 

and how the state considered and addressed any identified impacts during the development of its 

State Plan. Commenters noted it should also allow states to submit supporting assessments 

and/or data as part of the Supporting Material component of its State Plan.

Commenters stated that including this component will ensure that potential negative impacts to 

grid reliability are identified and considered early on, providing a valuable opportunity to 

mitigate potential grid reliability impacts. Commenters further suggested that any revisions to 

State Plans also contain this grid reliability component, i.e., perform a reliability assessment on 

the implementation of the revised State Plan and provide a description of the assessment, the 

results, and the actions taken to mitigate any identified grid reliability issues. Commenters stated 

that by explicitly requiring that State Plans include a component describing the results of 

reliability assessments and how such results were considered and/or addressed during the 

development and/or revisions of the State Plan, and allowing states to submit additional data 

regarding such reliability assessments through the Supporting Material component, commenters

stated that EPA can meet its objectives while facilitating state, multi-state, and/or regional grid 

reliability. Commenters provided recommended language for this component in Attachment A to 

their comments. 

As part of Attachment A, commenters submitted the following title and description of the 

component recommended for incorporation into the Final Rule to facilitate consultation with 

appropriate entities responsible for reliability during State Plan development. Commenters

recommended that the component be entitled "Description of Evaluation and Consideration of 

Impacts to State, Multi-State, and/or Regional Grid Reliability" and require that: 

"A State Plan must consider the impact of the plan to grid reliability and describe 

the assessment performed to identify the potential impacts of the proposed State 

Plan to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability performed by 

ISOs/RTOs in market areas and the NERC-registered entities responsible for 

reliability in the state and/or region, e.g., reliability coordinator, planning 
40

coordinator, etc. with independent review by the NERC or the Regional Entity in 

non-market areas; any state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability issues 

identified as a result of the evaluation performed; and how the State Plan 

considered and/or addressed such impacts. This component should include, but is 

not necessarily limited to, a description of: (1) the type of reliability assessment 

(e.g., long-term or short-term, local or regional); (2) the scope of the assessment 

(3) the assessment results (e.g., any near- or long-term grid reliability impacts 

identified) including any inter-state or regional dependencies or impacts 

identified (if relevant); and (4) how the state considered and/or addressed the 

assessment results in the State Plan including identification of any revisions or 

inter-state and/or regional coordination."

Comment 3: The ISO should support the state it serves in the development and implementation 

of the state plan.

Response 3: The CPP does not call for environmental dispatch and EPA expects that Security 

Constrained Economic Dispatch will continue to be used in the US. Any regulation, or market 

change for that matter, that changes the relative cost of generating power will change the order in 

which plants are dispatched. This has always been the case and this rule is does not change that. 

Final rule preamble sections VIII.C.3.b and VIII.G provide additional information about how 

credits and allowances are treated.

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

Commenters stated that the ISO should support the state it serves in the development and 

implementation of the state plan. Specifically, commenters stated that the ISO provides a 

platform which allows for the environmental dispatch of affected units in order to comply with 

the state's CO2 goal. Commenters stated that the environmental dispatch needs to be transparent 

with there being a clear connection between the value of a CO2 credit and the bid adder that the

generation owner applies when the bid is submitted to the ISO so the independent market 

monitor can audit and assure that there is no market manipulation occurring. Commenters stated 

that the ISO also has a role to play in terms of assuring that CO2 credits are not double counted 

by market participants, particularly if renewable and energy efficiency providers are given CO2 

credits.

Comment 4: FERC and/or the relevant RTO should certify plans will not adversely impact the 

broader energy system.

Response 4: As explained above and in section VIII.G.2.c of the preamble, the final rule 

requires states to demonstrate that they have considered reliability when they formulated their 

state plans. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
41

Commenters stated that given the complexities of the broader system which EPA does not have 

jurisdiction over, prior to EPA approval of any state implementation plan, FERC (and/or the 

relevant regional transmission organization (RTO)) should first certify that the plan will not 

adversely impact the broader energy system or degrade reliability.

Comment 5: The role for regional transmissions organizations (RTOs) should not be expanded.

Response 5: The final rule does not place mandatory requirements on RTOs. Although some 

RTOs may offer to take on an active role in helping states design plans or run markets, the EPA 

however does not require that they take on these responsibilities. 

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

Commenters stated that the role for regional transmission organizations (RTOs) should not be 

expanded. Commenters stated that RTOs already have extensive electric reliability 

responsibilities. Commenters stated that it is important for RTOs to continue that role through a 

reliability safety valve that enables the RTOs to assess, and, as necessary, mitigate electric 

system reliability impacts resulting from related environmental compliance actions to maintain 

electric system reliability. Commenters stated that the creation of new, mandatory markets or 

trading platforms run by the RTOs will significantly complicate the already overly complex 

competitive energy market and could very well add unnecessary costs that are, ultimately, passed 

on to customers.

Comment 6: Commenters disagreed with the need for a pre-implementation proposal and 

believes this is another reason why this entire CPP proposal should be withdrawn.

Response 6: The EPA disagrees with the comment that state plans do not necessitate a preimplementation demonstration that the plan is projected to achieve the final emission 

performance levels. The EPA is finalizing as part of the components of the state plan submittal 

required demonstration that a state plan will achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or state 

CO2 emission goal. A state plan submittal must demonstrate that the federally enforceable

emission standards on affected EGUs and/or state measures are sufficient to meet either the CO2 

emission performance rates or the state’s CO2 emission goal in the emission guidelines for the 

interim and final plan performance periods. For more information on the required components of 

a state plan submittal see section VIII.D.2 of the preamble of the final rule.

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

Commenters noted that EPA is proposing that the state plan must contain a pre-implementation 

demonstration that plan measures are projected to achieve the final emission performance level 

by 2030. Commenters argued that no other Section 111(d) regulation necessitates a preimplementation demonstration of projected emissions and/or modeling and that this is not the 

manner in which Section 111(d) is intended to be implemented. Commenters asserted that the 

EPA is attempting to force fit this package into a Section 110 SIP type proposal due to its overly 
42

complex nature, which is not the intent of a Section 111(d) requirement. Commenters disagreed 

with the need for a pre-implementation proposal and believes this is another reason why this 

entire CPP proposal should be withdrawn and revised to be consistent with the requirements of 

the CAA.

6.3.5 Milestones

See sections 6.1.5 and 6.1.6.

6.3.6 Corrective measures

See sections 6.1.5 and 6.1.6.

6.3.7 Identification of emission standards and any other measures

This section discusses emission standards, with particular focus on compliance periods and 

averaging periods.

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

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

Comment 1: Compliance averaging time should be equal to the performance period.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it is appropriate for the compliance 

period for emission standards for affected EGUs and the performance period for state plans to be 

equal. The final rule requires that for state plans that include emission standards on affected 

EGUs, the EGU emission standards for the interim period must have schedules of compliance for 

each interim step 1, 2 and 3 for the calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, 

respectively. For the final period, EGUs must have emission standards that have schedules of

compliance for each 2 calendar years starting in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-2033, 2034-2035, 

etc.)States can choose to set shorter schedules of compliance for the emission standards but no 

longer than the compliance periods the EPA is finalizing in this rulemaking. As finalized, these 

compliance periods for emission standards for affected EGUs are aligned to the interim and final 

state plan performance period. See section VIII.B.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the 

state plan performance periods, section VIII.D.2.b.1 of the final rule preamble for the compliance 

periods for each emission standard for affected EGUs and section VIII.F.1 of the final rule 

preamble for compliance periods, monitoring and reporting requirements for affected EGUs.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
43

Regarding EPA's request for comment on the 12-month averaging time, commenters stated that

there is no apparent reason why the compliance averaging time cannot be equal to the 

performance period. Commenters stated that the 12-month averaging time proposal is too short 

for existing units that may have to compensate for unforeseen circumstances such as increased 

run time due to inclement weather or unexpected outages of other generating units, etc.

Comment 2: EPA should allow state plans to provide a compliance period of up to 3 years 

regardless of whether the state selects a rate-based approach or a mass-based approach.

Response 2: In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that the appropriate averaging time 

for any rate-based emission standard for affected EGUs be no longer than 12 months and no 

longer than 3 years for a mass-based standard. The EPA solicited comments on longer and 

shorter averaging times for emission standards included in state plans. Commenters questioned 

why the averaging time should be shorter under a rate-based emission standard than under a 

mass-based emission standard and why the affected EGUs compliance periods should be shorter 

that the state plan performance period. 

The EPA agrees with the commenters that a multi-year compliance period for affected EGUs is 

appropriate for both type of emission standards (rate-based and mass-based). The EPA also 

agrees with commenters that longer averaging periods allow for operational and seasonal 

variability to even out. The EPA is finalizing compliance periods that apply to both rate- and 

mass-based emission standards, provide compliance periods longer than one year, and establish 

block compliance periods rather than a rolling average approach. 

The final rule requires that for plans that include emission standards on affected EGUs regardless 

of the type of emission standard (rate-based or mass-based), for the interim period the EGU 

emission standards must have schedules of compliance for each interim step 1, 2 and 3 for the 

calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, respectively. For the final period, EGUs 

must have emission standards that have schedules of compliance for each 2 calendar years 

starting in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-2033, 2034-2035, etc.) States can choose to set shorter 

schedules of compliance for the emission standards but no longer than the compliance periods 

the EPA is finalizing in this rulemaking. As finalized, these compliance periods for emission 

standards for affected EGUs are also aligned to the interim and final state plan performance 

period. See section VIII.B.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the state plan performance 

periods and section VIII.D.2.b.1 of the final rule preamble for the compliance periods for each 

emission standard for affected EGUs. As discussed in more detail in section VIII.F.1 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA recognizes that the compliance periods provided for in this 

rulemaking are longer than those historically and typically specified in CAA rulemakings. The 

EPA determined that the longer compliance periods provided for in this rulemaking are 

acceptable in the context of this specific rulemaking because of the unique characteristics of this 

rulemaking, including that CO2 is long-lived in the atmosphere, and this rulemaking is focused 

on performance standards related to those long-term impacts.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
44

Commenters suggested that state plans should be able to provide a 3-year compliance period 

under either a mass-based plan or a rate-based plan.

Commenters stated that the proposed rule provides that, beginning in 2032, states will be 

required to demonstrate compliance with their final emission goal on a rolling 3-year basis. 

However, commenters noted that the EPA proposes that the appropriate averaging time for 

affected EGUs or other affected entities to demonstrate compliance with state plan requirements 

should be no more than 12 months for a rate-based emission standard and no more than 3 years 

for a mass-based standard. Commenters questioned why an affected entity's compliance period 

should be shorter than a state's compliance period, or why the compliance period should be 

shorter under a rate-based emission standard than under a mass-based standard.

Commenters stated that a multi-year averaging period is appropriate for rate-based standards 

because yearly variation in wind, solar, and hydrological conditions and maintenance cycles for 

affected and nuclear units can affect the dispatch mix of fossil and carbon- free resources from 

year to year.

Comment 3: Use discrete periods for compliance reconciliation instead of the rolling-average 

approach proposed.

Response 3: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ recommendation that this rule use discrete 

year periods for compliance reconciliation instead of the proposed rolling-average approach and 

is finalizing discrete compliance periods each emission standards for affected EGUs. The final 

requires that for plans that include emission standards on affected EGUs, the EGU emission 

standards for the interim period must have schedules of compliance for each interim step 1, 2 and 

3 for the calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, respectively. For the final period, 

EGUs must have emission standards that have schedules of compliance for each 2 calendar years 

starting in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-2033, 2034-2035, etc.)States can choose to set shorter 

schedules of compliance for the emission standards but no longer than the compliance periods 

the EPA is finalizing in this rulemaking. As finalized, these compliance periods for emission 

standards for affected EGUs are aligned to the interim and final state plan performance period.

See section VIII.B.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the state plan performance periods.

See section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for compliance periods, monitoring 

and reporting requirements for affected EGUs.

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

Commenters noted that the RGGI states currently use a 3-year control period to measure 

generators' compliance with the rule. According to commenters, this multi-year approach allows 

generators to account for weather variations that may occur in a single year and mitigates price 

spikes in the CO2 allowance market due to those natural changes. Commenters recommended 

that this rule use discrete 3-year periods for compliance reconciliation instead of the rollingaverage approach proposed.
45

Comment 4: Commenters recommended that that the EPA use a 10-year average instead of 

using a 3-year rolling average for compliance.

Response 4: The EPA does not agree with the commenters’ recommendation of using a 10-year 

average for compliance. However, the EPA believes the block compliance periods in the final 

rule allow for operational and seasonal variability mentioned by the commenters to even out. The 

EPA finalizes that compliance periods for affected EGUs, on a calendar year basis, must be as 

follows for the interim period: January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024; January 1, 2025 –

December 31, 2027; and January 1, 2028 – December 31, 2029. Starting on January 1, 2030, the 

compliance period for each emission standard is every 2 calendar years. These compliance 

periods are longer than those historically and typically specified in CAA rulemakings. See 

section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for compliance periods, monitoring and 

reporting requirements for affected EGUs. 

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

Commenters recommended that instead of using a 3-year rolling average for compliance, 

commenters recommended that the EPA use a 10-year average to help smooth variability due to 

hot summers, cold winters, droughts, or other factors that might require the regional transmission 

organizations or independent system operators and utility companies to deviate from the plan to 

ensure reliable and affordable electricity to its customers. Commenters noted that a 3-year rolling 

average is not adequate as most weather cycles in their area are closer to 10-year cycles.

Comment 5: Commenters requested clarification on whether compliance must be determined at 

least as frequently as these intervals (3 years for mass-based, 1 year for rate-based), or if the 

averaging period (look-back period) shall be no greater than these intervals. Commenters also 

offered suggestions for the final approach.

Response 5: The final rule uses discrete year periods for compliance reconciliation instead of 

the proposed rolling-average approach. The EPA has also aligned the compliance periods for 

affected EGUs with the interim and final plan performance periods. The final requires that for 

plans that include emission standards on affected EGUs, the EGU emission standards for the 

interim period must have schedules of compliance for each interim step 1, 2 and 3 for the 

calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-2027 and 2028-2029, respectively. For the final period, EGUs 

must have emission standards that have schedules of compliance for each 2 calendar years 

starting in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-2033, 2034-2035, etc.) States can choose to set shorter 

schedules of compliance for the emission standards but no longer than the compliance periods 

the EPA is finalizing in this rulemaking. See section VIII.B.1 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for the state plan performance periods. See section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP for compliance periods, monitoring and reporting requirements for affected EGUs.

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

Commenters noted that the proposed rule establishes different maximum compliance periods for 

affected sources depending on whether the state pursues a rate-based goal or a mass-based goal. 
46

Commenters referred to the definitions of "Compliance period" in 40 CFR 60.5820 and 

"Emission standard" in 40 CFR 60.21: 

Compliance period means the period of time, set forth by a state in its state plan, during 

which each affected entity must demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissions 

standard, and shall be no greater than a three year period for a mass-based plan, and 

shall be no greater than a one year period for a rate-based plan.

Emission standard means a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable 

rate of emissions into the atmosphere, establishing an allowance system, or prescribing 

equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.

Commenters stated that, taking these two definitions into account, it is unclear whether 

compliance must be determined at least as frequently as these intervals (3 years for mass-based, 

1 year for rate-based), or if the averaging period (look-back period) shall be no greater than these 

intervals. If compliance must be determined at least as frequently as these intervals, but the 

averaging period is up to the state to decide in its plan, commenters noted that a 3-year 

compliance period under a mass-based approach could lead to difficulties for states. Commenters

provided for example, a state with a mass-based goal of 1,000 tons CO2 per year (3,000 tons 

CO2 per 3-years) and the following actual emissions:

2030: 750 tons

2031: 1,000 tons

2032: 1,240 tons

2033: 1,240 tons

2034: 1,000 tons

2035: 750 tons

Commenters noted that the 3-year periods from 2030-2032 and 2033-2035 meet the 3,000 ton/3-

year goal, but the 3-year periods from 2031 - 2033 and 2032- 2034 exceed 3,000 tons. According 

to commenters, if compliance is only determined every 3 years (e.g., EGU compliance is 

determined in 2032 for years 2030-2032, EGU compliance is determined in 2035 for years 2033-

2035, and so on), it could result in difficulties for the state when trying to ensure the 3-year 

rolling average does not exceed the goal.

On the other hand, commenters stated that if the proposed "compliance period" definition means 

EGU compliance is determined each year but looking at the 3-year rolling average of EGU 

emissions and generation is not allowed under a rate-based plan for EGU compliance purposes, 

then this sets a level of stringency under the rate-based approach that is more stringent than 

necessary to ensure the state meets its plan performance requirement, which is based on a rolling 

3-year average in 2030 and beyond and a 10-year average from 2020-2029.
47

Commenters suggested that the frequency with which compliance is determined (the first 

interpretation of compliance period above) should be no less than annually for both mass-based 

and rate-based approaches. Additionally, commenters suggested that after 2030, rolling 3-year 

periods should be allowed for the averaging period evaluated for EGU compliance purposes 

under either mass- or rate-based approaches. This way, commenters noted that EGU compliance 

is checked every year and state plans can be developed to ensure that the state plan performance 

required rolling 3 year average is met without being more stringent than necessary to do so.

Commenters also suggested that for the interim period, states should require EGU compliance to 

be determined no less frequent than annually, but should have the option of using an averaging 

period consisting of the full interim period that has passed as of the time of the compliance 

determination each year. Commenters provided for example:

In 2020, compliance is based on looking at 2020 emissions and generation.

In 2021, compliance is based on looking at total 2020-2021 emissions and generation.

In 2022, compliance is based on looking at total 2020-2022 emissions and generation.

In 2023, compliance is based on looking at total 2020-2023 emissions and generation.

In 2024, compliance is based on looking at total 2020-2024 emissions and generation.

In 2029, compliance is based on looking at total 2020-2029 emissions and generation. 

Through such an approach, commenters noted that a state will be determining EGU compliance 

every year, and this will still allow the state to ensure that its proposed interim goal is met based 

on the state plan performance averaging period included in the proposed rule, without being 

more stringent than necessary to do so.

Comment 6: A 12-month averaging period for rate-based emission standards is consistent and 

doable with the Clean Air Markets and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data 

reporting. The issue of averaging times is not critical for GHG emission standards relative to any 

GHG environmental impact.

Response 6: The EPA agrees that information necessary to determine compliance with the rule 

should be reported and collected in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 75

Continuous Emission Monitoring. Hourly data will be collected in accordance with 40 CFR Part 

75 necessary to determine compliance with the averaging time established in the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that a 12-month averaging period for rate-based emission standards is 

consistent and doable with the Clean Air Markets and the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission data reporting. Commenters stated that the issue of averaging times is not critical

for GHG emission standards relative to any GHG environmental impact.
48

Comment 7: Using a multi-year control period for emissions compliance is important for 

allowing operators flexibility to manage unforeseen events. EPA should create a “relief valve” 

to allow states to maintain reliability during unforeseen contingency.

Response 7: The EPA agrees with the commenters that a multi-year control period for emission 

compliance provides operators flexibility to manage unforeseen events. The EPA finalizes that

compliance periods for affected EGUs, on a calendar year basis, must be as follows for the 

interim period: January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024; January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2027; 

and January 1, 2028 – December 31, 2029. Starting on January 1, 2030, the compliance period 

for each emission standard is every 2 calendar years.

See section VIII.G.2.e of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to commenters 

recommendation that EPA creates a “relief valve” to allow states to maintain reliability.

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

Commenters stated that using a multi-year control period for emissions compliance is an 

important first step toward allowing operators the flexibility they need to manage unforeseen 

events. Commenters stated that the EPA should create a "relief valve" mechanism that would 

allow states to maintain reliability during an unforeseen contingency (e.g. the 2014 Polar Vortex, 

a major natural gas transmission outage, or a long-term forced outage of a zero-emissions 

resource). 

Commenters noted that reliable delivery of electricity to consumers is necessary to the 

functioning of modern society, and that the effects of outages and electricity price spikes have 

deleterious effects on the economy at large and on human health and welfare. Commenters noted 

that the power sector is frequently faced with unexpected events, many caused by weather 

patterns out of our control or by equipment failures that require a significant amount of time to 

repair. Commenters noted that many of these events have a direct impact on power sector 

emissions, and when grid operators are given sufficient "room" to comply - as currently is the 

case in SO2 and NOx markets - emissions constraints imposed by regulation can be met without 

impacting reliability. Commenters noted that as more stringent constraints are imposed, grid 

operators have less and less flexibility to respond to unforeseen events while still keeping the 

lights on.

Commenters noted that in states like New York, where EPA's proposed CO2 emissions rate 

target is significantly lower than the emissions rate of a natural gas fired plant, grid operators are 

reliant on the continued and uninterrupted operation of zero-emissions resources to meet demand 

and keep emissions in check. Commenters stated that the unforeseen loss of one or more zeroemissions resources would require operators to run fossil-fired plants more frequently, thereby 

increasing emissions. Commenters noted that unexpected damage to a turbine blade at a 

hydropower facility can take months to repair, just as an operational issue at a nuclear plant can 

cause a forced outage from which the plant never returns (e.g., the San Onofre plant in 

California).
49

Commenters stated that the North American Electric Reliability Corp. analysis of the extreme 

cold weather event, or "Polar Vortex" in January 2014 suggests that the event exposed industry's 

vulnerability to various challenges with fuel supply and delivery as related to its increased 

reliance on natural gas. Commenters stated that the report also says that potential risks associated 

with increased dependence on natural gas are most acute in areas where power generators rely on 

interruptible natural gas pipeline transportation which is the case in portions of New York.

Comment 8: A rolling 3-year average to measure compliance is inadequate to average out the 

effects of hydro-generation variability. Commenters stated that at least 15-year rolling averages 

are required to even out the effects of hydro variability.

Response 8: The EPA agrees with commenters that hydropower can vary on an annual basis. 

The EPA also agrees with commenters that the proposed 3-calendar year rolling average to 

determine compliance with the final emission performance levels does not adequately address 

operational and seasonal variability. Addressing these and other comments the final rule uses 

discrete year periods for compliance reconciliation instead of the proposed rolling-average 

approach. The EPA has also aligned the compliance periods for affected EGUs with the interim 

and final plan performance periods. The final requires that for plans that include emission 

standards on affected EGUs, the EGU emission standards for the interim period must have 

schedules of compliance for each interim step 1, 2 and 3 for the calendar years 2022-2024, 2025-

2027 and 2028-2029, respectively. For the final period, EGUs must have emission standards that 

have schedules of compliance for each 2 calendar years starting in 2030 (i.e., 2030-2031, 2032-

2033, 2034-2035, etc.) States can choose to set shorter schedules of compliance for the emission 

standards but no longer than the compliance periods the EPA is finalizing in this rulemaking. 

The EPA believes the block compliance periods in the final rule allow for operational and 

seasonal variability mentioned by the commenters to even out. See section VIII.B.1 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for the state plan performance periods. See section VIII.F.1 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP for compliance periods, monitoring and reporting requirements for 

affected EGUs.

For how the EPA used the hydro data for setting BSER see also section VI.D.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. The EPA made corrections to unit-level 2012 data based on commenters

feedback. In addition, we also made some adjustments to 2012 data, not to address a correction, 

but to address a concern about the representativeness of the data. Although the EPA determined 

that the 2012 data year better informed its BSER determination than a preceding year or a multiyear average, commenters did identify some limitations that we are addressing through targeted 

adjustments. These are discussed below:

• Adjustments to state-level data to account for annual variation in the hydrologic cycle as 

it relates to fossil generation.

• Hydropower plays a unique role in a handful of states in that it is 1) a significant portion 

of their generation portfolio, 2) varies on an annual basis, and 3) 2012 was an outlier year 

for snow-pack (meaning hydropower was above and fossil generation was below its 

historical average). The EPA notes that these three conditions are not present in other 
50

weather-based RE technologies like solar or wind.[1] Therefore, no similar adjustment 

was needed to account for weather patterns with these technologies.

• Unlike market conditions (e.g., changes in natural gas prices) that may produce different 

generation profiles year-to-year but that do not change the overall generating potential of 

the state’s power fleet, variation in the hydrologic cycle does fundamentally change the 

generating potential of the state’s power fleet in hydro-intensive states as they no longer 

have the same generating potential in an average year as they had in a “high hydro” year. 

Appendices 3 and 7 of The CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD 

for CPP Final Rule provides analysis and explains the adjustment that the EPA made to 

the state-level 2012 data for Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, and 

Washington to better reflect fossil generation in an average year over a 1990-2012 

baseline. The EPA agrees with commenters that using a 2010-2012 baseline would not 

address the concern as 2011 was also an outlier year relative to historical snow-pack and 

hydro generation.

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

Commenters stated that hydro generation variability will bias emission rates during compliance

measurement periods, and said a different averaging period is warranted. Commenters stated that 

there will be multi-year periods during future compliance periods when drought or other natural 

events will significantly reduce hydro generation and require replacement power from NGCC 

generation at significantly higher emission rates. Commenters stated that the EPA must consider 

this large amount of variability when assessing compliance to avoid penalizing the state for 

spikes in fossil-fueled generation based on unfavorable hydro conditions. Further, commenters

stated that the EPA's use of a rolling 3-year average to measure compliance is inadequate to 

average out the effects of hydro-generation variability. Commenters provided Figure 1 showing 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) annual precipitation data for Idaho 

since 1950. According to commenters, the figure clearly shows six periods with 3 or more 

consecutive years of below-average precipitation. Commenters stated that because the EPA 

proposes to only average 3 years of compliance measurement data, the EPA will effectively 

penalize the State for extended periods of below-normal water while not crediting the State for 

above-normal displacement of fossil fuel generation during extended periods of above-normal 

precipitation. Commenters stated that simply extending the rolling average compliance period 

does not seem feasible. Commenters provided Figure 2 depicting Idaho Power's total system 

hydro generation from 1975 through 2013 with rolling 5, 10, 15, and 20 year averages plotted. 

Based on the figure, commenters concluded it would require at least 15-year rolling averages to 

even out the effects of hydro variability so that it can be eliminated as a factor in measuring 

compliance.

 

[1]While solar and wind generation may vary on an hourly or daily basis, their annual generation 

profiles are subject to notably less variation compared to hydropower. The EPA’s calculation of 

the BSER relies on annual generation data, not on hourly or daily generation data.
51

6.3.8 Demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, 

permanent, verifiable, and enforceable

This section discusses the requirement that state plans demonstrate that each emission standard is 

quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. Commenters offered 

support for and clarification of this requirement.

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

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

Comment 1: EPA should require state plans to demonstrate the requirements are legally and 

practically enforceable.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters in that state plans should be required to 

demonstrate that the requirements are legally and practically enforceable. In the final rule the 

EPA is requiring that the states demonstrate in their plan submittals that the emission standards 

and/or state measures are quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable and enforceable. 

See section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the components of a state plan 

submittal. 

As provided in §§ 60.5740 and §§ 60.5745 and explained in detail in section VIII.C.3.b of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP, a state may elect to use a mass-based emission standard approach 

that is implemented through a market-based emission budget trading program. 

The EPA would assess the overall approvability of a plan using a state measures plan type based, 

in part, on the state’s satisfactory demonstration that the state measures, in conjunction with any 

federally enforceable emission standards on the affected EGUs that might be included in the 

plan, would result in the state plan’s achievement of either the CO2 emission performance rates 

or the CO2 emission goal for the state’s affected EGUs. The EPA’s determination that such a 

plan is satisfactory would be based in part on whether the state measures are adequately 

described in the supporting documentation and the plan submittal demonstrates that the state 

measures are quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent. This is 

necessary for the EPA to ensure that the results achieved through the plan are quantifiable and 

verifiable, and to assess whether the state measures are anticipated to achieve the CO2 emission 

performance rates or state CO2 emission goal for affected EGUs. 

The federal enforceability considerations raised in the comment arose primarily under the 

proposed portfolio approach for state plans. In this action, the EPA is finalizing the state 

measures approach instead of the portfolio approach described in the proposed rule. As explained 

in section VIII.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the EPA is not finalizing the portfolio 

approach, which would have allowed state plan submittals to include federally enforceable 

measures that apply to entities that are not affected EGUs. However, as explained in depth in 
52

section VIII.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP, if the state is adopting the state measures 

approach, the state plan submittal will need to specify, in the supporting materials, the state 

enforceable measures that the state is relying upon in conjunction with any federally enforceable 

emission standards for affected EGUs to meet the emission guidelines. 

Because the EPA is not finalizing the portfolio approach, which would have allowed states to 

include federally enforceable measures in a state plan that apply to entities that are not affected 

EGUs, such as in the context of RGGI, the agency is not providing additional guidance on 

federal enforceability of measures that might apply to such entities. As proposed, we are 

requiring that state plans include a demonstration that plan measures are enforceable, which for 

state measures plans is provided for in § 60.5780 and discussed in section VIII.D.2.c.6 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP. The existing guidance documents pertaining to enforceability 

include: (1) September 23, 1987 memorandum and accompanying implementing guidance, 

“Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency;” 

(2) August 5, 2004 “Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures;” and (3) July 2012 “Roadmap for 

Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal 

Implementation Plans, Appendix F.”

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

Commenters stated that EPA should require state plans to demonstrate that the requirements are 

legally and practically enforceable. Commenters stated that under a budget trading program like 

RGGI, enforceability, measurement, and verification are already incorporated into the program 

in a straightforward manner. Commenters stated that, based on consistent regulations adopted in 

each RGGI state, sources subject to RGGI are required to obtain and hold a sufficient amount of 

allowances by the relevant compliance deadline to cover emissions over the relevant compliance 

period. Commenters noted that under the existing terms of RGGI states' respective implementing 

regulations, this regulatory requirement is generally incorporated as a condition of each source's 

operating permit. Thus, commenters noted that RGGI is enforceable directly against individual 

sources by the state where the sources are located, and the failure of a source to hold sufficient 

allowances constitutes violations of the state's program and of the source's permit. Commenters

stated that under an approved section 111(d) plan, this obligation of each individual source to 

comply with RGGI would become a federally enforceable condition of an individual source's 

Title V permit. According to commenters, at the end of the compliance period, the "true-up" 

process, in which states deduct allowances to cover sources' emissions, provides verification that 

the emission reductions included as part of the participating states' section 111(d) plans are 

actually achieved. 

Comment 2: Request that EPA provide guidance as to what specifically would qualify as 

"permanent and enforceable," especially with regard to Building Blocks 3 and 4, which focus on 

the quantification of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Response 2: To the extent the commenters’ concerns involve building block 4, demand-side 

energy efficiency, because the EPA is not finalizing building block 4 as part of the BSER, it is 
53

not necessary to address those concerns in the context of it being one of the final building blocks. 

However, the final guidelines provide ample latitude for states and utilities to rely on demandside EE, as well as RE, in meeting emission reduction requirements as part of a state measures 

approach. The EPA is requiring that state plans include a demonstration that plan measures are 

enforceable, which for state measures plans is discussed in section VIII.D.2.c.6 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. Under § 60.5780 a state may include state measures in support of its plan 

that are not emission standard(s) on affected EGUs, provided that each state measure must be 

quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, and enforceable with respect to each 

affected entity and the plan supporting materials includes the methods by which each state 

measure meets those requirements.

As proposed, we are requiring that state plans include a demonstration that plan measures are 

enforceable, which for state measures plans is provided for in § 60.5780 and discussed in section 

VIII.D.2.c.6 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The EPA guidance documents on 

enforceability as it pertains to RE and EE include: (1) September 23, 1987 memorandum and 

accompanying implementing guidance, “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions 

for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency;” (2) August 5, 2004 “Guidance on SIP Credits for 

Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures;” 

and (3) July 2012 “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies 

and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans, Appendix F.”

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

Commenters requested that the EPA provide guidance as to what specifically would qualify as 

"permanent and enforceable," especially with regard to Building Blocks 3 and 4, which focus on 

the quantification of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Commenters noted that 

Indiana does not have a mandated RPS in place but does have a non-binding goal. Commenters

stated that the compliance timetable for plan development and implementation of this rule might 

not allow Indiana to pursue a RPS; therefore, the state may not have the mechanisms in place in 

order to properly enforce Building Blocks 3 and 4. Commenters stated that more guidance with 

regard to what constitutes enforceability is crucial in order for Indiana to consider incorporating 

these building blocks into a state plan.

6.3.9 Identification of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements

This section discusses monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Comments 

include input and questions on the type information to be collected and reported, how and where 

those data should be reported, and how long records should be retained.

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

topics (comments) below. Responses are also provided for these topics.
54

Comment 1: Multiple commenters questioned whether gross rather than net electrical 

production should be monitored and reported. 

Response 1: After carefully considering the comments regarding whether the agency should use 

net or gross energy as a basis for the emission standards and monitoring requirements, EPA is 

finalizing this rule to use a net energy basis, as proposed. See section VI.C.1.b of the preamble 

of the final rule of the CPP. Electric generators deliver net generation to the grid, power control 

authorities and dispatchers call upon electric generators to provide net power to the grid. Electric 

generators participating in wholesale markets of electricity are paid on the basis of the 

availability and generation of net power and net energy to the electric grid. Commenters stated 

that utilities generally measure generating unit performance with net unit heat rate, which entails 

measurement of net generation. An emissions standard based on net energy provides a truer 

indicator of the emissions per unit of production and a better indicator of the emissions 

performance of the electric generator. A standard on a net energy basis also provides incentives 

for electric generators to minimize their parasitic loads and get credit for such improvements in 

this rule. Therefore, sufficient meters to determine net energy output are required to be 

employed in order to demonstrate compliance with this rate based emissions standard. See 

section VIII.F.1 of the preamble of the final rule of the CPP. 

EPA believes that the vast majority of units have sufficient watt meters to report net generation. 

Net generation is currently reported to EIA by approximately 92 percent of respondents to the 

EIA-923 survey. EPA requested comment on the specification of ANSI 0.2 class watt meters 

and received few comments on this matter. Regarding the comments about costs to install 

sufficient watt meters, not enough supporting documentation was submitted evaluate 

commenters’ assertions. Regarding the proposed ANSI standard for watt meters, commenters 

did not provide any suggested alternatives to this standard in order to ensure consistent 

measurement of net electricity, which is essential to ensure that all parties are reporting this key 

compliance metric on a consistent basis. The fee to access the ANSI standard is nominal and 

should not have been a barrier for this industry to evaluate the standard. Therefore, in the final 

rule, EPA is requiring use of ANSI 0.2 class meters to measure and report net electric generation. 

However, to ensure that the monitoring requirements for net electric output are not overly 

burdensome at a facility, in the final rule, EPA is allowing a facility to request alternative 

monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(i) to alleviate unreasonable costs or to allow for delayed 

installation of meters during the next planned period of downtime. States and tribes have the 

flexibility to require more stringent monitoring requirements for watt meters in their state plan 

submissions. 

Regarding the metering of auxiliary loads that serves multiple units, the EPA will allow for 

reasonable apportionment of such auxiliary loads to multiple units. 

In response to the comment regarding auxiliary power meters not being able to differentiate the 

source of the power or whether a particular unit is on or off-line, the EPA believes that control 

systems at the EGU can differentiate hours in which the unit is operating or not and whether the 

electricity in the auxiliary load circuit is originating from on-site electric generators or from the 

grid. Also, commenters did not provide examples of cases in which there would be uncertainly 

regarding the origin of auxiliary power. 
55

In response to the comment regarding consistency of monitoring requirements with 111(b), such 

consistency is not required.

In response to the comment regarding monitoring and reporting of net generation at an EGU in a 

state that elects to implement a mass based program, rather than a rate based program, the EGU 

still must monitor and submit net energy output data. This is required so the state may be able to 

demonstrate that compliance with the mass based program also demonstrates that the state’s rate 

based goal is net. Owners and operators of utility and non-utility EGUs already report net 

electric generation to EIA via Form EIA-923 on a prime mover basis and a sample of EGUs on a 

unit basis. This rule cannot use the EIA data directly for several reasons: some of the EIA data is 

reported in an aggregated manner to EIA and is not reported on a unit level as is commonly (but 

not always) metered; the discrete units of time measurement for which the data is reported to 

EIA is insufficient for the purposes of this rule; there are occasions for which EIA alters reported 

data prior to publication. Many owners and operators of EGUs also report net generation to 

NERC via GADS. This rule does not impose a significant cost to install meters to measure net

generation on this industry.

EPA is committed to work with states, tribes, and owners and operators of EGUs to implement 

this rule, especially as it relates to the measurement and reporting of emissions and net energy 

output, the reporting of data via the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System 

(ECMPS), and related changes to Data Acquisition and Handling Systems (DAHS).

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

Commenters noted that EPA invited comment on the proposal for reporting of net rather than 

gross energy output and the proposed protocols. Commenters noted that EPA's proposed to 

require that EGUs

"install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a sufficient number of watt meters to 

continuously measure and record on an hourly basis net electric output."

Commenters stated that "net electric output" is defined as "the amount of gross 

generation the generator(s) produce (including, but not limited to, output from the 

steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas expander(s), as measured at the 

generator terminals, less the electricity used to operate the plant (i.e., auxiliary 

loads); such uses include fuel handling equipment, pumps, fans, pollution control 

equipment, other electricity needs, and transformer losses as measured at the 

transmission side of the step up transformer (e.g., the point of sale)."

Commenters noted that EPA stated in its part 75 monitoring considerations TSD that, "Given 

that these measurements commonly occur at EGUs, the EPA understands that the equipment 

needed to convert gross generation to net generation on an hourly basis exists at all EGUs." 

Commenters argued that this statement is not accurate and the proposed requirement to measure 

net generation will be problematic for the following reasons. 

• Commenters stated that vertically integrated utilities such as EGUs that are connected to 

the utility's own grid have no operational reason for metering to measure net generation 

from the grid. According to commenters, while such generating stations have some 
56

meters, they are not necessarily the appropriate type and quality or in the location needed 

to meet EPA's new reporting requirements.

• Commenters state that the proposed requirement to measure net generation would 

introduce increased costs (especially as the meters are not "off-the-shelf' items), entail 

generation station outage time for meter installation, and uncertainties as to whether the 

supporting equipment (e.g. potential transformers and current transformers) will be 

available. Commenters estimated that it will cost over $1 million to replace existing 

meters alone and each meter would require an approximately seven week installation 

period which would entail power plant outage time.

• Commenters noted, because vertically integrated utilities operate EGUs that are 

connected to the utility's own grid do not have metering in place outside of its facilities, 

this would introduce additional costs and time to purchase and install new station service 

transformers. Therefore, commenters stated that the following assumption contained in 

the TSD does not apply to vertically integrated utilities: "Station service transformers 

typically provide separately measured electricity from the grid to plant auxiliary loads 

when the EGU is not in operation or is starting up."

• Commenters noted that the EPA proposes that the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) standard for electricity meters be used (i.e., a specification of 0.2 accuracy class 

meters to determine net electric output). When commenters attempted to access the ANSI 

standards for review, they found that the only way to review the standards was to

purchase them and found that ANSI restricts the networking and transferring of the 

purchased file to another person or computer. Commenters stated that EPA's rationale is 

for proposing to require an ANSI specification of 0.2 accuracy class meters is unclear as 

the TSD only states that "Specification of certain equipment standards would ensure a 

level playing field regarding the minimum acceptable accuracy of equipment used to 

measure net electric generation while minimizing any additional burden of upgrading 

equipment used to measure net electric generation." However, commenters noted that the 

EPA has not provided data indicating that EGUs are already using meters of the ANSI 

specification proposed.

• Commenters noted that the auxiliary power meters at their generating stations do not 

differentiate the source of the power or whether a particular unit is on or off-line, so their 

existing meters would not be able to measure net electric output as proposed by EPA.

• Commenters noted that the EPA proposes that grid supplied electricity that is used at the 

station when the EGU has no gross generation would not be subtracted from the zero 

gross generation. Commenters stated that it is unclear how the current CEMS Data 

Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) would interface with the proposed meter 

requirements. Commenters noted that the CEMS report gross generation values which 

represent hourly rates so for hours of partial operation, the value reported under Part 75 

will not measure the actual output for an hour. Commenters stated that the current CEMS 

would be required to be reprogrammed or EPA would need to clarify whether it would 

accept partial hour data.
57

• For these reasons, commenters recommended that EPA not require EGUs to monitor net 

generation if their state has opted for a mass-based goal. If a state opts for a rate-based 

goal, commenters recommended that EPA retain the existing requirement to report gross 

energy output per Part 75 rules rather than net energy output. Commenters stated that net 

generation can be a complex calculation, especially for vertically integrated utilities, and 

would incur significant additional cost to install new meters and reprogram the CEMS to 

record the additional data. Commenters also recommended that EPA work with vertically 

integrated utilities to address their unique situation and concerns with reporting of net 

generation.

Commenters questioned whether net rather than gross electrical production should be reported. 

Commenters stated that this depends solely on how EPA finalizes its choice of net or gross 

generation for the 111(b) proposals. Commenters stated that this existing source rule should 

require electricity to be reported in the form used in the 111(b) rules (proposed to be gross 

generation) for consistency between reporting requirements and simplification of calculation of 

emission limitations between new and old sources. 

Commenters recommended that EPA should utilize gross rather than net generation.

Commenters expressed concern with EPA's use of net rather than gross electricity generation as 

a basis for the emission rate goals in the proposal. Commenters stated that 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, commenters noted that 

EPA's proposed new source CO2 standards under section 111(b) are based on gross generation. 

For consistency with EPA's proposed new source CO2 standards and its long-existing Part 75 

CEMS requirements, commenters recommended that gross generation should also be used for 

the section 111(d) standards. Commenters stated that the additional monitoring required to 

accurately determine net generation is burdensome and of little or no benefit beyond the current 

gross energy monitoring requirements.

Commenters advocated that decisions regarding net and gross electric output reporting, electric 

output meter specifications, and apportionment procedures for the station power (parasitic load) 

at multi-unit stations be delegated to the states. Commenters suggested that states should defer to 

existing ANSI and IEC metering specifications, manufacturer recommended maintenance and 

calibration practices, and applicable FERC and NERC protocols. Commenters stated that 

layering additional EPA mandated electric metering specifications and quality assurance testing 

requirements would be duplicative and unnecessary. Commenters noted that affected EGUs have 

industry inherent incentives to ensure accurate and reliable electric power metering and 

reporting.

Comment 2: The EPA should revise its requirements for determining compliance with its netoutput based goals and allow states to decide the best means of measuring and reporting the 

metrics needed to demonstrate compliance.

Response 2: The EPA does not agree since consistent monitoring and measurement is an 

important aspect of this rule, however, to a certain extent state flexibility beyond minimum 
58

requirements is generally provided for. Consistent measurement and reporting of net energy 

output is as important as consistent measurement and reporting of emissions For example, it 

ensures that the value of each tradable unit has consistent value regardless of the location of the 

EGU. States and tribes have the flexibility to require more stringent monitoring requirements for 

watt meters in their state plan submissions.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should revise its requirements for determining compliance with 

its net-output based goals. Commenters stated that EPA's proposal and technical support 

documents include various provisions intended to govern how net output should be monitored at 

existing generating units because EPA has defined its emission reduction goals for states on the 

basis of net output. However, commenters stated that those provisions are inconsistent with other 

monitoring requirements that already apply to those units under other Clean Air Act programs, 

and they unnecessarily restrict state authority to determine the best means of implementing and 

enforcing EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. 

First and foremost, commenters stated that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act expressly grants 

to the states, not EPA, the authority to "implement and enforce" the "standards of performance" 

established in state implementation plans. Therefore, commenters asserted that the EPA should 

allow states to decide the best means of measuring and reporting the metrics needed to 

demonstration compliance under Section 111(d). 

For the new monitors that may be needed at existing sources, such as net energy output watt 

meters, commenters stated that the EPA should encourage states to adopt reasonable monitoring 

requirements that do not unduly burden existing sources. For example, commenters stated that 

the EPA's proposal indicates that net generation meters must be accurate to 0.2 percent, but fails 

to recognize that the accuracy requirements for other monitors are much more reasonable.

Comment 3: The rule should require all affected EGUs to monitor CO2 emissions and net hourly 

electric output and report data using EPA’s Emission Collection and Monitoring Plan System 

(ECMPS).

Response 3: The Agency agrees with the commenters and the final rule requires all affected 

EGUs to monitor and report in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75. Reporting requirements under 

40 CFR Part 98 also required for the majority of the affected units subject to this rule rely on the 

emission monitored and reported in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75. 40 CFR Part 98 is a 

mandatory GHG reporting rule that encompasses pollutants beyond this rule making and 

therefore the Agency is not considering streamlining of the reporting requirements for these two 

distinctly different rules.

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

Commenters stated that the rule should require all affected EGUs to monitor CO2 emissions and 

net hourly electric output under 40 CFR Part 75, and report the data using the EPA's Emission 

Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS). Commenters stated that this would assure a 
59

more uniform monitoring and reporting process for all affected sources. Commenters stated that 

currently, some sources located in Oklahoma are not subject to 40 CFR Part 75, and the state 

does not possess the resources to develop and maintain a separate reporting system for these 

sources. In regards to monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, commenters questioned the 

relationship between the proposed rule and the annual GHG emissions reporting provisions 

under 40 CFR Part 98. Commenters stated that most affected sources currently report GHG 

emissions to the EPA quarterly pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75 and annually via 40 CFR Part 98. 

Commenters asked whether EPA is considering streamlining the apparently duplicative reporting 

requirements for the same emissions. The EPA references reporting requirements under Part 75 

as being the preferred approach under the 111(d) state plans and that states can use that system to 

gather already reported emissions data from affected EGUs rather than creating a new system.

To the extent EPA seeks to provide guidance to states regarding its preferred monitoring and 

reporting procedures, commenters stated that the EPA should encourage states to avoid imposing 

additional monitoring and reporting burdens by taking advantage of the monitoring requirements 

that already exist to the greatest extent possible. For example, commenters noted that the Part 75 

monitoring procedures used to comply with other programs, such as the Title IV Acid Rain 

Program, provide much of the data that would be needed to demonstrate compliance under the 

Clean Power Plan. Unfortunately, commenters stated that the EPA's proposal appears to mandate 

a monitoring approach that would eliminate key flexibilities provided in the Part 75 regulations, 

thus requiring utilities to maintain separate document collection and reporting procedures and 

potentially eliminating important alternative monitoring options intended to ensure 

representative, cost-effective monitoring approaches are available. Commenters asked EPA to 

revise its proposal to make clear that the procedures established under Part 75 will suffice or 

explain the need for any exceptions. 

Comment 4: Commenters recommend a record retention time of 12 to 15 years.

Response 4: In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that states must include in their state 

plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs to maintain records for at least 10 years 

following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report or 

record. The EPA received mix comments regarding the length of the record retention 

requirement for EGUs. Some commenters recommended longer retention times while others did 

not agree with longer retention times. The EPA is finalizing that states must include in their 

plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs of not less than 5 years following the 

date of each compliance period, compliance true-up period, occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, whichever is latest. Each record must be in a 

form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. The EPA finds that these final 

recordkeeping requirements are appropriate and consistent with the requirements for other CAA 

section 111(d) emission guidelines and believes that these record retention requirements will 

ensure the data is available for the interim and final compliance true-up periods.

See section VIII.D.2.a.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs.
60

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

Commenters stated that a record retention time of 10 years will not be sufficient since the interim 

goal period is 10 years and the life of some EE reduction measures is greater than 10 years. 

Commenters recommended a slightly longer retention time of 12 to 15 years to ensure sufficient 

data is available to calculate and adjust the goals. In addition, commenters recommended that 

data associated with EE measures that extend beyond 10 years maintain a record retention time 

for the entire life of the EE measure, with a maximum of 20 years.

Comment 5: Request for clarification on the timeframe for records retention.

Response 5: See section VIII.D.2.a.4 of the final rule preamble for EPA’s response to this 

comment and the record retention requirements states must include in their plans for affected 

EGUs. See section VIII.D.2.a.5 of the final rule preamble for the final state reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

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

Commenters requested clarification on the timeframe for records retention. Commenters noted 

that EPA states that it is "proposing that state plans must include a record retention requirement 

of ten years" on page 34914 of the preamble, but section 60.5810(d) stated that "A state must 

keep records at minimum for 20 years."

Comment 6: There is no justification for records retention exceeding 10 years.

Response 6: In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that states must include in their state 

plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs to maintain records for at least 10 years 

following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report or 

record. The EPA received mix comments regarding the length of the record retention 

requirement for EGUs. Some commenters recommended longer retention times while others did 

not agree with longer retention times. The EPA is finalizing that states must include in their 

plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs of not less than 5 years following the 

date of each compliance period, compliance true-up period, occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, whichever is latest. Each record must be in a 

form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. The EPA finds that these final 

recordkeeping requirements are appropriate and consistent with the requirements for other CAA 

section 111(d) emission guidelines and believes that these record retention requirements will 

ensure the data is available for the interim and final compliance true-up periods.

See section VIII.D.2.a.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
61

Regarding EPA's proposal that state plans must include a record retention requirement of 10 

years commenters stated that there is no justification for record retention exceeding 10 years. 

Similarly, commenters disagreed that there is any need to specify record retention policies for 

CAA Section 111(d) plans because states have developed state level record retention policies.

Comment 7: Commenters disagreed that affected entities should submit reports to EPA as well 

as to the state.

Response 7: The EPA requested comments on the appropriate scope of periodic reporting 

requirements for each affected entity in a state plan and whether the reports should also be 

submitted directly by the affected entities to the EPA as well as to the state. Commenters stated 

that EPA has no need or legal basis for requiring that affected entities must submit reports to the 

EPA as well as the states. In the final rule the affected entities are the EGUs that meet the 

applicability criteria of § 60.5805. The EPA finalizes that in the state plan submittal states must 

specify how each emission standard is quantifiable and verifiable by describing the CO2

emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected EGUs. The 

applicable monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected EGUs with are 

outlined in section VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the CPP. In the final requirements the 

EPA finalizes that states must require all affected EGUs to monitor and report hourly CO2

emissions and net energy output (including total net MWh output that is comprised of 

generation, and where applicable, useful thermal output converted to net MWhs) to the EPA on a 

quarterly basis in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 (via the Emission Collection and Monitoring 

Plan System (ECMPS)). This requirement applies for all types of state plans, regardless of 

whether the state chooses the option of the CO2 emission performance rates, a state rate-based 

CO2 emission goal, or a state mass-based CO2 emission goal. 

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

The commenters noted that the EPA is taking comment on whether reports must be submitted to 

the EPA as well as states. Commenters stated that the EPA has no need or legal basis for 

requiring that affected entities must submit reports to the EPA as well as the states. The 

commenters stated that such a requirement is unnecessary and would create wasteful reporting. 

The commenters stated that the EPA would have access to the reports from the state as well as 

the affected entities themselves. The commenters noted that the states' recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements included in the state plans will be federally enforceable once the plans are 

approved by the EPA. Further, the commenters questioned whether the EPA regional offices are 

prepared to receive, log, and retain the hundreds of reports that would be submitted. The 

commenters stated that unless the EPA can provide a reasoned justification for why such 

duplicative reporting is necessary and what the EPA intends to do with the reports, the EPA 

should not adopt such a requirement in the rule.

Comment 8: Commenters suggested that the EPA should require annual state progress reports 

and should require affected EGUs to submit electronic reports to states and EPA alike.
62

Response 8: The EPA agrees with the commenters and the final rule requires all affected EGUs 

to monitor and report hourly CO2 emissions and net energy output (including total net MWh 

output that is comprised of generation, and where applicable, useful thermal output converted to 

net MWhs) to the EPA on a quarterly basis in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 (via the Emission 

Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS)). This requirement applies for all types of 

state plans, regardless of whether the state chooses the option of the CO2 emission performance 

rates, a state rate-based CO2 emission goal, or a state mass-based CO2 emission goal. For states, 

the EPA is requiring states to submit reports to EPA electronically. See section VIII.E.8 of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP for electronic submittal of state reports to EPA. See section 

VIII.D.2.a.5 of the final rule preamble for the final state reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

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

Regarding EPA's request for comments on whether electronically submitted reports from 

affected entities should be provided to EPA or only to the relevant state authorities, commenters

stated that requiring affected sources to report to EPA in addition would help the public evaluate 

the progress that individual units achieve toward reducing emissions, the performance of 

different states, and the effectiveness of the plan as a whole. Commenters suggested that a 

central clearinghouse of unit-specific data would help interested citizens avoid having to 

negotiate the multiple different interfaces and software functionalities on which state agencies 

may rely. Commenters suggested that the EPA should require annual state progress reports and 

should require affected EGUs to submit electronic reports to states and EPA alike. 

Comment 9: EPA should adopt additional requirements covering record retention that will 

facilitate the expeditious review of record.

Response 9: The commenters requested that the EPA adopted additional requirements covering 

record retention that will facilitate the expeditious review of record. EPA does not agree with 

commenters and believes the record retention requirements in this final rule are consistent with 

previous EPA on site/off-site record keeping requirements and is not finalizing additional record 

retention requirements at this time. The EPA notes that the final rule requires that each record 

must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. See section VIII.D.2.a.4 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP for the record retention requirements for affected EGUs.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should strengthen the record retention requirements. Commenters

stated that EPA's proposal to require affected sources to retain compliance records on site for 

only 2 years, after which records could be retained "off-site and electronically" reduces the 

efficacy of onsite inspections and make compliance determinations only possible through 

information requests authorized under section 114 of the CAA and analogous state provisions 

(where they exist). Commenters stated that section 114 information requests by EPA's 

enforcement office have often been the subject of controversy, as well as attempted interference 

by Congress. Commenters stated that EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has also demonstrated a 
63

reluctance to apply to the Office of Management and Budget for permission under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act to employ section 114 requests to obtain information needed for rulemaking 

development. Commenters noted that state and local officials are particularly reliant on onsite 

inspections to ensure regulatory compliance but rarely use authority to conduct documentintensive offsite investigations (if they have it). Commenters stated that the prospect of essential 

information being stored at a remote location, which may lie outside the jurisdiction of the state 

or local authority, and in formats that may be difficult to access, presents a significant obstacle to 

enforcement (including citizen enforcement pursuant to section 304 of the Act), especially in the 

current era of shrinking EPA and state agency enforcement budgets. Moreover, commenters

stated that the EPA has not identified any particular (or even generalized) basis for its proposal to 

permit offsite storage after 2 years. Commenters stated that technological advances have reached 

the point where a year's worth of data, including scanned PDF documents, can be stored on a 

single flash drive, negating earlier arguments about space requirements. 

To facilitate the expeditious review of needed information, commenters asserted that the EPA 

needs to adopt additional requirements covering record retention. For example, under the subpart 

98 reporting program for GHGs, records may be stored off site only "if the records are readily 

available for expeditious inspection and review" and for any records stored electronically, "the 

equipment or software necessary to read the records shall be made available, or, if requested by 

EPA, electronic records shall be converted to paper documents." 40 CFR 98.3(g). Commenters

stated that to properly implement the CAA's citizen suit provisions, EPA must clarify that 

"readily available" means available on demand, not just to EPA, but to state and local authorities, 

irrespective of jurisdiction over the site where the records are stored, and to the general public. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(F)(requiring states to correlate emissions monitoring reports "with any 

emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection"). Commenters stated that because these 

requirements apply to CO2 emissions data from power plants under the GHG reporting program, 

extending their application to the Clean Power Plan will ensure consistent requirements and will 

impose little, if any, additional burden. See 40 CFR 98.47. 

Comment 10: The EPA should clarify that as long as the facility can access records from an 

onsite location, there is no reason for the data to be physically stored at the site.

Response 10: The commenters requested that EPA clarify the onsite/off-site recordkeeping 

requirement. The commenters stated that many records to be retained are recorded only in 

electronic form and depending on the facility’s management practices these records may be 

retained at a central location to facilitate backups and other services. In the final rule the EPA 

requires that states must include in their plans a record retention requirement for affected EGUs 

of not less than 5 years following the date of each compliance period, compliance true-up period, 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, whichever is latest, 

that affected EGUs must maintain each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of the 

occurrence of each record and may maintain records offsite and electronically for the remaining 

years. Each record must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. 
64

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

Commenters opposed retaining records on site if it means that retention of electronic records that 

can be accessed "onsite" (even if they are physically located offsite) would not be sufficient. 

Commenters stated that many of the records to be retained are recorded only in electronic form 

and, depending upon the facility's management practices, may be retained at a central location in 

order to facilitate backups and other services. Commenters requested that the EPA should clarify 

that as long as the facility can access the records from an onsite location, there is no reason for 

such data to be physically located at the site.

Comment 11: EPA must accept the authority of states to use existing state or regional tracking 

and accounting systems.

Response 11: EPA does not agree. The final rule requires that states must show that they have 

the appropriate tracking and accounting infrastructure that meets the requirements in the 

emission guidelines to administer the state plan requirements. However, states have the 

flexibility to use existing state or regional tracking and accounting system to the extent these 

meet the requirements in the emission guidelines.

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

Commenters stated that EPA must accept the authority of states to use existing state or regional 

tracking and accounting systems.

Comment 12: EPA should require that all affected entities report emissions performance and net 

generation data directly to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD).

Response 12: The EPA agrees with the reasoning provided in this comment and the final rule 

requires the reporting of net generation through ECMPS along with other data required under 40 

CFR Part 75. See section VIII.F.1 of the preamble of the final rule.

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

In order to streamline reporting under section 60.5815, commenters suggested that EPA should 

require in the final rule that all affected entities report the emissions performance and net 

generation data required directly to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD). Commenters

noted that CAMD currently requires reporting of gross generation and CO2 emissions by Part 75 

and CAIR-affected units, so CAMD already has the infrastructure in place to add reporting of net 

generation. Commenters stated that this method will allow states to easily access the reported 

data on the CAMD website in a timely fashion and will save states the expense and time required 

to develop their own individual state reporting systems, train affected entities, and process 

submitted reports. Commenters also noted that CAMD will provide a consistent reporting format 

and central data location to retrieve data for all affected units in all states. 
65

Comment 13: Provide clear guidance on enforcement, including consistent methodologies to be 

used for measuring power plant emissions, reductions attributable to renewables, and demandside efficiency.

Response 13: Although demand-side energy efficiency, building block 4 in the proposed rule, is 

no longer part of the BSER, the final guidelines provide ample latitude for states and utilities to 

rely on demand-side EE, as well as RE, in meeting emission reduction requirements as part of a 

state measures approach. 

As proposed, we are requiring that state plans include a demonstration that plan measures are 

enforceable, which for state measures plans is provided for in § 60.5780 and discussed in section 

VIII.D.2.c.6 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The guidance documents on enforceability as 

it pertains to RE and EE include: (1) September 23, 1987 memorandum and accompanying 

implementing guidance, “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for 

Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency;” (2) August 5, 2004 “Guidance on SIP Credits for 

Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures;” 

and (3) July 2012 “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies 

and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans, Appendix F.”

Regarding the measurement of power plant emissions the EPA finalizes that state plans must 

contain requirements for tracking and reporting actual plan performance during implementation, 

including monitoring CO2 emissions from affected EGUs via CEMS. The emissions monitoring 

and reporting requirements for EGUs are largely incorporated from 40 CFR part 75 monitoring 

and reporting requirements. See Section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. This 

requirement in the emission guidelines provide for consistent methodology for measuring power 

plant emissions. Regarding reductions attributable to demand-side EE, the EPA is providing draft 

evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) guidance that is intended to help states and 

EE providers quantify and verify savings in a manner that is consistent with industry standard 

best practices. This draft EM&V guidance is part of EPA’s model rule and federal plan 

proposal.

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

Commenters stated that clear guidance should be provided with respect to enforcement, 

including consistent methodologies to be used for measuring power plant emissions, reductions 

attributable to renewables, and demand-side efficiency.

Comment 14: The required use of continuous CO2 monitors along with certification and 

calibration requirements is burdensome.

Response 14: We disagree with the commenters that requiring continuous CO2 emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS) is burdensome, because CEMS is the most technically reliable 

method for monitoring CO2 from EGUs. CEMS provides a measurement method that is 

performance-based rather than equipment-or fuel-specific and provides a continuous 
66

measurement stream that can account for variability in the fuels and the combustion process. 

Reference methods have been developed to ensure that all CEMS meet the same performance 

criteria which helps to ensure consistent and accurate data. See Section VIII.D.2.b.2 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. The monitoring methods allowed under 40 CFR Part 98 are 

appropriate for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which tracks data about GHG emissions 

from individual sources in multiple industry sectors for analyzing and developing a range of 

potential CAA GHG policies and programs. We disagree with the commenters that the 

monitoring methods allowed under the Reporting Program are appropriate for determining EGU 

compliance, whether actual emission performance meets the CO2 emission performance rates or

state CO2 emission goal, and other necessary determinations under the final guidelines. 

For these reasons, we are finalizing that state plans must contain requirements for tracking and 

reporting actual plan performance during implementation, including monitoring CO2 emissions 

from affected EGUs via CEMS. The emissions monitoring and reporting requirements for EGUs 

are largely incorporated from 40 CFR part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements. See 

Section VIII.F.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

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

Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule imposes burdensome monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements on each affected source. Commenters stated that continuous CO2

monitors are required, along with certification and calibration requirements. Commenters

suggested that the final rule provide options for these requirements, crafted somewhat along the 

lines of the current greenhouse gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule, Subpart C which provides 

levels (tiers) of monitoring and reporting based on heat input and type of fuel burned and allows 

standard default emission factors. Commenters stated that such options can provide lower cost 

alternatives for the regulated facilities, while maintaining sufficient accuracy to accomplish 

EPA's goals. 

Comment 15: Commenters stated that no new reporting requirements for affected EGUs should 

be created within the section 111(d) requirements.

Response 15: The EPA agrees with the commenters and believes that the final rule provides 

flexibility for the states depending on the state plan type to develop the appropriate reporting 

requirements. The EPA also believes that the EGU reporting requirements in the final rule are 

consistent with the existing framework of regulations (40 CFR part 60 subpart B 60 subpart B.) 

However the EPA finalizes that states must require all affected EGUs to monitor and report 

hourly CO2 emissions and net energy output (including total net MWh output that is comprised 

of generation, and where applicable, useful thermal output converted to net MWhs) to the EPA 

on a quarterly basis in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 (via ECMPS). This requirement applies 

for all types of state plans, regardless of whether the state chooses the option of the CO2

emission performance rates, a state rate-based CO2 emission goal, or a state mass-based CO2

emission goal. The EPA believes that these requirements address the commenters’ suggestion for 

EGUs electronic reports. For states, the EPA is requiring states to submit reports to EPA 
67

electronically. See section VIII.E.8 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for electronic submittal 

of state reports to EPA.

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

Commenters stated that no new reporting requirements for affected EGUs should be created 

within the section 111(d) requirements. The commenters argued that states should be given the 

flexibility, depending upon the nature of their plan, to develop appropriate reporting mechanisms 

and frequencies to include in their plans. The commenters stated that the EPA should not be 

incorporating specific and detailed regulatory requirements for reporting under this proposal 

given the broad nature of this proposal and purported flexibility for states to incorporate 

compliance options for various affected entities. In addition, the commenters stated that 

imposing an additional requirement that the state maintain a database accessible by the public is 

a burden that is not necessitated by this rule. The commenters pointed out that the EPA is 

proposing no funding as a result of this regulation and did not support this level of over sight and 

unnecessary reporting.

Comment 16: Commenters do not foresee significant issues with an average 2-year reporting 

cycle for EGU generation and emissions. However, they do anticipate issues with reporting 

verified EE avoided generation in MWh.

Response 16: The evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) approach described in the 

EPA’s proposed model rule gives states and EE providers the flexibility to apply different 

methods for quantification and verification, depending on the EE programs and projects being 

implemented, the variability of the expected savings, and other factors. It also provides for 

forward corrections to savings on the basis of new information uncovered in the process of 

conducting routine EM&V, consistent with industry best practices. Furthermore, the EPA's

model rule proposal specifies appropriate increments (in years) for the application of EM&V 

methods, based on the EE program and policy type, as well as other considerations. The EPA 

expects that these provisions will enable states and EE providers to, with reasonable effort, adjust 

and report their EE savings in a timely manner. Your input and suggestions related to the 

presumptively approvable EM&V approaches in the model rule, as well as the draft EM&V 

guidance, are appreciated.

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

Commenters stated that they do not foresee any problems in an average 2-year reporting cycle 

for emissions performance related to EGU (fossil and non-emitting/renewable) generation and 

emissions. 

However, commenters stated that they do anticipate significant issues with reporting verified EE 

avoided generation in MWhs. Commenters noted that North Carolina currently has a system in 

place for both third party EM-V and reporting of EE avoided generation which currently requires 

electricity distribution companies to report the estimated EE MWhs saved annually from each 

EE program. However, commenters noted that the EM-V of each MWhs may not occur in that 

same time frame. Commenters noted that the current reporting system allows for companies to 
68

perform EM-V in several different ways, depending on the program. EM-V reports for certain 

types of programs may take several years to finalize. Commenters stated that the current 

reporting system allows for corrections to be made from errors reported in the past. However, 

commenters noted that those corrections are not applied retroactively; instead, the avoided 

MWhs for the current year are adjusted to reflect the increase or decrease in generation.

Commenters recommended that EPA develop a different approach for incorporating RE and EE 

programs into this rule that is less burdensome and less legally difficult to implement.

6.3.10 Description of state reporting and recordkeeping requirements

This section discusses various issues regarding state reporting requirements, reporting frequency,

recordkeeping requirements, submittal dates, method of reporting, and performance periods.

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters stated that the annual reporting requirement is too onerous and 

requested that the EPA allow for different reporting frequencies, depending on plan design or the 

type of report. 

Response 1: Commenters expressed concern about the additional administrative burden 

associated with the annual reporting requirements during the interim performance period. 

Commenters urged EPA to consider what frequency of reporting is necessary to ensure that 

states are achieving their plan goals, and to recognize that different reporting frequencies may be 

appropriate for different plan designs. The EPA agrees with the commenters that different type 

of reports and reporting frequencies may be appropriate for different plan designs. In the final 

CPP rule the EPA is finalizing that states can choose to adopt and implement one of two types of 

state plans: emission standard approach plan type or state measures approach plan type. After 

consideration of the comments received regarding the state reporting requirements on plan 

implementation and progress toward meeting the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2

emission goal, the EPA is finalizing state reporting requirements based on the type of plan 

approach the state chooses to adopt and implement. The EPA is providing for less frequent 

reports for states implementing the emission standard approach plan type. The EPA believes that 

this is appropriate because this plan type applies all requirements for meeting the emission 

guidelines to affected EGUs in the form of federally enforceable emission standards. However

the rule require annual reporting for states implementing the state measures approach plan type

because it allows a state to meet the emission guidelines, in part, or entirely, through state 

measures that the state adopts and implements as a matter of state law. The EPA believes that 

this annual reporting requirement is necessary for the state measures approach plan type to 

ensure that the state is achieving the plan goals due to the inherent flexibilities granted in such 

plan. These state reporting requirements are discussed in section VIII.D.2.b (for emission 

standards approach) and VIII.D.2.c (for state measures approach) of the final rule preamble of 
69

the CPP. The EPA believe the final frequency of reporting is appropriate to ensure that states are 

achieving their plan goals.

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

Commenters noted that the EPA proposes both annual and biennial reporting requirements for 

the states under proposed 40 CFR 60.5815. Commenters argued that the proposed frequency of 

reporting is burdensome.

Commenters stated that the annual reporting requirement in proposed 40 CFR 60.5815 is too 

onerous (for both states and EPA who reviews reports) and is not necessary that states are 

continuing to progress toward their final goals. Commenters noted that state agencies and the 

EPA are struggling with limited resources, and there is a significant concern that, even if states 

were able to complete reports in a timely manner, the EPA would not be able to review them in a 

timely manner. Commenters expressed concern about the additional administrative burden 

associated with the annual reporting requirements during the interim performance period. 

Commenters urged EPA to consider what frequency of reporting is necessary to ensure that 

states are achieving their plan goals, and to recognize that different reporting frequencies may be 

appropriate for different plan designs. When warranted, commenters suggested that EPA tailor 

the reporting burden to the plan design (e.g., replace annual reports with less frequent reports and 

find ways to make the reporting requirements less burdensome). Commenters stated that such 

changes made with attention to plan design would not diminish the integrity of the rule or 

achievement of emission reduction milestones, but would ease the administrative burden on the 

states and EPA.

A suggestion from commenters was to require full reporting less frequently, perhaps every two 

to four years, depending on how straightforward or complicated the plan may be. Commenters 

noted that straightforward plans may require very little interim reporting, while complicated 

plans may require more. Commenters stated that their state may be able to comply with annual 

reporting if the requirements are reasonable; however, full annual reporting as suggested in the 

proposed rule would be resource-intensive for both states and EPA.

Commenters supported requiring regular reporting by states to measure progress in meeting the 

final goal. However, instead of the proposed annual reporting, commenters suggested that 

reporting every 2 or 3 years may suffice, and would allow states, EPA and interested 

stakeholders to effectively measure progress without undue administrative burdens.

Commenters stated that the proposed reporting frequency for states is more stringent than the 

reporting requirements for criteria pollutants. For Air Quality Management Plans under State 

Implementation Plans, reports are required every 3 years for Reasonable Further Progress 

demonstrations. Commenters stated that this reporting interval should be sufficient for 

greenhouse gas programs.

Commenters stated that EPA should require states to provide updates on the progress of carbon 

emission reduction programs and initiatives on a reasonable schedule. Commenters stated that 

the report should not be required more frequently than every 2 years.
70

Commenters stated that EPA requested comment on whether full reports containing all of the 

report elements should only be required every 2 years. Regarding the frequency of reporting, 

commenters recommended that full reports should only be required every 5 years. Commenters 

stated that this is consistent with the precedent set for 5 year reports for reducing regional haze.

Commenters recommended that the EPA consider a longer reporting period (i.e., 3 years, 5 

years, or even 10 years) dependent on how close a state is to its state goal.

Commenters noted that the EPA is requiring annual reports starting July 1, 2021 but the EPA has 

yet to announce how it plans to provide additional funding to state air programs required to 

implement the 111(d) planning. Commenters expressed concern with the administrative burden 

of not only 111(d) plans, but also with reporting on an annual basis beginning in 2021.

Commenters stated that annual reporting is appropriate, provided that, due to variations in power 

demand, tracking performance is compared to a multi-year average.

Comment 2: Commenters stated that reporting deadline of July 1 is unrealistic. States should 

have at least a full year to submit reports from the previous calendar year, request that the EPA 

allows states to propose an alternative reporting submittal date and that report deadline 

extensions should be allowed. 

Response 2: In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that annual state reports are due to 

EPA no later than July 1 following the end of the reporting year. Commenters stated that the

EPA's proposed reporting deadline of July 1 for the states to submit annual reports for the prior 

calendar year is not realistic. Some commenters recommended that the EPA extend the due date 

of those reports while others requested that EPA allows state to propose an alternative reporting 

submittal date. The commenters stated that this flexibility in designing reporting periods will be 

needed to address inherent temporal differences in data availability for various state programs, 

and it is especially needed when multi-state compliance plans are developed.

The EPA does not agree that the reporting deadline should be allowed to be extended. State 

reports provide critical information on the progress of implementation and performance of state 

plans and the need to trigger of corrective measures or the backstop, consequently the EPA is 

not extending the due date of the state reports in the final rule beyond July 1 following the 

corresponding reporting period. The EPA believes states can work with affected sources to 

receive the data needed for these reports in a timely manner so that the state reporting 

requirement can be met. To maintain consistency in state reporting the EPA is not allowing 

states the opportunity to propose an alternative reporting submittal date within their state plans. 

See section VIII.D.2.a.5 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for state reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule includes a requirement that the annual report under 40 

CFR 60.5815 be submitted by July 1 each year. Commenters stated that because of the timing of 
71

current data collection, and the need to leave time to organize and submit the reports, allowing 

only 6 months after the close of the year may be a difficult task. Commenters argued that a July 

1st deadline for state reporting does not provide states sufficient time to gather information and 

prepare reports. Commenters were concerned that the generation data reported to EIA by nonaffected units, such as wind farms, will not be publicly released by EIA in enough time for states 

to complete the annual compliance reports required in section 60.5815. Commenters noted that 

reports are due annually on July 1 for the previous year starting on July 1, 2021. However, 

commenters pointed out that there is currently nearly a year lag between when the data is 

reported to EIA and when the final annual data is made publicly available. For instance, 

commenters noted that the final 2012 unit-level generation data was not released until November 

2013. Commenters contended that EPA should not require states to submit annual compliance 

reports until all required data is publicly available. Commenters recommended extending the due 

date to at least December 31 for demonstrating compliance for the previous calendar year.

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposed reporting deadline of July 1 for the states to submit 

annual reports for the prior calendar year is not realistic. Commenters argued that states will need 

significantly more time if the state plan includes energy efficiency and renewable energy 

measures or a cap and trade program. At a minimum, commenters suggested that states should 

have at least a full year to submit reports from the prior calendar year, and states participating in 

a multi-state plan may require even more time. Given the 10-year averaging time for the interim 

goal, commenters stated that requiring annual reporting from the states during the interim period 

is an unnecessary burden on the states. Commenters stated that the frequency of the state 

reporting should be reduced during the interim period. 

Commenters stated that the July 1 deadline in proposed 40 CFR 60.5815(a) for states to submit 

annual reports to the EPA is not realistic. Commenters argued that the EPA has not considered 

all the components that might be need to be included in the report that are dependent of the 

approach a state might choose and what measures are included in the state plan. Commenters 

stated that the energy efficiency verification process of energy efficiency measures from the 

prior year could take 8 - 10 months. Furthermore, commenters stated that if a cap and trade 

program is used, July 1 does not provide sufficient time for the state to review companies' annual 

reports and process trades in order to assess the emission performance level as EPA requires in 

the annual reports. Commenters suggested that States should have, at a minimum, a full year to 

submit annual reports (i.e., December 31 of the following year). Commenters noted a multi-state 

plan would be even more complicated and may require additional time to allow for coordinating 

activities between multiple states. Additionally, commenters stated that requiring annual reports 

starting in 2021 places an unnecessary burden on states. Commenters recommended removing 

the interim goals from the rule. However, if the EPA retains the interim goals, commenters 

recommended that EPA reduce the frequency of the state reporting requirements during the 

interim period. Given the 10-year averaging time for showing compliance with the interim goals, 

commenters stated that the annual reporting requirement during the interim period places an 

unnecessary burden on the states. Commenters noted that the states have the responsibility of 

ensuring compliance with state goals, not the EPA.

Other commenters asked that the EPA allow states the opportunity to propose an alternative 

annual reporting submittal date within state plans and that report deadline extensions should be 

allowed. Commenters stated that this flexibility in designing reporting periods will be needed to 
72

address inherent temporal differences in data availability for various state programs, and it is 

especially needed when multi-state compliance plans are developed. Commenters stated that if 

the milestone approach is utilized for states' interim goals, then states could also establish the 

timing of reporting in their plans to coincide with milestone events, such as the closure of a coalfired power plant. According to commenters, this would allow states to focus on meaningful 

reporting, rather than yearly reporting that may not show much of a change in emissions 

reductions from year to year.

Commenters stated that consideration should also be given to how much time will be 

necessitated for other entities to prepare and provide reports to Ohio EPA after the end of the 

reporting year. The commenters noted that PUCO alone requires over a year's time to prepare 

and issue their annual report. The commenters stated that 1 year is absolutely not enough time 

for other entities to prepare reports and for Ohio to synthesize those reports into a final report 

that would meet the EPA's detailed guidelines.

Comment 3: Commenters find content of reports to be redundant and overly burdensome. EPA 

should consider reporting options that reduce the burden on both air agencies and EPA, including 

reducing the amount of data required.

Response 3: The EPA is finalizing state reporting requirements based on the type of plan 

approach the state chooses to adopt and implement. These state reporting requirements are 

discussed in section VIII.D.2.b (for emission standards approach) and VIII.D.2.c (for state 

measures approach) of the final rule preamble of the CPP. Commenters suggested that the EPA 

consider reporting options which will reduce the burdens on both air agencies and EPA including 

reducing the amount of data required on annual reports, allowing states to submit checklists or 

fillable tables with the minimum amount of information needed to show that a deficiency either 

does or does not exist. The EPA will continue to work with the states as implementation of the 

emission guidelines happens to ensure that state reports are complete. The EPA expects to be 

able to provide the states with implementation tools to facilitate preparing and submitting state 

reports, including electronic submission. 

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

Commenters suggested that EPA consider reporting options which will reduce the burdens on 

both air agencies and EPA. Commenters argued that full annual reporting will be a heavy 

burden, especially on small air agencies, as well as for EPA.

Commenters stated that the report requires multiple data points for each affected entity in the 

state. Commenters stated that section 60.5815(a) (2) requires the level of emissions performance 

for all affected EGUs for the reporting period and for prior reporting periods. Commenters 

asserted that these requirements are redundant and overly burdensome and will create a strain on 

staff resources.

Commenters asked EPA to consider, for example, reducing the amount of data required on 

annual reports, allowing states to submit checklists or fillable tables with the minimum amount 

of information needed to show that a deficiency either does or does not exist. If a deficiency does 
73

exist, commenters asked EPA to allow the state extra time to investigate why the deficiency 

exists and what corrective actions the state intends to take to correct it. 

Comment 4: Commenters argued the requirement to maintain records for at least 20 years will 

be heavily burdensome. Commenters recommended the recordkeeping requirement be reduced to 

5 years.

Response 4: The EPA agrees with comments that a 20-year record retention requirement could 

be unduly burdensome, and has reduced the length of the record retention requirement for the 

final rule. During the interim period, states must keep records for 10 years from the date of 

conclusion of each compliance period for its EGUs and/or plan performance period. During the 

final period, states must keep records for 5 years from the date of conclusion of each compliance 

period for its EGUs and/or plan performance period. See section VIII.D.2.a.5 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

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

Commenters noted that the proposed 40 CFR 60.5810(d) will require states to maintain records 

for a minimum of 20 years. Commenters requested that EPA justify and provide the rationale for 

requiring states to maintain records for such a lengthy period of time. Commenters argued that 

states will be heavily burdened by the expenditure of resources and man-power to maintain 

records for at least 20 years. Additionally, commenters stated that the cost of maintaining and 

retaining electronic records is rising, and the requirement to maintain additional records for 20 

years will be financially burdensome. Commenters recommended that the recordkeeping 

requirement be reduced to 5 years, which is consistent with emissions guidelines for other 

existing sources (e.g. 40 CFR 60 Subparts DDDD and MMMM).

Comment 5: Reports should be able to be submitted electronically similar to the eSIP electronic 

submittal pilot program.

Response 5: The EPA agrees with the comment that state reporting should be done

electronically and has included in the final rule a requirement for electronic submittal of state 

plans. See VIII.E.8 of the final rule preamble for EPA’s electronic submittal requirements.

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

Commenters recommended that reports can be submitted electronically, similar to the eSIP 

electronic submittal pilot program. Commenters recommended that reporting should be done 

electronically and using the existing 40 CFR part 75 database with minor modifications, so the 

data would be readily accessible to the EPA and the state.
74

Comment 6: Commenters stated that the proposed rule includes public participation 

requirements that are modeled after state implementation plan requirements under 40 CFR 

51.120. Commenters stated that it is unclear whether the proposed annual and biennial reports 

will similarly be subject to both public review and comment prior to submission to the EPA.

Response 6: The final rule does not require state reports be subject to public review and 

comment requirements similar to 40 CFR 51.120 prior to submission to the EPA. 

6.3.11 Certification of state plan hearing

This section discusses state plan hearings and regulations regarding their execution and 

certification.

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

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

Comment 1: EPA should not be too prescriptive in regulations regarding public hearings on 

state plans.

Response 1: The EPA believes that the state requirements for public participation and public 

hearing in section VIII.D.2.a.6 of the final rule preamble of the CPP are needed to ensure 

meaningfully engagement with members of the public, including vulnerable communities, during 

the plan development process. 

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

Commenters noted that EPA is proposing that a public hearing must occur on the final state plan 

and that a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations along with a brief written 

summary of each presentation or written submission must be submitted. Commenters cautioned 

that the EPA should not be too prescriptive in their regulations with respect to this requirement. 

Commenters questioned how the EPA believes that any state can require the complete overhaul 

of the power generation, transmission and distribution system in its state without significant 

public input. Commenters asserted that this language illustrates that the EPA underestimates the 

regulatory burden and disruption being proposed as part of this regulation.

6.3.12 Supporting material

This section discusses supporting materials and the sources and types of materials required in 

state plans.

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

topics (comments) below. Responses are also provided for these topics.
75

Comment 1: Request for clarification on sources EPA would accept for information projecting 

EGU CO2 emission performance in state plans.

Response 1: The type of demonstration required to show that a plan is projected to achieve the 

state's emission rate depends upon the approach chosen by the state. If a state chooses an 

emission standard approach, the state needs to document the mass or rate standards applied to 

affected EGUs. A projection of plan performance is not required unless the state chooses to 

apply rate-based emission performance standards to individual affected EGUs at a rate that 

differs from the CO2 emission performance rates or the state's rate-based CO2 goal. A projection 

of plan performance is required for states that choose a state measures approach. The final rule 

provides information regarding the necessary components to demonstrate a plan will meet its rate 

in sections VIII.D.2.b.3 and VIII.D.2.c.4 of the final rule preamble. For more information about 

state plan approaches, see Section VIII.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For more 

information about projections see also chapter III of the technical support document for the CPP 

Final Rule: Incorporating RE and Demand-Side EE Impacts into

State Plan Demonstrations

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

For the seven bulleted variables on page 17 of the Projecting EGU CO2 Emission Performance 

in State Plans, commenters asked what sources of these key variables EPA would accept: 

a. Electricity load growth projections (energy peak and demand) - State PUCs, EIA's 

AEO? 

b. Fuel supply, delivery, and pricing assumptions - RTO/ISO, EIA? 

c. Cost and performance of electric generating technologies - EIA? 

d. EGU firm builds and retirements (e.g., those scheduled with a RTO/ISO) - RTO/ISO? 

e. Transmission capability and RTO/ISO transmission expansion plans - RTO/ISO? 

f. Applicable federal regulations (other than the EPA emission guidelines) - RTO/ISO, 

NERC, FERC? 

g. Applicable state regulations and programs (other than those that are included in the 

state plan) - State where generation occurs, State where demand occurs? 

Comment 2: EPA requires that state plans must show that the state will have adequate resources 

and authority to implement and enforce the plan. Commenters noted, however, that merely 

having legal authority is not sufficient if the state lacks resources to carry out the plan.
76

Response 2: The EPA agrees and the final rule specifies that a state must adequately 

demonstrate that it has the legal authority (regulations/legislation) and funding to implement and 

enforce each component of the state plan submittal, including enforceable emission standards on 

affected EGUs and state measures. 

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

Commenters noted that state plans must include a showing that the state will have adequate 

resources and authority to implement and enforce the plan. Commenters stated that EPA has 

proposed that state plans must include "[m]aterials demonstrating the state's legal authority to 

carry out each component of its plan," but has not expressly included a requirement that states 

also have adequate resources to implement and enforce the plan's requirements. 79 FR 34952 

(proposed 40 CFR 60.5740(a) (11) (i)) For example, commenters stated that EPA's Part 51 

regulations require that state implementation plans must include: a description of the resources 

available to the State and local agencies at the date of submission of the plan and of any 

additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the 5-year period following its 

submission. Commenters stated that the description must include projections of the extent to 

which resources will be acquired at 1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. 40 CFR 51.280; see also 42 

U.S.C. section 7410(a) (2) (E). Commenters stated that a similar demonstration should be 

required for plans under the CPP. Id. Commenters stated that merely having the legal authority to 

implement and enforce plan provisions is not sufficient if the state lacks the resources (or will 

not commit adequate resources) to carrying out the plan. 

Comment 3: EPA should add a fifth provision for supporting material to include materials 

demonstrating the state’s analysis of the remaining useful life of the existing source to which 

such standard applies.

Response 3: The response to this comment is the same as the response to comment 1 of RTC 

5.11.

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

Commenters suggested that in its regulatory language, EPA add a fifth provision to 40 CFR 

60.5740(a)(11), "supporting material" to include "materials demonstrating the state's analysis of 

the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies" to address 

situations where affected EGUs have made recent emission control retrofits or have significant 

remaining life so as to minimize costs to customers while continuing to structure plans that meet 

EPA's 2030 emission targets.

According to commenters, among the key concepts that should be retained in the final rule is that 

of remaining useful life of an affected source. Commenters pointed out that section 111(d) of the 

Clean Air Act provides the EPA Administrator the authority to develop regulations that allow 

states to consider, among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which 

the standard applies. Commenters noted that recent regulatory drivers with near-time deadlines, 

such as the Regional Haze Rules and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, have spurred 

electricity generators to make difficult decisions regarding whether to install controls or retire 
77

units to comply. Commenters said that EPA should respect these decisions and acknowledge 

remaining useful life considerations under the final rule and in the approval process for state 

compliance plans, taking into consideration the underlying agreements and significant 

expenditures triggered by other regulations.

6.3.13 Other

This section discusses various other issues of state plans, including reliability assessments and 

implications, and risk analysis and mitigation.

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters supported the 12 state plan components.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the components of the state plan 

submittal are familiar to states that have been required to prepare state plans for other sources 

under CAA sections 111(d) and 129. In the final rule the EPA is finalizing state plan 

components that are responsive to the constructive comments received from many commenters 

and additional considerations and that are appropriate for the types of state plans and the 

flexibility allowed in the final guidelines. 

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

Commenters noted that EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the elements of state plan content 

and the criteria for approval. Commenters stated that the twelve state plan components are 

familiar to states that have been required to prepare state plans for incineration sources under 

CAA sections 129 and 111(d). Commenters stated that all of those twelve components are 

sensible and easy to comprehend in the context of requiring particular sources to meet emissions 

limitations for identified pollutants. Commenters stated that the conceptual function of each of 

those measures is applicable to state plan preparation for the CPP, although the unique approach 

to BSER in the CPP - the application to a pollutant that is neither a criteria pollutant nor a 

hazardous air pollutant, and the interplay of air quality regulation and electric sector 

considerations - requires EPA to allow some flexibility in how a state satisfies each of the twelve 

components. Commenters noted that EPA has experience exercising appropriate flexibility and 

case-specific evaluation to make determinations that balance flexibility and achievement of the 

desired environmental result in the desired timeframe. Commenters viewed certain rule 

flexibilities in the final CPP as positive, understanding that EPA has the experience to apply 

flexibility appropriately, in a manner constrained by equity and achievement of the 30% 

reduction in power sector CO2 emissions. 
78

Comment 2: Commenters discussed the overlap of the 12 components in 40 CFR 60.5740(a) 

with the requirements in subpart B. 

Response 2: The components of the state plan submittal in the final rule are consistent and with 

the framework of regulations in 40 CFR subpart B. Addressing the commenters request to assure 

that the requirements in the emission guidelines are not duplicative of those listed in subpart B 

the EPA finalizes that subpart 60.25 e and f do not apply for these emission guidelines.

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

Commenters stated that 40 CFR 60.5740 should contain all requirements to be submitted to EPA 

as part of the state plan including a reference to requirements in subpart B. Commenters 

requested that EPA assure the requirements listed in 40 CFR 60.5740(a) are not duplicative of 

those listed in Subpart B and only those elements that must be included are listed.

Comment 3: Commenters suggested that state plan submission could be simple for a mass-based 

approach and suggested a few key items states could submit.

Response 3: The EPA is finalizing requirements that states can choose to meet the emission 

guidelines through one of two types of state plans: an “emission standards approach” plan or a 

“state measures approach” plan. States that opt to meet a state CO2 emission goal can choose to 

meet the state CO2 emission goal as either a rate-based goal or a mass-based goal. The EPA 

agrees with the commenters in that the content of the state plan submittal will vary depending on 

which approach the state decides to adopt. However, each state plan submittal must provide for 

the implementation and enforcement of the plan. The final rule defines the specific components 

to be included in the state plan submittal to the EPA. See section VIII.D.2 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for the components of a state plan submittal.

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

In comments submitted to the Agency in March 2014 (and resubmitted during the comment 

period), commenters suggested that the state plan submission could be relatively simple, 

especially for a mass-based approach. Commenters suggested that the state submit a few key 

items: 

• An inventory of covered units, their emissions, generation and emissions rate in the 

baseline period.

• A determination of the appropriate Section 111(d) standard to apply, to each unit, per the 

EPA guidance.

• Translation of the Section 111(d) standard by unit to a utility-wide or statewide massbased limit.
79

• A description of the various clean energy programs (such as renewable standards, 

efficiency standards, plant retirements and other reduction activities) that will allow the 

state to achieve the mass-based limit in the target year. This description may be 

accompanied by forecasting or similar modeling efforts already performed by utilities 

and submitted into public utility commission integrated resource planning processes. The 

total emissions of the utility or state as reduced by these programs would need to be 

credibly demonstrated to meet or beat the mass limit.

Comment 4: State CPP compliance plans should be developed along with reliability assessments 

to address needed system improvements.

Response 4: The EPA agree that a system reliability assessment should be included in a state 

plan and the final rule requires that states consider reliability in developing their plans. States 

must demonstrate that they have considered reliability in order to have an approvable plan. EPA 

has also moved the start of the interim period to support and a comprehensive reliability planning 

period. See section VIII.G.2.b. and c. of the final rule preamble for a discussion of the 

requirement for plans to assess reliability.

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

Commenters suggested that state CPP compliance plans be developed along with reliability 

assessments to address needed system improvements. Commenters stated that supportive federal 

and state policies will be required to provide for the timely planning, siting, and construction of 

needed facilities in order to achieve the EPA's goals. Commenters stated that a reliable electric 

and gas backbone is critical to accommodate the significant generation and demand changes that 

are envisioned, as well as the reliable and economical integration of distributed energy resources 

and microgrids.

Comment 5: EPA should provide additional time to study the potential reliability impacts of the 

proposed rule.

Response 5: The EPA agrees that system reliability needs to be addressed and the final rule 

requires that the states demonstrate that they have considered reliability as they develop their 

plans. We expect that states will consult with the relevant ISOs/RTOs or other planning 

authorities as they develop their plans and document the consultation process in their state plan 

submissions. Once a state plan is submitted to EPA, the EPA has a full year to act on the plan 

The EPA will hold a public hearing before acting on a state plan at provide an opportunity for all 

stake holders to comment on any impacts the plan may have on reliability. See section VIII.G.2 

of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a further discussion on the state plan’s reliability 

assessment. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
80

Commenters stated that the EPA should provide additional time to study the potential reliability 

impacts of the proposed Clean Power Plan. Commenters stated that the EPA should allow at least

180 days following the filing of state compliance plans for the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC), WECC, and other reliability entities to concurrently evaluate 

the potential reliability impacts of those plans. Commenters noted that the proposed Clean Power 

Plan is complex and could have far-reaching and possibly unforeseen impacts. Commenters

stated that the success of a state's compliance plan and the reliability of the BES are best served 

if the complying states and participating utilities, transmission planning regions, and other 

stakeholders are provided ample time for reliability analyses. According to commenters, this 

would provide additional time for the following:

Evaluation of reliability implications - All stakeholders identified above would require time to 

evaluate the reliability impacts of the state plans and for complying entities to develop remedial 

response plans. Additional studies - voltage, transient and post-transient stability - must also be 

conducted as part of any reliability assessment. The challenges identified in these comments 

must be addressed during the planning and implementation phases of the proposed Clean Power 

Plan process. However, until individual states develop compliance plans, it is difficult to identify 

and analyze specific reliability issues associated with the plans.

Multi-state planning - Optimal compliance plans will require time for interstate coordination and 

negotiation. Given the uniqueness of the Western Interconnection and the interdependence of 

Western states in terms of energy use and supply, additional time will be required to evaluate 

reliability implications.

Infrastructure investments - The industry will need time to invest in generation and transmission 

infrastructure once states have developed their implementation plans and WECC and other 

entities have evaluated the reliability impacts of those plans. Additional time will be required for 

industry and states to make effective, prudent, and cost-effective decisions to implement stateapproved plans due to the characteristically long lead times required for BES infrastructure 

modifications.

Comment 6: EPA should create a process for reliability entities to highlight reliability 

implications of any state compliance plan.

Response 6: See section VIII.G.2. of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to 

this comment.

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

Commenters recommended that EPA create and communicate a process for reliability entities to 

highlight reliability implications of any state compliance plan in the Western Interconnection. 

Commenters requested that the EPA consider the range of BES reliability issues that may result 

from the implementation of the proposed Clean Power Plan and allow time for necessary studies 

and reliability assessments, state planning, and industry development processes. Commenters

recommended creating a process within the proposed Clean Power Plan that considers timing 

adjustments or the granting of extensions if there is a demonstrable reliability need identified. 
81

Once states develop implementation plans, commenters noted that they will be able to consider 

additional analyses to understand the reliability impact on an interconnection-wide basis.

Comment 7: A risk analysis and mitigation plan should be included as a key part of state plans.

Response 7: The commenters believe that a risk analysis and mitigation plan should be included 

as a key part of the state plans. The EPA disagrees with the comment and is not requiring the 

states to submit as part of their state plan submittal a risk analysis and mitigation plan. However 

the EPA is recommending that states take a multi-pollutant planning approach that examines the 

potential impacts of co-pollutants on overburdened communities, and conduct an assessment to 

determine if any localized air quality impacts need to be further addressed. 

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

Commenters stated that a risk analysis and mitigation plan should be included as a key part of 

state plans.

6.4 PROCESS FOR STATE PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW

This section addresses comments on the Process for State Plan Submittal and Review. We have 

organized the comments in this section under nine subsections, 6.4, and 6.4.1 to 6.4.8. Responses 

to the comment topics of these subsections are discussed below along with summaries the 

specific public comments.

6.4.1 State plan submittal and timing

This section addresses issues associated with state plan submittal and timing. Commenters 

indicated that there was insufficient time in the proposed timeline for submittal and finalization 

of state and regional plans. Reasons cited by commenters included the complexity of the 

regulation; the length of required public review; and the need to work with state legislatures; 

electricity regulators; and neighboring states.

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

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

Comment 1: Comment stating that the compliance timetable EPA has proposed, with initial 

reductions occurring by 2020, is unrealistic and should be extended to provide states adequate 

time to prepare SIPs.
82

Response 1: In response to this and similar comments, in the final rule EPA changed the 

compliance start date from 2020 to 2022. See section III of the final rule preamble. See section 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for information on state plan submittal and timing.

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

Commenters stated that the compliance timetable EPA has proposed, with initial reductions 

occurring by 2020, is unrealistic and should be extended to provide states adequate time to 

prepare SIPs. The commenters recommended that an additional year or more also should be 

provided for any regional compliance agreements. The commenters noted, for example, that the 

northeast states required more than 6 years to negotiate the RGGI carbon cap-and-trade program 

and model rule.

Comment 2: Comments supporting the option to extend the SIP submittal deadline for states 

developing individual state plans and groups of states developing multi-state plans.

Response 2: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In this final rule the 

EPA clarified that having legislation in place, drafted, or proposed is not a requirement for the 

initial submittal, and provided for an extension until 2018 for both single and multi-state plans. 

The EPA views this as being responsive to the commenters’ concerns regarding timing and that 

legislation would need to be drafted prior to the final rule. See section VIII.E.2, State Plan 

Submittal and Approval Process and Timing, of the preamble for the final rule.

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

Commenters supported the option to extend the SIP submittal deadline for states developing 

individual state plans and groups of states developing multi-state plans. The commenters stated 

that, considering the complexity of the proposed rule, states and multi-state groups will need as 

much time as possible to develop realistic and well-considered plans. 

Commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to allow more time for multi-state engagement by 

giving states pursuing multi-state approaches an additional year to submit their plans, while also 

ensuring progress toward development of a multi-state program through the initial plan 

requirements. Commenters supported the recommendation that states that want to create multistate compliance plans should be allowed additional time to submit them (up to a year extra, June 

30, 2018, instead of June 30, 2017, as provided in the draft rule). 

Commenters noted that the proposed rule requires that states submit plans complying with the 

111(d) guidelines by June 2016, with options for 1- and 2-year extensions if needed to 

accommodate state rulemaking, plan development/stakeholder coordination, and/or legislative 

action. The commenters noted that a typical rulemaking can take at least 18 months just to meet 

all the state statutory requirements; complex rulemakings affecting a large number of 
83

stakeholders, such as this one, can take even longer. The commenters noted that in order to meet 

a deadline of June 2016, they would need to begin drafting the state rule and plan prior to EPA's 

final guideline. For this reason, the commenters supported the option to request an extension of 

at least 1 year on the state plan submittal.

In response to EPA's request for comment on circumstances for which an extension of time 

would be appropriate (79 FR 34915), commenters recommended that states should be able to 

seek extensions of times whenever an extension can be reasonably justified.

Comment 3: Comments voicing the need to automatically give the states more time to develop 

and submit their carbon reduction implementation plans.

Response 3: See section VIII.E.2, State Plan Submittal and Approval Process and Timing, of 

the preamble for the final rule. The EPA agrees with the commenters’ that states may need more 

time to develop state plans, but disagrees that extensions should be granted automatically. States 

that are unable to meet the State Plan submittal deadline of September 6, 2016 may instead make

an initial submittal and a request for extension. The EPA, in the final rule, clarified that 

requirements of the initial submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that intend to 

submit an approvable final plan. For state submitting an approvable initial submittal, the EPA

has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and extended 

by two years the time to meet the first interim goal.

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

Commenters agreed with many of the points made by Mary K. Martin, Energy, Clean Air & 

Natural Resources Policy Counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in her statement at a 

public hearing in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 2014. Specifically, the commenters agreed with 

the Chamber that the EPA should immediately do the following: 

• Give states more time to develop and submit their carbon reduction implementation 

plans. The current deadline is June 30, 2016; while there is an option for some states to 

apply for a one- or two-year extension, it should be automatically granted to all states to 

give them enough time to grapple with this incredibly complex rule. 

Comment 4: Multiple commenters voiced concern over the time needed for state legislative 

procedures and utility commission dockets and the proposed dates for plan submittal. 

Response 4: In response to the commenters concerns, the EPA has extended by an additional 

year the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to 

meet the first interim goal, which is seven years from promulgation. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. Concurrent with this 

final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may use 

to facilitate the development of their state rule.
84

See section VIII.E.2, State Plan Submittal and Approval Process and Timing, of the preamble for 

the final rule. This section of the preamble discusses EPA’s response to the commenters 

concerns. 

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

Commenters discussed the time needed for state legislative procedures and utility commission 

dockets. 

Commenters stated that EPA is proposing that each state submit its implementation plan, along 

with certain required information, by June 30, 2016. For states that need more time - to issue 

state regulations, to change state laws, to develop a multi-state plan, etc. - EPA is proposing 

submittal of (1) an initial plan by June 30, 2016 and (2) a final plan by June 30, 2017 (for a 

single-state plan) or June 30, 2018 (for a multi-state plan). The commenters asked EPA to 

reconsider these deadlines because states will need more time to issue state regulations, change 

statutes through legislative action, and engage in public dialogue over the optimal approach for 

meeting the 2030 target. The commenters noted that states vary in their capacity to undertake 

these actions quickly (e.g., some legislatures do not meet year-around, or even yearly). 

According to the commenters, states that wish to develop a regional compliance approach will 

face particular pressure in meeting the 2018 deadline. Commenters added that infrastructure 

expansion is time-intensive and to the extent a regional approach is likely to yield the most costeffective strategies for compliance; EPA ought to allow enough time to encourage coordinated, 

regional implementation.

Commenters were encouraged that the draft rule recognizes that, "state administrative procedures 

can be lengthy, some states may need new legislative authority, and states planning to join in a 

multi-state plan will likely need more than thirteen months to get necessary elements in place," 

and supported the Agency's ability to provide states extensions. However, the commenters

believed the 13 months between the expected finalization of the rule (June 2015) and the 

deadline for states to submit implementation plans (June 2016), is not enough time for states to 

make any legislative changes that may be needed in order to submit a complete SIP, given the 

incompatibility of the EPA's proposed timeline with state legislative calendars. 

Commenters noted that more than half the state legislatures will have adjourned from their 

regular session before the EPA releases its final rule and may not be able to begin legislatively 

addressing any required changes until their 2016 regular session. As a result, the commenters

stated that those states would have more in the range of 6 months to develop an implementation 

plan. In addition, the commenters noted that four states only hold regular session every other 

year putting them at an even further disadvantage. The commenters explained that though state 

legislatures may hold a special session, such sessions are often limited in scope and duration 

depending upon the state in question. The commenters noted that, for those legislatures able to 

convene a special session (e.g., in 16 states, only the governor may call a special session), there 

can be significant costs to the state, which may run into tens of thousands of dollars per day. For 

additional information on the state legislative calendars and processes for special state legislative 

sessions, the commenters suggested that the EPA consult their website 

(http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legis-sessions.aspx; 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/special-sessions472.aspx). 
85

Commenters stated that the schedule anticipated in the EPA's proposal - a final rule in June 2015 

with states' plans due a year later - is ambitious and will require the EPA to continue the 

unprecedented strong outreach and support it has provided states since issuing the proposal. The 

commenters noted that the opportunity for extending this schedule as contemplated in the 

proposal will likely prove important for Oregon as its legislature convenes a full session every 

other year. The commenters stated that any new legislation required for enforcement of elements 

in Oregon's state plan will likely have to wait until the legislature's session in the first half of 

2017.

Commenters suggested that EPA should allow more time for states to develop plans. The 

commenters stated that 1 year is insufficient for a state to prepare a complex air quality plan; and 

2 years is marginal given that 111(d) plans covering CO2 are a new type of plan for states to 

develop. The commenters stated that in addition to developing and adopting new regulations, 

multiple regulatory agencies will be involved in the process, increasing the complexity and time 

needed to complete the process. The commenters noted that additional time may likely be 

required to receive additional grants of legislative authority and funding. The commenters stated 

that 1 or 2 years is simply not adequate to complete the technical analyses as well as legislative 

and regulatory processes.

Commenters questioned whether the timeline proposed by EPA for states to both develop and 

implement their plans is sufficient given the significance of this rulemaking and its complexity. 

The commenters noted that once the final rulemaking is issued, states will have until June 2016 

to submit a draft implementation plan for EPA approval.

Commenters argued that the proposed initial state plan submission timetable is unrealistic and 

should be extended to provide states adequate time to prepare SIPs. The commenters stated that 

many states require legislative approval of SIPs, a process that can add 1 year or more to SIP 

development. The commenters stated that an additional 2 years or more also should be provided 

for the development of any regional compliance agreements. The commenters stated that the 

Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) required 6 years' of stakeholder 

deliberations to develop the RGGI Model Rule. The commenters recommended that states 

should be given 2 years to submit single-state plans, with the possibility of receiving an 

additional 1-year extension. The commenters stated that for multi-state plans, states should be 

provided 3 years to prepare plans, with an additional 1-year extension if states demonstrate 

reasonable progress toward a regional agreement. 

Commenters noted that many states have established legislation and extensive regulatory 

processes that codify the EE practices of utilities in their jurisdictions. The commenters stated 

that the resulting requirements related to achievement of standards, cost caps, evaluation 

processes, and ratemaking activities oftentimes have established schedules that are inconsistent 

with the proposed rule. Further, the commenters stated that a portion of these processes have a 

direct bearing on the measurement and accounting issues identified earlier that the EPA will 

address "in the years to come." The commenters noted that these specifics will need to be 

determined prior to the States initiating legislative or regulatory action to incorporate any such 

measures into a proposed state plan. Further, the commenters noted that for some states (such as 

Texas), legislators meet every-other year, therefore the ability to develop state plans may take 
86

more than 24 months. The commenters stated that this leaves inadequate time to address 

numerous important issues prior to initiating activity to comply with EPA's proposed rule.

Commenters stated that EPA must acknowledge and accommodate legal, administrative, and 

technical realities states face implementing such an expansive rule. The commenters stated that 

several states may need additional legislative authorization before finalizing and implementing 

111(d) plans. The commenters stated that the timing of legislative sessions dictates when they 

can seek such authority and may affect a state's pace for developing, proposing, and finalizing 

111(d) plans. The commenters stated that in terms of practicality and the speed at which markets 

and infrastructure can be changed, many states will need latitude for establishing their path to the 

2030 targets.

Commenters noted that state utility commission docket timelines may present another timing 

challenge for states and also must be considered.

Commenters asserted that the same state and local dialogue that informed EPA's Clean Power 

Plan proposal must also inform its final rule. The commenters stated that many of the 

commenters' members have focused their analysis on the numerous issues related to the 

calculation of individual state goals, and some states have expressed concerns that, due to the 

stringency of their proposed targets, their compliance flexibility is significantly limited. Further, 

while the commenters appreciated the extra time EPA is providing to develop state plans, the 

commenters stated that some agencies may still need additional time given their state 

legislatures' schedules and rulemaking timeframes.

Commenters noted that section 111(d) (1) authorizes EPA to "establish a procedure" for state 

submission of implementation plans. The commenters stated that the procedure EPA has 

proposed here has multiple problems. The commenters stated that first, the Proposed Rule would 

allow only 13 months for initial plan submittal, with extensions of 1 or 2 years possible 

depending on whether states are submitting single-state or multi-state plans. The commenters

noted that EPA acknowledges the plans the Agency seeks here are unlike any regulatory plan 

states have experience preparing. The impacts of the Proposed Rule and the complexity of the 

issues it raises require much more time for plan development.

Commenters stated that EPA should recognize that some states may face significant timing 

challenges when it comes to finalizing their 111(d) plans. The commenters stated that EPA must 

also carefully consider the interrelationship of this rule with utility commission and system 

operator responsibilities to assess the cost effectiveness of utility decisions and the reliability of 

the Western grid. The commenters noted that some Western states may need to obtain additional 

authority through legislation before finalizing and implementing their 111(d) plans. The 

commenters stated that with the final rule slated for June 2015, states will not be ready to go to 

their state legislatures any earlier than 2016 for any additional authority needed for 111(d) plans. 

The commenters noted that five Western states, however, will not convene a legislative session 

or will have a budget-only session in 2016. 

As part of their request for more time, commenters stated that state legislative and regulatory 

processes are an implementation barrier that states must resolve. According to the commenters, 

many states cannot implement the emission reduction measures of the CPP under existing state 
87

laws. The commenters noted, for example, a state with a deregulated electricity market may need 

to pass laws to authorize environmental dispatch of electric generators rather than the current 

least cost dispatch virtually all electric regulatory commissions require. The commenters

provided another example - that states with voluntary RPS and EERS may need to make their 

RPS and EERS legally binding to satisfy the enforceability criterion EPA requires for 

compliance measures in state plans. The commenters noted that RPS and EERS may also need to 

be amended so that their goals align with the CPP's state goals. The commenters stated that 

implementing these legislative and regulatory fixes could easily take over a year given state 

legislative cycles, and that some state legislatures do not meet every year (e.g., state legislatures 

of Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas meet biennially, in odd-numbered years).

Further, the commenters stated that there likely will be political opposition and legal challenges 

to state laws implementing the CPP, delaying the development and execution of state plans. The 

commenters stated, for example, there may be challenges to state authority to alter re-dispatch 

methods because it could abrogate of existing contracts on which multiple parties have relied. 

The commenters argued that it will be impossible for most states to grapple with these thorny 

political and legal issues, rework their regulatory structures, and address inevitable legal 

challenges in the time frame allowed in the CPP.

Commenters said that at most, states will have two years to develop a compliance plan. 

Commenters said this is insufficient time to plan the best way to accomplish emission reductions. 

Commenters said this Proposal impacts power markets, generation fleets, reliability, 

environmental considerations, infrastructure and more. Commenters said compliance programs 

will require state legislative action. Commenters said incorporating these considerations into 

actionable programs will take more than one legislative session.

Commenters stated the state's Division of Environmental Protection will be responsible for 

developing the state's implementation plan and submitting it to the EPA for approval. 

Commenters said many states are already stretched for resources and Agency staff is constrained 

by budgets, allocated positions, and potentially time consuming approval processes at the 

Legislative level. Commenters stated all of these factors may be beyond the control of an 

implementing agency. Commenters said in the event that a state cannot submit its 

implementation plan in a timely manner to meet the schedule that has been set out, the EPA 

should provide some flexibility to those states which are demonstrating progress, before 

reverting to a Federal Implementation Plan. 

Comment 5: Comments stating that the EPA should allow more time for the states to work 

together.

Response 5: See section VIII.E, for a detailed discussion on state plan submittal and timing, in 

the preamble for the CPP final rule. In response to this and similar comments, EPA believes that 

the flexibilities afforded by the final rule, including the source-category specific emission 

performance rates for two subcategories of fossil fuel-fired EGUs as well as equivalent rate and 

mass based statewide goals, provide states the opportunity to develop state plans within the time 

frames allowed in the rule. In addition to both rate and mass-bases state wide goals, the final 
88

preamble describes two different types of state plans with several available approaches under 

each. As well, the final preamble allows states to set their own EGU emission levels for the 

interim step periods as long as they meet the interim and final goals articulated in the emission 

guidelines no later than 2029 and 2030, respectively. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also 

proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate 

the development of their state rule. EPA believes that these diverse set of options provide states 

enough opportunity to develop state plans by 2018.

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

Commenters stated that while they appreciate the extra time EPA is providing to develop state 

plans, they noted that some states may still need additional time given their state's legislatures, 

schedules, and rulemaking timeframes. 

Commenters stated that EPA should allow more time for states to work together. The 

commenters stated that the current schedule is unrealistic. 

Comment 6: Comments noting if states choose to develop a stand-alone state plan the time 

required may be greater than if it chooses a regional approach, and that under a stand-alone 

approach, both a new state rule and authorizing legislation will be required.

Response 6: In response to this and similar comments on the timing of individual state plan 

submittals, the final rule allows additional time for individual state plan submittals. See section 

VIII.C on state plan approaches and section VIII.E, addressing state plan submittal and timing, in 

the preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters requested that EPA afford states sufficient time to develop and submit their 

compliance plans regardless of whether they decide to go it alone or join in with other states in a 

regional approach. The commenters noted if states choose to develop a stand-alone state plan the 

time required may be greater than if it chooses a regional approach. The commenters believed 

that under a stand-alone approach, both a new state rule and authorizing legislation will be 

required. The commenters anticipated a lengthy process in facilitating a rule through the 

rulemaking process. The commenters stated that this process will include stakeholder outreach, 

proposal of draft rule to the state Pollution Control Board, pre-hearing comment period, as many 

as three public hearings followed by another comment period, finalization of an amended rule 

that addresses all appropriate comments, submittal of final rule to the state legislature's Joint 

Committee on Administrative Rules and potentially additional hearings, and final publication 

assuming no objections or other challenges.

Comment 7: Comment stating that EPA has provided inadequate time for the states to submit 

their 111(d) Plans.
89

Response 7: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The EPA disagrees with 

the commenters that a final state plan is required in 2016 because states can receive two 

additional years provided they meet the basic requirements of an initial submittal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

In this final rule the EPA clarified that having legislation in place, drafted, or proposed is not a 

requirement for the initial submittal, and provided for an extension until 2018 for both single and 

multi-state plans. The EPA views this as being responsive to the commenters’ concerns 

regarding the timing of when the state legislature meets and the commenters opinion that it 

would inhibit a state’s ability to submit a final state plan by the submittal deadline. See section 

VIII.E.2, State Plan Submittal and Approval Process and Timing, of the preamble for the final 

rule.

See section VIII.C on state plan approaches, and section VIII.E for a discussion on state plan 

submittal and timing, in the preamble for the final rule. 

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

Commenters stated that EPA has provided inadequate time for the states to submit their 111(d) 

Plans. The commenters noted that absent an extension, states must submit their 111(d) Plan by 

June 2016. The commenters noted that the Indiana General Assembly meets in 2016 from the 

second week of January to March 15. The commenters stated that this does not allow the Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") sufficient time to develop a plan and the 

legislature sufficient time to make required changes to state authorities. In effect, the 

commenters stated that EPA has left Indiana in a position where Indiana has to reorganize its 

electricity sector in a matter of months.

Comment 8: Comment stating that this time period is insufficient and EPA must provide states 

with additional time to submit plans.

Response 8: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In this final rule the 

EPA clarified that having legislation in place, drafted, or proposed is not a requirement for the 

initial submittal, and provided for an extension until 2018 for both single and multi-state plans. 

While the commenters assert that the Wisconsin administrative rulemaking process takes over 2 

years to complete, only draft/proposed legislation or regulations are needed by the 2017 update 

and do not need to be final. The total of three years with an extension to submit a plan goes 

beyond the 2 years the commenters say is needed for the state rulemaking process. The EPA 

views this as being responsive to the commenter’s concerns regarding the timing of the state 

rulemaking process and the commenters opinion that it would inhibit a state’s ability to submit a 
90

final state plan by the submittal deadline. See section VIII.E.2, State Plan Submittal and 

Approval Process and Timing, of the preamble for the final rule.

The commenters also stated that the EPA should clarify what states must include in a state plan 

submission, short of a complete and final plan, in order to meet EPA’s deadlines and be in 

compliance with the rule. The EPA has clarified the requirements for initial state plans and 2017 

updates in section VIII.E.3 of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal allows for additional time for submission of state plans 

in certain cases (a 1-year extension for individual state plans and a 2-year extension for multistate plans). The commenters stated that this time period is insufficient and EPA must provide 

states with additional time to submit plans. The commenters stated that the Wisconsin 

administrative rulemaking process alone takes over 2 years to complete for simple, 

noncontroversial rules. The commenters stated that given the amount of planning, stakeholder 

engagement, and potential coordination with others states that will be required in developing this 

state plan, they anticipate that formulating a state plan followed by incorporation into state rules 

will take at least four years to accomplish in Wisconsin. Therefore, the commenters stated that 

submission of a complete plan, including the required regulatory and statutory changes, by EPA's 

deadlines is unrealistic. The commenters stated that in addition to reevaluating its proposed 

deadlines, EPA should also clarify what states must include in a state plan submission, short of a 

complete and final plan, in order to meet EPA's deadlines and be in compliance with the rule.

Comment 9: Comment stating that the development and submission of a state implementation 

plan by June 30, 2016 is not practically achievable.

Response 9: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule.

See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the 

CPP final rule, addressing both single state and multi-state submittals.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
91

Commenters stated that the development and submission of a state implementation plan by June 

30, 2016 is not practically achievable. The commenters stated that even with the maximum 

allowable deadline extensions, the proposed timelines will be impossible for Oklahoma to 

develop a workable plan that is properly vetted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission as well as other stakeholders. The 

commenters noted that it is even more unrealistic that multiple states could develop a regional 

plan by June 30, 2018.

Comment 10: Comment stating that the Alaska Plan submission deadline of June 30, 2016, can 

likely not be achieved for several reasons.

Response 10: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. For commenters’ reference, EPA addresses state plans in section VIII of the 

preamble to the final rule. Section III of the final rule preamble provides a summary of rule 

requirements to help states with planning and goals. See section VIII.A of the final rule 

preamble provides an overview of state plan types and components. See section VIII.E of the 

final rule preamble on state plan submittal and the approval process and timing. See section 

VIII.F on state plan performance demonstrations and section VIII.H of the final rule preamble 

for resources for states to consider in developing plans. Section VIII.G of the final rule preamble 

addresses additional considerations such as economic and employment development and 

workforce considerations. All these resources will help states address the requirements in the rule 

in a timely manner.

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

Commenters stated that the Alaska Plan submission deadline of June 30, 2016, can likely not be 

achieved for the following reasons: (1) several Alaska government agencies along with several 

Alaska utilities must be involved with the development of the plan; developing a plan that will 

meet all of the requirements of these stakeholders will be time consuming; (2) changes to 

existing Alaska statute will likely be needed; (3) adequate opportunity for public input must be 

provided because the plan could result in a substantial increase in the cost of electricity for many 

Alaskans and negative economic impacts to select locations; and (4) EPA likely cannot approve 

or disapprove the plan within 12 months after the required submission date because of competing 

priorities and limited budgets.
92

Comment 11: Comment stating that the EPA acknowledged that potential compliance options 

within the proposed rules might require new legislation in some states, and that South Dakota is 

one of those states.

Response 11: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.A of the final rule preamble of the CPP for an overview of 

the state plans section and section VIII.E for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing, in 

the preamble for the final rule. Section VIII.C of the final rule preamble covers state plan 

approaches and section VIII.H addresses resources for states to consider in developing plans.

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

Commenters stated that EPA acknowledged that potential compliance options within the 

proposed rules might require new legislation in some states. The commenters noted that South 

Dakota is one of these states that would likely require new legislation in order to ensure 

enforceability of the state implementation plan, with one example being energy efficiency 

savings targets. The commenters stated that EPA's proposed timeline requiring states to submit 

an implementation plan within one year of final rule publishing and, further, requiring all aspects 

of the plan be enforceable leaves little time for any legislative action to occur in South Dakota. 

The commenters noted that this is due to the fact that South Dakota's legislative session runs 

from January through March annually. 

The commenters stated that as an example, if the final rule is published on June 30, 2015, this 

leaves South Dakota with just five months to discuss compliance options with stakeholders, 

discuss compliance options with other states, perform detailed cost/benefit analyses of 

compliance options, develop a final plan for compliance, identify needed legislation, and then 

pursue legislation in the 2016 session. The commenters stated that this timeframe is unrealistic 

and will not result in good policy making. As such, the commenters recommended EPA leave 

enough flexibility within the final rule timeline to allow for sound policy making to occur at the 

state level rather than force policy making in a short period of time.
93

Comment 12: Comment stating that the 13 months the EPA is allowing for state plan 

development is entirely insufficient for states to prepare adequate plans. At a minimum, the 

commenters stated that the EPA should provide states five full years to prepare and submit a 

state plan under this requirement.

Response 12: EPA disagrees with the commenters that states need 5 full years to prepare and 

submit a state plan. In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.A in the final rule preamble for an overview discussion of 

state plans and sections VIII.B and E on state plan submittal and timing. Section III in the final 

rule preamble summarizes the rule requirements, while sections V.C, V.D, and V.E discuss the 

building blocks. 

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

Commenters stated that the 13 months U.S. EPA is allowing for state plan development is 

entirely insufficient for states to prepare adequate plans. The commenters noted that Indiana's 

statutory rulemaking process requires a minimum of 1.5 years to fully promulgate a rule, and 

much longer for rulemakings that require extensive stakeholder involvement. The commenters

stated that Indiana currently lacks the necessary statutory authority to implement and enforce 

Building Blocks 2, 3, or 4. The commenters stated that legislative action would be necessary for 

Indiana to contemplate the use of Building Blocks 2-4 in a state plan. The commenters noted that 

U.S. EPA's proposed deadlines do not afford Indiana's legislature the time necessary to consider 

or act on the necessary authority considerations. The commenters stated that the time frames, 

even with available extensions, are not long enough for the state to meet the requirements. The 

commenters noted that the CAA generally provides states three full years to develop State 

Implementation Plans to address specific requirements of the Act. The commenters stated that 

this proposal is far more complex than any State Implementation Plan developed by Indiana thus 

far. At a minimum, the commenters stated that the EPA should provide states five full years to 

prepare and submit a state plan under this requirement.

Comment 13: Comment saying that Arizona DEQ may not be able to meet the proposed state 

plan submission deadline due to the time needed for any requested legislative authorization 

before it can adopt a plan pursuant to EPA's proposed rule.
94

Response 13: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that Arizona law currently prohibits an agency created by the governor, 

including the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), from adopting or enforcing 

"a state or regional program to regulate the emission of greenhouse gas [GHG] for the purposes 

of addressing changes in atmospheric temperature without express legislative authorization." [1] 

The commenters said Arizona DEQ may not be able to meet the proposed state plan submission 

deadline due to the time needed for any requested legislative authorization before it can adopt a 

plan pursuant to EPA's proposed rule. 

Comment 14: Comment disagreeing that the time frames proposed in the rule allow for any 

significant stakeholder process within the state.

Response 14: EPA remains highly encouraging of stakeholder involvement throughout the 

process and requires that as part of the state plan submittal. EPA and multiple state government 

agencies have met often during the process of development, proposal, and post-proposal for this 

rule, and EPA continues to encourage multiple state agencies to work together. The EPA’s 

determinations and decisions on plan submittal and timing are summarized in sections VIII.B 

and VIII.E in the CPP final rule preamble. Additional sections helpful in planning and 

developing state plans include section VIII.F on state plan performance demonstrations and 

compliance, section VIII.I on considerations for incorporating CO2 emission reduction measures 

in state plans, and section VIII.H on resources for states to consider in developing state plans in 

the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters disagreed that the time frames proposed in the rule allow for any significant 

stakeholder process within the state. The commenters noted that this creates even more 

challenges in formulating a state plan and in promulgating a state rule. The commenters stated 

that the electric sector is a complex system that involves multiple governmental agencies at both 
95

the national and state level. The commenters stated that no single governmental agency has the 

knowledge to develop and implement a technically and legally sound plan on its own. The 

commenters stated that it is crucial that Indiana's various regulatory agencies have time to form a 

cooperative stakeholder group, along with the regulated community and citizens of the state, to 

complete the task of developing and finalizing a state plan. The commenters stated that failure to 

have an active and involved stakeholder process will likely result in an incomplete and flawed 

plan that will surely be subject to public and legal scrutiny.

Comment 15: Comment arguing that EPA's proposed timeline for submittal and finalization of 

state and regional plans and the proposed timeline for compliance with proposed goals are 

completely unrealistic.

Response 15: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule. The following are summaries of the specific public comments 

under this comment:

Commenters argued that EPA's proposed timeline for submittal and finalization of state and 

regional plans and the proposed timeline for compliance with proposed goals are completely 

unrealistic. The commenters stated that EPA had not appropriately considered the time required 

to develop and coordinate state and regional compliance plans, draft and finalize necessary 

changes to state laws and policies, conduct transmission siting and reliability studies, conduct 

environmental impact assessments, coordinate development with other federal regulations such 

as the Endangered Species Act, and several other factors. The commenters also noted that, for 

states to be able to create plans that can be successfully implemented, the rule will require 

unprecedented coordination of all aspects of government, the utility industry, utility regulatory 

commissions, institutional consumer advocates, FERC, NERC, WECC and the other regional 

reliability entities, RTOs, the National Security Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

other stakeholders. The commenters said it is important to provide a realistic timeframe in order 

to work with all stakeholders and develop compliance and implementation plans based on sound 

policy and necessary engineering and economic analyses than it is to meet an arbitrary deadline. 

Therefore, the commenters recommended that EPA allow states significantly more time to 

develop draft compliance plans and should eliminate the interim compliance targets
96

Comment 16: Comment requesting that the EPA extend the deadline(s) for states to prepare its 

plans to comply with the final GHG rule.

Response 16: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal, including allowing a two-year extension for individual 

state plans. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities 

such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, 

legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to 

states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in 

form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state 

plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and 

other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy 

and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated 

website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, 

when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. See 

section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP 

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

Commenters were concerned with the timetable for adoption of a state plan to meet such a 

substantial and complex rule, if a state chooses certain options in the GHG rule, rather than a 

regional approach as appears to be the EPA's favored option. According to the commenters, 

rushing such a complex rule that requires wholesale changes to electric utility structuring in a 

state such as Illinois, with deregulation, some merchants, other not, who belong to two different 

ISO organizations (MISO and PJM) as well as companies with coal-fired generation within the 

state that export energy to other states, presents plan development issues that require more time 

than allotted by the EPA in the GHG rule as proposed. The commenters requested the EPA 

extend the deadline(s) for states to prepare its plans to comply with the final GHG rule.

Comment 17: Comment arguing that the proposed rule failed to provide sufficient time to 

develop a comprehensive state plan that meets the targets of the proposed rule.

Response 17: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. No legislation or regulation is required to be 

finalized for the 2016 initial plan submittal or the 2017 update (which requires only 

draft/proposed legislation or regulations). While the EPA acknowledges that different states may 

have different public participation requirements in their rulemaking process, we believe that 

allowing states up to three-years is a sufficient amount of time to accommodate for their public 

participation requirements. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to 

states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in 
97

form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state 

plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and 

other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy 

and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated 

website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, 

when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. See 

section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP 

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

Commenters argued that the proposed rule failed to provide sufficient time to develop a 

comprehensive state plan that meets the targets of the proposed rule. According to the 

commenters, not only is there considerable time required to develop a state program, there may 

be additional time required for legislative approval to authorize the agency (ies) to implement the 

state plan. The commenters noted that, if the EPA's proposed rule is finalized in mid-2015 as 

indicated, the next legislative session for Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and Wyoming is not 

until January of 2016. For North Dakota, the commenters noted that the next legislative session 

is not until January of 2017. Unless the legislature calls for a special session, at tax-payer 

expense, the commenters indicated that the authority to enter into a multi-state agreement may 

not be given by the legislature(s) until well into the limited period given by the proposed rule for 

state plan development. Even if a state has authority to adopt a state plan under its administrative 

procedures act and delegated authority, the commenters noted that it still must go through a 

lengthy public process to enact any such rules, again adding to the delay in the process of even 

presenting to EPA a plan for approval.

Comment 18: Comment contending that the EPA must extend the timeframe for completion of 

section 111(d) compliance plans.

Response 18: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
98

Commenters contended that EPA must extend the timeframe for completion of section 111(d) 

compliance plans. 

The commenters argued that EPA has not provided sufficient time for states to complete their 

section 111(d) compliance plans. Due to the complexity of EPA's proposal, the commenters

indicated that state regulatory agencies will need to collaborate closely with affected entities in 

plan development, and time will be needed to complete the extensive discussions necessary to 

clearly identify to the satisfaction of EPA the measures that will be included in a state's 

compliance plan as well as the timeline for implementation of these measures. The commenters

said this is particularly true in Arizona in light of the impacts that the proposed rule would have 

on the state's generation mix.

In addition to having to communicate with affected EGUs and coordinate across state agencies to 

develop and implement the emissions reductions mechanisms necessary to achieve the state 

goals, the commenters said that ADEQ, as the Arizona agency responsible for plan development 

and submittal, will need to engage with the public and other interested stakeholders, including 

non-governmental environmental organizations. The commenters noted that many states, 

including Arizona, also will be required to complete legislative processes or administrative 

rulemakings to establish plans, which will be time-consuming in its own right. 

Comment 19: Comments stating that state plan development will take significantly longer 

than the additional four months EPA proposes to provide, that additional coordination and time 

will also be required if a multi-state plan is to be considered, and due to the fact that the rule 

would require most states to fundamentally reconfigure their electric generation industries and 

power supply markets. The comments also stated even if an additional year or two were granted, 

these extensions provide minimal relief due to their burdensome requirements and the conflicts 

they create with regard to EPA's proposed compliance timeframe.

Response 19: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA is allowing an additional two years 

for state plan submittal for states that need it and make a good faith showing that they are able to 

submit a complete plan by 2018. The EPA is also not requiring formal legislation or regulations 

to be in effect in order to be granted an extension. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue 

extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely 

assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.
99

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

Commenters argued that states need more time to develop state plans. The commenters noted 

that EPA proposed to finalize the rule by June 1, 2015, and require states to submit 

implementation plans by June 30, 2016. While EPA has acknowledged that the complexity of the 

proposal warrants greater time for SIP development than the nine months typically provided 

under the section 111(d) rules (79 FR 34915), the commenters said state plan development will 

take significantly longer than the additional four months EPA proposes to provide. The 

commenters noted that EPA's proposed goals would require most states to fundamentally 

reconfigure their electric generation industries and power supply markets. According to the 

commenters, doing so will likely require passing state legislation, developing and modifying 

agency implementing regulations, and agency planning and modeling of necessary infrastructure 

improvements, such as new natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, and EGUs. See State Plan 

TSD at 28-31 (discussing considerable efforts that must be undertaken to develop a state plan, 

such as utility-scale capacity expansion and dispatch planning models). The commenters argued

that states cannot accomplish all of this in 13 months, and it is patently unreasonable, arbitrary, 

and capricious for EPA to require states to do so.

The commenters noted that the Florida Legislature will almost certainly have to take some action 

in relation to Florida's state plan, either in passing specific statutory directives or authority, or 

ratifying rules promulgated by FDEP. According to the commenters, Florida's Legislature meets 

for two months every year in March and April, and most bills have to be filed many months in 

advance. Assuming, optimistically, that EPA's final guidelines have an effective date of June 30, 

2015, the commenters said Florida will have approximately 6 months to determine what 

legislative actions may be needed in the 2016 and 2017 Sessions. The commenters indicated this 

can only occur after it undertakes the enormous task of understanding what the final guidelines 

require, interacting with stakeholders, identifying measures that it can implement without 

legislative action, deciding which measures could achieve the state goal, determining the costs of 

each of these measures on the affected parties and Florida's economy, so as to minimize the 

impacts, and coordinating with the FPSC on measures that it may be able to implement or must 

oversee (while ensuring that there are no adverse impacts on reliability). The commenters noted

that promulgation of any new rules to implement these measures, which will almost certainly 

require legislative ratification pursuant to Florida law, must also be timed to fit the Legislature's 

schedule. The commenters said any legal gaps in existing state agency authority to implement 

the final rule will require the Florida Legislature to enact new laws, a process that may not be 

completed, if at all, by EPA's compliance deadlines. Accordingly, the commenters contended 

that Florida would not have time to develop a complete state plan by June 30, 2016.

The commenters indicated that additional coordination and time will also be required if a multistate plan is to be considered. To illustrate, the commenters cited the example of the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI):

In 2003, nine northeastern states began to develop a regional cap-and-trade program for CO2 

emissions from power plants. In December 2005, seven of those states agreed to implement the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and by August 2006, published a model rule. It was 

not until the end of 2008, however, that each of the states completed their individual rulemaking 

processes and began participating in RGGI, nearly six years after the process began.
100

The commenters stated that the history of RGGI illustrates the time required for states to 

negotiate and develop a multi-state plan. The commenters noted that EPA proposes to provide 

states only two years, which is clearly insufficient.

The commenters noted that EPA proposes allowing states to seek an additional year for state 

plan development for single-state plans, or an additional two years for multi-state plans. Even if 

granted by EPA, the commenters argued that these extensions provide minimal relief due to their 

burdensome requirements and the conflicts they create with regard to EPA's proposed 

compliance timeframe. The commenters noted that an extension request by a state must be 

submitted by June 30, 2016, and must contain very detailed information, such as a description of 

the intended approach and progress made on each element of the plan, as well as "a 

comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan." 79 FR 34916. The commenters stated that, 

even if seeking an extension, each state still must decide by June 30, 2016, what its state plan 

will be. Even if an extension is granted, the commenters said each state's interim compliance 

period would still begin in 2020, so any extension would leave a state with less time to actually 

implement its plan.

Accordingly, the commenters argued that the state plan development schedule in EPA's proposal 

is arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA must provide states more time to develop state plans for 

such a complex and impactful rule.

Comment 20: Comment recommending that the EPA include a provision in the final rule 

requiring each state's agency responsible for preparation of the state implementation plan to seek 

input from state legislators in drafting the plan and in commenting on the proposed plan.

Response 20: EPA encourages states to engage their representatives, agencies, and the public 

broadly. Section II.K of the CPP final rule preamble addresses stakeholder outreach and 

consultations conducted for this rulemaking. In section IX.C of the final rule preamble, the 

agency outlines that states must engage with all members of the public, including vulnerable

communities. Additionally, the agency outlines steps that states could take to engage 

meaningfully with communities. Additionally, in section IX.G of the final rule preamble, the 

agency describes how it will continue to meaningfully engage with vulnerable communities 

throughout the implementation process. The general information section of the final rule 

preamble under the executive summary in section I.A also provides context and a section on 

outreach and resources for stakeholders.

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

Commenters recommended that EPA include a provision in the final rule requiring each state's 

agency responsible for preparation of the state implementation plan to seek input from state 

legislators in drafting the plan and in commenting on the proposed plan, with sufficient time for 

the legislators to engage their constituents and seek constituents' contributions to the plan and 

commitment to helping achieve its goals. In making this recommendation, the commenters

indicated they were not suggesting that EPA require formal legislative hearings on or approval of 

the state plan.
101

Comment 21: Comments arguing that the EPA's proposed schedule does not allow sufficient 

time for states to develop state plans, for legislatures and administrative agencies to adopt 

necessary legislation and implementing regulations, for states to receive the requisite approval 

from EPA for plan implementation to begin and for utilities to perform the necessary planning 

and implementation of the approved state plan in time to comply with the state targets.

Response 21: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters argued that EPA's proposed schedule does not allow sufficient time for states to 

develop state plans, for legislatures and administrative agencies to adopt necessary legislation 

and implementing regulations, for states to receive the requisite approval from EPA for plan 

implementation to begin and for utilities to perform the necessary planning and implementation 

of the approved state plan in time to comply with the state targets. The commenters stated that a 

closer look at EPA's proposed rule illustrates its infeasibility for the states. First, the commenters

noted that EPA proposed to require plan submission by June 30, 2016. The commenters further 

noted that states may seek an additional year if they are developing single-state plans, or two 

years if they seek to join a multi-state plan. Assuming that the proposed rule is finalized as 

planned (June 2015), the commenters said this means that states will have as little as one year to 

develop a state plan that will fundamentally reconfigure their entire electric generation industry 

and power supply market. The commenters argued that this is simply not enough time for states 

to plan for and begin to implement the changes that EPA seeks to impose--on them and on 

potentially regulated entities (which could include but not be limited to EGU owners and 

operators, electric distribution utilities, private or public third-party entities and other state 

agencies, authorities or entities). The commenters noted that in Georgia currently, neither the 

state nor EPD has the authority to regulate these entities in the pervasive manner envisioned by 

EPA in the proposal.
102

Comment 22: Comment stating that the EPA has significantly underestimated the ability and 

challenges that states face to actually finalize a state plan to meet EPA's mandate.

Response 22: EPA and multiple state government agencies have met often during the process of 

development, proposal, and post-proposal for this rule, and EPA continues to encourage multiple 

state agencies to work together. See section VIII.E on state plan submittal and timing; section 

VIII.F on state plan performance demonstrations and compliance; and section VIII.H on 

resources for states to consider in developing state plans in the CPP final rule preamble. 

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

Commenters believed that EPA has significantly underestimated the ability and challenges that 

states face to actually finalize a state plan to meet EPA's mandate. The commenters noted that 

energy production, dispatch, transmission and distribution are determined through a host of 

regulatory agencies and legislative requirements. For a state agency to actually develop such a 

plan, the commenters said unprecedented coordination with other agencies is essential. In 

addition, the commenters anticipated that several legislative changes would be required for the 

imposition of these mandates on utilities and energy consumers.

Comment 23: Comment stating that assuming all goes smoothly and every stakeholder agrees to 

the proposed state regulation, most states would have difficulty meeting this timeline--even with 

an extension.

Response 23: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA is also not requiring formal 

legislation or regulations to be in effect in order to be granted an extension In addition, the EPA 

is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with 

them to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance 

to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. 

As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to 

make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is 

also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to 

facilitate the development of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan 

submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters argued that states will have difficulty meeting the timeline for submitting state 

plans, for reasons discussed below. 
103

The commenters noted that state agencies, governors, regional transmission authorities, 

stakeholders and other affected entities have been communicating feverishly since the release of 

this proposal on June 2, 2014. The commenters indicated that, while some discussions have been 

held on the support/nonsupport of this proposal, most discussions have centered on how all 

affected entities can come up with a solution to meet the proposed interim and final goals. 

According to the commenters, so that a state can meet the timeline to submit a plan, even with a 

proposed extension to submit a multi-state plan, countless man-hours have already been spent to 

try to solve this issue. The commenters indicated that, at this time, legislatures and governors are 

adamantly debating renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency policies and the like. Even 

if these policies and standards are passed, the commenters noted that most states, such as 

Indiana, have to draft and pass environmental rules prior to submitting such a plan to EPA. 

Assuming all goes smoothly and every stakeholder agrees to the proposed state regulation, the 

commenters expected most states would have difficulty meeting this timeline--even with an 

extension.

The commenters recalled that, on November 13, 2014, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for 

the Office of Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe, presented EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan at 

the Indiana Energy Conference. According to the commenters, during her comments, Ms. 

McCabe stated that during her tenure with EPA to-date, proposals have never been exactly the 

same as the finalized version of a rule, standard or guideline. Assuming this is indeed true for 

this proposal, the commenters stated that this poses an extraordinary obstacle for state agencies, 

governors, regional transmission authorities and other affected entities to draft the necessary 

legislation, policies, regulations and submittals now to comply with a proposed guideline within 

the specified timeline without knowing exactly what the final version of this proposal will be.

Comment 24: Comment stating that more time is needed for submittal of state plans, and for 

states that may need to seek changes to state statutes to implement EPA's final rule, encouraged 

the EPA to simplify the requirements of the states' initial submittals and to allow additional time 

for final plan submittal, including recommendations for 3- to 4-year timeline extensions.

Response 24: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA agrees with the commenters 

statement that the initial plan submittal requirements should be simplified, and we have made 

changes in the final rule to clarify these requirements. The EPA is not requiring formal 

legislation or regulations to be in effect in order to be granted an extension. In addition, the EPA 

is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with 

them to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance 

to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. 

As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to 

make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is 
104

also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to 

facilitate the development of their state rule. The EPA did not make the commenters’ 

recommendation to allow two years for an initial plan submittal, but did extend the timeline for 

final plan submittal for individual state plans by one year until 2018. The EPA also believes that 

three years is adequate time to allow for coordination between states that are engaged in a multistate plan. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that more time is needed for submittal of state plans. For states that may need 

to seek changes to state statutes to implement EPA's final rule, commenters encouraged EPA to 

simplify the requirements of the states' initial submittals and to allow additional time for final 

plan submittal. 

Commenters pointed out the EPA's aggressive timeline allows states only 1 year to develop a 

very complex plan that will need to address a series of adjustments to their electricity generation 

consumption, energy infrastructure that will come from forcing a change in the energy mix. The 

commenters noted that states have historically been given several years to develop and 

implement regulations for criteria pollutants that are a tiny fraction of the size and scope of the 

proposed regulations. The commenters asserted that forcing regulations of this magnitude on

such a short time frame will limit the ability of states and stakeholders to thoughtfully prepare for 

the drastic changes that this rule will cause. Commenters contended that if this Administration is 

comfortable spending more than 5 years evaluating the Keystone XL Pipeline, it should feel 

comfortable taking its time to craft a thoughtful rule that will fully evaluate the consequences of 

its proposed actions.

Commenters stated that the overwhelming nature of EPA's proposal is enhanced by the 

complexities of developing first-time environmental regulations that expand into the domain of 

energy generation, transmission, and distribution and by the political roadblocks which vary 

state-by-state. The commenters stated that the existing state and regional programs that EPA uses 

for examples in its analysis and justification for the proposal were initiated under directives and 

support from governors, state legislatures, and executive agencies (i.e., they were not programs 

driven by federal regulation). The commenters noted that climate change and carbon dioxide 

regulation already are contentious topics, and obtaining the statutory and regulatory changes that 

will be necessary to develop, implement, and enforce a Section 111(d) plan may be challenging 

for several states, including Kansas. The commenters stated that this particular 111(d) plan will 

be unique in that the emission guidelines encourage reaching beyond the source fenceline for 

compliance with the standard which is action that requires the support of multiple levels of state 

and local government and the cooperation and collaboration of the Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment (KDHE), Kansas Corporation Commission, investor owned utilities, municipal 

utilities, electric cooperatives, and wind developers and merchants. For this complicated task, the 

commenters requested that the EPA consider extending the timeline for state plan submittals. 

The commenters recommended that the initial single state plan submittal be due 2 years after the 

final rule with the complete single state plan due 3 years after the final rule. Similarly, the 
105

commenters recommended that the multi-state plan timeline be extended by an additional year, 

allowing for a complete plan submittal 4 years after the final rule is issued.

Commenters expressed concern about the short timeframes afforded. The commenters stated that 

EPA is aware of the time frame needed for a rather straightforward plan like Regional Haze 

which impacts the ability of the State Air Office come up with a compliance plan, and puts a 

burden on the utility to come up with a budget and compliance plan to address the states' 

compliance plan.

Commenters stated that, most states will be faced with challenges in coordinating stakeholder 

discussions necessary to develop its plan due to the variety of state plan options available (massbased, rate-based, portfolio) to state planning officials. The commenters noted the EPA has 

acknowledged the cost and time requirements that the proposal will demand of states:

"As discussed in the Supporting Statement found in the docket for this 

rulemaking, the development of state plans will entail many hours of staff time to 

develop and coordinate programs for compliance with the proposed rule, as well 

as time to work with state legislatures as appropriate, and develop a plan 

submittal." 

The commenters argued that EPA's expectation that individual states will have the time 

necessary to evaluate fully the opportunities of such a complex plan and oversee its development 

is unreasonable. According to the commenters, 1 year is clearly inadequate to develop a plan 

with stakeholder input, have a meaningful public participation process, and promulgate and/or 

repeal state statutes and regulations. Therefore, the commenters recommended that the EPA at a 

minimum allow a 3-year timeline for states to submit their plans after the rule is finalized.

Commenters noted and EPA's requirement that states submit a compliance plan 1 year after the 

rule is finalized is unrealistic. The commenters stated that traditional state implementation plans 

(SIPs) - analogous planning exercises with which states have considerable experience - have 

historically taken several years to develop. In addition, the commenters stated that the proposed 

1-year planning horizon puts states in the position of including potential compliance measures in 

their plans that have not been approved by utility regulators. Furthermore, the commenters stated 

that some potential compliance measures could require additional state legislative actions that 

would extend beyond the 1 year submittal deadline. For these reasons, the commenters stated 

that the agency should provide a more realistic timeframe for state plan development and 

submittal.

Commenters were concerned about the compliance timelines envisioned for states. If the rule is 

finalized, the commenters noted that states will only have one year to submit a state plan to 

address its GHG reduction goals into a planning regime. The commenters argued that this 

timeline is unnecessarily strict, given that states are typically afforded several years to develop 

plans for listed criteria pollutants like mercury, ozone, and particulate matter. In order to develop 

legally defensible state plans, the commenters said EPA should treat the development and 

submission process with the same timelines and forbearance as other covered pollutants in the 

Clean Air Act.
106

Commenters stated that the timeline proposed or otherwise implicated by EPA is unreasonable 

for Kentucky ratepayers. The commenters argued that the timelines established by the proposed 

rulemaking, including but not limited to the 1-year deadline for Kentucky to tender its statespecific plan and the impending compliance cliff beginning in 2020, are in no way reasonable for 

a rulemaking of this scope. The commenters stated that such a timeline for a complex and statewide resource planning initiative is not only impractical, but will place a premium on 

environmental compliance and energy projects, which will in turn drive up costs and jeopardize 

reliability. The commenters advocated for a minimum 3-year timeline with extension 

opportunities for good cause. Moreover, the commenters stated that additional time may be 

necessary to address in state legislation the serious policy implications and unfunded mandate of 

the 111(d) proposal, while still preserving Kentucky's least-cost approach to resource 

generation.

Commenters noted that the guidelines require the states to submit their SIPs to the EPA by June 

of 2016, although a 1-year extension is possible. The commenters stated that even with the 

extension this time frame is too short. The commenters noted that most states took 3 years to 

prepare a SIP for the Regional Haze Program which is a relatively straightforward program 

compared to this proposed program. The commenters asserted that States need more time.

Comment 25: Comments stating that is unreasonable for the EPA to expect states to develop 

novel plans to implement a program that will transform the electric industry and the economy all 

while performing burdensome analysis that is not typically required to comply with 

environmental regulation.

Response 25: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters noted that the Proposed Rule requires significant effort by the states in preparing 

their plans, including the requirement to include achievement "demonstrations" that use utilityscale capacity expansion and dispatch planning models to show the state can meet the interim 
107

and final goals. The commenters stated that the level of effort EPA envisions requiring states to 

undertake is more extensive than can be justified under section 111(d)'s permissive "satisfactory" 

standard for state plans and suggested that more time is needed for plan development. 

Commenters noted that states have 3 years to develop state implementation plans under section 

110 of the CAA to implement the NAAQS, which is the longest period of time EPA proposes to 

allow from the development of section 111(d) state plans. The commenters stated that yet states 

have no obligation to conduct this sort of modeling during the development of a state 

implementation plan. Commenters stated that it is unreasonable for EPA to expect states to 

develop novel plans to implement a program that will transform the electric industry and the 

economy all while performing burdensome analysis that is not typically required to comply with 

environmental regulation.

Comment 26: Comment stating that the EPA's proposed schedule for states to develop state 

implementation plans and implement the Clean Power Plan is arbitrary and not achievable.

Response 26: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. The EPA views the timelines outlined in the final rule as being consistent with 

the CAA and other complex submittals submitted to the EPA by states. See section VIII.E.2 for a 

discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed schedule for states to develop state implementation 

plans and implement the Clean Power Plan is arbitrary and not achievable. The commenters

stated that EPA's current schedule for development, submittal of plans and for compliance with 

the identified goals is unreasonable given the expected amount of planning, stakeholder 

engagement, rulemaking, need for legislative authorization and potential coordination with other 

states needed to fully implement the Clean Power Plan. 

The commenters noted that the Clean Air Act at 42 USC 7411(d) requires EPA to establish a 

procedure for submittal of state plans similar to those required under section 110 of the Act. The 

commenters stated that the regulation of greenhouse gas has more complex considerations than 

the well-established planning process for criteria pollutant ambient air standards. The 

commenters stated that given the wide reaching implications of the proposed rule and the varied 
108

means identified to achieve the standard, EPA must set a reasonable time schedule that respects 

state authorities and considers all steps needed to fully implement the proposed Clean Power 

Plan. 

Comment 27: Comments asserting that the EPA's timeframe for submittal of state plans is 

impractical, unrealistic, not based on a serious consideration of the extent of work involved such 

that the schedule is arbitrary and capricious, and stating that if the proposal is finalized with EE 

and RE components, those components will take significant time for states to develop, as it 

encroaches into a territory little states have experience with--implementing EE and RE programs 

that meet EPA definitions of quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and 

enforceable so that plans may be approvable. 

Response 27: EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and 

will work closely with states to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, 

training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the 

timeframe specified in the rule. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the final rule 

requirements as well as the legal basis for them. Section VIII of the final rule preamble 

addresses state plans. EPA addresses state plan submittal and timing in section VIII.E of the 

preamble to the final rule. This section also addresses approval of state plans and adjustments to 

state plans. EPA has adjusted the interim goal deadline for this final rule. See section VIII.F of 

the final rule preamble on performance demonstrations and compliance. EPA is not finalizing 

building block 4 – demand side energy efficiency – in the CPP final rule preamble. Section V 

explains the best system of emission reduction and associated building blocks while section V.E 

covers building block 3 and RE. State plan components and approvability criteria are addressed 

in section VIII.D for the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters noted that 40 CFR 60.23 requires that state plans be submitted within 9 months of 

promulgation of the emission guidelines, unless U.S. EPA specifies otherwise. The commenters

stated that the EPA is proposing state plans be submitted by June 30, 2016, more than 1 year 

after the expected finalization date (June 1, 2015) of the emission guidelines, acknowledging 

"these plans may require states to develop new regulatory or statutory authority" and the EPA 

"recognizes that certain options...involve more analytic effort to precisely demonstrate sources of 

emission reductions" The commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to give states the option 

of submitting a complete plan, or if justified, an initial plan when an extension is applicable.] 

The commenters stated that the EPA notes a "state must adopt rules and requirements in advance 

of submitting." The commenters expressed serious concerns with the ability to meet the proposed 

timeline, extension or not. The commenters stated that the EPA's expectation that states can 

adopt rules and requirements in advance of submitting when states have little more than a year to 

perform such an act is impossible. The commenters asserted that the EPA's timeframe for 

submittal of state plans is impractical, unrealistic, not based on a serious consideration of the 

extent of work involved such that the schedule is arbitrary and capricious. Commenters noted 

that the EPA requires states to submit a plan within 13 months, essentially 1 year, of the 

anticipated promulgation of the final rule with a possibility of a year extension if certain 
109

stringent conditions are met. The commenters stated that the Section 111(d) proposal set out by 

U.S. EPA demands the restructuring of the power generation, transmission and distribution 

system in the United States. The commenters argued that a state cannot fulfill these requirements 

in either 1 or 2 years, and unless a state has some type of CO2 control program already in 

existence, the timeframe proposed by the EPA is not possible to meet for most states. The 

commenters stated that almost all states will need to adopt legislative authority to either modify 

or create the structure to regulate electricity in-state in the manner proposed by the EPA. The 

commenters stated that once the EPA rules are finalized (assuming June 2015), states will have 

to develop their plans to a certain degree to understand what legislation will be necessary. Then 

it will take at least 6 months to draft all of the necessary legislative changes (December 2015), 

and then 2 years for the legislature to introduce the bill, hold hearings, and pass legislation, that 

become effective (December 2017). After the legislation is completed, it will be another 18 

months for the various regulatory agencies to draft, propose, and adopt rules (June 2019), 

followed by 1 month for submittal to EPA (July 2019). The following would be a best case 

schedule assuming a June 2015 adoption of the Section 111(d) rules. 

The commenters asserted that it is not possible for states to meet the deadline of 2020 for the 

initial reductions. The commenters argued that States should not be penalized for the arbitrary 

dates in the Presidential order that were chosen without a complete understanding of the process 

needed to modify state legislation, propose and adopt rules, and then have the regulated entities 

have adequate time to initiate control measures. The commenters stated that the EPA's proposed 

schedule is arbitrary and unrealistic for state compliance plans to meet the initial compliance 

deadline of 2020. The commenters asserted that states cannot achieve the initial state goals 

within the proposed time schedule. The commenters stated that the EPA must abandon the 

current schedule and propose a more realistic schedule that takes into account the scope of the 

task U.S. EPA is proposing.

Commenters stated that if the proposal is finalized with EE and RE components, those 

components will take significant time for states to develop, as it encroaches into a territory little 

states have experience with--implementing EE and RE programs that meet EPA definitions of 

quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable so that plans may be 

approvable. The commenters stated that EPA is well known for providing ill-timed guidance that 

has made it difficult for states to prepare approvable plans. The commenters noted that the timing 

of state plan submittals is already overly aggressive without additional obstacles to overcome. 

According to the commenters, states often find it necessary to revise submittals after ill-timed 

guidance has been issued, in order to address approvability concerns. The commenters stated that 

this acts to consume the state's energy and efforts during implementation, which the commenters

have already expressed as also not having sufficient enough time.

Comment 28: Comments stating that the EPA's proposed procedures, however, pose 

practicability concerns and overstep the Agency's legal authority, and asserting that that states 

cannot develop plans fundamentally reconfiguring the electric generation industry and power 

supply market in the short time EPA proposes to provide.
110

Response 28: EPA disagrees with commenters that it has overstepped the Agency’s legal 

authority. Section III of the final rule preamble summarizes the rule requirements and the legal 

basis. EPA has considered comments on timing of state plan submittals and has adjusted 

requirements and compliance in the final rule. Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble addresses 

state plan submittals and timing. Section VIII.D of the final rule preamble addresses state plan 

components and approvability criteria, while section VIII.F addresses state plan performance 

demonstrations and compliance. Note that EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022.

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

Commenters noted that the CAA empowers EPA to establish "a procedure similar to that 

provided by section 110 . . . under which each State shall submit to the Administrator" a section 

111(d) plan. The commenters stated that EPA's proposed procedures, however, pose 

practicability concerns and overstep the Agency's legal authority. 

Commenters noted that the Proposed Guidelines' discussion of plan submittal and approval 

processes begins with an acknowledgement of the complexities and state concerns over the time 

it will take to develop a plan. The commenters stated that EPA therefore proposes to require plan 

submission by June 30, 2016, longer than the 9 months allowed for under the existing Subpart B 

rules, and that states may seek an additional year if they are entering into single-state plans and 

may seek an additional 2 years if they seek to join multi-state plans. The commenters asserted 

that states cannot develop plans fundamentally reconfiguring the electric generation industry and 

power supply market in the short time EPA proposes to provide. Commenters stated that 

regulatory and legislative requirements in many states require greater than 1 year to formally 

adopt a rule from the time the rule has been crafted, and the EPA seems to recognize that 

problem by proposing a two-step approval process. The commenters stated that given the 

complexity of this rule, there will be numerous decisions, involvement of numerous 

governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, and conferences and high level meetings with 

regulatory bodies in other states before the state can even begin the process of drafting a 

rule. The commenters stated that the tight deadline for adopting regulation obstructs the state's 

authority to develop appropriate regulation of affected facilities because it short-changes the 

process and will force many states to adopt measures which are as close as possible (within 

regulatory and legal constraints within the state) to the structure of the Proposed Guidelines (the 

four Building Block approach). Commenters stated that indeed, the State of Arkansas has 

confirmed that, if the rule is finalized in June 2015, it "would then have to develop a state plan, 

seek any required legislation from the General Assembly and only then . . . submit the state plan 

to EPA for approval." The commenters stated that the state concluded that the timeframe EPA 

has provided is not sufficient for the state to take those actions, noting that "the General 

Assembly will not even meet in regular session again to consider any necessary legislation until 

January of 2017, when the state is scheduled to meet some of the renewable goals." Id. 

Commenters noted that EPA proposes to require states, in initial submissions, to justify any 1- or 

2-year deadline extension, and the Agency specifically asks for comments on whether there are 

justifications for extensions that EPA should reject. The commenters, along with 

commenters, stated that EPA should take at face value states' good faith efforts to attempt to 

comply with EPA's exceedingly complicated and amorphous Proposed Guidelines and accept 
111

any state assertion that more time is needed to develop a plan unless there is clear evidence to the 

contrary. 

Commenters stated that in addition, EPA proposes a number of required elements for initial plan 

submission, including a detailed roadmap to plan completion, before any deadline extension will 

be considered. The commenters stated that placing additional burdens on states already 

struggling to meet extended deadlines is a waste of resources. Moreover, the commenters stated 

that EPA should acknowledge that states have primary authority over plan contents and should 

defer to state judgments about what should properly be included in an initial plan submittal, 

consistent with section 111(d)'s requirement that states need only submit plans that are 

"satisfactory." 

Comment 29: Comments arguing that the proposed rule mechanism under which states would 

have two years to submit a final plan if they submit an interim plan within one year provides 

little help because the interim plan must reflect final decisions on the critical plan elements, and 

that the interim plan approach is also unworkable because it is dependent on EPA taking a final 

approval/disapproval action.

Response 29: EPA has considered these comments in finalizing the rule and adjusted several 

deadlines and provided flexibility for states and utilities. The timeframe for mandatory 

reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more 

time to get programs in place and gives utilities more time to plan. This change responds to 

concerns that the proposed 2020 start date was too soon and would raise concerns about electric 

system reliability, ratepayer bills, and stranded assets. This change gives utilities time to make 

investments in clean energy infrastructure. State plan approaches are described in section VIII.C

of the final rule preamble. State plan components and approvability criteria are discussed in 

section VIII.D of the final rule preamble. The state plan submittal and timing process as well as 

the approval process are all discussed in sections VIII.B and E of the final rule preamble. 

Compliance performance demonstrations are addressed in VIII.F of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that the proposed rule mechanism under which states would have two years 

to submit a final plan if they submit an interim plan within one year provides little help because 

the interim plan must reflect final decisions on the critical plan elements. For instance, the 

commenters noted that the interim plan must include "the plan approach," presumably meaning 

such fundamental elements as whether the final plan will use a mass-based or rate-based 

approach, whether the final plan will use "portfolio" measures or will rely solely on draconian 

reductions in operations of coal-fueled EGU's, and whether the plan will be enforceable against 

third parties or just the regulated facilities. Similarly, the commenters noted that the interim plan 

must include "an initial projection of emission performance that will be achieved under the 

complete plan." In order to estimate emission reductions, the commenters noted that the interim 

plan must include a full compilation of measures, perhaps subject to change, from which to 

estimate the reductions. According to the commenters, the state must also include a 
112

"comprehensive roadmap" for completing the plan, including milestones such as anticipated 

dates for required legislative action. 

The commenters pointed out that North Dakota, however, is highly unlikely to know any of this 

information at the end of one year. For instance, the commenters noted that North Dakota will 

not know whether it can adopt an RPS of any particular amount until the state legislature adopts 

authorizing legislation. Without such legislation, the commenters said North Dakota cannot even 

submit an interim plan including an assumption that the legislature will adopt the RPS, because 

no state agency can know in advance what the legislature will do. However, as EPA has 

formulated the state goals, the commenters stated that states may need to develop an RPS as a 

compliance strategy in order to replace the large amount of coal generation that must be 

eliminated for states to meet their goals. As a result, the commenters noted, if the legislature has 

not acted on an RPS within one year, the state will be left unable to formulate even an interim 

plan that sets forth what the state's overall approach will be, what emission reductions the state 

will make, and what the milestones for final completion of the plan will be. The commenters

stated that the notion that a state agency can represent to a federal agency when the state 

legislature will take action on any particular provision is unfounded.

Commenters argued that the interim plan approach is also unworkable because it is dependent on 

EPA taking a final approval/disapproval action. Having submitted an interim plan, the 

commenters said that North Dakota will need to know quickly whether EPA will approve the 

plan, in which case the state can develop a final plan, or whether EPA will disapprove the plan, 

in which case the state is liable to become subject to a federal plan. However, the commenters

noted that EPA's history of acting within statutory or regulatory deadlines on SIP approvals or 

indeed for any other CAA actions is inconsistent, to say the least. Based on the Department's past 

experience, the commenters said the likelihood is that EPA itself will cause the interim plan 

approval process to be unworkable, as it will not be able to timely process the necessary 

approvals.

Comment 30: Comments stating that the EPA has failed to describe the mechanisms states can 

use to develop and implement a plan that will reliably demonstrate compliance, and that the 

proposal lacks the clarity necessary to guide the development and approval of state plans within 

the aggressive time frame outlined in the proposal.

Response 30: EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and 

will work closely with states to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, 

training, and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the 

timeframe specified in the rule. EPA has considered these comments in finalizing the rule and 

adjusted several deadlines. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power 

Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs in place and 

gives utilities more time to plan. This change responds to concerns that the proposed 2020 start 

date was too soon and would raise concerns about electric system reliability, ratepayer bills, and 

stranded assets. This change gives utilities time to make investments in clean energy 

infrastructure. The final rule preamble discusses the state plan process in section VIII. The 

different state plan approaches are described in section VIII.C of the final rule preamble. State
113

plan components and approvability criteria are discussed in section VIII.D of the final rule 

preamble. The state plan submittal and timing process as well as the approval process are all 

discussed in section VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Compliance performance demonstrations 

are addressed in VIII.F of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that EPA has failed to describe the mechanisms states can use to develop and 

implement a plan that will reliably demonstrate compliance. The commenters stated that EPA's 

description of the criteria for developing and evaluating state plans focuses primarily on issues 

related to federal enforceability and bureaucratic administration (79 FR 34900-34911) and 

spends no time evaluating whether the framework laid out in the CPP provides a reasonable 

foundation upon which states can build a plan that is achievable or will reliably demonstrate 

compliance. The commenters stated that the overall structure, the multiple "building blocks," and 

the independent factors that influence their achievability, make the task of designing and 

implementing a plan that can consistently deliver emission reductions year-over-year, as 

contemplated by EPA, a practical impossibility. 

The commenters stated that the process and aggressive schedule to design, approve, and 

implement state compliance plans is unnecessarily disjointed and unachievable. The commenters

stated that while EPA attempts to analogize the CPP implementation process to the process of 

developing state implementation plans for ambient air quality standards, the two programs are 

significantly different. The commenters noted that the CPP is an unprecedented effort to create 

an expansive framework that goes far beyond emission rates that can be achieved through control 

installations or changes in operational practices at designated facilities alone. The commenters

stated that it is unrealistic for EPA to expect the implementation timelines to be similar because 

the proposed CPP involves a unique scope and complexity of factors that requires extensive 

coordination among a broad number of state and federal regulatory agencies, the regulated 

community, and other interested parties. The commenters stated that this requires a process that 

is methodical, collaborative, and well-informed -- a process that requires a more extended 

schedule than that envisioned by EPA, even with the proposed extension options for states to 

develop plans.

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal lacks the clarity necessary to guide the development and 

approval of state plans within the aggressive time frame outlined in the proposal. The 

commenters noted that 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. The commenters stated that EPA should reassess its schedule, given the realities of 

the tasks it has set before the states.

The commenters stated that even if EPA substantially revised its proposal to be consistent with 

the authorities granted by Congress, state regulatory development processes, including the public 

hearings and other processes required by the CAA, will take more than 13 months to complete. 

The commenters noted that states are ordinarily provided with much more time to develop plans 

under section 110. The commenters stated that RTOs and others have indicated that they see a 

need for an option to review state plans, consistent with their long-term planning responsibilities 

for the bulk electric system. The commenters stated that since the current planning processes at 
114

the RTOs can take up to a year to complete, allowing time for these essential reliability safety 

checks suggests that a minimum of 2 years may be necessary to develop sound state plans.

The commenters noted that multi-state planning efforts will take even longer to complete. The 

commenters noted that the RGGI states devoted 5 years to the planning, legislative, and 

regulatory development efforts necessary to establish their program. The commenters stated that 

EPA has provided no real world examples to support its time schedule for the development of 

state or regional plans, and must re-evaluate the time frames included in its proposal.

Comment 31: Comment arguing that the time allocated to the States is inadequate for 

developing highly complex state plans and obtaining the approval of state legislatures, and that 

the time allowed between finalization of State Plans and 2020 interim goals is far too short.

Response 31: EPA has considered these comments in finalizing the rule and adjusted several 

deadlines. The final rule preamble discusses the state plan process in section VIII. The different 

state plan approaches are described in section VIII.C of the final rule preamble. State plan 

components and approvability criteria are discussed in section VIII.D of the final rule preamble. 

The state plan submittal and timing process as well as the approval process are all discussed in 

section VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Compliance performance demonstrations are addressed 

in VIII.F of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that the time allocated to the States is inadequate for developing highly 

complex state plans and obtaining the approval of state legislatures, which would likely be 

required by most states given how far afield the rule goes in terms of traditional environmental 

regulation. The commenters also argued that the time allowed between finalization of State Plans 

and 2020 interim goals is far too short, particularly in light of the draconian cuts required in 

many states between 2017 and 2020.

Comment 32: Comment arguing that states do not have sufficient time to draft and implement 

compliance plans due to time required to work with state legislatures, engage neighboring states, 

and implement the public review process that EPA requires, and suggested that the EPA could 

provide states with more time to develop their state plans if it eliminates the interim standards so 

that measures do not have to be in place and enforceable by 2020.

Response 32: EPA is not finalizing interim goals in 2020, and has moved the start date from 

2020 to 2022. EPA has listened to state comments concerning timing issues and addressed them 

in the final rule preamble. In section VIII of the final rule preamble, EPA discusses state plans. 

This includes state plan approaches (VIII.C) and additional considerations for incorporating CO2 

measures into state plans (VIII.I); state plan components and approvability criteria (VIII.D.); 

state plan submittal and timing as well as the approval process (VIII.E); and state plan 

performance demonstrations and compliance (VIII.F). Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble

also covers initial state plan submittal. Additionally, there is a section on resources for states to 
115

consider in developing state plans (VIII.H). EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to 

states and stakeholders and will work closely with states to provide timely assistance and support 

in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable 

state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule.

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

Commenters argued that states do not have sufficient time to draft and implement compliance 

plans. The commenters noted that the proposal requires states to submit plans to EPA by June 30, 

2016, with the possibility of a one-year extension, to demonstrate how they will comply with the 

proposed interim and final CO2 emission rate standards. 79 FR 34,838. If the final rule 

is promulgated by June 1, 2015, as EPA has indicated, see Id., the commenters said this provides 

states with only 13 months to develop their plans. According to the commenters, the 13 months 

between anticipated promulgation of the final rule and the deadline for submittal of a state plan is 

simply not enough time for a state to develop a plan for such a comprehensive and complex 

program that is expected to cover not only jurisdictional sources but all aspects of the electricity 

sector. The commenters pointed out that EPA is requiring states to develop plans that, at the 

least, will be complicated, and, in many instances, will be controversial within the state and may 

require legislation to authorize and fund the appropriate regulatory agencies to undertake the 

needed analyses and develop the requisite regulations. 

The commenters noted that state legislatures simply will not be able to approve state plans that 

have such far reaching impacts on their electricity sectors and economies within 13 months, 

particularly if additional authority must be granted to the state environmental agency or public 

service commission to implement the elements of the plan or where there is resistance to action. 

The commenters said this is compounded by the fact that many state legislatures only meet for a 

few months during the year and still others do not even meet every year. For example, the 

commenters noted that the state legislature of Montana only meets biennially. 

The commenters also stated that the state plan deadline does not provide states with sufficient 

time to engage with neighboring states and resolve issues that may affect the development of 

their state plans. For example, the commenters noted that states will need to coordinate on which 

state receives credit for renewable generation when RE credits have been sold out-of-state.

According to the commenters, states may also wish to develop regional mass-based reduction 

programs and will need time to engage in the needed discussions. 

The commenters further noted that states will need to complete a public hearing as EPA requires, 

and satisfy any state requirements for public comments, hearings and other administrative 

processes. According to the commenters, it likely will take a state several months to facilitate 

public comment on a draft plan, review the comments, and revise its state plan, all before the 

plan can be submitted to EPA, where there will be another round of public review and comment.

Commenters argued that EPA's proposal to allow states to seek a one-year extension of the 

deadline to submit the plan will not provide sufficient relief to states. The commenters noted 

that, under the proposal, states granted a one-year extension would still be required to make an 

"initial submittal" by the June 30, 2016 deadline. 79 FR 34,915-16. The commenters stated that 

the option of making an initial submittal would not alleviate the burden on states to develop a 
116

plan quickly because EPA is proposing that the initial submittal be almost as substantial as a 

final plan. The commenters noted that the "initial submittal" "must address all components of a 

complete plan, including identifying which components are not complete." Id. at 34,915. The 

commenters also noted that the plan should be a "comprehensive roadmap outlining the path to 

completion, including milestones and dates." Id. at 34,915-16. The commenters pointed out that 

states must hold a public hearing on an initial submittal, the same as would be required for a final 

plan. Id. at 34,900, 34,915. The commenters further noted that an initial submittal must be 

approved by EPA, although the commenters said it is unclear from the proposal what standards 

EPA would use to evaluate initial submittals. Id. at 34,916. Based on the requirements for an 

initial submittal, the commenters indicated that it does not appear to be a viable option to allow 

states more time to develop the elements of their final state plan. Further, even if EPA were to 

provide simplified requirements for initial submittals to make it a viable option, the commenters

noted that states taking advantage of this option would then have even less time between 

approval of a final plan by EPA and the 2020 interim standard deadline to implement the 

requirements of the final plan. As a result, the commenters concluded that the ability to submit 

an initial plan would do nothing to alleviate the disruption expected from the interim standard 

requirements. The commenters said EPA could provide states with more time to develop their 

state plans if it eliminates the interim standards so that measures do not have to be in place and 

enforceable by 2020.

Comment 33: Comment addressing several concerns with the CPP, including that the rule calls 

for an unprecedented expansion of power under the CAA to fundamentally reconfigure the 

electricity sector, and CPP's timeline for developing state plans is unreasonable given the many 

implementation obstacles states must overcome. The comment also suggests that the EPA should 

provide states additional time for implementation of the CPP by pushing back the deadline for 

submission of state plans, and that EPA should eliminate the interim goals.

Response 33: In response to this and similar comments, EPA has addressed the commenters 

concerns in the final rule preamble. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean 

Power Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs in 

place and gives utilities more time to plan. This change responds to concerns that the proposed

2020 start date was too soon. This change gives utilities time to make investments in clean 

energy infrastructure. EPA is not finalizing interim goals for 2020. The performance rates are 

phased in over the 2022-2029 interim period, which leads to a glide path of reductions that “steps 

down” over time. The glide path is separated into three steps, 2022-2024, 2025-2027, and 2028-

2029, and also achievable “on average” over the 8-year interim period. States can also decide to 

customize their glide path. In addition to enhancing reliability, these changes provide states and 

utilities with the latitude to consider a broader range of options to achieve the required 

reductions. Regarding state plan submittals and timing, see section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble. Section VIII.E also discusses extensions, modifications, and revisions to state plans. 

Regarding interactions with New Source Review, see section X.A of the final rule preamble. 

Regarding state plan approaches and additional considerations for both single- and multi-state 

plans, see section VIII.C of the final rule preamble. For a discussion of components of a state 

plan, see section VIII.D of the final rule preamble. EPA is not finalizing the interim goals in 

2020. EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022.
117

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

Commenters stated that EPA should amend the proposed rule to address the significant obstacles 

to implementation. The commenters noted that the CPP calls for an unprecedented expansion of 

power under the CAA to fundamentally reconfigure the electricity sector, but gives short shrift to 

the implementation challenges such a radical shift in the regulatory paradigm entails. The 

commenters stated that the CPP's 13-month timeline for developing a state plan does not reflect 

the magnitude of the varied technical aspects, procedural hurdles and political challenges states 

will face in developing state plans. The commenters argued that EPA must provide states with 

additional time and flexibility to enact state laws, coordinate on regional plans and resolve 

interstate emission credit accounting issues, and develop a foundation for a mass-based cap 

system. The commenters charged that EPA has also failed to factor in the insufficient 

infrastructure, New Source Review issues, and reliability concerns that impede implementation 

of state plans. The commenters stated that EPA should resolve as many implementation barriers 

as possible by providing clear guidance and provide states with additional time for 

implementation. 

The commenters stated that the CPP's timeline for developing state plans is unreasonable given 

the many implementation obstacles states must overcome. To begin, the commenters argued that 

state plans will not be created in a vacuum; state plans will be developed within existing state 

legislative and regulatory structures. The commenters stated that EPA must allow states 

flexibility to work within their legislative cycles and rulemaking processes, which can be 

lengthy. The commenters stated that considering the significant impacts of the CPP and the 

CPP's requirements for public participation in the development of state plans, EPA must provide 

states with the time to engaged interested stakeholders. The commenters stated that EPA must 

also factor in the extraordinary coordination the CPP's proposed re-dispatch to NGCC and RE 

units, increased end-use EE and retirement of units would require between state environmental 

regulators and state and regional electricity regulators to ensure electric reliability and credible 

emissions reductions. Finally, the commenters stated that EPA must provide states with time to 

resolve interstate emissions credit accounting issues and negotiate multistate plans.

The commenters stated that EPA's proposal to allow states to seek a 1-year extension of the 

deadline to submit the plan will not provide sufficient relief to states. The commenters explained 

that the CPP's proposal of granting states a 1-year extension would still require states to make an 

"initial submittal" almost as substantial as a final plan by the June 30, 2016 deadline. Further, the 

commenters stated that even if EPA were to provide simplified requirements for initial 

submittals to make it a viable option, states taking advantage of this option would then have even 

less time between approval of a final plan by EPA and the 2020 interim goal deadline to 

implement the requirements of the final plan. As a result, the commenters stated that the ability 

to submit an initial plan would do nothing to alleviate the disruption expected from the interim 

goal requirements. The commenters noted that States submitting a multi-state plan by June 2018, 

to be approved by June 2019, would have only 6 months before the onset of the stringent interim 

goals - a significant disincentive to collaborate on multi-state plans unless EPA eliminates the 

interim goals. 

Commenters stated that EPA should provide states additional time for implementation of the 

CPP by pushing back the deadline for submission of state plans. The commenters also stated 
118

EPA should also eliminate the interim goals that drive the sudden implementation of state plan 

measures in 2020 as well as the early onset of EE in 2017. In support of their request for more 

time, the commenters discussed implementation barriers states must resolve (which are 

summarized elsewhere in this document).

Comment 34: Comment requesting more time to allow for coordination between state 

authorities, environmental agencies, and electricity regulators to address issues such as integrated 

resource planning programs that will have to be revised to account for re-dispatch to NGCCs and 

the imposition of requirements to accommodate new RE generation.

Response 34: Sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble acknowledge the 

timing and planning concerns of many state commenters and the necessary coordination among 

different state and regional bodies. See the Executive Summary in section I.A of the CPP final 

rule preamble. Also see the Overview in section VIII.A of the final rule preamble. Section II.K

of the CPP final rule preamble has a discussion on stakeholder outreach and consultations. Note 

that EPA has not finalized EE and demand side EE as part of the best system of emission 

reduction and associated building blocks. See section V of the CPP final rule preamble for more 

details on BSER. The ability of EGUs to implement BSER is also discussed in section V. 

Section V also addresses measures available because of the integrated electricity system. Section 

V goes into detail on RE, both as it comprises BSER and the building blocks and how it works in 

state plans. A TSD on resource adequacy and reliability is available in the docket for this final 

CPP rule.

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

As part of their request for more time, commenters stated that coordination between state 

authorities, environmental agencies, and electricity regulators is an implementation barrier that 

states must resolve. The commenters noted that the complexity of the CPP will require 

unprecedented coordination between a state’s environmental regulators, electricity regulators, 

electric utilities and other entities that have a direct interest in or are affected by the plan. The 

commenters stated that this coordination is complicated by the fact that many states have

ongoing integrated resource planning requirements for the electricity sector that are disassociated 

from the planning of environmental regulators and the CPP’s deadlines. The commenters noted 

that such states will have to incorporate the integrated planning process into the development of 

the state plan because the state may need to rely upon the integrated planning process to make 

the measures of its state plan enforceable, particularly RE and EE measures. 

The commenters stated, for example, that integrated resource planning programs will have to be 

revised to account for re-dispatch to NGCCs and the imposition of requirements to accommodate 

new RE generation. According to the commenters, many states with existing RPS will need to 

revise their programs to stimulate more RE to displace the fossil generation levels presumed by 

the CPP. The commenters noted that some state programs currently offer utilities alternatives to 

meeting their renewable energy targets, so these programs may be an unreliable indicator of the 

amount of fossil-generation within the state that can be avoided.
119

Comment 35: Comment recommending that the EPA add more time to the state plan deadlines 

for states to engage with the appropriate state agencies.

Response 35: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters recommended that EPA add more time to the state plan deadlines for states to 

engage with the appropriate state agencies to ensure the state plan concepts and other strategies 

for compliance would be deemed approvable before timely and costly actions are enacted or 

adopted as enforceable measures.

Comment 36: Comment supporting the State of Iowa’s comments recommending allowing two 

years, until June 30, 2017 for the development of a state plan.

Response 36: EPA has listened to comments on the rule’s proposed timeline. EPA is not 

finalizing interim goals in 2020. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean 

Power Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs in 

place and gives utilities more time to plan. For a discussion on the final rule state plan 

submittals, approval process, and timing, see sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule is unprecedented in its scope and complexity and as 

such will require significant time for implementation. The commenters argued that one year, 

with a possible one-year extension, is insufficient for the development of a state plan. The 

commenters supported the State of Iowa's comments recommending allowing two years, until 

June 30, 2017 for the development of a state plan. With the extension of the plan development 

period by one year, the commenters said the compliance period should be delayed by one year 

from 2020-2029 to 2021-2030 for the interim goal.
120

Comment 37: Comment recommending that the due date for all states submitting individual or 

multi-state plans be the multi-state plan submittal date of June 30, 2018 given the massive 

resources that will be required.

Response 37: EPA has aligned the single state and multi-state plan submittal deadlines as 

recommended by the commenters. See sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the preamble to the CPP

final rule for a discussion of state plan submittals, the approval process, and timing.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed timeframe for the submittal of state plans is far too 

optimistic considering that this proposed rule is the most complex and comprehensive program 

ever proposed by EPA. The commenters recommended that the due date for all states submitting 

individual or multi-state plans be the multi-state plan submittal date of June 30, 2018 given the 

massive resources that will be required.

Comment 38: Comment stating that preparation of the Arkansas State Plan will take longer than 

the proposed deadlines for plan submittal, recommending that the Final Rule provide more time 

for development of State Plans, and suggesting that if the EPA does not remove or extend the 

time frame for the interim goal, then EPA needs to allow for an extensive assessment of the 

reliability impacts.

Response 38: EPA has not changed the final goal compliance deadline of 2030. EPA did not 

finalize the 2020 interim goal deadline. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final 

Clean Power Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs 

in place and gives utilities more time to plan. For a detailed discussion on state plans, state plan 

components, and timing of submittals, see section VIII of the preamble to the final rule. Section 

VIII.C discusses state plan approaches; section VIII.G discusses additional considerations. 

Section VIII.D of the final rule preamble addresses state plan components and approvability 

criteria. Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble discusses state plan submittals, the approval 

process, and timing for both single- and multi-state plans and for the different state plan 

approaches. Section VIII.F of the final rule preamble describes state plan performance 

demonstrations and compliance. Section VIII.H of the final rule preamble provides resources for 

states to consider in developing plans. Additionally, see section X of the final rule preamble for 

interactions with other EPA programs and rules, including New Source Review. A TSD on 

resource adequacy and reliability may be found in the docket to the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that preparation of the Arkansas State Plan will take longer than the proposed 

deadlines for plan submittal (i.e., June 16, 2016 with the option to extend 1-2 years). The 

commenters stated that the usual timeline to develop a SIP averages 18 months including: 

1. research and development of regulation language;
121

2. internal review of draft language;

3. rulemaking initiation with the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission 

(hereinafter APC&EC);

4. public notice and public comment period;

5. response to comment (time can vary according to comments received);

6. submission of rulemaking packet to Legislative Committees for approval;

7. adoption of rulemaking with APC&EC;

8. development of draft Section 111(d) Clean Carbon Plan;

9. public notice and public comment period;

10. response to comment (time can vary according to comments received); and

11. Submittal of the Plan to EPA. 

The commenters noted that plans including controversial issues or multistate efforts can 

reasonably be expected to take longer. Considering all these steps necessary to develop the state 

plan, and the time for affected sources to meet their obligations under the plan, the commenters

recommended that the Final Rule provide more time for development of State Plans.

Similarly, commenters stated that the time permitted to develop and finalize an appropriate state 

plan is far too short. The commenters stated that the time frame contemplated in the proposed 

rule, including all options for modest extensions of the deadlines, simply does not provide the 

state with any realistic opportunity to develop a state plan, explore regional options and then 

obtain EPA approval for the plan as proposed to begin implementation. The commenters noted 

that if the rule becomes final in June 2015 as is currently proposed, states will then have only 1 

year to develop a state plan. The commenters stated that this is patently inadequate. The 

commenters noted that the development of a state plan will likely require the state's General 

Assembly to draft and pass legislation enabling and authorizing certain aspects of the plan. 

However, the commenters noted that the state's General Assembly will not have the opportunity 

to even consider any necessary complementary legislation until 2017, which is the next regular 

session after the expected date of the final rule. The commenters noted however, that the 

legislation will need to be in place before the state can submit its plan to EPA for approval, 

meaning that the state plan cannot be finalized before mid-2017 at the earliest. The commenters

stated that under the current proposed rule, by the time the legislation can be passed, the state 

will have already missed some of the proposed deadlines for its renewable goals. 

The commenters stated that another reason to avoid premature finalization of a state plan is to 

allow all the pending EPA air rules to be finalized first, so that appropriate economic decisions 

on the future of existing power plants can be made. The commenters stated that the proposed 

changes to different air standards may affect the available run times of EGUs, including both 

coal and natural gas fired units. The commenters noted that economic decisions on the future of 
122

power plants depend heavily on their availability to generate electricity. Accordingly, the 

commenters stated that some EGUs may be shut down, significantly idled, or otherwise unable to 

generate an optimal amount of energy in the near future as a result of air pollution rules. The 

commenters stated that power plants are by their nature long-term investments--the less a plant 

will be available to operate long-term, the less sense it makes to make large investments, 

including costly pollution controls.

For example, the commenters noted that if an aging coal plant cannot be operated economically 

once retrofitted, the end result will be an economic burden that will fall in the first instance on 

those investing in state energy infrastructure and may ultimately be borne by the rate payers. The 

commenters stated that knowing the impact of all the rules and their associated compliance costs 

will greatly aid in efficient resource planning. The commenters stated that in order to develop a 

state plan that properly accounts for EGUs that will continue operation under all pending EPA 

air rules, there must be sufficient time to allow evaluation of all the rules to make sound 

economic decisions before the state plan is finalized and submitted to EPA for approval.

Commenters noted that states may wish to consider and implement a regional approach to 

compliance as permitted under the proposed rule. However, the commenters stated that the 1-

year time frame is simply unrealistic to allow sufficient time to consult with other states to 

determine whether a regional approach is feasible. The commenters stated that any regional 

approach will be complicated and will require consideration of many different issues not present 

in an individual state plan. The commenters stated that the rule as proposed only allows for 2 

years for a regional approach which is not realistic and the time frame should be extended.

Commenters requested that the interim goal be removed, but also suggested that if EPA does not 

remove or extend the time frame for the interim goal, then EPA needs to allow for an extensive 

assessment of the reliability impacts, so that some allowance can be made if compliance with the 

rule would negatively affect electric reliability. The commenters stated that there also needs to be 

a possibility of some additional flexibility to prevent negative reliability impacts due to states 

trying to meet the goals set for them by EPA.

For these reasons, the commenters requested: (1) at least 2 additional years to submit a state 

implementation plan; (2) at least 2 additional years to develop a regional plan; and (3) removal of 

the interim goal timeframe or at least an extension to 2025 with the final goal to be met no earlier 

than 2035; or for a reliability assessment with the possibility of additional flexibility to prevent 

negative reliability impacts.

Comment 39: Comment stating the EPA should set the primary submission deadline for state 

plans at 2 years from the announcement of the final rule rather than the current proposal of 1 

year.

Response 39: The EPA does not agree with the commenters’ recommendation to allow two 

years for the “primary” submission deadline, however, the EPA clarified in the final rule that 

many of what the commenters viewed as major obstacles in making a timely initial plan 

submittal (e.g. passed legislation) is not required in order to be granted an extension until 2018. 
123

In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the 

commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and 

meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 

modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive 

outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and 

support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of 

approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, 

templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that given the complexity of the EPA proposed 111(d) rule for regulating 

carbon emissions at existing power plants, EPA should provide additional time between release 

of the final rule and the initial submission deadline for state plans. The commenters stated that 1 

year will not be enough time for states to digest the final rule, once announced, and effectively 

develop a state plan with the myriad of stakeholders within each state, especially considering 

states may need to work with state legislatures and regulatory organizations within the state to 

develop enforceable mechanisms for implementing a state's plan. The commenters recognized 

that EPA has provided states with the opportunity to request extensions to the state plan deadline 

of 1 and 2 years depending upon whether the state is developing a state-specific or multi-state 

plan, but those extensions represent the bare minimum amount of time that states will need to 

finalize state plans. The commenters stated that the next legislative session for some states will 

occur January through April 2015, which is well before a final rule will be available. The 

commenters stated that following the anticipated June 2015 publication of a final rule, the 

legislature will not meet again for a regular session until January 2017, which is after the initial 

state plan deadline. The commenters noted that states would not have sufficient time to develop a 

state implementation plan should any legislative action be necessary. The commenters noted that 

if states run into complications in developing implementation plans, additional time beyond the 

extension period will be necessary. The commenters stated that EPA should set the primary 

submission deadline for state plans at 2 years from the announcement of the final rule rather than 

the current proposal of 1 year.

Comment 40: Comment recommending harmonization of the 111(d) plan submittal deadlines, 

whether the selected pathway is either state-only or a multi-state or regional approach.

Response 40: EPA has aligned the single state and multi-state plan submittal deadlines. See 

section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan submittals and timing.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
124

Commenters recommended that harmonization of the 111(d) plan submittal deadlines, whether 

the selected pathway is either state-only or a multi-state or regional approach. The commenters

noted that EPA's proposal allows a one-year extension for state-only plans and a two-year 

extension for regional plans. The commenters noted that in all cases, the plan submission 

deadline should be no sooner than two years from EPA's issuance of the final guidelines. The 

commenters stated that allowing for a single two-year deadline not only provides the minimal 

time necessary for state agencies to prepare plans, but also encourages better coordination and 

consideration of a possible multi-state or regional approach.

Comment 41: Comment arguing that the EPA's timeline for implementing the CPP is not 

feasible and should be amended, and recommending that the timeframe for submitting state plans 

should be extended until July 2017 to allow for the necessary state framework to be put in place 

to allow for implementation of state plans.

Response 41: EPA is not finalizing energy efficiency as part of BSER. Energy efficiency may 

be employed as a non-BSER state compliance measure as the commenters suggests. Section VIII 

of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plans. Specifically, section VIII.E addresses state 

plan submittals – both single and multi-state plans – as well as timing.

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

Commenters argued that EPA's timeline for implementing the CPP is not feasible and should be 

amended. The commenters recommended that the timeframe for submitting state plans should be 

extended until July 2017 to allow for the necessary state framework to be put in place to allow 

for implementation of state plans. According to the commenters, the CPP suggests that 

municipals and cooperatives would need to submit to public service commission authority or 

whatever state regulatory body oversees the state's energy efficiency program. The commenters

pointed out that the CPP acknowledges that achieving this type of regulatory oversight may 

require a state to enact special legislation providing a public agency with this authority. The 

commenters contended that EPA's suggested approach is not feasible for Utah relative to the 

proposed timeframe for Utah to submit its state plan and would face daunting legal problems. 

The commenters pointed out that their organization, as a joint action agency, and their members, 

[1] as municipal agencies, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Utah Public Service 

Commission (PSC) for implementation of energy efficiency programs. The commenters also 

noted that their organization does not have residential customer who would be the users of 

energy efficiency programs; consequently, their member utilities implement energy efficiency 

programs for their customers within their municipal service areas. For these reasons, the 

commenters stated it is not feasible for them to submit to PSC jurisdiction, and the commenters

recommended the EPA suggest an alternative pathway to allow for them to utilize Block 4 as a 

compliance measure.
125

Comment 42: Comment arguing that a one-year period of time with possible one-year extension 

is not a sufficient amount of time for development of a comprehensive state plan that includes 

the twelve components required in section 60.5740.

Response 42: In order to address the concern that one year was not enough time for states to 

submit an initial plan the EPA, the EPA clarified in the final rule that many of what the 

commenters viewed as major obstacles in making a timely initial plan submittal (e.g. passed 

legislation) is not required in order to be granted an extension until 2018. In response to this and 

similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the 

EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and meet the first interim 

goal. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and 

stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in form of 

additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans 

within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other 

resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and 

other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated website. 

Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when 

finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. See section 

VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP final 

rule.

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

Commenters argued that a one-year period of time with possible one-year extension is not a 

sufficient amount of time for development of a comprehensive state plan that includes the twelve 

components required in section 60.5740. The commenters recommended that EPA should allow 

two years, until June 30, 2017, for development of state plans, plus a possible one-year 

extension. The commenters recommended that EPA should allow three years, until June 30, 

2018, for development of multi-state plans, plus a possible one-year extension.

Comment 43: Commenters recommending that the EPA consider allowing three years for state 

plan development and two years for state plan approval, similar to the deadlines typically 

allowed under section 110 for other state implementation plans.

Response 43: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ recommendation to allow up to three years 

(with the two-year extension) for submittal of a final plan, however, we do not agree with the 

commenters statement that two years be allowed for the EPA to approve a state plan. Deadlines 

for EPA to act under CAA section 110 allow for EPA to act within 12 months of completeness, 

which is consistent with this rulemaking action. In response to this and similar comments 

regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended 

the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 
126

addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and 

work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, 

training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the 

timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources 

become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal 

agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent 

with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, 

states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a 

discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters were concerned that EPA has not allowed enough time for states to develop and 

submit their section 111(d) state plans. The commenters asked EPA to reconsider the deadline in 

its proposal to ensure sufficient time is available for states to develop their section 111(d) plans. 

In particular, the commenters recommended that EPA consider allowing three years for state 

plan development and two years for state plan approval, similar to the deadlines typically 

allowed under section 110 for other state implementation plans, and asked EPA to adjust the 

compliance deadlines accordingly.

Comment 44: Comments stating that it will be overly burdensome to meet the timeframe by 

which states have to submit their respective compliance plans, recommending that the initial 

single state plan submittal be due at least two years after the final rule, and the complete single 

state plan be due, at the very least, three years after the final rule, and recommending that the 

multi-state plan timeline be extended by an additional year, allowing for a complete plan 

submittal four years after the final rule is issued. 

Response 44: The EPA does not agree with the commenters’ recommendation to allow two 

years for initial plan submission, however, the EPA clarified in the final rule that many of what 

the commenters viewed as major obstacles in making a timely initial plan submittal (e.g. passed 

legislation) is not required in order to be granted an extension until 2018. The EPA is providing 

for up to three years for final plan submittal for both single and multi-state plans. In response to 

this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize their plans and meet the 

first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 

modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive 

outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and 

support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of 

approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, 

templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 
127

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Although the EPA incorporated flexibility in the proposed rule, commenters believed it will be 

overly burdensome to meet the timeframe by which states have to submit their respective 

compliance plans. The commenters recommended that the initial single state plan submittal be 

due at least two years after the final rule, and the complete single state plan be due, at the very 

least, three years after the final rule. Similarly, the commenters recommended that the multi-state 

plan timeline be extended by an additional year, allowing for a complete plan submittal four 

years after the final rule is issued. 

The commenters noted that the proposed rule is broad in scope and raises a large number of 

practical issues related to planning and implementation. According to the commenters, the 

complexities of developing first-time environmental regulations that expand into the domain of 

energy generation, demand-side management (DSM), transmission and distribution, and RTO 

integrated dispatching present potential roadblocks for states such as MO, KS and AR. The 

commenters pointed out that the existing state and regional programs that EPA used as examples 

in its analysis and justification for the proposed rule were initiated under directives and support 

from state specific governors, legislatures, and executive agencies. The commenters noted that 

the issues were developed, debated, and approved under state sovereignty. The commenters said 

they were not programs driven by federal regulation with disregard to the economics or abilities 

of each state.

Commenters stated that obtaining the statutory and regulatory changes that will be necessary to 

develop, implement and enforce a section 111(d) plan will be challenging. According to the 

commenters, a response to this particular section 111(d) plan will be unique in that the proposed 

emission guidelines encourage reaching beyond the source fence line for compliance with the 

standard. The commenters pointed out that such action requires the support of multiple levels of 

state and local government and the cooperation and collaboration of state departments 

responsible for enforcement and implementation, public service commissions, IOUs, municipal 

utilities, electric cooperatives, and RE developers and merchants. The commenters indicated that 

it will be a complicated and time-consuming task.

According to the commenters, the proposed rule is a set of many different proposed rule options, 

and includes both differing state specific emission rates for GHGs and broad outlines for the 

development, submission and implementation of state plans. The commenters noted that their 

company maintains generation facilities in three states and has actively participated in 

stakeholder processes to scrutinize the underlying data in each of the state-specific goals. The 

commenters also noted that state agencies are already reviewing the proposed rule; applying 

alternative approaches, scenarios and options; and requesting that EPA consider extending the 

timeline for state plan submittals. 

If the rule is enacted, the commenters indicated they would likely support an equitable multistate approach that includes MO, KS and AR, at a minimum, as their company has generators in 

each of these states. According to the commenters, each state must formally adopt the state plan 
128

through certain procedures which typically take at least 18 months. The commenters noted that 

an existing multi-state example such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) took 

years to develop a workable solution. In addition, if deemed appropriate, the commenters

indicated it will take additional time to develop a robust cap and trade framework.

Comment 45: Comment advising, at a minimum, an extension to the interim period to allow 

states and affected entities the time needed to implement the complex compliance plans that will 

be required to comply with the rule

Response 45: The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs in place and gives utilities 

more time to plan. For information on single state and multi-state plan submittals, the approval 

process, and timing of submittals, see sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the overall timeline provided for the states to develop, submit, and 

comply with the SIP is too restrictive. The commenters noted that section 111(d) (1) says that a 

procedure similar to that of section 110 should be developed for SIP submittals, and section 

110(a) (1) provides for up to 3 years for the states to develop and submit a SIP. The commenters

stated that given the complexity of the SIP necessary to implement these guidelines, the states 

should be given the full 3 years to submit the SIP. 

The commenters argued that states should also be given more time to implement the SIP. The 

commenters noted that the proposal calls for compliance assessments to begin in 2020, which 

would require affected entities to need to begin compliance measures even before the SIP would 

become final. The commenters argued that compliance activities should never be required to 

occur until after a SIP is final. The commenters advised, at a minimum, an extension to the 

interim period to allow states and affected entities the time needed to implement the complex 

compliance plans that will be required to comply with the rule.

Comment 46: Comment stating that the EPA should provide states and tribes with three years to 

develop plans and begin compliance activities two years after all state and tribal plans are 

approved by EPA.

Response 46: The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs in place and gives utilities 

more time to plan. For information on single state and multi-state plan submittals, the approval 

process, and timing of submittals, see sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

EPA is setting performance standards for tribes with affected EGUs (Navajo, Fort Mojave, and 

Ute (Uintah)) – see section VII of the CPP final rule preamble. However, tribes are not subject to 

the deadlines applicable to state action under the final rule emission guidelines but are addressed 

further in the proposed Federal Plan which is coincident with this final rule.
129

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

Commenters stated that EPA should provide states and tribes with three years to develop plans 

and begin compliance activities two years after all state and tribal plans are approved by EPA.

Comment 47: Comment recommending that the EPA grant states at least 3 years to submit their 

plans for implementing the agency's final guidelines.

Response 47: The EPA is allowing up to three years (including extension) for the submittal of a 

final state plan. In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E.2 for a discussion on state plan submittal and timing in the 

preamble for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters stated that the existing source proposal imposes unreasonable and unlawful burdens 

on the states by failing to provide sufficient time to prepare and submit plans. The commenters

noted that simply digesting the proposal to determine what is or is not allowed, what measures 

can or cannot be counted towards achieving required reductions, etc. will take an extraordinary 

amount of time, given the proposal's complexity. In addition, the commenters noted that many 

states will have to draft and pass enabling legislation, as well develop and implement entirely 

new regulatory programs in advance of the proposal taking effect. 

The commenters stated that EPA should provide states with more time to develop their plans for 

implementing the final guidelines promulgated by EPA. The commenters stated that the current 

timeline is simply too restrictive for states to generate the comprehensive frameworks necessary 

for achieving compliance with this extraordinarily complex proposal. The commenters stated that 

section 111(d) specifically refers to section 110 as a model for the adoption of state 

implementation plans addressing emissions from existing sources in a category. The commenters

noted that section 110 allows states up to 3 years after promulgation of a NAAQS to submit state 

implementation plans. According to the commenters, this period of time appropriately reflects 

the complexity of determining how to obtain the required emission reductions and the time 

necessary to adopt the laws and regulations necessary to achieve them. The commenters
130

recommended that EPA grant states at least 3 years to submit their plans for implementing the 

agency's final guidelines.

Commenters requested that EPA extend the timeline for state plan submittals. At a minimum, the 

commenters requested that EPA extend the submittal deadline for the CAA section 111(d) plan 

to three years following final rulemaking in parallel with the requirements for state 

implementation plans submitted under CAA section 110. The commenters recommended that the 

multi-state plan timeline be extended to four years after final rulemaking. 

The commenters noted that climate change and carbon dioxide regulation are contentious topics, 

and obtaining the statutory and regulatory changes that will be necessary to develop, implement, 

and enforce a section 111 (d) plan will be challenging for several states, including Kansas. The 

commenters stated that this 111(d) plan will be unique in that the emission guidelines encourage 

reaching beyond the source fence-line for compliance with the standard. The commenters 

indicated that such action requires the support of multiple levels of state and local government 

and the cooperation and collaboration of the commenters' department, Kansas Corporation 

Commission, investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, and wind 

developers and merchants. The commenters said a multi-state plan introduces further complexity 

with interstate issues. Simply put, the commenters indicated it will be a complicated task.

Commenters requested that take into account realistic planning and use its discretion in changing 

the compliance deadlines to the following: 

State compliance plans should be due 3 years after promulgation of the final Section 111(d) rule

A 1-year extension (or 4 years total) for individual state compliance plan submittals should be 

allowed in the final Section 111(d) rule.

A 1-year extension (or 5 years total) for multi-state compliance plan submittals should be 

allowed in the final Section 111(d) rule.

The compliance obligation for the first phase of the final rule should not begin until at least 5 

years from the date that EPA approves a state's implementation plan.

The commenters recommended that states be allowed to extend compliance schedules based on 

the ability to install control measures, cost of compliance, impacts on reliability, and other 

relevant factors through procedures established in the state's compliance plan.

Commenters requested that EPA extend the timeline for state plan submittals. At a minimum, the 

commenters requested that EPA extend the submittal deadline for the CAA section 111(d) plan 

to three years following final rulemaking in parallel with the requirements for state 

implementation plans submitted under CAA section 110. The commenters recommended that the 

multi-state plan timeline be extended to four years after final rulemaking. 

Comment 48: Comment stating that 1 year is inadequate for most States, supporting the 

allowance of an additional year, and stating that in the case of a multi-state plan where there is 
131

collaboration between States and state legislating action will almost certainly be necessary, 3 

years (or by 2018) is not an achievable time frame.

Response 48: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The final rule 

clarifies that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by 

states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. States have the flexibility to alter plan 

components after the initial submittal is approved. To help facilitate the timely development of 

approvable plans, the EPA will continue its extensive outreach to states and work closely with 

them on the need for additional tools and guidance. In addition, concurrent with this final rule 

EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states or multi-state 

plans may wish to use to facilitate the development of their plans. Given the above EPA is 

confident that approvable individual and multi-state plans can be developed within the 

timeframes set out in the rule. EPA addresses these comments on the timing of state plan 

submittals in section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble. Specifically, in section VIII.E, EPA

discusses state plan submittals, including single and multi-state plans, as well as the approval 

process and timing. 

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

Commenters stated that the schedule laid out in the proposal may not provide enough time to 

fully develop a state plan. The commenters noted that States must decide by June 2016 whether 

to participate in a multi-state plan; however, it seems highly improbable that two or more States 

will be prepared to commit to a multi-state plan in such a short time frame given the long lead 

times needed for reaching consensus on commitments of this level. The commenters stated that 

the evaluation of the rule itself and determination of individual state impacts will take a 

significant amount of time during the first year. Following that, the commenters stated that 

modeling and negotiations will be necessary to determine the merits and feasibility of a multistate plan. If a multi-state plan is ultimately decided on, the commenters stated that it would 

almost certainly require state legislative action that, at a minimum, would add 1 or more years to 

the process. The commenters stated that in the instance where one of the States has a biennial 

legislative schedule, this would likely take a minimum of 3 years. 

The commenters stated that even if a state decides to develop an individual state plan, the 

schedule is challenging. The commenters noted that depending on the commitments the USEPA 

will require in the state plan, it may be necessary to develop enabling state legislation. The 

commenters stated that given the June 2015 to June 2017 time frame (with an assumed one-year 

extension), it is very unlikely that submittal of a complete state plan is possible. The commenters

noted that much like the federal process, in Michigan, an EPA rule must first be evaluated, input 

from a stakeholder process gathered, and a public comment process met. The commenters noted 

that this shortens the available time frame by 6 months or more. The commenters provided a 

flow chart presenting the "Current Steps to Promulgate Michigan Air Rules." The commenters

stated that this process takes a minimum of 18 months and is based on the assumption that the 
132

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has enabling legislation to develop the 

appropriate rule(s). The commenters stated that the EPA must reconsider the time line for the 

development of state plans. The commenters stated that 1 year is inadequate for most States, and 

supported the allowance of an additional year. The commenters stated that in the case of a multistate plan where there is collaboration between States and state legislating action will almost 

certainly be necessary, 3 years (or by 2018) is not an achievable time frame.

Comment 49: Comment suggesting that the EPA should grant a minimum of 3 years to develop 

the state implementation plans.

Response 49: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. See section V 

of the final rule preamble on the Best System of Emission Reduction and Associated Building 

Blocks and section VI of the final rule preamble on Source Category-Specific CO2 Emission 

Performance Rates. Section VII of the final rule preamble covers Statewide CO2 Emission 

Performance Goals. In section VIII.E, the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plan submittal 

and timing. Section VIII.D of the final rule preamble covers state plan components and 

approvability criteria. Sections VIII.G and VIII.I of the final rule preamble address additional 

considerations for state plans, while section VIII.H looks at resources for states to consider in 

developing plans. Section VIII.F of the final rule preamble covers state plan performance 

demonstrations and compliance.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's Clean Power Plan is a multifaceted, complicated rule with 

detailed concepts and theories that must ultimately be implemented on a state level. The 

commenters noted that in order to submit state plans, state regulators and their stakeholders will 

need ample time to interpret and understand the requirements and targets in this proposal which 

is neither feasible nor realistic given the schedule that EPA has proposed (e.g., final rule by June 

2015 and State plans submitted by June 30, 2016). The commenters stated that there are still 

significant questions that remain unanswered and assumptions that remain unexplained regarding 

this proposal, and the EPA even sensed there was a need for additional information by issuing a 

NODA and supplemental data in the midst of the rule's comment period. 

The commenters stated that the EPA should seriously consider the task that has been set before 

the states which are already functioning with limited resources to complete the day-to-day tasks 

at hand. The commenters noted that the process to devise a state plan, obtain approval from EPA, 

and adopt the requirements in state regulations is a lengthy one. The commenters noted that the 

EPA has granted the states only a year to do so with an opportunity for a 1-year delay (two years 

for a multistate plan). The commenters stated that EPA has repeatedly emphasized the fact that 

states will be granted flexibility to design a program to meet its goal. However, the commenters
133

noted that EPA has presented state specific rate-based targets that must be met within a specified 

timeframe and mass-based targets that are difficult to interpret and understand. The commenters

noted that the complexity of the Clean Power Plan will play a significant role in implementation. 

Historically, the commenters stated that environmental regulations that are difficult to interpret, 

enforce and implement have created multiple challenges for states and ultimately results in 

delays in implementation.

The commenters stated that EPA mentions in the proposal that an approvable state plan is one 

that includes "a projection of CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs under the plan. In 

addition a state plan that is using a mass-based goal in determining the required level of emission 

performance under the plan will include a translation of the rate-based emission goal in the 

emission guidelines to a mass-based goal. This translation will involve a projection of CO2 

emissions from affected EGUs during the initial 2020-2029 plan performance period and in 

2030, under a scenario that assumes the rate-based goal in the guidelines is met."

The commenters stated that EPA is very specific about what should be included in the state plan 

but yet it is stated numerous times that states will have flexibility in developing their plans. The 

commenters stated that EPA is also assuming that states have the available resources to make 

these performance projections. The commenters stated that some of the tools that may be used in 

these projections are historical data and dispatch modeling.

The commenters suggested that the EPA should grant a minimum of 3 years to develop the state 

implementation plans and should provide as much flexibility as possible to state regulators to 

determine appropriate reduction strategies to be counted towards compliance. Most importantly, 

the commenters suggested that the EPA should allow the decision-making and the implementing 

procedures to be at the discretion of the states. Because this is likely to be a significant endeavor, 

the commenters stated that EPA should afford states and regulated entities adequate time to 

study, consider, comment on, and implement guidelines and state plans.

Comment 50: Comment stating that EPA's proposed 1- and 2-year extensions would allow far 

too little time for states and other entities to meaningfully study, model, negotiate, and formulate 

state plans that will achieve EPA's goals without leading to unacceptable impacts on ratepayers, 

transmission, and reliability, and suggesting that the EPA should allow states at least 3 years to 

submit interim single-state plans, with an additional year if necessary. Also, comment suggested 

that States that choose a regional approach should be given at least 4 years, with an additional 

year if necessary.

Response 50: The EPA does not agree with the timeframes proposed by the commenters for the 

submittal of an initial and final. However, the EPA agrees that individual states should have 

more time to develop plans and has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final 

rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 

addition, the EPA also clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be 

readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. To help facilitate the 
134

timely development of approvable plans, the EPA will continue its extensive outreach to states 

and work closely with them on the need for additional tools and guidance. EPA discusses 

comments on timing in the executive summary of the final rule and the overview of section VIII

of the final rule preamble. Source category-specific emission performance rates are found in 

section VI of the CPP final rule preamble. In Section VII, statewide CO2 emission performance 

goals are described, whereas information on state plans is found in section VIII of the CPP final 

rule preamble. Specifically, sections VIII.B and VIII.C describe state plan performance periods 

and approaches, respectively. Section VIII.E addresses state plan submittals, both single- and 

multi-state, and timing.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed timetable for state plan submission -- even with EPA's 

proposed 1- and 2-year extensions -- would allow far too little time for states and other entities to 

meaningfully study, model, negotiate, and formulate state plans that will achieve EPA's goals 

without leading to unacceptable impacts on ratepayers, transmission, and reliability. The 

commenters stated that in light of the many issues stakeholders have identified with the Proposed 

Rule, it is expected that EPA will significantly change its goal-setting approach when it issues a 

final rule in June 2015. Therefore, the commenters noted that states will be unable to begin the 

planning process in earnest until after EPA has issued a final rule. The commenters stated that if 

the final rule resembles the current proposal, it will inevitably require states to undertake the 

extremely complex and time-consuming process of developing a state plan and applying 

performance standards to all affected EGUs within the state. In addition, the commenters noted 

that many states may enter into negotiations with neighboring states to develop a regional 

implementation plan. The commenters stated that development of appropriate state and regional 

plans will require the coordination of multiple state environmental agencies, state electricity 

regulators, federal reliability organizations, industry stakeholders, and consumer and 

environmental groups. The commenters stated that these groups and organizations will need 

significant time to study EPA's final rule, to model the potential economic and electric sector 

impacts of the rule, to negotiate over the terms of a state or regional approach, and then to submit 

the approach to state governments for approval. The commenters stated that each of these steps 

will take months at the very least. In addition, the commenters noted that because many state 

legislatures are part-time legislatures, short legislative schedules and public notice and approval 

procedures could further delay consideration of proposed state plans. For example, the 

commenters noted that South Carolina's legislature meets for less than half of every calendar 

year, and changes to environmental regulations require board approval and notice to the 

legislature before those regulations can become law. The commenters stated that consequently, 

EPA's proposal that final state plans would be submitted no later than 2017 (for single-state 

plans) or 2018 (for regional plans) is neither realistic nor feasible for South Carolina and most 

other states. The commenters stated that EPA should allow states at least 3 years to submit 

interim single-state plans, with an additional year if necessary. The commenters noted that States 

that choose a regional approach should be given at least 4 years, with an additional year if 

necessary.

Commenters argued that states should have more time to develop their state plans and suggested 

that, at a minimum, the deadline for state plan submission deadlines should be extended until at 

least three years after issuance of a final rule (that is, a June 2018 deadline if a final rule issues in 
135

June 2015). The commenters supported adoption of EPA's proposal to allow additional time to 

submit final, complete plans if appropriate, which now is proposed as an additional one-year 

extension for individual state plans and a two-year extension for multi-state plans. 

Comment 51: Commenters noted that state plan submission deadlines should be extended so 

that states will not be required to submit their initial state plans until at least three years after 

issuance of a final rule such that a single state could obtain an extension to four years, and a 

multi-state plan could obtain an extension to five years from the issuance of the final rule to 

submit a final plan

Response 51: The EPA does not agree with the timeframes proposed by the commenters for the 

submittal of an initial and final plan. However, the EPA agrees that states should have more time 

to develop plans and has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. . 

In addition, the EPA also clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to 

be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. To help facilitate 

the timely development of approvable plans, the EPA will continue its extensive outreach to 

states and work closely with them on the need for additional tools and guidance. For a discussion 

on the timing of state plan submittals, see section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that providing states with only one year (with the possibility of a one-year 

extension at EPA's discretion) to develop and promulgate rules for the implementation of a 

single-state program is inadequate. Commenters noted that the Proposed Rule sets an ambitious 

schedule for the submission of state plans, and as a general matter the current schedule does not

appear to provide states with sufficient time to (1) pass enabling legislation (where necessary) to 

implement the applicable emissions rate goals at the state level, and (2) develop adequate 

institutional arrangements and a portfolio of programs for achieving the emissions reductions 

through federally enforceable requirements. 

Commenters stated that there is no legal requirement for EPA to impose any specific state plan 

submission deadline. Commenters stated that EPA's own implementing regulations provide the 

agency with discretion in setting a reasonable time frame for the submission of effective 

implementation plans under section 111(d) of the CAA. In light of this substantial discretion, the 

commenters urged EPA to defer to states on the establishment of reasonable plan submission 

deadlines that strike an appropriate balance between expeditious implementation of the section 

111(d) program without imposing unrealistic demands on states in the development of 

comprehensive plans for transforming their electric power systems. Commenters noted that in so 

doing, the state plan submission deadlines should be extended so that states will not be required 

to submit their initial state plans until at least three years after issuance of a final rule. 

Commenters stated that with a three-year window to submit approvable plans, then the 

submission deadline would be three years from the EPA's issuance of a final rule (i.e., June 
136

2018, if EPA issues a final rule as scheduled, in June 2015). In addition, the commenters

supported EPA's proposal to provide the option of additional time to submit final, complete plans 

if appropriate (such as an additional one-year extension for individual state plans and a two-year 

extension for multi-state plans); thus, a single state could obtain an extension to four years, and a 

multi-state plan could obtain an extension to five years from the issuance of the final rule.

Commenters argued that the proposed timeline of one year to develop a section 111(d) state plan 

is unreasonable given the proposed rule's complexity and the collaboration that needs to take 

place. While the EPA may grant a one- or two-year extension in certain circumstances, the 

commenters stated that a three-year timeframe for all states to submit a section 111(d) plan is 

more realistic and removes the time that the states would need to develop and submit an 

extension request. 

Commenters stated that developing a section 111(d) state plan will be like developing a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) in terms of its scope. Commenters indicated that both processes 

require significant time and resources. According to the commenters, both require 

communication and coordination among various stakeholders, including the regulated 

community, concerned citizens, local officials, the EPA Regional Office Staff, and possibly 

neighboring state officials, as well as their respective EPA Regional Office Staff. Commenters

said that developing the section 111(d) plan will also require close coordination among many 

state government agencies. Commenters pointed out that, unlike the section 111(d) process, the 

SIP development process is well defined with many examples of prior SIPs, existing EPA 

guidance, and well-understood expectations. Commenters noted that the CAA requires states to 

develop an ozone nonattainment SIP within 36 months after the EPA officially designates an 

area as non-attainment. Before that, the commenters noted there can be one to two years of data 

analysis and state recommendations to the EPA on attainment status before the official the EPA 

designation. The commenters said this "extra time" provides the state air agencies an additional 

time period to lay the ground work for SIP development prior to the "official" three year SIP 

development timeline. According to the commenters, because Idaho has two NGCC EGUs and 

no coal-fired EGUs, Idaho's only option to meet its assigned goal as set in the proposed rule is to 

implement EE and RE measures. Commenters indicated it will take significant collaboration 

amongst government agencies to arrive at suitable EE and RE measures. Commenters then 

noted it must be determined how to make these measures enforceable, measurable and verifiable. 

Moreover, if a multi-state plan looks feasible, the commenters then noted there would be 

additional communication and coordination with other states, all of which would take a 

considerable amount of time.

Comment 52: Comments requesting giving states until three years after promulgation to submit 

their initial state plans.

Response 52: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 
137

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. EPA has 

aligned the single- and multi-state plan submittal dates. Section VIII of the CPP final rule 

preamble addresses state plans. Specifically, section VIII.A begins with an overview that 

addresses many of the commenters concerns. Sections VIII.B and VIII.C cover state plan 

performance periods and state plan approaches. Section VIII.D lays out the state plan 

components and approvability criteria. Section VIII.E discusses submittal of state plans, the 

approval process, and timing. Section VIII.F talks about performance demonstrations and 

compliance while section VIII.I describes additional considerations for incorporating CO2 

emission reduction measures in state plans. Section VIII.H provides resources for states to 

consider in developing state plans. EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022. EPA did 

not finalize demand side energy efficiency as part of building block 4, as discussed in the CPP 

final rule preamble section V. However, demand side energy efficiency may be used by a state as 

a non-BSER compliance measure.

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

Commenters argued that the CAA provides EPA with broad authority to extend the plan 

submission deadlines, and requested giving states until three years after promulgation to submit 

their initial state plans.

Commenters noted that the proposed rule requires states to submit detailed plans demonstrating 

that they will meet their state-specific interim goals over the interim compliance period (2020-

2029) and that they will meet their final goals over the final (2030-2032) compliance period and 

beyond. The commenters further noted that states may also join together into multi-state groups 

to implement a coordinated multi-state plan that meets a blended goal for all states in the group. 

Commenters also noted that EPA proposes to give states until June 30, 2016 (13 months from the 

final rule's issuance) to submit their plans, with the possibility of a one-year extension until June 

30, 2017. By contrast, the commenters noted that states developing multi-state emissions 

reduction plans are eligible for an extension of up to two years, until June 30, 2018. 

As a general matter, the commenters supported the proposed two-track approach whereby 

additional time is provided to those states that commit to a multi-state implementation plan. The 

commenters stated that development of a multi-state plan will likely be an extremely complex 

and time-consuming process. According to the commenters, participating states will have to 

negotiate a multi-state regulatory framework as well as develop and enact in law detailed rules 

for implementing that regulatory framework. However, as discussed below, the 

commenters believed the proposed time schedule provides insufficient time for the development 

of both single-state and regional implementation plans.

Commenters pointed out that development of appropriate state and regional plans will require the 

coordination of multiple state environmental agencies, state electricity regulators, federal 

reliability organizations, industry stakeholders, and consumer and environmental groups. 

Commenters indicated these groups and organizations will need significant time to study EPA's 

final section 111(d) rule, to model the potential economic and electric sector impacts of the rule, 

to negotiate over the terms of a state or regional approach, and then to submit the approach to 

state governments for approval. Commenters said each of these steps will take months at the very 

least. Commenters also noted that additional time is necessary given that states will most likely 
138

have to establish an entirely new regulatory framework to implement the applicable emissions 

rate goals at the state level. Among other things, the commenters said states will need extra time 

to:

• Pass enabling legislation for establishing new state requirements, such as renewable 

energy (RE) standards and end-use energy efficiency (EE) measures;

• Construct the institutional arrangements between the universe of regulators (such as 

public utility commissions, environmental regulators, state energy offices);

• Obtain jurisdiction in the appropriate regulatory bodies non-state jurisdictional entities, 

such as municipal utilities and rural cooperatives;

• Institute carbon-driven resource planning and dispatch that meet EPA's criteria for federal 

enforceability; and

• Develop a portfolio of programs for achieving the emissions reductions through federally 

enforceable requirements.

Finally, the commenters pointed out that EPA has considerable discretion in setting a reasonable 

time frame for the development and submission of an effective implementation plans under 

section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). Commenters noted that the statute does 

not prescribe any specific deadlines by when states must submit their section 111(d) plans to 

EPA; nor does the Act impose any deadline by which EPA must approve or disapprove a plan.

For these reasons, the commenters believed that EPA should use its discretion to set extended 

timeframes for states' submission of their section 111(d) plans given the complexity and 

difficulty of the state implementation process. Specifically, the commenters recommended that 

EPA extend the deadline for the submission of the initial state section 111(d) plan until three 

years after issuance of a final section 111(d) rule (i.e., June 2018 if EPA issues a final rule, as 

scheduled, in June 2015). As suggested in the EPA proposal, the commenters also indicated that 

states should have additional time for their submitting the final, complete plans, with an 

additional one-year extension for individual-state plans and a two-year extension for multi-state 

plans. Commenters further suggested that EPA's proposed compliance deadlines for affected 

fueled electric utility generating units (EGUs) and other regulated entities would also have to be 

extended to reflect the additional time provided to states for the development of their section 

plans.

Commenters argued that states should have more time to develop their state plans and suggested 

that, at a minimum, the deadline for state plan submission deadlines should be extended until at 

least three years after issuance of a final rule (that is, a June 2018 deadline if a final rule issues in 

June 2015). The commenters supported adoption of EPA's proposal to allow additional time to 

submit final, complete plans if appropriate, which now is proposed as an additional one-year 

extension for individual state plans and a two-year extension for multi-state plans. 

The commenters stated that providing states with only one year (with the possibility of a oneyear extension at EPA's discretion) to develop and promulgate rules for the implementation of a 
139

single-state program is inadequate. 79 FR 34838. The commenters argued that the proposed rule 

sets an overly-ambitious schedule for the submission of state plans that does not provide states 

with sufficient time to (1) pass enabling legislation (where necessary) to implement the 

applicable emissions rate goals, and (2) develop adequate institutional arrangements and a 

portfolio of programs for achieving the emission reductions within the proposed timeline for 

compliance.

The commenters contended that EPA is not required by statute to impose any specified state plan 

submission deadline. Quite the opposite, the commenters said EPA's regulations provide 

discretion in setting a reasonable time frame for the submission of effective CAA section 111(d) 

implementation plans. The commenters urged EPA to exercise its discretion by giving states a 

say in what would be reasonable submission deadlines that strike an appropriate balance between 

expeditious implementation of the target goals and adequate time for states and other 

stakeholders to develop comprehensive implementation plans.

Given the complexity and time required to develop new state regulations and/or negotiate 

agreements with neighboring states, commenters suggested that states be given up to three years 

after final guidelines have been promulgated to allow for adequate development of state plans. 

Commenters believed that three years for the development of plans with such complexity is not 

unreasonable. In lieu of three years, the commenters suggested a phased approach could be 

utilized. In addition, the commenters recommended that consideration be given to allowing for 

flexibility in developing state plans with extended compliance deadlines, like those utilized in the

Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. Commenters said this would allow for the recognition of 

existing investments in pollution control technologies and other major investments previously 

approved by Public Service Commissions or State agencies. Commenters said this would also 

recognize the time necessary to transition existing generation fleets so as to minimize financial 

impacts to electric customers and/or assure reliability of the electricity supply.

Comment 53: Comment stating that the EPA, in its final regulations, must allow time to 

implement modifications to PA's existing Act 129 EE programs, including new EM&V protocols 

and tracking mechanisms.

Response 53: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. In addition, to help facilitate the timely development of approvable plans, the EPA 

will continue its extensive outreach to states and work closely with them on the need for 

additional tools and guidance, including EM&V protocols. . Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble addresses state plan submittals and timing.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
140

Commenters stated that EPA, in its final regulations, must allow time to implement 

modifications to PA's existing Act 129 EE programs, including new EM&V protocols and 

tracking mechanisms. Commenters noted that PA's Act 129 program employs a State-Wide 

Evaluator (SWE) that independently audits and verifies EDC compliance with Act 129 

requirements. Commenters stated that the SWE serves as a third party verifier and auditor of 

EDC compliance and makes recommendations to the PAPUC at the conclusion of each phase of 

the program. Commenters noted that the SWE engages with the PAPUC, EDCs and EE 

providers in the development of EM&V protocols. Commenters stated that Act 129 EM&V 

protocols are currently developed to track incremental energy efficiency that occurs during a 

program phase attributable to that program. Commenters noted that baseline standard equipment 

electric use changes during each phase of the Act 129 program. However, the commenters said 

the baseline standard equipment for the EPA proposal would remain constant at the 2012 market 

penetration assessment. 

Commenters have determined that new EM&V protocols will need to be developed, along with 

additional tracking mechanisms, to account for the differences in the equipment baseline in the 

EPA proposal as well as to account for energy savings beyond the Act 129 program. 

Commenters stated that EM&V protocols will also have to be modified to include savings 

obtained from the electric cooperatives and municipal electric authorities if those entities 

participate. In addition, the commenters said new tracking mechanisms will have to be developed 

to track savings associated with building code changes and savings from equipment required to 

be utilized under the EPA proposal but are not encompassed within the Act 129 program.

Comment 54: Comment arguing that the proposed rule does not provide enough time for states 

to develop and submit plans for compliance with a statewide emissions rate goal, and 

recommending that the EPA extend the deadline until three years after issuance of the section 

111(d) final rule.

Response 54: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. The EPA also clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed 

to be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. Section VIII of 

the CPP final rule preamble acknowledges the timing and planning concerns of many state 

commenters and the necessary coordination among different state and regional bodies. See the 

Overview in section VIII.A. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan 

submittal, the approval process, and timing. Initial plan submittals, extensions, and modifications 

are also found in this section. EPA decided not to include EE as part of the best system of 

emission reduction and the associated building blocks. For more information on BSER, see 

section V of the final rule preamble. Section V also discusses the ability of EGUs to implement 

BSER. EM&V may be found in section VIII.I of the CPP final rule preamble. Section I.A, the 
141

executive summary for the CPP final rule preamble, includes a subsection on outreach and 

resources for stakeholders. Section II.K of the CPP final rule preamble also has a section on 

stakeholder outreach and consultations. Section IX of the CPP final rule preamble explains the 

steps that the agency has taken to help ensure that this rulemaking does not disproportionately 

impact vulnerable communities. Section VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble covering state 

plan components and approvability criteria addresses state plan hearings. Section VIII.C of the 

CPP final rule preamble addresses state plan approaches including multi-state plans.

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

Commenters argued that the proposed rule does not provide enough time for states to develop 

and submit plans for compliance with a statewide emissions rate goal. Commenters noted that 

EPA proposed to give states until June 30, 2016, (13 months from the final rule's issuance) to 

submit their plans, to demonstrate how they will comply with the proposed interim and final 

CO2 emission rate goals, with the possibility of a one-year extension until June 30, 2017 for 

states developing individual state plans, or a two-year extension, until June 30, 2018, for states 

developing multi-state emissions reduction plans. According to the commenters, if the final rule 

is promulgated by June 1, 2015, the deadline gives states only 13 months to develop their plans. 

Commenters stated that 13 months between anticipated promulgation of the final rule and the 

deadline for submittal of a state plan is not enough time for a state to develop a plan for such a 

comprehensive and complex program. Even with the possibility of a one-year extension of the 

submittal deadline, the commenters noted Utah would still be required to make an "initial 

submittal" by the June 30, 2016, deadline that addresses all components of a complete plan and 

nearly as substantial as a final plan. Commenters argued that this time frame is not reasonable for 

Utah and recommended that EPA extend the deadline until three years after issuance of the 

section 111(d) final rule. 

Commenters noted several reasons why the proposed time schedule provides insufficient time for 

the development of state plans. First, the commenters noted that many elements of the state plan 

are likely to require Utah to change its regulations and policies. For example, the commenters

indicated that to enable the state to take credit for existing and planned energy efficiency 

programs, the Utah Public Service Commission may need to revise its existing evaluation, 

monitoring and verification ("EM&V") requirements to meet the EM&V standards under the 

final rule. Second, the commenters noted that Utah will likely need to adopt new legislation to 

implement the rule. Commenters said the state currently does not have mandatory policies 

requiring utilities to implement energy efficiency programs or develop renewable energy 

resources. In order for the state to get compliance credit for energy efficiency and renewable 

energy, the commenters indicated that new legislation may be required. Third, the commenters

noted that the complexity of the proposed rule will require coordination between the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality, the Utah Public Service Commission, electric utilities, 

end users that are affected by the plan, and neighboring states. For example, the commenters said 

Utah will need to coordinate on which state should receive credit for renewable generation where 

renewable energy has been sold out-of-state. Commenters also noted that Utah's primary electric 

company, PacifiCorp, has service territory that stretches across six states from the intermountain 

west to the west coast. Commenters said PacifiCorp plans and operates its six-state service 

territory on a combined, unified basis. Fourth, the commenters noted that Utah and other states 

participate in a "Multi-State Process" for the allocation of costs and revenues across PacifiCorp's 
142

six states. According to the commenters, the development of a meaningful plan, the allocation of 

costs associated with the plan, and assignment of costs and compliance credits for renewable 

energy generation developed by PacifiCorp, will all need to be recognized, and negotiated and 

incorporated into a new Multi-State Process agreement. Commenters stated that implications of 

PacifiCorp's multi-state planning and operating process are complex and cannot be ignored. 

Finally, the commenters noted that Utah will need to comply with EPA's requirements for a 

public hearing as well as the Department of Environmental Quality's requirements for public 

comments, hearings and other administrative processes related to adopting a new air quality 

regulation. Commenters indicated it likely will take the state several months to facilitate public 

comment on a draft plan, review the comments, and revise its state plan, all before the plan can 

be submitted to EPA, where there will be another round of public review and comment.

Comment 55: Comment arguing that more time is needed for state plan development, approval 

and implementation, suggesting that the EPA should grant states at least three years to submit 

their emission guidelines to EPA, and also recommending that the EPA grant more liberal 

extensions to states when a state can demonstrate that it is making a good faith effort to develop 

its state plan.

Response 55: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. The EPA does not agree that an extension beyond three years to develop a complete 

plan is needed, however, the final rule provides that a state may revise its state plan, and states in 

a multi-state plan may revise their joint plan. The EPA received broad support for allowing states 

to submit modifications to approved state plans and we agree that this is an important aspect of 

this program. Section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plans. Specifically, 

section VIII.C covers state plan approaches, section VIII.D addresses state plan components and 

approvability criteria, while section VIII.E describes the state plan submittal and approval 

process as well as timing. Section VIII.F is on performance demonstrations and compliance. 

EPA understands that states may face unexpected emergencies from time to time. Section VIII 

also addresses reliability, the reliability safety valve, and adjusting a state plan.

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

Commenters argued that more time is needed for state plan development, approval and 

implementation. Commenters believed that EPA should grant states at least three years to submit 

their emission guidelines to EPA, the same amount of time that section 110 allows states after 

promulgation of a NAAQS to submit implementation plans, based on the expected complexity of 

regulatory implementation and infrastructure improvements. Commenters did not agree with 

EPA’s proposal to allow states only about one year from the finalization of the emission 

guidelines to submit their state plans establishing and applying the standards of performance to 

affected facilities in the state. While EPA did propose to allow states up to one year for an 
143

extension or two years for proposals covering multiple states, the commenters argued that these 

time periods are still unrealistic, considering the complexity of implementation and the time 

necessary to adopt the adequate laws and regulations in each state to implement the state plans. 

In addition to the three-year extension, the commenters also recommended that EPA grant more 

liberal extensions to states when a state can demonstrate that it is making a good faith effort to 

develop its state plan. Lastly, the commenters stated that the proposed rule does not offer states 

any flexibility to adjust their goals based on unanticipated circumstances, reduced hydroelectric 

power generation capacity, weather emergencies, environmental mandates, or energy 

emergencies, that would prevent a state or affected facility from complying with its emission 

reduction goals.

Comment 56: Comment arguing that the EPA should provide states with more time to develop 

state plan, and recommending that state plans should be due, at a minimum, 3 years following 

promulgation of the rule.

Response 56: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response to 

this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. Section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble acknowledges the timing and planning 

concerns of many state commenters and the necessary coordination among different state and 

regional bodies. See the Overview in section VIII.A. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble addresses state plan submittals and timing regarding both single and multi-state plans. 

EPA did not finalize demand side energy efficiency as part of building block 4. See section V on 

the building blocks in the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of the best system of emission 

reduction. RE is addressed in section V.E of the CPP final rule preamble under building block 3 

as part of the Best System of Emission Reduction and section VIII talks about how to use RE in 

state plans.

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

Commenters argued that EPA should provide states with more time to develop state plans. 

Commenters recommended that state plans should be due, at a minimum, 3 years following 

promulgation of the rule. Commenters noted that, under the proposed rule, state plans will be due 

to EPA by June 30, 2016, though a one-year extension to June 30, 2017, may be granted if 

justified. Commenters further noted that a two-year extension is possible if Louisiana was to 

collaborate with one or more additional states. Commenters stated that development of 

Louisiana's plan will necessarily entail extensive coordination with the LPSC, SPP, MISO, 

owners/operators of affected EGUs, and other governmental entities. While Act 726 allows 

LDEQ to set CO2 standards for existing EGUs based on "[r]eductions in emissions of carbon 

dioxide that can reasonably be achieved through measures undertaken at each fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating unit," the commenters pointed out it does not provide the department with the 

authority to establish or enforce RE standards or set energy efficiency goals. According to the 
144

commenters, such authority resides with the Louisiana legislature and LPSC. As such, the 

commenters indicated that development of the state plan may prompt or necessitate additional 

legislation. In any event, given that the proposed rule will, by EPA's own admission, increase 

retail electricity prices, the commenters said the entire process will be subject to heightened 

scrutiny and oversight. Once a viable plan has been developed, the commenters stated that 

rulemaking will require an additional 6 months to complete. 

Comment 57: Comment arguing that states need more time to develop section 111(d) state 

plans, stating that the CPP will require a systemic reorganization of the entire electric utility 

industry, and asking the EPA to extend the deadline for submission of the section 111(d) state 

plans to three years from the date of final publication of EPA's Clean Power Plan.

Response 57: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. However, the CPP does not require systematic reorganization of the entire electric 

utility industry as commenters suggest. See the summary of major provisions in the Executive 

Summary of section I.A of the CPP final rule preamble, and also see section III of the final rule 

preamble on rule requirements and the legal basis. Section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble

also addresses legal issues of the state plan process. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble on state plan submittals, the approval process, and timing, including for initial state 

plans and guidance on extensions and modifications. EPA also aligned the submittal deadlines 

for both single- and multi-state plans. EPA did not finalize EE as part of the best system of 

emission reduction and associated building blocks. See section V of the CPP final rule preamble

for information on BSER and also the ability of EGUs to implement BSER. EPA finalized source 

category-specific CO2 emission performance rates and statewide CO2 emission performance 

goals as described in sections VI and VII of the final rule preamble, respectively. Section VIII of 

the CPP final rule preamble acknowledges the timing and planning concerns of many state 

commenters and the necessary coordination among different state and regional bodies. See the 

Overview in section VIII.A of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that states need more time to develop section 111(d) state plans. 

Commenters asked EPA to extend the deadline for submission of the section 111(d) state plans 

to three years from the date of final publication of EPA's Clean Power Plan. Commenters

contended that development of the state plans will likely take longer than EPA's proposed 

deadlines would currently allow because the proposed section 111(d) Clean Power Plan will 

require more fundamental changes to the regulatory framework for the utility industry than any 

prior EPA rulemaking effort. Commenters noted that most EPA rules are relatively simple to 

implement procedurally, even those expected to have a significant impact on a state or an 

industry, because they typically fit well within the established Clean Air Act regulatory scheme. 
145

Commenters also noted that the process of implementing a new EPA rule often requires little 

more than adopting the new rule into the state administrative code, incorporating that rule by 

reference, or perhaps just submitting a delegation request to EPA to allow implementation of the 

federal rules without making any changes to the state regulations at all. Even where a state may 

have the flexibility and discretion to determine the specific emission control strategies needed to 

implement a new EPA emission reduction requirement, the commenters said the state's 

determination is typically based on a familiar analysis of individual emissions sources and the 

cost-effective control technologies available to reduce those emissions at the sources in question. 

According to the commenters, the proposed rule is completely different from any prior EPA 

rulemaking in that it will require a systemic reorganization of the entire electric utility industry. 

Commenters stated that it also includes requirements that could potentially reach beyond the 

industry itself to its consumers--in this case, any business or residence connected to the 

electricity grid. Due to the unprecedented scope of EPA's proposal, the commenters indicated the

Clean Power Plan will require close coordination between state environmental agencies and state 

energy regulators to develop the means to require the type of changes to the electric power 

system that will be needed to achieve EPA's goals to an extent far beyond any prior EPA 

regulation. 

Commenters specifically cited the situation in New Mexico, where the state's environmental 

agency--the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)--will need to coordinate with 

several other state agencies responsible for regulating the production of electricity from the 

state's energy resources, including the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) 

and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD). Without 

such coordination, the commenters said any requirements that NMED seeks to impose could 

conflict with the policies and requirements already established by those other agencies, and the 

opposite may be true as well--without appropriate coordination, the NMPRC and EMNRD could 

enact new policies that would conflict with the steps NMED will need to comply with EPA's 

Clean Power Plan. While certainly past EPA rules have imposed costs on the energy sector that 

required some level of awareness and even approval by the NMPRC and EMNRD, the 

commenters contended that never before have the legal authorities wielded by all three of these 

organizations been so directly involved in the implementation of a new environmental program.

Commenters further contended that even the current legal authority of all three of these 

organizations--NMED, NMPRC, and EMNRD--may not be enough to implement EPA's Clean 

Power Plan. Because of the tremendous breadth of EPA's proposal, the commenters indicated the 

New Mexico legislature may need to enact new statutes or revise existing statutes to grant those 

organizations the authority they will need to require the changes that EPA expects New Mexico 

to make in reducing the carbon intensity of its electricity generators. For instance, the 

commenters indicated that New Mexico may need to revise its existing RPS to ensure that 

sufficient additional renewable capacity and generation are required because NMED does not 

currently have the authority to demand new renewable energy generation. Likewise, the 

commenters noted that current New Mexico law prohibits electric utilities from spending above a 

certain amount to fund the development and implementation of new renewable resources and 

new demand-side energy efficiency programs. As such, the commenters indicated legislative 

action may be needed to allow the state and state utilities to encourage additional renewable 

energy and energy efficiency efforts in the attempt to meet EPA's expectations and requirements. 

In addition, the commenters noted there are some utilities in New Mexico that are not subject to 
146

the jurisdiction of the state's energy authorities (e.g., the City of Farmington), which will present 

additional compliance challenges for the state and likely require new legislative authority to 

resolve. Commenters noted that these legislative actions will take significant time to complete, 

but may be a necessary component of the state's section 111(d) implementation plan.

Commenters noted that EPA has only allowed states that do not engage in multi-state plans up to 

two years after publication of the final rule to complete their implementation plans, and then only 

if the state submits the bulk of its plan within one year. Commenters contended that one year is 

not enough to develop the initial plan that EPA has proposed, nor is two years sufficient to 

complete the entire plan, given all that must happen before a final plan capable of achieving 

EPA's requirements will be complete. Commenters pointed out that EPA itself admits that 

implementing its Clean Power Plan will require "technical work, state legislative and rulemaking 

activities, coordination with third parties, and coordination among states involved in multi-state 

plans,'' but provides no basis for its assumption that all of these activities can be completed 

within the time allowed. Commenters further noted that EPA also provided no justification for 

requiring an "initial plan" in one year, prior to the final plan that even EPA admits will take at 

least two years to complete. Commenters asked EPA to reconsider the deadlines established for 

state plans to allow more time for the unprecedented actions that will be needed before states will 

be able to develop those plans.

According to the commenters, allowing three years for states to submit plans, and two years for 

approval of those plans would be consistent with CAA section 110, which applies to other state 

implementation plans, particularly given that the plans EPA is asking states to submit under 

section 111(d) will be at least as complex as the plans to which section 110 applies. In addition, 

the commenters stated that consistency between the procedures for section 110 and section 

111(d) plans is entirely appropriate because section 111(d) requires EPA to "establish a 

procedure that is similar to that provided by section 110." 

Comment 58: Comment arguing that the EPA has not provided adequate time for states to 

submit plans, recommending that the EPA extend the deadline for state plan submittal to allow at 

a minimum three full years for plan submittal consistent with previous regulatory mandates, and 

additional extensions as necessitated by a state's legislative and rulemaking processes.

Response 58: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan 

submittals and timing. EPA has finalized a compliance date of 2022 rather than 2020 for the 

beginning of the performance period. See section VIII.B in the CPP final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
147

Commenters argued that EPA has not provided adequate time for states to submit plans. 

Commenters recommended that EPA extend the deadline for state plan submittal to allow at a 

minimum three full years for plan submittal consistent with previous regulatory mandates, and 

additional extensions as necessitated by a state's legislative and rulemaking processes. 

Commenters recommended that EPA also consider extending the final 2030 deadline an 

additional 2-3 years as necessitated by the realities of getting an approvable state compliance 

program in place. 

The commenters contended that EPA has not provided adequate time for the states to submit 

state implementation plans. Commenters noted that EPA intends to finalize its proposed 

guidelines in June of 2015, and that states must submit their section 111(d) state plans by June of 

2016, with an opportunity for a possible one year extension. Commenters noted that Indiana's 

utilities, including their own company, have pursued renewable generation and own energy 

efficiency programs, Indiana currently does not have authority in place to implement mandatory 

renewable energy standards or a state energy efficiency program. Assuming that the proposal 

guidelines are final in June of 2015, the commenters noted that the Indiana General Assembly 

meets in 2016 from the second week of January to March 15--only three months before a state 

implementation plan must be submitted to EPA. Commenters contended that this does not allow 

sufficient time for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to develop a 

plan and the legislature sufficient time to pass legislation granting the necessary state authority. 

Once that authority is granted, the commenters said IURC would then likely have to draft new 

regulations to implement the new renewable energy standard and an energy efficiency program. 

Commenters contended that the current timeline, which requires significant reductions by 2020, 

simply does not provide sufficient time to put the necessary regulations in place.

Commenters also noted that the interim target set by EPA requires Indiana to demonstrate 

specific and verifiable emissions reductions each year starting in 2020 through 2029. As these 

interim goals are "front loaded," the commenters indicated they require a substantial percentage 

of the total expected emission reductions to occur in the early years of the interim period, which 

the commenters indicated is virtually impossible to meet without potential significant risks to 

reliability. Commenters pointed out that EPA has recently conceded the possibility that it may 

need to adjust the interim goals and/or final goals in its recent NODA seeking further comment 

on the proposed guidelines.

Comment 59: Comment requesting that the EPA extend the submittal deadline for the CAA 

section 111(d) plan to three years following final rulemaking in parallel with the requirements 

for state implementation plans submitted under CAA section 110, and that the multi-state plan 

timeline be extended to four years after the final rulemaking. 

Response 59: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 
148

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan 

submittal and timing.

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

For the reasons stated in the following paragraph, commenters requested that EPA extend the 

timeline for state plan submittals. At a minimum, the commenters requested that EPA extend the 

submittal deadline for the CAA section 111(d) plan to three years following final rulemaking in 

parallel with the requirements for state implementation plans submitted under CAA section 110. 

Commenters recommended that the multi-state plan timeline be extended to four years after the 

final rulemaking. 

Commenters noted that climate change and CO2 regulation are contentious topics and stated that 

obtaining the statutory and regulatory changes that will be necessary to develop, implement, and 

enforce a section 111(d) plan will be challenging for several states, including Kansas. 

Commenters noted that this section 111(d) plan will be unique in that the emission guidelines 

encourage reaching beyond the source fence-line for compliance with the standard. Commenters

indicated that such action requires the support of multiple levels of state and local government 

and the cooperation and collaboration of KDHE, Kansas Corporation Commission, investorowned utilities, municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, and wind developers and merchants. 

Commenters noted that a multi-state plan introduces further complexity with interstate issues. 

Simply put, the commenters said it will be a complicated task.

Comment 60: Comments stating that the state plan submission deadlines should be extended so 

that states will have at least 3 years after the rule is finalized to submit plans.

Response 60: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. The dates for submitting single and multi-state plans have been aligned, as 

discussed in section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that deadlines for submitting state/multi-state plans should be extended. 

Commenters noted that, following the promulgation of a final rule, states will only have until the 

end of June 2016 to submit their plan to EPA. According to the commenters, the deadlines 

contained in the rule do not give states, utilities, and their customers enough time to pass 

legislation, revise policies, adopt budgets and make necessary generating resource adaptions to 

comply with new mandates without jeopardizing reliable service. Commenters argued that a 

rushed implementation schedule could expose their customers to unnecessary cost increases. 
149

Commenters believed that the state plan submission deadlines should be extended so that states 

will have at least 3 years after the rule is finalized to submit plans. 

Commenters noted that, in the proposed rule, if a state is developing a single-state emissions 

reduction plan, it can seek from EPA a one-year extension to June 30, 2017. Commenters further 

noted that states developing multi-state emissions reduction plans are eligible for a 2-year 

extension, until June 30, 2018. Commenters agreed with the underlying rule as it relates to 

opportunities to seek extension. Commenters believed states should be able to seek an additional 

one-year extension for individual state plans and a two-year extension for multi-state plans.

Comment 61: Comment suggesting that states should be given at least three years to fashion 

their state plans, similar to the typical three years for a criteria pollutant SIP.

Response 61: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response to 

this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year (for a total of three years) the time allowed 

for states to finalize their plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. 

The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. This section addresses state plan 

submittal, EPA’s approval process, and timing.

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

Commenters suggested that states should be given at least three years to fashion their state plans, 

similar to the typical three years for a criteria pollutant SIP. Commenters further noted that, 

while EPA invoked a claim of CO2 "urgency" to invoke a requirement for states to submit 

compliance plans within one year of promulgation, EPA proposed to extend its own review time 

by a factor of three. If EPA requires three times the usual period to review state proposals, the 

commenters said states should have at least the three-year period to fashion them.

Comment 62: Comment recommending that the EPA provide individual states with more than a 

1 or 2-year extension on a case-by-case basis and that this will help to ensure the EPA will not 

have to embark on writing federal plans for a multitude of states

Response 62: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response to 

this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. South 

Dakota’s state goals may be found in section VII of the CPP final rule preamble. The source 

category-specific CO2 emission performance rates are described in section VI of the CPP final 
150

rule preamble. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal, EPA’s 

approval process, and timing.

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

Commenters stated that EPA has proposed a timeline of finalizing this rulemaking on June 1, 

2015, and for states to submit their 111(d) plan by June 30, 2016. Commenters stated that this 

tight deadline was established by the Presidential Memorandum - Power Sector Carbon Pollution 

Standards signed by President Obama on June 25, 2013. Commenters noted that requiring states 

to meet such an aggressive deadline is not realistic. Commenters stated that it is even less 

realistic in South Dakota's case where EPA has proposed one of the most stringent carbon goals 

in the nation. Commenters recommended that EPA provide individual states with more than a 1 

or 2-year extension on a case-by-case basis. Commenters stated that this will help to ensure EPA 

will not have to embark on writing federal plans for a multitude of states.

Comment 63: Comment stating that the EPA has not addressed the particular challenges in the 

West of developing new infrastructure such as transmission lines, and that it is important for the 

EPA to allow the time needed for planning and permitting new energy and transmission projects 

on federal land.

Response 63: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, 

the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the construction of new 

transmission lines to be phased in over time. See section XI of the CPP final rule preamble for a 

discussion of the impacts of this action, including the Endangered Species Act, energy, 

employment, and economic impacts.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA has not addressed the particular challenges in the West of 

developing new infrastructure such as transmission lines. Compared to other parts of the country, 

the commenters stated that utilities in the West have large service territories with unique 

geographical challenges. Commenters noted that federal lands cover vast portions of Utah and 

other Western states, triggering additional planning and permitting requirements under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other laws. 

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposal does not appropriately consider these issues. 

Commenters stated that a defining characteristic of the West is that federal lands cover vast 

portions of many Western states. Commenters indicated, according to the Bureau of Land 

Management (2010), the Federal Government owns 52% of the land area in the Western U.S. In 

Nevada, 83.1% of the land area is federally owned. Utah is 64.5%, Idaho is 62.5% and Oregon is 

52.6% federally owned. Commenters stated that these federal lands are one key to future clean 
151

energy generation and transmission that will enable Western states and companies to achieve the 

goals of EPA's Clean Power Plan. Commenters stated therefore, it is important for the EPA to 

allow the time needed for planning and permitting new energy and transmission projects on 

federal land. Commenters recognized that there are several ongoing efforts of federal land 

managers to address these issues in conjunction with Western states and we reiterate our 

willingness to continue working with EPA and other federal agencies on these important issues. 

Comment 64: Comment stating that the final rule should make it clear that a state qualifies for 

the available extension as long as they are committed to coordinating action with other states, 

that this should include allowing states to pursue a dual-track approach. Comment also asked if a 

state would be penalized if they receive an extension for pursuing a multistate plan, but then the 

agreement falls through and the state has to "go it alone."

Response 64: The final rule clarifies that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed 

to be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. States have the 

flexibility to alter plan components after the initial submittal is approved. The EPA received 

broad support for allowing states to submit modifications to approved state plans and we agree 

that this is an important aspect of this program. In this rulemaking, therefore, the EPA is 

finalizing that a state may revise its state plan, and states in a multi-state plan may revise their 

joint plan. The EPA received broad support for allowing states to submit modifications to 

approved state plans and we agree that this is an important aspect of this program. In this 

rulemaking, therefore, the final rule provides that a state may revise its state plan, and states in a 

multi-state plan may revise their joint plan. Section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble addresses 

state plans, both single- and multi-state. In section VIII.A there is an overview. Section VIII.B 

discusses performance periods and VIII.C contains information on state plan approaches. Section 

VIII.D covers the state plan components and approvability criteria while section VIII.E addresses 

state plan submittals, the approval process, and timing. State plan performance demonstrations 

and compliance are discussed in section VIII.F. Additionally, considerations for state plan 

approaches may be found in section VIII.G and VIII.I, while resources for states to consider in 

developing plans are described in section VIII.H.

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

Commenters stated that the final rule should make it clear that a state qualifies for the available 

extension as long as they are committed to coordinating action with other states. Commenters

stated that this should include allowing states to pursue a dual-track approach - continuing to 

evaluate both multi-state options and single-state options. Commenters stated that finally, EPA 

should provide greater clarity on the documentation requirements and compliance options for 

multi-state and regional plans, including for states to participate in more than one multi-state 

program. 

Commenters asked if a state would be penalized if they receive an extension for pursuing a 

multistate plan, but then the agreement falls through and the state has to "go it alone."
152

Comment 65: Comment stating that under the EPA's existing timeline, data collection and 

analysis will need to be completed within a few months in order to allow for the state to start 

developing its single-state or multi-state implementation plan and that given this, the 

commenters believe that EPA's proposed timeline for plan development and submission is 

unrealistic. Comment recommending that the EPA provide enough flexibility in the compliance 

timelines within the final rules to allow for detailed cost/benefit analyses to be performed.

Response 65: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA also 

clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by 

states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. State plan approaches are discussed in 

sections VIII.C of the CPP final rule preamble. Section VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble 

addresses state plan components and approvability criteria for both single- and multi-state plans. 

The ability of EGUs to implement the best system of emission reduction and associated building 

blocks is discussed in section V of the CPP final rule preamble

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

Commenters noted that EPA has repeatedly stated that it is up to the individual state to determine 

what compliance approach is the most cost effective for its electric customers. Commenters

noted that this suggests that EPA expects states to complete cost/benefit analyses of its potential 

compliance options, then develop a plan that is the most cost effective for the state. Commenters

stated that as based on EPA's own past cost/benefit analyses of various environmental 

regulations, conducting a thorough and detailed cost/benefit analysis is time consuming. Further, 

the commenters stated that given that there are numerous compliance options available within 

the framing of the proposed rules, numerous cost/benefit analyses will need to be completed. 

Commenters noted that in order to complete its cost/benefit analyses, South Dakota will need to 

assess compliance options for a single-state implementation plan while at the same time 

assessing compliance options for multi-state plans. Commenters stated that data collection from 

numerous stakeholders will be required for a detailed analysis. Commenters stated that this 

includes collecting data from IOUs, generation and transmission cooperatives, distribution 

cooperatives, municipal electric providers, independent system operators, and other states. After 

data collection, the commenters stated that a detailed model will need to be built to forecast the 

cost/benefit of potential compliance options in order to provide the state with foundation for its 

decision making. Under EPA's existing timeline, the commenters stated that data collection and 

analysis will need to be completed within a few months in order to allow for the state to start 

developing its single-state or multi-state implementation plan. Given this, the commenters

believed that EPA's proposed timeline for plan development and submission is unrealistic. 

Commenters recommended EPA provide enough flexibility in the compliance timelines within 

the final rules to allow for detailed cost/benefit analyses to be performed. 
153

Comment 66: Comment suggesting that the EPA make the 2-year extension currently available 

for negotiating multi-state plans also available to states that are making good faith efforts to 

finalize single state plans.

Response 66: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans. In response 

to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters 

mention, the EPA has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to finalize their 

plans and extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA also 

clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by 

states that intend to submit an approvable final plan. 

Section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plans – both single and multi-state. 

Specifically, section VIII.E discusses state plan submittals and timing. 

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

Commenters explained that development of a state plan in Colorado will likely involve the 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Air Pollution Control Division 

(APCD), the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the Colorado Energy Office, and 

numerous stakeholders, including the owners and operators of 36 different facilities, as well as 

environmental organizations and other groups. The commenters stated that a number of different 

but related jurisdictions must be considered. 

The commenters explained that, in Colorado, the PUC has exclusive statutory authority to 

regulate the IOUs and associated electric resource decisions. The commenters stated that the 

PUC has established processes that carefully evaluate load forecasts and variations, system 

reliability and costs, while balancing consideration of the public health and welfare. The 

commenters stated that EPA's proposal could directly impact Colorado's existing processes 

governing dispatch and transmission. The commenters stated that while BSER is established 

through the four building blocks, the lack of flexibility (discussed by the commenters elsewhere) 

may require more development of renewable energy and/or DSM than Colorado's existing 

processes would allow. The commenters stated that for example, Colorado's RES includes a 

statutory rate cap (two percent on an individual ratepayer's bill), which could be impacted by 

higher renewable generation if that were a selected option in meeting the state goal.

The commenters stated that, Colorado legislation may be needed to clarify or direct state 

agencies on their respective roles and authorities. The commenters stated therefore, a 1-year time 

frame would not be sufficient. The commenters stated that procedurally, Colorado's state 

legislature requires SIP submittal by no later than January of each year for review during that 

year's legislative session. The commenters stated that the shortest scenario for Colorado's plan 

submittal to EPA would be summer 2017, assuming EPA finalizes the carbon pollution standards 

in June of 2015, Colorado takes only 1 year to formulate and adopt necessary rules, the state 

legislature reviews the plan in the 2017 Legislative Session, and the Governor submits a plan to 

EPA in summer 2017. The commenters stated that in reality, the state plan may not be ready for 

legislative review until 2018. The commenters stated that as a result, the commenters suggested 
154

that EPA make the 2-year extension currently available for negotiating multi-state plans also 

available to states that are making good faith efforts to finalize single state plans.

Comment 67: Comment arguing that the proposed timeframe does not even provide sufficient 

time to draft the initial plan required to request an extended timeframe for submission, and 

requesting that at minimum the following initial draft requirements be deleted from the final rule: 

a description of the plan approach, an explanation of the path to completion, and a summary of 

the state's response to any significant public comment on the approvability of the initial plan.

Response 67: The EPA does not agree. The EPA has clarified in the final rule that requirements 

of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that intend to submit 

an approvable final plan. The EPA has also extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. State plan approaches 

and additional considerations may be found in sections VIII.C and VIII.I of the CPP final rule 

preamble. Components of state plans and approvability criteria are described in section VIII.D of 

the CPP final rule preamble. In section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble, state plan 

submittals and timing are delineated. Compliance and performance demonstrations are discussed 

in section VIII.F of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that the proposed rule does not provide sufficient time for states to pass 

enabling legislation, which will be necessary for many states, including Colorado, that do not 

have the regulatory structure necessary to develop and enforce a statewide plan. To adopt an 

enforceable state plan, the commenters said Colorado will need to pass legislation granting 

regulatory authority over activities within the building blocks and establishing authority over 

traditionally non-jurisdictional utilities. Following the finalization of the proposed rule, the 

commenters noted that the first opportunity the Colorado General Assembly will have to address 

the issue would be the January-May 2016 legislative session. The commenters stated that 

the Colorado General Assembly will be tasked to debate and decide which governmental entity 

has the authority over affected utilities and how the carbon reduction mandates will be achieved. 

Assuming the adoption of such authorizing legislation, the commenters indicated that Colorado 

entities will only begin to draft the state plan by the June 1, 2015, deadline. The commenters

argued that the proposed timeframe does not even provide sufficient time to draft the initial plan 

required to request an extended timeframe for submission. The commenters requested that at 

minimum the following initial draft requirements be deleted from the final rule: a description of 

the plan approach, an explanation of the path to completion, and a summary of the state's 

response to any significant public comment on the approvability of the initial plan.

Comment 68: Comment asserting that the final state emission rate goals and compliance periods 

must consider and accommodate the operational reliability requirements of the interconnected 
155

power system, and that the EPA must be willing to allow states to address these changes (i.e., 

needed to be in compliance) by proposing revised compliance plans as necessary to meet the 

2030 goals.

Response 68: The EPA received broad support for allowing states to submit modifications to 

approved state plans and we agree that this is an important aspect of this program. In this 

rulemaking, therefore, the EPA is finalizing that a state may revise its state plan, and states in a 

multi-state plan may revise their joint plan. The final rule has several measures to ensure that it 

does not interfere with the industry’s ability to maintain reliability. EPA discusses reliability 

concerns and the reliability safety valve in section VIII.I of the CPP final rule preamble. State 

plan submittal and timing as well as the approval process for state plans is found in section 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. EPA has also finalized a process to revise state plans in 

section VIII, as well.

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

Commenters asserted that the final state emission rate goals and compliance periods must 

consider and accommodate the operational reliability requirements of the interconnected power 

system. The commenters stated that as EPA notes, states and electric utilities are in the process 

of transitioning the generating fleet and the transmission system so that it is cleaner and more 

resilient. The commenters stated that achieving the interim and 2030 goals would accelerate this 

transition dramatically and require significant changes to the interconnected power system and 

the way that it operates. The commenters stated however, the proposed state goals and 

compliance period do not account for the complexity of power grid operations adequately, nor 

sufficiently address how the need to maintain reliability affects the pace and timing of 

implementing such changes. The commenters stated that the need to maintain operational 

reliability while undertaking significant changes to the way in which power is generated, 

transmitted and consumed has important implications for EPA's BSER determination, the 

computation of the state-specific emission rate goals and the achievement of the proposed 

interim average goals. The commenters stated that it is essential that these changes be 

implemented in a way that maintains reliability for electricity customers. The commenters stated 

that while EPA does not have the expertise to assess fully the implications of the proposed 

guidelines on the interconnected power system, that does not mean that the Agency can ignore 

the complexity of the electric system when developing state-specific emission rate goals and 

compliance timelines. The commenters stated that rather, EPA should take into account 

information from experts in reliable system operations to develop achievable final goals and a 

workable compliance period that does not jeopardize reliable electric service. The commenters

stated however, all of the reliability studies and information needed to assess the significant 

changes that will be required to achieve the interim and 2030 goals will not be available before 

EPA finalizes the proposed guidelines or even before states are required to submit compliance 

plans for EPA approval. The commenters stated that states, electric utilities, system operators 

and other regulators will need sufficient time to assess the changes that will be required to 

implement the state plans and will need the time required to make the system changes and 

develop the infrastructure needed to implement the state plans and maintain reliability. The 

commenters stated that going forward, EPA must be willing to allow states to address these 

changes by proposing revised compliance plans as necessary to meet the 2030 goals.
156

Comment 69: Comment recommending that the EPA develop a method for updating or even 

allowing a complete replacement of a state plan due to unforeseen issues (e.g., multi-state or 

third party agreements falling apart, extreme weather conditions).

Response 69: The EPA received broad support for allowing states to submit modifications to 

approved state plans and we agree that this is an important aspect of this program. In this 

rulemaking, therefore, the EPA is finalizing that a state may revise its state plan, and states in a 

multi-state plan may revise their joint plan. In section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble, 

EPA has finalized the ability to adjust state plans through plan revisions as a result of certain 

conditions.

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

Commenters recommended that EPA develop a method for updating or even allowing a 

complete replacement of a state plan due to unforeseen issues such as a multi-state or third party 

agreements falling apart, extreme weather conditions, fuel supply shortages, and unforeseen 

economic crisis.

Comment 70: Comment stating that the EPA should build more flexibility into the CPP by 

allowing states to update their state implementation plans during the interim compliance period.

Response 70: The EPA received broad support for allowing states to submit modifications to 

approved state plans and we agree that this is an important aspect of this program. In this 

rulemaking, therefore, the EPA is finalizing that a state may revise its state plan, and states in a 

multi-state plan may revise their joint plan. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for 

a discussion on adjusting state plans.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should build more flexibility into the Clean Power Plan by allowing 

states to update their state implementation plans during the interim compliance period.

Comment 71: Comment recommending that states be given the option to submit an individual 

state plan first within the EPA's suggested timeframe, then be allowed 2 years of additional time 

to submit a multi-state plan or modular agreements, and recommending that states that are unable 

to prepare full plans within that timeframe should be allowed to submit non-binding interim 

plans in exchange for an extra year.

Response 71: See section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this 

comment.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
157

Commenters recommended that the final rule address the situation where states submit an 

individual state plan, but later enter into a modular multi-state plan or agreement. 

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal requires each state to submit a plan which demonstrates 

that it will meet its states' emission performance levels (state-specific interim goals over the 

period 2020 to 2029 and final goals over the final compliance period 2030 to 2032) and beyond). 

The commenters noted that EPA proposes that each state plan contain twelve components which 

would be required to be submitted within 1 year (with the possibility of a 1- to 2-year extension) 

after EPA finalizes its rule. The commenters stated that EPA is also allowing multiple states to 

join such that the individual state performance goals in the emission guidelines would be 

replaced with an equivalent multi-state performance goal. Commenters stated that there are 

advantages to developing multi-state plans (or modular agreements) because the interconnected 

electric grid crosses state borders, and because uncoordinated state-level compliance plans may 

negatively affect the dispatch of the electric system and result in reliability issues. Commenters 

stated that these issues are complex and will take time to address in parallel with a state's 

development of its state plan. The commenters recommended that states be given the option to 

submit an individual state plan first within the EPA's suggested timeframe, then be allowed 2 

years of additional time to submit a multi-state plan or modular agreements. The commenters

stated that this additional time (i.e., a 2-year extension consistent with the EPA's proposal for 

multi-state plans) to develop binding legal agreements and adopt state legislation will likely be 

necessary to implement a multi-state plan or modular agreements.

Commenters stated that the process of developing a plan for reducing emissions from existing 

EGUs in an interconnected, multi-state electric system that is subject to regulation at the local, 

state, and federal levels will take significant time. The commenters noted that state 

environmental regulators, utility regulators, stakeholders, and consumer advocates will need time 

to coordinate their actions and resolve competing state requirements. According to the 

commenters, because state plans will impact generation, transmission, distribution and 

consumption both within the state and in neighboring states, states will also need to consult with 

stakeholders in the private sector, other states, and regional and federal electricity market 

operators, reliability organizations, and transmission regulators. In addition, the commenters

noted because state plans for one state may affect ratepayers in neighboring states, states and 

utilities may need to participate in neighboring states' implementation planning processes at the 

same time that they are participating in their home state's process. Finally, the commenters

indicated that states are likely to initially pursue a hybrid approach in which the state will submit 

a single-state plan that will be predicated on approval of modular multi-state agreements to 

address interstate effects and take advantage of potential multi-state efficiencies.

Consequently, the commenters concluded that the preparation, proposal, adoption pursuant to 

public comment, and submission of state plans, as well as multi-state agreements, will involve an 

iterative, multi-stage consultation and negotiation process that could take years to conclude. The 

commenters explained, in light of their experience working with state agencies in California and 

neighboring states as well as regional and federal transmission and reliability organizations, the 

state plan submission timelines proposed by the EPA are too aggressive to enable sufficient 

consultation and input from all relevant stakeholders and agencies. The commenters stated that 

these short timelines could lead to a rushed consultation and analysis period at the state level, 

which could in turn result in the submission of flawed state plans that would not achieve the 
158

required CO2 emission reductions in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. 

Moreover, the commenters noted that states and regions must be given sufficient time to model 

and evaluate the potential reliability impacts of their proposed plans and those of neighboring 

states.

The commenters recommended that EPA give states 2 years to prepare single-state plans, and 3 

years to prepare multi-state plans or plans that rely in part on modular multi-state agreements. 

The commenters suggested that states that are unable to prepare full plans within that timeframe 

should be allowed to submit non-binding interim plans in exchange for an extra year to prepare

and submit final implementation plans. Under this alternative, the commenters suggested that 

states could have as much as 3 years from the promulgation of a final rule to submit single-state 

plans, and 4 years to submit multi-state plans or plans relying on modular multi-state agreements.

The commenters recommended that the final rule should also provide a process by which states 

could amend a plan, particularly if the state enters into a modular multi-state agreement after its 

state plan is finalized. The commenters noted that the EPA should expect that state plans will 

need to be updated from time-to-time to reflect changes in the electric grid likely over the next 

decade. The commenters also suggested that the EPA should provide clear guidance on the 

procedures states can use to propose and seek approval for such amendments.

Comment 72: Commenters recommending that the EPA build additional flexibility in the 

compliance timeline embedded within the final rules in order to allow for states to establish a 

regional trading program should they determine that is the most cost effective compliance option.

Response 72: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to meet the first interim goal. The EPA has extended the deadline for meeting 

the interim goal an additional 2 years from 2020 to 2022. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is 

also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to 

facilitate the development of their state rule, as well as multi-state plans.

For state plan submittals and timing, see subsection VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that one possible compliance option EPA identified is that states could enter 

into a multi-state plan that has a regional carbon trading program. The commenters stated that 

EPA uses the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as an example carbon trading 

program. The commenters noted that should a state decide to enter into a multi-state 

implementation plan with a regional trading program, that plan would be required to be 

submitted to EPA by June 30, 2018, under the proposed rules. Further, the commenters noted 

that the first compliance year under the proposed rules is 2020. The commenters stated that 

EPA's proposed rules thus leaves 18 months for the states that are party to the multi-state plan to 

develop a regional trading program. However, the commenters noted that it took states operating 

under RGGI six years (from 2003 to 2009) to form the program, pass legislation, and start 

trading. Based on this, the commenters stated that EPA's timeline for compliance under a 
159

regional trading approach is unrealistic. The commenters recommended that EPA build 

additional flexibility in the compliance timeline embedded within the final rules in order to allow 

for states to establish a regional trading program should they determine that is the most cost 

effective compliance option. 

Comment 73: Comments noting that the development, refinement, and review process of a 

regional plan across state lines will be difficult and require additional time beyond what is 

allowed under the proposed rule.

Response 73: The EPA does not agree that multi-state plans should receive additional time 

beyond the three years allowed in the final rule. The EPA clarifies that requirements of the initial 

plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable 

final plan thus relieving pressure on states to have fully developed plan elements in place within 

the first 13 months of the full three year planning period. The final rule also provides an 

additional 2 years (from 2020 to 2022) for all state plan types before the compliance period 

begins. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as 

reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative 

changes, etc. In addition, Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for 

state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their 

state rules, including multi-state plan. See section VIII on state plans in the CPP final rule 

preamble. Specifically, subsection VIII.D describes state plan components and approvability 

criteria while subsection VIII.E addresses state plan submittals and timing. EPA has aligned the 

submittal dates for single and multi-state plans.

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

Commenters disagreed that the time frames proposed in the rule do not allow adequate time to 

devise, evaluate and, deploy a regional program given the extreme complexities of the rule and 

how permanent and enforceable control measures will be developed and implemented across 

state lines. The commenters stated that the difficulties encountered under a state only plan will 

also be present in the regional planning process. Additionally, the commenters stated that there 

are added difficulties in dealing with multiple sets of state governmental agencies, as well as 

multiple state rules. The commenters noted that the development, refinement, and review process 

of a regional plan across state lines will be difficult and require additional time beyond what is 

allowed under the proposed rule.

Comment 74: Comment stating that there are major policy, regulatory and resource planning 

choices that states will need to make in order to implement the CPP--and some of these choices 

are constrained by the timeline the EPA currently proposes for implementation of the CPP.

Response 74: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 
160

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. The EPA also clarified 

that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that 

intend to submit an approvable final plan. To help facilitate the timely development of 

approvable plans, the EPA will continue its extensive outreach to states and work closely with 

them on the need for additional tools and guidance. 

EPA addresses the commenters’ concerns in section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble. 

Specifically, subsections VIII.C and VIII.G lay out the state plan approaches and additional 

considerations for state plan approaches; subsection VIII.D describes state plan components and 

approvability criteria; subsection VIII.E addresses state plan submittals and timing, as well as the 

approval process; subsection VIII.F looks at performance demonstrations and compliance, and 

subsection VIII.H offers resources for states to consider in developing plans.

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

Commenters stated that there are major policy, regulatory and resource planning choices that 

states will need to make in order to implement the CPP--and some of these choices are 

constrained by the timeline EPA currently proposes for implementation of the CPP. The 

commenters noted that EPA proposed a deadline of June 30, 2016 for submittal of a state plan--

13 months following promulgation of the final rule. The commenters also noted that states 

submitting individual plans may request a 1-year extension, while those participating in a 

multistate plan may request an extension of two years (provided they submit an update after 1 

year). The commenters pointed out that, in this period, EPA's CPP as proposed requires states to 

engage in a major resource planning exercise in order to determine how best to meet state targets

at least cost and risk to their customers. According to the commenters, in the Western U.S. this is 

a substantial undertaking. The commenters also noted that multistate arrangements would require 

considerable time and resources to develop. The commenters stated that there is no existing 

institutional infrastructure (i.e., an organized market and system operator) in the WECC region. 

The commenters indicated that states must make these decisions either alone under a single state 

plan, or in collaboration with other states or regional entities. The commenters listed a few of the 

key questions that states would have to consider during this period: 

• Whether to use a rate or mass based limit?

• How will relevant agencies within a state coordinate efforts (e.g., state utility regulators, 

environmental quality regulators, Department of Energy officials and potentially others)?

• What additional authority is needed to develop and implement a plan? Will state 

legislation be required?

• What are the state administrative processes and the timing of those processes (especially 

DEQ process for SIP adoption; utility commission planning and approvals)?

• Whether to file a single state or multistate plan?
161

• If a multistate plan, what process will lead to its formation and what forms will it 

take? Will there be time for states with different process requirements and timetables to 

meet these deadlines?

Comment 75: Comment stating that implementation of EPA's proposed CPP for existing EGUs 

is problematic - so much so that it will be literally impossible for states to execute, and noting 

that there are many fundamental issues and questions to be addressed (e.g., multi-state plans 

require interstate compacts, which require legislative approval and possibly Congressional 

approval to comply with the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution). 

Response 75: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The EPA also clarified that 

requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that 

intend to submit an approvable final plan. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. EPA has finalized a compliance start date of 

2022 for the final CPP instead of 2020 as proposed. Information regarding the state plans may be 

found in section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble. Subsection VIII.D of the final rule 

preamble includes state plan components and approvability criteria. Information on timing and 

state plan submittals is found in subsection VIII.E of the final rule preamble. Section VIII of the 

final rule preamble also covers multi-state plans and multistate coordination as well as legal 

issues regarding multi-state plans.

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

Commenters stated that implementation of EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan for existing EGUs 

is problematic - so much so that it will be literally impossible for states to execute. The 

commenters stated that the agency has set unrealistic interim and final goals for most states and 

allowed entirely insufficient timelines for states to analyze the final rule: evaluate potential 

compliance strategies; coordinate actions of affected entities; enact state laws and implementing 

regulations; and provide for meaningful public participation. The commenters noted that EPA's 

plan submittal timelines may give the appearance of adequacy, but states are expected to develop 

and submit a plan that is substantively complete within 1 year after the final rule is published. 

The commenters stated that the possibility of 1- and 2-year extensions (for single and multiplestate plans, respectively) do not alter the fact that the State must submit this initial plan and it 

must meet all of the agency's requirements for approvability (e.g., EPA describes a dozen 

required state plan components). 79 FR 34911-14. The commenters noted that West Virginia 

would face tremendous obstacles if required to implement a state plan as EPA has proposed. 

Commenters stated that the proposed rule provides woefully inadequate time for states to make 

crucial decisions and take actions of historic proportions. The commenters noted that the 

submission deadline for a state plan is such that states do not have adequate time to amend state 

laws and to promulgate implementing state rules. The commenters stated that section 111(d) 
162

implementation will require state legislatures to enact legislation that establishes the institutional 

framework that allows state agencies to develop an integrated resource plan for CO2. The 

commenters noted that there are many fundamental issues and questions to be addressed, for 

example: 

• What state agency or agencies will have authority over integrated resource planning for 

CO2, the WVPSC, the WVDOE or the WVDEP? 

• In regulated states, like West Virginia, with vertically integrated electric utilities, nongenerating distributors (co-operatives and municipal utilities) will have to be included in 

the process. 

• What part, if any, will the regional transmission organizations (RTOs) play in the plan? 

• Will the state participate in a multi-state program? Which states should be included in a 

multi-state plan? 

• Multi-state plans require interstate compacts, which require legislative approval and 

possibly Congressional approval to comply with the Compact Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

• What institutional framework is necessary among the regulatory agencies (WVPSC, 

WVDOE and WVDEP) in both a state statutory context and an administrative context? 

What regulatory structures must be in place to enforce CO2 reductions? 

• Is EPA casting its jurisdictional net even more broadly to assume an oversight role over 

functions a federally enforceable state plan would assign to the WVPSC or the WVDOE? 

The commenters noted that these issues and questions need to be decided and answered by the 

states to determine what legislation must be enacted to provide the necessary framework to allow 

for the development of approvable state or regional plans. The commenters noted that this will 

require resolution of complex issues that are technical, political, logistical and jurisdictional in 

nature which will be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible in the structure and timeframe 

that EPA has proposed. 

The commenters explained that states are understandably reluctant, or unable, to enact legislation 

in the absence of final EPA action. Therefore, the commenters stated that enabling legislation 

would not be expected until after EPA finalizes the regulation, which EPA expects to do by June 

2015. The commenters explained that most state legislative sessions (including West Virginia's) 

are conducted in the first half of the year. The commenters stated that the first time enabling 

legislation could be realistically considered by the West Virginia Legislature would be in 

January 2016, and such legislation could not be expected to be adopted until April of 2016, if at 

all. The commenters noted that often legislation that is adopted differs significantly from that 

proposed, and similar to Congressional actions, state legislative actions take place on their own 

time schedule. The commenters stated that they have no control over how, when or even if, the 

Legislature will vote on changes to the West Virginia Code.
163

The commenters stated that EPA's June 30, 2016 deadline for initial plan submittal would not 

allow time for any administrative rules necessary to implement legislation to even be written, 

much less be proposed and adopted in West Virginia. To be effective by June 30, 2017, the 

commenters stated that any rules necessary to adopt a state plan must be initially proposed by 

May 2016. According to the commenters, this would effectively require legislative rules to be 

written in the 1 month timeframe between adoption of enabling legislation in April 2016, and the 

state's codified deadline for proposing administrative rules in May 2016. The commenters stated 

that this is extremely unlikely to happen, especially since it would require the manifold 

rulemaking efforts of WVDEP, WVDOE, and/or WVPSC to be closely coordinated. The 

commenters noted that The West Virginia Legislature would also have to adopt legislation 

approving these rules during its 2017 legislative session, and assuming gubernatorial approval, 

the earliest that coordinated agency rules could be finalized would be June 2017. The 

commenters stated that after the June 2017 final promulgation of the agencies' rules, a state plan 

would then have to be assembled. The commenters stated that a proposed state plan would then 

require a 30-day public comment period and adequate time for response to comments before a 

final plan could be submitted to EPA for approval. The commenters stated that the 30 day public 

notice is necessary because there are certain components of a state plan that would not be 

incorporated in an administrative rule.

The commenters stated that because of West Virginia's rulemaking requirements, WVDEP's 

best-case timeline for submittal of a state plan is at least a year and a half beyond the June 2016 

deadline EPA has proposed. Furthermore, the commenters stated that WVDEP would not be able 

to submit a committing plan of action by June 2016 (or a state plan by the June 2017 extension 

deadline) because the state agency cannot obligate the Legislature or Governor to future action. 

The commenters stated that West Virginia's best-case (but rather precarious) state plan 

development scenario demonstrates that the submittal timeline in EPA's proposed rule is 

unworkably short, especially when compared to other submittal timelines under CAA sections 

111(d) and 129. The commenters provided for example that the "procedure similar to that 

provided by section 7410" in section 111(d) refers to the submittal of State Implementation Plans 

(SIP), for which the CAA allows 3 full years. Because of the unprecedented complexity of EPA's 

proposed rule, the commenters stated that development of an approvable state plan under section 

111(d) would be an order of magnitude more difficult than development of a SIP.

Comment 76: Comment stating that the Agency must extend the deadline for the submission of 

state plans under CAA section 111(d) to three years, so as to parallel the requirements for SIPs 

under CAA section 110.

Response 76: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. With an approvable 

extension request, states have a full three years to submit a complete plan. The final rule includes 

this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, 

planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. See 
164

subsection VIII.E of the final rule preamble addressing state plan submittals, the approval 

process, and timing.

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

If EPA expects states to develop satisfactory state plans, commenters stated that the Agency 

must extend the deadline for the submission of state plans under CAA section 111(d) to three 

years, so as to parallel the requirements for SIPs under CAA section 110. The commenters noted 

that the plans of the former are likely to be much more difficult to develop than the latter. The 

commenters stated that the regulation of CO2 from the fleet of existing EGUs is a monumental 

endeavor and that EPA, therefore, should provide states and the regulated community adequate 

time to consider, comment on and develop state plans. The commenters said that the requirement 

to submit a state plan within 12 months of issuance of the finalized guidelines does not provide 

adequate time for states to develop a viable plan, and complete the state adoption procedures. 

The commenters noted that the rule making process in West Virginia can take from 12 to 18 

months to complete, not including the time necessary for plan development. The commenters

also pointed out that CAA section 111(d) does not specify any specific time line, and noted that 

40 CFR 60.27(a) states: The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary, extend the 

period for submission of any plan or plan revision or portion thereof.

Comment 77: Comment recommending (once legal review is completed) that the EPA re-write 

its state plan submittal requirements to allow more time to analyze the various options that the 

EPA is proposing prior to developing both an initial plan and a complete plan.

Response 77: The EPA intends to continue extensive outreach to states and work closely with 

them on the need for additional tools and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable 

state plans. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the 

EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will 

continue to make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final 

rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to 

use to facilitate the development of their state rule See section VIII of the CPP final rule 

preamble on state plans. Specifically, subsection VIII.E addresses state plan submittals and 

timing.

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

Commenters recommended (once legal review is completed) that EPA re-write its state plan 

submittal requirements to allow more time to analyze the various options that EPA is proposing 

prior to developing both an initial plan and a complete plan. The commenters argued that state 

air quality agencies are overwhelmed by the number of options and methods being presented in 

the proposed rule. While EPA presents some simple scenarios and approaches, the commenters

do not believe it is appropriate to limit their approach to these simple scenarios given the 

importance and magnitude of the rule. The commenters argued that no state can be expected to 

analyze and complete these challenging tasks within one year of the proposed rule being 

finalized (two years if a one-year extension is granted for an individual state plan), especially 
165

given the time it takes to formulate, debate, and enact on policies and rules that would allow 

states to make best technical and economic decisions for the benefit of all of its citizens.

Comment 78: Comment stating that the EPA's proposed schedule for the rulemaking, state plan 

submittals, and compliance with the state goals is unreasonable and unworkable, and that states 

need additional time for plan submittal and compliance.

Response 78: The EPA does not agree that the rulemaking should be withdrawn. However, in 

response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns such as the 

commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional planning 

groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule clarified that 

requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that 

intend to submit an approvable final plan. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble, which addresses state plan submittal and timing.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposed schedule for the rulemaking, state plan submittals, 

and compliance with the state goals is unreasonable and unworkable. The proposed rule's impact 

to state government is unique, even among EPA's prior utility sector rules and states need 

additional time for plan submittal and compliance. 

The commenters stated that although the President (in a memorandum dated June 25, 2013) 

directed the EPA to require that states submit state plans no later than June 1, 2016, the schedule 

proposed by the EPA is unreasonable and unworkable for states. The commenters stated that 

EPA is not legally bound to comply with this directive, especially in light of the complex schema 

proposed by EPA. The commenters contended that the Presidential Memorandum was not an 

executive order, and even if it was, it would not have the full force of law in this instance, 

particularly since authority to develop standards of performance was granted to the EPA under 

the CAA, which controls in this instance. Furthermore, the commenters noted that proposed rule 

has a unique impact to state governments. While prior EPA rules targeting the electric utility 

sector may have had impacts to a state's electrical grid and reliability, the commenters stated that 

EPA's proposed CO2 emission guidelines for existing power plants effectively establishes an 

emission performance standard for the state's entire electrical grid. The commenters stated that 

multiple state agencies must review the proposed rule and then assess the feasibility and impact 

of the proposed rule on the state's electrical grid as a whole in order to provide adequate 

comment to EPA. The commenters stated that the proposed rule also raises significant and novel 

legal issues involving both state and EPA authority. The commenters stated that the amount and 

complexity of planning involved in the development of state plans under the proposed rule is 

more similar to the SIP process and significantly more complicated than prior CAA section 

111(d) rules and the EPA is not allowing adequate time for the states to develop and submit 

plans. According to the commenters, the EPA's proposed provisions for granting extensions 

make it impossible for Texas and likely most other states to qualify for an extension.
166

Regarding the proposed implementation schedule, the commenters charged that EPA has not 

adequately considered the time for state legislative changes and subsequent rulemaking needed 

to implement many of the aspects of a state plan that would fundamentally change the states' 

energy policies. The commenters explained that legislatures in many states are not on-going 

bodies and only meet periodically and Texas is such a state (e.g., the Texas legislature only 

meets biennially unless a special session is called by the governor). The commenters stated that 

Texas' upcoming 2015 legislative session will effectively be over before the EPA finalizes this 

proposed rule in June 2015 and is not scheduled to meet again until 2017. The commenters stated 

that neither did the EPA adequately consider the amount of coordination required between state 

executive agencies with independent authority over the different aspects of the electric market 

being regulated by the EPA through its assessment and application of BSER in the proposed rule. 

The commenters expressed concern about the EPA's interim goal for Texas which is heavily 

affected by the EPA's arbitrary assumption that a radical re-dispatching of the state's coal and 

natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) fleet can occur within a few years. While the commenters

recommended the EPA withdraw the proposed rule, the commenters stated that if the EPA 

decides to proceed with the rule then significantly more time needs to be provided to states for 

state plan development and implementation. At a minimum, the commenters recommended that 

the interim goals be removed from the final rule, compliance with the final goals is no earlier 

than 2030, and that states have until 2020 to submit state plans.

Comment 79: Comment addressing complications in developing new enabling legislation as 

prerequisites for SIP submittal and rule implementation.

Response 79: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. EPA has moved the 

compliance date from 2020 to 2022 in the CPP final rule. See section VIII of the CPP final rule 

preamble for information on state plans, including components and approvability criteria in 

subsection VIII.D and state plan submittals and timing in subsection VIII.E.

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

Commenters addressed complications in developing new enabling legislation as prerequisites for 

SIP submittal and rule implementation. 

Commenters stated that never before has a Rule Proposal contemplated such a broad, marketwide system of control. The commenters stated that many agencies simply do not have the 

authority to control electric generation or create programs that will drive the resource choices 

assumed by EPA in establishing the state emission budgets. Therefore, the commenters stated 

that in order to develop key components of a SIP and begin implementing the Rule Proposal's 

components by the 2020 interim emissions target date, states will be required to take legislative 

action.
167

The commenters stated that Texas would be uniquely prejudiced by the tight timelines 

contemplated in the Rule Proposal. The commenters noted that Texas' legislature meets in every 

odd year, from roughly Mid-January until the end of May. The commenters noted that the next 

legislative session will span from January-May 2015, with the next session spanning JanuaryMay 2017. The commenters stated that under EPA's current proposed timeline for finalization, 

this means that the Texas legislature will be provided no opportunity to meet, discuss, and/or 

promulgate legislation between finalization of the Rule Proposal and the date of the initial SIP 

submission deadline. The commenters stated that even with a 1-year extension, Texas will only 

have been able to complete one legislative session (Spring 2017) before the SIP submission due 

date.

The commenters stated that once legislation is drafted and passed, state agencies will still be 

required to draft and implement regulations to implement the new rules and develop SIPs; this is 

a time consuming process under even the best of circumstances, but will be particularly complex 

given the design and scope of the Rule Proposal. Using Texas as an example, the commenters

stated that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) -- the state agency 

overseeing implementation of environmental rules -- has historically taken the lead role in 

submitting SIPs and responding to EPA rulemaking. The commenters noted that while other 

agencies are consulted, the vast majority of the work and burden falls on this one agency. In this 

"simple" context, the commenters noted that it often takes years to develop a SIP with this 

limited external-agency consultation. The commenters stated that however, since this Rule 

Proposal targets the entire electricity industry, numerous other agencies and non-agencies would 

have to take lead roles in this development. The commenters stated that this includes the Public 

Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), the Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) (which 

oversees oil and gas development in the state), the relevant RTOs and ISOs, such as the 

Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), among others. 

The commenters stated that each of these agencies are distinct, but the Rule Proposal generates 

significant overlap of issues between these agencies, and potentially others. The commenters

stated that this many cooks in the kitchen will slow down an already arduous task. The 

commenters stated that it will extend far longer than one or two years after the legislature acts to 

navigate this rulemaking process, which mandates significant public participation. Therefore, the 

commenters noted that the earliest the State of Texas could be ready to implement the type of 

SIP that the Rule Proposal seems to contemplate would be the Summer of 2019, a full 3 years 

after EPA has mandated initial state plans must be submitted.

Comment 80: Comment discussing complications presented by deregulated electricity markets, 

as part of their request for more time to develop SIPs. 

Response 80: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. See section V of the 

CPP final rule preamble on the ability of EGUs to implement the best system of emission 

reduction and associated building blocks.
168

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

As part of their request for more time to develop SIPs, commenters discussed complications 

presented by deregulated electricity markets. 

Commenters noted that every state will confront significant challenges in implementing the 

provisions of the Rule Proposal, and that that many (if not all) states will have to pass some form 

of enabling legislation. The commenters noted that states will have to develop new arrangements 

between the various regulators that oversee the electricity market (as this rule goes far beyond 

the traditional domain of state environmental agencies), develop means to expand and 

concentrate jurisdiction over various parts of the industry, and institute new means to address 

resource planning and dispatch considering carbon emissions. The commenters noted that states 

will also potentially attempt to work with neighboring states in developing cooperative 

agreements or interstate compacts. The commenters stated that these challenges will only be 

magnified in states like Texas, which possess deregulated electricity markets.

The commenters stated that Texas has a highly diversified and large deregulated electricity 

market. The commenters stated that Texas at one time had a traditional, vertically-integrated 

regulated electricity industry. The commenters stated the legislators of Texas, however, moved 

away from this structure and deregulated the electricity market; the purpose was to assist in 

diversifying the electricity market and introducing market controls as a means to control 

electricity prices. The commenters stated that so far, this market design has been able to sustain 

and absorb EPA's previous regulations, including NAAQS and other rules. The commenters

stated that this Rule Proposal is novel and imposes a massive, market-wide, regulatory structure

on the entire state. The commenters stated its complexity and scope require the reintroduction of 

centralized planning to a state that has, under its authority and ability under the separation of 

powers, chosen to proceed without. The commenters stated that emissions portfolios would have 

to be created and emissions from facilities would have to be overseen and balanced -- not with 

affordability and competitive prices in mind -- but with the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions.

Comment 81: Comments stating that the EPA proposes to give itself 12 months to review and 

either approve or disapprove a state plan, a default extension from the standard 4 months allowed 

under 40 CFR 60.27 and almost as much time as the states are given to develop and submit state 

plans, and suggesting that states should have until at least 2020 to submit state plans.

Response 81: EPA disagrees as the commenters appear to suggest that a full plan must be 

submitted in June of 2016. A final plan is due on September 6, 2016. However, the final rule 

provides states with a full three years to develop a final plan if a state chooses to submit an Initial 

Plan requesting an extension by September 6, 2016. In the final rule EPA clarified that 

requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that 

intend to submit an approvable final plan. See subsections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan 

submittal, approval process, and timing in the CPP final rule preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
169

Commenters stated that given the immense complexity of issues and cross-agency state authority 

needed to implement the rule as proposed, the 13 months that EPA proposes to allow states to 

submit a state plan is grossly inadequate. The commenters stated that the EPA is attempting to 

force states to make concessions and surrender state authority to the EPA in exchange for the 

EPA granting an extension, making it impossible for some states to qualify for extensions. Yet, 

the commenters stated that the EPA proposes to give itself 12 months to review and either 

approve or disapprove a state plan, a default extension from the standard 4 months allowed under 

40 CFR 60.27 and almost as much time as the states are given to develop and submit state plans. 

The commenters noted that the vast majority of work involved in the CAA section 111(d) 

process falls to the states. The commenters stated that if the EPA considers itself to need 

additional time to perform its smaller role in the process, then the EPA should acknowledge the 

burden it is imposing on the states and revise the schedule for state plans submittal. The 

commenters stated that EPA has no justification for holding states to an unreasonable schedule to 

submit state plans, and suggested that states should have until at least 2020 to submit state plans. 

Additionally, the commenters asserted that the EPA routinely fails to meet its regulatory 

deadlines for acting on state submittals.

Comment 82: Comment applauding the EPA's effort to structure the state plan submittal 

timeline to allow states additional time if needed to develop state plans, while still ensuring 

progress toward a complete plan

Response 82: The EPA appreciates the commenters support of the proposed extension to the 

submittal deadline. Based on significant comments requesting additional time to manage 

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 

modifications, legislative changes, etc., the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. This additional 

time will help facilitate the development of approvable plans. Concurrent with this final rule 

EPA is also proposing a federal rule with the intent to have a final rule promulgated in time to 

implement a federal rule in those circumstances warranting its application. See subsection VIII.D

of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan components and approvability criteria and 

subsection VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal and timing.

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

Commenters applauded EPA's effort to structure the state plan submittal timeline to allow states 

additional time if needed to develop state plans, while still ensuring progress toward a complete 

plan. Specifically, the commenters supported EPAs proposal to provide a 1-year extension to 

June 30, 2017, for states to submit a complete individual state plan if the state documents the 

need for additional time, and a 2-year extension to June 30, 2018, if the state plan includes a 

multi-state approach. 

Commenters also supported EPA's proposal of an initial plan due by all states on June 30, 2016, 

to meet the timeline established in President Obama's June 2013 Presidential Memorandum on 

Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards. The commenters stated that these initial plans 

appropriately require states to demonstrate commitment to creating an individual state program 
170

or participation in a multi-state planning process, as well as progress toward the development of 

a complete state plan or multi-state plan. The commenters stated that initial plans also 

appropriately require initial quantification of the level of emission performance that will be 

achieved in the plan. The commenters supported this requirement but noted that this 

quantification ought not require complex methodology or modeling.

The commenters noted that some states may need more time beyond the provided extensions to 

develop state plans, due to time-intensive stakeholder processes, regulatory requirements, and the 

need in many states for legislative approval or other action. The commenters suggested that EPA 

consider allowing states an additional 1-year extension for the final plan under certain 

circumstances. The commenters stated that such a request should be granted only upon a 

showing of good cause (e.g., where a state plan requires legislative approval and a state 

legislature meets only every other year). 

Commenters also noted that development of state plans will require significant staffing and 

resources, and urged the federal government to provide additional funds to support state plan 

development. The commenters stated that in addition, that their states have extensive experience 

developing state and regional clean energy and carbon emission reduction programs and are 

willing to work with other states to share information, analysis, and lessons learned from our 

programs as all states begin to consider compliance options and develop state plans.

Comment 83: Comment stating that the EPA should partner with states to ensure timely 

submittal of state plans and allow extensions beyond those provided for in the proposal where 

warranted, and requesting that the EPA issue clear guidelines on the state plans in or with the 

final rule.

Response 83: The EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders 

and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, 

training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the 

timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources 

become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal 

agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent 

with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, 

states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. EPA is concurrent with 

this final rule proposing a federal rule with the intent to have a final rule promulgated in time to 

implement a federal rule in those circumstances warranting its application. See section VIII of 

the CPP final rule preamble on state plans. Subsection VIII.C addresses state plan approaches 

while subsections VIII.G and VIII.I include additional considerations for state plans. In 

subsection VIII.D, state plan components and approvability criteria are laid out. Subsection 

VIII.E covers state plan submittals and timing while subsection VIII.F addresses performance 

demonstrations and compliance. Resources for states to consider in developing plans are found in 

subsection VIII.H. 

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
171

Commenters stated that EPA should partner with states to ensure timely submittal of state plans, 

and allow extensions beyond those provided for in the proposal where warranted. The 

commenters expressed appreciation for the tremendous outreach effort undertook in the 

development of this proposal. The commenters noted that they expect to continue to work in a 

strong partnership with EPA to meet the very ambitious timeline laid out in the proposal. The 

commenters stated that this is a significant new regulatory program which in many states will 

likely require additional authority under state law, rulemaking, and coordination among several 

state, local, and federal agencies. Depending on the type of plan developed, there may also be 

negotiation with other states on coordination and implementation of multi-state measures. The 

commenters supported aggressive and quick action to address carbon pollution, however, they 

understand that the planning process is complex and will take time. The commenters suggested 

that EPA consider allowing additional extensions where warranted to put the necessary laws and 

rules in place and finalize the state plan. The commenters recommended that EPA set up rule 

language that clearly does not allow for unlimited extensions by states as a means to delay 

developing state plans to meet the rule. Conversely, the commenters stated that EPA needs to be 

developing its federal plan to implement the final rule so it can be quickly implemented in states 

which have failed or chosen to not develop and implement a state plan. The commenters

requested that EPA issue clear guidelines on the state plans in or with the final rule. These 

guidelines would form the basis for states to develop plans and for EPA regions to review and 

approve them. The commenters stated that any additional guidance issued by EPA should be 

discretionary and available as soon as possible in advance of the deadline for initial plan 

submittal.

Comment 84: Comment proposing that the EPA should require the states to submit by 

December 1, 2015 a notice as to what they intend to do: submit a state plan by the due date, 

request an extension for a specified reason or decline to comply (i.e. accept a federal plan), 

because the EPA will need to promulgate a federal plan for the state if it fails to do either.

Response 84: The EPA does not agree with the commenters. EPA is, concurrent with this final 

rule, proposing a federal rule with the intent to have a final rule promulgated in time to 

implement a federal rule in those circumstances warranting its application. See subsections

VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for information on state plan submittals and 

timing.

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

Commenters noted that EPA set a date of July 1, 2016 for the submittal of state plans or an 

application for a delay. Because EPA will need to promulgate a federal plan for the state if it 

fails to do either, the commenters proposed that EPA should require the states to submit by 

December 1, 2015 a notice as to what they intend to do: submit a state plan by the due date, 

request an extension for a specified reason or decline to comply (i.e. accept a federal plan). If a 

state submits such a notice, the commenters said it should be allowed to count the effect of any 

measure implemented after the notice rather than after the submittal of the state or multi-state 

plan.
172

Comment 85: Comment stating that the EPA's proposed rule would require states to begin 

implementing their plans before they have even received the Agency's approval.

Response 85: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. . The date EPA finalized 

for the start of the first compliance period is 2022, providing states with two additional years.

See subsections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal and 

timing. Building block 3 is discussed under section V.E of the CPP final rule preamble. 

Subsection VIII.F of the CPP final rule preamble covers state plan performance demonstrations 

and compliance, including information on renewable energy.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's methodology is flawed because it requires states to begin 

increasing renewable energy generation by 2017, three years before the compliance period 

begins for the Proposed Guidelines. The commenters stated that to put this timeline in 

perspective, initial state plan submissions are not due to EPA until June 30, 2016, and EPA is 

allowing itself until June 30, 2017, to take final action approving or disapproving these plans. 79 

FR 34915-16. The commenters stated thus, EPA's proposed rule would require states to begin 

implementing their plans before they have even received the Agency's approval. The 

commenters stated that the disconnect is even greater in light of the fact that states may delay

plan submission until June 30, 2017 (for various reasons), or June 30, 2018 (for multi-state 

plans), pushing final EPA approval of these plans to mid-2018 or -2019. Id. at 34915. The 

commenters stated that in addition, building new renewable energy generation capacity requires 

several years to allow for planning, obtaining funding, seeking regulatory approval, and 

construction. The commenters stated that increasing Renewable Energy capacity will also require 

new transmission infrastructure, which can require 8-10 years to complete. The commenters

stated that in effect, states would have needed to begin efforts to implement Building Block 3 

several years ago.

Comment 86: Comments stating that the need to evaluate and respond to reliability issues 

creates significant unknowns regarding the process and time required for completing such 

analyses.

Response 86: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns,

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim milestone. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See subsections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of reliability 
173

and the reliability safety valve mechanism. See also the technical support document called, 

Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for the CPP Final Rule, in the docket to this 

final rule.

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

Commenters stated that uncertainties affect plan development due to reliability issues. The 

commenters noted that EPA projects that implementation of the proposed rule will result in 

significant changes in how and where electricity is generated. The commenters noted that the 

agency estimates that as a result of implementing the proposed rule up to 49 GW of existing 

coal-based generation will retire by 2020, that existing NGCC units will be utilized more, and 

that new renewable energy development and energy efficiency programs will be implemented. 

The commenters stated that each of these outcomes must be evaluated by utilities, state utility 

commissions, and regional transmission organizations in order to assess and to mitigate potential 

reliability issues. The commenters stated that the process for performing such evaluations for an 

individual state alone could be extensive. The commenters stated that given the fact that the 

transmission grid crosses state boundaries, and that multiple entities may be responsible for 

regional grid operations within a single state, the process of evaluating reliability concerns in 

context with proposed implementation strategies from multiple states, which may or may not be 

collaborating together, becomes significantly more complex and time consuming. As a result, the 

commenters stated that the need to evaluate and respond to reliability issues creates significant 

unknowns regarding the process and time required for completing such analyses.

Comment 87: Comment stating that the 111(d) rule provides insufficient time for coordination 

with partners in multi-state power grids, and noting that states need to understand how EE and 

re-dispatch in other states affect each state's ability to meet its goal.

Response 87: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim milestone. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See subsections VIII.B and VIII.E on timing and on state plan submittals – both single and multistate -- in the CPP final rule preamble. See section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble on the 

electric reliability and the reliability safety valve. Additional discussions on reliability may be 

found in the docket to this final rule. See the technical support document entitled, Resource 

Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for the CPP Final Rule. Renewable energy credit trading 

is discussed throughout section V of the CPP final rule preamble. RE credits and trading are also 

addressed in VIII.I. Section V also discusses the ability of EGUs to implement the best system of 

emission reduction. EPA decided not to include building block 4 on demand side energy 

efficiency in the best system of emission reduction and associated building blocks in the final 

CPP. See section V of the final rule preamble for more information on BSER. However, states 

may use EE as a non-BSER compliance measure.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
174

Commenters stated that the time should be allowed for multi-state coordination. 

Commenters stated that the 111(d) rule provides insufficient time for coordination with partners 

in multi-state power grids. The commenters stated that Texas's singularly unique composition of 

fully-competitive service territories, with wholesale and retail markets within Electric Reliability 

Council of Texas (ERCOT) that are overseen by the Public Utility Commission of Texas 

(PUCT), and the non-ERCOT traditional integrated utilities subject to the traditional retail cost 

of service ratemaking jurisdiction of the PUCT, adds an additional layer of complexity and 

difficulty for Texas in determining how to comply with the already dizzyingly complex 111(d) 

rule. The commenters stated that particularly with respect to Texas utilities not in ERCOT, 

consideration of a compliance plan will necessarily involve the PUCT consulting with all states 

in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and 

Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), along with the respective grid operators. The 

commenters noted that this consultation will need to occur even if Texas ultimately decides to 

file a Texas-only state plan. The commented stated that this is because Texas, as well as all of the 

other states in the power grids, along with FERC and NERC, will need to understand every other 

state's plan in order to properly assess the reliability impacts. The commenters stated that this 

process will likely need to be iterative, and the projected 1 year between the final promulgation 

of the 111(d) rule and the current June 2016 state plan deadline is wholly inadequate for this 

purpose. The commenters stated that 111(d) rule also provides no clarity as to the permissions 

given the RTOs, especially with respect to renewable energy credit trading, evincing the lack of 

forethought contemplated in Rule 111(d). Finally, the commenters stated that the proposed rule 

does not recognize the complex level of interaction required between the PUCT and Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), as well as possibly other state agencies, that 

would be required -- not only among four distinct RTOs, but also all the states within the 

footprints of those RTOs, which would result in Texas having to coordinate with almost half of 

the states in the country.

Commenters stated that the timing in the Proposed Rule is unrealistic. The commenters stated 

that every plan (single or multi-state) could potentially be a multi-state effort. The commenters

noted that states need to understand how EE and re-dispatch in other states affect each state's 

ability to meet its goal. The commenters argued that the timeframe outlined in the proposal does 

not account for this state interaction, and must be factored into the timelines by EPA to allow 

states to work together to create viable plans.

Comment 88: Comment stating that a one-year time period that states have to develop and 

submit a plan is unreasonable and that the two-year time period for multi-state plans is equally 

irrational given the breadth of this proposal and the significant interstate conflicts it sets up.

Response 88: In response to this and similar comment, the final rule allows a full 3 years for 

both individual and multi-states to develop a complete plan contingent upon an initial showing 

that the state is making progress towards an approvable plan. The final rule clarifies that 

requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that 

intend to submit an approvable final plan. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final 

Clean Power Plan begins in 2022 instead of 2020, which gives states more time to get programs 
175

in place and gives utilities more time to plan. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. EPA aligned the single and multi-state plan 

submittal deadlines. See sections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan submittals and timing in the 

CPP final rule preamble. Reliability and the reliability safety valve also are addressed in section

VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble. Additionally, see the technical support document entitled, 

Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis TSD for the CPP Final Rule, in the docket to the 

final CPP rule.

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

Commenters argued that the timelines are unrealistic for state plan or collaborative plan 

development. While it might be desirable to achieve major CO2 emissions reductions, and to do 

so in an expeditious manner, the commenters said the reality is that it will take significant time to 

achieve if it is to be accomplished in a deliberate manner without threatening the reliability of the 

electric system and creating economic havoc. Although the rapid one-year schedule for this 

unprecedented rulemaking is excessively fast, the commenters said it pales in comparison to the 

incredibly unreasonable one-year time period that states have to develop and submit a plan, 

which utilities must then react to in as little as one year. Likewise, the commenters said the twoyear time period for multi-state plans is equally irrational given the breadth of this proposal and 

the significant interstate conflicts it sets up.

Comment 89: Commenters stating that the two-year time frame for developing and submitting 

multi-state plans is inadequate.

Response 89: EPA agrees and has extended by an additional year the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and has extended by two years the time to meet the first interim goal. See 

section VIII on state plans, both single and multi-state, in the CPP final rule preamble. 

Specifically see subsections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan submittals, the approval process, and 

timing.

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

Commenters stated that within its proposed rule, EPA allows states to pursue a regional 

compliance approach through the development of multi-state plans. The commenters noted that 

EPA acknowledged that the additional complexity of developing multi-state plans might require 

additional time to complete. As such, the commenters noted that EPA set a due date of June 30, 

2018, for submission of multi-state plans. The commenters believed that the two-year time frame 

for developing and submitting multi-state plans is inadequate. 

The commenters stated that the main reasoning for this is the large number of stakeholders 

involved and the complexity of issues to be resolved while forming state plans. Moreover, the 

commenters stated that South Dakota will need to assess the possibility of participating in three 

different regional/multi-state plans. The commenters noted that this is due to the fact that a 

portion of South Dakota is in the MISO market, a portion of South Dakota will be in the SPP
176

market (assuming the successful integration of the Integrated System into SPP), and a portion of 

South Dakota is in the Western Interconnection. The commenters stated that negotiating and 

developing a single multi-state plan will be a daunting task and heavy time burden alone. The 

commenters stated that attempting to negotiate and develop three different multi-state plans will 

be even more onerous on South Dakota's resources. The commenters recommended that EPA 

allow enough flexibility within the compliance timeline of its final rules to allow for robust 

discussion amongst states and thorough analysis of potential multi-state plans. 

Comment 90: Comment noting that even if each state prepares its own separate state plan, states 

will still need to cooperate and come to understandings on how to address jurisdictional issues, 

enforcement issues and cross-border issues.

Response 90: The EPA agrees that some individual state plans may need to address the issues 

raised by the commenters during plan development. In response to this and similar comments 

regarding timing and planning concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended 

the time allowed for states and regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first 

interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to address the 

complexities raised by the commenters. See section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble on state 

plans, including treatment of inter-state effects. Section VIII.C discusses multi-state plans 

including coordination among states and legal issues. Sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP 

final rule preamble covers state plan submittal and timing.

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

Commenters noted that, even if each state prepares its own separate state plan, states will still 

need to cooperate and come to understandings on how to address jurisdictional issues, 

enforcement issues and cross-border issues. The commenters noted that electric customers in a 

single state often are served by generation, both renewable and fossil fuel-fired, that is located 

out-of-state. Likewise, the commenters noted that electric power serving those customers 

involves transmission that may cross several states. Before state plans may be finalized, the 

commenters argued that states must have ample time during the state plan development process 

to address cross-border and jurisdictional issues which will have an impact on transmission, 

generation, enforcement and compliance. The commenters stated that interstate cooperation is 

key to the successful operation of state plans because those plans will have potentially varying 

impacts on utilities that operate in multiple states. The commenters further stated that, if multistate plans are to be crafted among several states, it demands a significant planning period, and 

the commenters stated that the proposed rule failed to give sufficient time to fully address state 

cooperation in their plan development.

As part of their request for more time, commenters discussed interstate emissions credit 

accounting issues and multistate plans. The commenters argued that the state plan deadline does 

not provide states with sufficient time to engage with neighboring states and resolve issues that 

may affect the development of their state plans. The commenters stated that many states will 

need to coordinate on the allocation of credit for renewable generation when RE credits have 

been sold out-of-state. The commenters noted that states also will need to coordinate on the re-
177

dispatch of generation from power plants that have existing agreements with out-of state 

distribution utilities. The commenters stated that while EPA acknowledges that the electric 

industry is the perfect example of interstate economy, EPA does little to recognize the difficulty 

in addressing the incredibly complex interstate implications of the CPP. 

The commenters argued that the emission implementation timeline is simply for stated to engage 

neighboring states in multi-state emissions trading programs given the myriad of complex issues 

required for such plans. For example, the commenters noted states will need to coordinate on 

which state receives credit for renewable generation when renewable energy credits have been 

sold out-of-state, how to deal with new generation, whether and how to deal with "leakage" 

under Section 111(d), etc. The commenters noted that states also need to determine how to deal 

with re-dispatch decisions between power plants in different states and how to deal with 

generators that export their generation under existing agreements with out-of-state distribution 

utilities. 

Comment 91: Comment noting that each state may have to approve legislation giving the 

attorney general or other agency personnel the authority to enter into negotiations on behalf of 

the state to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or an Interstate Compact.

Response 91: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as legislative changes, reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, etc. See subsections VIII.B and VIII.E in the 

CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan submittal and timing.

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

Commenters noted that each state may have to approve legislation giving the attorney general or 

other agency personnel the authority to enter into negotiations on behalf of the state to enter into 

a Memorandum of Understanding or an Interstate Compact. The commenters noted that if the 

EPA's proposed rule is finalized in mid-2015 as planned, the next state legislative sessions are 

not until January or February of 2016 or even not until January of 2017, in the case of North 

Dakota. Unless the legislature calls for a special session, at tax-payer expense, the commenters

said the authority to enter into a multi-state agreement may not be given by the legislature(s) 

until well into the limited period given by the proposed rule for state plan development. The 

commenters further noted that, given the potential conflicts and complexity of such 

authorization, it might not pass in the first session in which it is introduced, further delaying the 

ability of states to execute a multi-state plan.

Commenters stated that Indiana lacks the regulatory authority to implement and enforce a plan 

that relies on the use of all four building blocks, based upon which the state goal was established. 

The commenters stated that the proposed time frames do not allow sufficient time for Indiana to 

seek legislative action in order to be able to implement this rule. The commenters stated that 

Indiana has a part time legislature that meets from January through early spring. The commenters 
178

requested that the time frames for plan development and implementation of the rule be extended 

by a minimum of five full years.

Comment 92: Comment stating that the EPA's proposed compliance schedules are 

unreasonable, and recommending that the EPA offer all States at least 4 years to submit an 

implementation plan, regardless of whether they intend to submit a single- or multi-State plan 

and provide States with the opportunity to extend these deadlines, provided they can show 

continued progress toward development of a satisfactory State plan. Also, comment 

recommending that the EPA eliminate entirely the interim compliance period.

Response 92: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. In addition, the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures 

such as the construction of new transmission lines to be phased in over time. Section VIII of the 

CPP final rule preamble acknowledges the timing and planning concerns of many state 

commenters and the necessary coordination among different state and regional bodies. See the 

Executive Summary in section I.A of the CPP final rule preamble. Also see the Overview in 

section VIII.A of the final rule preamble for discussions on coordination and timing. Section VIII 

of the CPP final rule preamble also addresses extensions, initial plan submittals, and multi-state 

plan coordination. Note that EPA has not finalized EE and demand side EE as part of the best 

system of emission reduction and associated building blocks. See section V of the CPP final rule 

preamble for more details on BSER. The ability of EGUs to implement BSER is also discussed 

in section V. The CPP does not force states to restructure the way electricity is generated, 

transmitted, consumed, and regulated as commenters suggest. Section V addresses generation 

shifts among affected EGUs. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble describes the rule 

requirements and legal basis. A TSD on resource adequacy and reliability is available in the 

docket for this final CPP rule. Sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble 

addresses state plan submittals and timing. State plan approaches are addressed in section VIII.C

of the CPP final rule preamble. Single- and multi-state plan submittal deadlines have been 

aligned and multi- state plans as well as multi-state plan coordination is covered in section 

VIII.C. EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022.
179

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed compliance schedules are unreasonable. The 

commenters stated that by expanding the scope of the Section 111(d) program beyond the fence 

line of affected EGUs and focusing instead on emission reductions that can be achieved 

throughout the entire electricity sector, EPA is proposing a regulatory scheme that will force 

States to fundamentally restructure the way in which electricity is generated, transmitted, 

consumed, and regulated. While the commenters supported EPA's proposal to provide States 

with additional time to prepare implementation plans (see 79 FR 34915), the commenters stated 

that the brief 1 or 2-year extensions proposed by EPA will not provide sufficient time for States 

to develop and finalize plans to implement the proposed rule. Moreover, the commenters stated 

that the initial compliance deadlines, which could begin as little as 2 years after the States submit 

implementation plans (and much less than 2 years after EPA approves them) provide far too little 

time for the States to develop regulatory programs to administer the programs and for regulated 

entities to develop the additional infrastructure needed to reorganize electricity generation and 

transmission systems. To ensure that States and regulated entities have sufficient time to develop 

implementation plans and install the necessary infrastructure to achieve EPA's emission 

reduction targets, the commenters urged EPA to extend the deadline for submitting State 

implementation plans until at least 4 years after EPA issues a final Section 111(d) rule and to 

eliminate entirely the interim compliance period. 

The commenters stated that EPA should provide all States with the same opportunities to extend 

the deadline for submitting implementation plans. The commenters stated that the time needed to 

develop satisfactory State plans are largely the same, regardless of whether States elect to 

participate in a multi-State plan. The commenters stated that by offering multi-State plan 

participants an extension that is twice as long as States that submit individual plans, EPA is 

creating a powerful incentive for States to adopt multi-State plans. The commenters stated that 

this is particularly true because the 2-year deadline for individual plans will, in most cases, be 

unachievable, and States that pursue individual implementation plans will be at risk of EPA 

establishing a federal implementation plan if the deadline is missed. The commenters stated that 

EPA should not use different compliance deadlines to direct States toward the Agency's 

preferred implementation approach. The commenters stated that if EPA is truly committed to 

giving States the flexibility and autonomy contemplated under Section 111(d), it must take a 

neutral position with respect to the various compliance options and allow the States to select an 

implementation approach based solely on the merits of the approach.

The commenters stated that by proposing deadlines for State implementation plans that are only 

2 or 3 years after EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the Agency greatly underestimates the 

challenges faced by the States. The commenters noted that unlike prior Section 111(d) rules that 

required States to develop implementation plans for affected facilities, the proposed rule would 

require States to fundamentally restructure the entire electricity sector. The commenters stated 

that even under optimal political and regulatory conditions, it will take years for States to 

complete all of the legislative and regulatory actions that are necessary to develop satisfactory 

implementation plans, and many States operate under less than optimal conditions, which will 

only add to the time constraints that those States face. Thus, at a minimum, the commenters

suggested that EPA must give the States at least 4 full years after finalizing the rule to submit 
180

implementation plans. The commenters noted that in many States, regulatory agencies currently 

lack the authority to develop implementation plans that would be capable of achieving EPA's 

proposed emission reduction targets, and legislative action would be needed to achieve EPA's 

emission reduction goals. The commenters stated that State legislatures would be required to 

establish or revise RPS and energy efficiency resources standards (EERS) programs to meet 

EPA's targets for each State (as opposed to existing targets which may fall short of EPA's goals). 

For many States, the commenters noted that even more legislative changes will be required (e.g., 

legislation may be needed to give State public utilities commissions (PUCs) or other comparable 

agencies regulatory authority over municipally owned EGUs). Likewise, the commenters noted 

that States may need to fundamentally change current dispatching requirements based on leastcost bidding to allow PUCs to dispatch higher-cost forms of generation over lower cost forms of 

generation. Further, the commenters noted that for States that participate in RTOs, additional 

steps may be required to modify RTO dispatching priorities and obtain approval from FERC. See 

16 U.S.C. section 824d, 824e. Taken together, the commenters asserted that these legislative 

changes may well amount to a wholesale restructuring of a State's electricity generation and 

transmission sectors which cannot take place overnight. The commenters stated that history 

shows that legislative changes of this order takes months, if not several years, and can frequently 

require action over multiple legislative sessions. The commenters stated that developing the 

necessary regulatory structure once appropriate legislation is passed can take several years, 

particularly when comprehensive public participation requirements must be met. The 

commenters stated that even under optimal conditions, EPA's 2-year deadline to submit a State 

implementation plan is unduly aggressive and unlikely to be met by more than a handful of 

States with legislation already in place to allow implementation plans to be developed solely 

through regulatory efforts.

The commenters stated that the time constraints associated with completing the necessary 

legislative and regulatory action to prepare a satisfactory implementation plan are exacerbated in 

States with part-time legislatures that have limited time to consider and enact the sweeping 

legislation that will, in many cases, be needed to implement the proposed rule. The commenters

provided Texas as an instructive example representative of other States. The commenters stated 

that Texas has a part-time legislature that meets every other year for 6 months. According to the 

commenters, Texas' next legislative session is scheduled to begin on January 13, 2015 and end 

on June 1, 2015, and under the current schedule, the legislative session will end on the day that 

EPA is scheduled to finalize the ESPS rule and the legislature is not scheduled to meet again 

until January of 2017. Thus, the commenters stated that even if the legislature were able to 

overhaul its existing energy laws by revising its competitive market structure and enacting RPS 

and EERS programs during the 2017 legislative session, the State regulatory agencies would 

only have, at most, a few months to develop, propose, and finalize a State implementation plan. 

The commenters stated that this is virtually impossible, given the procedural requirements that 

accompany such regulatory initiatives. Putting aside the substantive requirements that must 

accompany any proposed rule (see Tex. Gov't Code section 2001.024), the commenters stated 

that an agency must give the public 30 days to comment on any proposed rule, (see id. sections 

2001.023, .029), and must respond to substantive comments (see id. Section 2001.033). The 
181

commenters argued that such a complicated undertaking cannot be completed in a matter of 

months.

The commenters noted that, given the sweeping scope of the proposed rule, a satisfactory 

implementation plan may require the coordination of multiple State agencies. The commenters

noted that the State agencies responsible for managing and dispatching electricity generation 

may be different than the agencies responsible for implementing renewable energy programs or 

energy efficiency initiatives. Thus, the commenters stated that even after appropriate legislative 

programs are in place, determining which agencies are responsible for developing 

implementation plans and successfully coordinating between them will take additional time. The 

commenters stated that in Montana, for example, developing an implementation plan "would 

require coordination between the Public Service Commission, the Department of Environmental 

Quality, the self-governing electric cooperatives, and public power entities of the State of 

Montana," the Governor's Office, [and] the Department of Commerce. The commenters stated 

that the interagency coordination that may be needed to develop an implementation plan may add 

months, if not years, to the overall regulatory process. 

The commenters stated that EPA's proposal to add one additional year for States seeking to 

establish multi-State implementation plans falls far short. In addition to the State-specific 

challenges described above, the commenters explained that the intrastate negotiations needed to 

establish and authorize a memorandum of understanding, a final agreement on a multi-State plan 

and, in all likelihood, a new intrastate organization to implement the program will take far more 

than one additional year. The commenters noted that depending on the structure of the multiState agreement, Congressional approval may also be required under the Interstate Compact 

Clause. See U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The commenters provided California's linkage of 

AB32 with Quebec as an instructive example. The commenters stated that the Western Climate 

Initiative, which included California and Quebec, along with other States and Provinces, was 

initiated in February 2007. The commenters stated that although California adopted AB32 in 

2006, it took the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 5 years (until October 2011) to adopt 

cap-and-trade regulations to implement AB32. The commenters stated that the CARB did not 

propose regulations to link California's cap and trade program with Quebec for another seven 

months, and then took nearly a year and a half to finalize the linkage and hold the first joint 

auction in November 2014. In light of California's 6-year process for establishing a multi-State 

program to reduce GHG emissions, the commenters stated that it is unreasonable for EPA to set 

a 3-year deadline for States to reach similar agreements under the proposed rule.

Rather than providing unmanageably short deadlines for submittal of State plans, the 

commenters suggested that the EPA should take a flexible approach with deadlines that will 

ensure that States have the time necessary to complete the legislative and regulatory actions 

needed to prepare a satisfactory implementation plan. At a minimum, the commenters

recommended that EPA offer all States at least 4 years to submit an implementation plan, 

regardless of whether they intend to submit a single- or multi-State plan and provide States with 

the opportunity to extend these deadlines, provided they can show continued progress toward 

development of a satisfactory State plan.
182

Comment 93: Comment stating that the time proposed for States' submissions is too short, and 

recommending that EPA grant States at least 5 years to submit single state emission guidelines 

SIPs, and at least 7 years to submit multi-state SIPs.

Response 93: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns,

such as those the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim milestone. The final rule includes this additional 

time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, 

infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is 

committed to continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them 

to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to 

facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. 

As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to 

make these resources available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is 

also proposing model rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to 

facilitate the development of their state rule. Submittal deadlines for single and multi-state plans 

have been aligned. See sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan 

submittals, the approval process, and timing. The compliance start date for the program has 

changed from 2020 to 2022, which is effectively 7 years after the final rule’s promulgation. EPA 

has decided not to finalize building block 4 as part of the best system of emission reduction 

(BSER). However, states may use demand side energy efficiency as a non-BSER compliance 

measure in state plans. For federalism issues see section XII.E of executive order 13132 in the 

CPP final rule preamble. Additionally, see section III.A and III.B summarizing the rule 

requirements and legal basis for the rule, and section IV for EPA’s legal authority in the CPP 

final rule preamble. There is also a Legal Memorandum for the Final CPP Rule in the docket for 

this final rule. There is also a TSD on resource adequacy and reliability in the docket for this 

final rule. Multi-state plans and multi-state implementation are addressed in section VIII of the 

CPP final rule preamble. Section VIII.F addresses performance demonstrations and compliance. 

Information on approvability criteria is found in section VIII.D along with state plan 

components. The approval process and timing is described in section VIII.E. The Federal Plan 

will be proposed coincident with this final rule. For information on building block 2 and 

generation shifts among affected EGUs, see section V.D in the CPP final rule preamble. Section 

V of the final rule preamble also discusses the ability of EGUs to implement BSER. For 

information on building block 3, see section V.E in the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the time proposed for States' submissions is too short, and the final 

compliance date should be extended. The commenters noted that EPA proposes to allow States 

roughly 1 year from the finalization of the emission guidelines to submit their state 

implementation plans (SIPs). The commenters stated that although EPA proposes to allow 

extensions of up to a year for States proposing plans alone, and up to 2 years for States proposing 
183

plans in conjunction with other States, even these extended periods are impermissibly short given 

the complexity of the task at hand. The commenters stated that section 111(d) specifically refers 

to Section 110 as a model for the adoption of SIPs addressing emissions from existing sources in 

a category, and section 110 allows States up to 3 years after promulgation of a NAAQS to submit 

SIPs. The commenters argued that even this period of time does not appropriately reflect the 

complexity of determining how to obtain the required emission reductions and the time 

necessary to adopt the laws and regulations necessary to achieve them given this rulemaking's 

unprecedented scale and scope. 

The commenters recommended that EPA grant States at least 5 years to submit single state 

emission guidelines SIPs, and at least 7 years to submit multi-state SIPs. The commenters argued 

that extensions should be liberally granted when a State can demonstrate that it is making good 

faith efforts to develop its plan or when it is working with other States to develop a multi-state or 

regional plan. The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule would require States to take 

unprecedented steps to regulate the generation, transmission, and use of electricity within their 

borders and, in many instances, beyond them. According to the commenters, these efforts are 

likely to require the passage of new legislation authorizing such actions, the development of 

regulations to implement those statutory authorities, and detailed assessments on a utility-byutility, source-by-source basis of what reductions can be obtained while still ensuring a reliable 

and affordable electric supply for the States' citizens.

Commenters stated that the proposed rule's tight implementation deadlines ignore 44 years of 

Clean Air Act history. The commenters described historical SIP submittal timelines under the 

NAAQS. The commenters stated that collective experiences of States and EPA working to attain 

air quality standards, and Congress' statutory recognition of the difficulties in each successive set 

of Clean Air Act legislation, highlights the folly of the extremely short timelines in the Proposed 

Rule. The commenters noted that under the statute, an "extreme" ozone area is authorized 20 

years to attain a standard that it had already been working to reach for 20 previous years. By

contrast, the commenters noted that under the Proposed Rule all States have essentially the same 

very short timelines with no more than 3 years to meet unrealistic Interim Goals and less than 15 

years to meet the Final Goals for reduction of CO2 emissions, a pollutant that few States have 

any experience controlling. The commenters argued that the history of the Clean Air Act clearly 

demonstrates how unrealistic the deadlines in the proposal are. 

The commenters stated that a fundamental principle of cooperative Federalism under the Act is 

that state air pollution agencies are not acting as delegates of EPA authority or directly 

implementing the Federal Clean Air Act in establishing their programs and requirements under 

Sections 110 and 111(d). Instead, the commenters noted state agencies are acting and 

implementing EPA-mandated requirements derived from the Clean Air Act through organic state 

statutes. The commenters noted that state agencies are governed by the statutory and 

constitutional principles of each State, subject to the limitations in such authorities as exist in 

each State. The commenters noted that some States may have no statutory authority to regulate 

CO2 as a greenhouse gas, especially in the broad manner EPA dictates in its Proposed Rule.

Consequently, the commenters stated that the extremely tight time schedules and deadlines in the 

Proposal - final rules by June 2015, with SIPs to be submitted by June 2016 (with limited 

opportunities for 1- and 2-year extensions), and interim reduction goals to be met by 2020 - will 
184

be impossible for most, if not all, States to meet. In most States, the commenters noted that state 

legislatures meet for limited time periods during each year (if they meet annually) while other 

state legislatures meet every other year, further delaying those States' ability to meet EPA's 

unrealistic timelines.

Consistent with CAA Section 110, the commenters recommended that EPA provide at least 5 

years for individual States to develop implementation plans under 111(d) and 7 years for States 

that choose to adopt multi-state plans. According to the commenters, these time periods are 

necessary for States to fully evaluate compliance approaches, including modeling and additional 

technical analyses, obtain necessary statutory authority, draft and finalize implementation plans 

that are subject to notice, comment, and hearing administrative procedures. The commenters

stated that the additional recommended time will account for the significant coordination needed 

for state agencies to develop plans with other agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of the 

requirements under the Proposed Rule, and especially for the coordination needed among 

multiple agencies in States participating in multi-state plans.

The commenters also recommended that EPA provide a sufficient time period for state 

legislatures to enact necessary legislation. The commenters stated that the time allocated under 

the Proposed Rule is unrealistically short and will not provide the time necessary to enact the 

legislative authority needed to implement at least three of EPA's building blocks. At a minimum, 

the commenters recommended that EPA include at least 2 to 3 years for state legislatures to act, 

and extend that part of the implementation process to 2019.

The commenters explained that following enactment of state legislation, state regulatory 

agencies, both environmental agencies and public utility regulators, will require, at a minimum, 

18 months to 2 years to adopt implementing regulations and draft plans, even on an expedited 

basis. The commenters stated that coordinating regulations among several state agencies under a 

multi-state plan will require additional time, at least 2 to 3 years.

The commenters provided for example that EPA frequently cites the Northeast States' formation 

of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as an example of how States can band 

together for collective action to comply with the Proposed Rule. The commenters stated that 

RGGI was not created overnight - as EPA would have States try to do under its proposal - but 

required many years to plan and implement. The commenters explained that the initial effort 

began in 2003, with 2 years needed to craft a CO2 emissions reduction plan for submission to 

participating States for review, and an additional 3 years needed to establish the first auction of 

CO2 credits in 2008. In this instance, with all participants voluntarily working towards a shared, 

and much more limited, goal than EPA imposed in its proposal, the commenters stated that the 

project took 5 years to accomplish. Under EPA's proposal, the commenters stated that even the 

RGGI program would not have had sufficient time to be launched.

Moreover, the commenters stated that the outside-the-fence-line options and requirements in the 

proposal will, at a minimum, require direct participation by each State's public utility regulatory 

body. The commenters stated that this results from EPA's inclusion of requirements for increased 

use of renewable energy and non-emitting electricity sources, dispatch of generating units based 

on CO2 emission rates rather than traditional least-cost dispatch, and energy efficiency measures 

such as demand management. The commenters stated that these measures are well beyond the 
185

jurisdiction and statutory authority of state air pollution agencies. The commenters noted that in 

many States, these agencies have not worked together previously and under EPA's proposal will 

be imposing its own oversight over their respective roles and jurisdiction.

The commenters stated that implementation of the Proposal, or anything like it, will require new 

legislation to authorize involved state agencies, both air pollution and public utility regulators, to 

devise and implement the types of measures in the proposal. The commenters stated that in cases 

where electric generating companies subject to the proposal operate in more than one State or a 

State's electric generating system is part of a multi-state system, the complexity and types of 

regulatory structures needed to implement the requirements in the proposal increase 

exponentially. Consequently, the commenters stated that serious questions arise as to whether 

multi-state implementation plans as prescribed in the proposal will prove practical or feasible.

The commenters stated that even if an individual State can surmount these statutory and 

legislative hurdles in the very limited time provided under the Proposal, unless EPA grants an 

extension each State would need to complete its plan for submittal within a year following 

issuance of final rules by EPA. The commenters asserted that this time period is woefully 

inadequate for a State to create a plan approvable under the proposal. The commenters stated that 

the complexity of the measures in each of the building blocks means that each State will have to 

extensively evaluate all electric generating units within the State: (1) for opportunities to meet 

the 6% heat rate improvement required under building block 1; (2) to determine whether or not 

all natural gas-fired units are capable of being dispatched on a 70% basis; (3) for means and 

opportunities to add to the State's renewable energy unit portfolio; (4) to determine whether or 

not nuclear generating units are capable of operating on an increased usage basis; and (5) what 

options are available to decrease electricity usage through demand-side management or other 

energy efficiency measures.

The commenters noted that EPA then has a year to review and either approve each plan, seek 

changes to it, or disapprove the plan and issue a Federal Implementation Plan in its place. During 

this period, the commenters noted that the relevant state agencies and the state legislature will 

not know whether their plan will be judged acceptable. The commenters stated that even if EPA 

reviews and acts expeditiously to approve state plans, the earliest approvals cannot likely occur 

until at least late 2016. The commenters stated that this places state agencies in the position of 

being unable to begin implementing an approved plan until well into 2017, with interim 

compliance required barely 3 years later in 2020.

The commenters stated that a significant additional complication is that many additional sources 

and entities beyond traditionally regulated electric utility companies would likely be subject to 

requirements under building blocks 2, 3 and 4 of the proposal. In particular, the commenters

stated that independent power producers and other electricity suppliers that are generally not 

subject to public utility regulation by States would have to be brought into the regulatory 

scheme. The commenters stated that statutory and regulatory means to include these sources, and 

coordinate their activities under a state plan will have to be devised and the legislative authority 

to implement them enacted.

The commenters stated that meeting the 70% goal of building block 2 could require significant 

participation by entities, such as independent power producers and others that are not owners or 
186

operators of the coal-fired power plants that are the primary targets of the proposal. The 

commenters stated that for the most part, they are not regulated by state public utility regulatory 

agencies and may not subject to state statutory requirements for traditionally regulated utility 

companies. In such cases, the commenters stated that integration of additional electricity 

providers into a state 111(d) SIP will require new legislative authority and evaluation of the 

significant practical and legal issues involved.

Similarly, the commenters stated that increasing renewable energy sources and generating under 

building block 3 involves many other types of companies that design, build, and operate these 

sources of electricity which are even more diverse and not currently under any sort of state 

regulation. The commenters stated that careful evaluation will be needed to determine how and 

whether to incorporate them into a state 111(d) SIP to effectuate this building block. Inclusion of 

such sources would require new legislative authority for state agencies.

The commenters stated that a significant aspect of adding renewable, nuclear and other nonGHG emitting sources of electricity is the need for added transmission capacity to deliver 

electricity generated by the sources to end users. The commenters stated that without adequate 

electric transmission capacity, any additional output from these sources would be unavailable to 

reduce the use of GHG-emitting generation sources.

The commenters stated that with very limited exceptions, authorization and regulation of electric 

transmission lines is by state public utility regulatory bodies under each State's organic statutes, 

rather than the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which generally has regulatory 

jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines as discussed below. The commenters stated that any new 

electric transmission would be subject to the limitations and variations of state laws. As an initial 

matter, the commenters stated that the need for any new transmission line must be established to 

the satisfaction of public utility regulators, along with approval of a route for the line, cost, and 

other legal requirements. The commenters noted that frequent and often vociferous opposition in 

recent years to siting electric transmission lines means regulatory approval is often difficult to 

obtain and time-consuming. On average, the commenters stated that transmission lines require at 

a minimum 5 to 7 years from conception to construction and operation. The commenters

provided for example that Utah permitting guidance estimates a seven year process for a routine 

siting, permitting and construction of a new, 100 mile power line that crosses federal lands. 

Similarly, the commenters noted that the Southwest Power Pool, in comments to EPA states that 

an average of 6 years is needed for new transmission lines and often can exceed 8.5 years from 

design to construction. 

Finally, the commenters stated that increasing efficiency of electricity usage under building 

block 4 will require an integrated structure that includes all electricity suppliers in a State to be 

effective. Once again, the commenters stated that other, non-public utility electricity suppliers 

will have to be brought into and integrated into each State's plan. The commenters stated that this 

is especially the case with this building block since goal of 1.5% reduction in electricity usage 

continues into the future on an annual basis, and is not simply a one-time requirement like the 

6% heat rate reduction. The commenters stated that including all electricity providers in a 

demand-side energy efficiency program to meet this goal will require complex integration of 

each of these entities and new state legislative authority to do so.
187

For the reasons discussed herein and consistent with CAA Section 110, the commenters

recommended that at least 5 years be provided for individual States to develop implementation 

plans under 111(d), and 7 years for States that choosing to participate in multi-State plans. The 

commenters contended these extended deadlines will provide additional time for the significant 

coordination needed for multiple agencies in several States to develop plan and for the necessary 

legislative authority to implement at least three of EPA's building blocks to be enacted. EPA 

should adjust State's final compliance goals accordingly.

Commenters argued that states need more time to prepare, submit and obtain EPA approval for 

their plans. The commenters asserted that the Proposed Rule does not allow states sufficient time 

to prepare compliance plans and submit them to EPA for approval. The commenters noted that 

Proposal essentially provides states 1 year to develop an intrastate plan and 2 years to develop 

multi-state plans, with the ability to request a one-year extension. The commenters stated that, 

given the complexity and pervasiveness of what is required, this is simply not enough time. 

The commenters noted that states will need to consult with policy makers, stakeholders, utilities, 

and other entities with a potential direct compliance obligation to begin determining the critical 

elements of the program, including enforceability. The commenters stated that this could be 

contentious and thus time consuming. Moreover, the commenters noted that a state's compliance 

plan is likely to require a variety of changes in state law to be implemented. The commenters 

noted that even if agreement for such legislative proposals is achieved in concept, the actual 

legislative process itself can be very time consuming and uncertain. The commenters noted that 

timing issues are only exacerbated in efforts to develop multi-state plans. The commenters 

referred to the comments of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which state:

"However, NCSL believes the 13 months between the expected finalization of the rule (June 

2015) and the deadline for states to submit implementation plans (June 2016) is not enough time 

for states to make any legislative changes that may be needed in order to submit a complete SIP, 

given the incompatibility of EPA's proposed timeframe with state legislative calendars."

The commenters noted that the NCSL goes on to point out that some state legislatures will have 

already adjourned for the year at the time the final rule is issued, and that four states only hold 

regular sessions every other year "putting them at an even further disadvantage." The 

commenters noted that the NCSL letter acknowledges the possibility of special legislative 

sessions to address the state's compliance plan, but notes that in 16 states, only the governor can 

call a special session, and that there are often significant costs to the state to convene such 

special sessions. The commenters stated that the NCSL concludes: "Therefore, the June 2016 

timeframe for states to submit an implementation plan or meet the requirements for an extension 

poses significant challenges."

The commenters provided an example of such a challenge in Minnesota, where the existing 

Integrated Resource Planning Statute would have to be re-written and passed by the legislature, 

to make the changes necessary for the state to meet its reduction goals under the Proposal. 

Likewise, the commenters stated the Minnesota renewable energy mandate and state energy 

efficiency goal would also have to be revised to reflect the state plan assuming there is sufficient 

political support in the legislature to do so.
188

The commenters stated that even if a state has authority to adopt a state plan under its 

administrative procedures act and delegated authority, it still must go through a lengthy public 

process to enact any such rules, again adding to the delay in the process of even presenting a plan 

to EPA for approval. The commenters stated that Missouri's environmental agency, the 

Department of Natural Resources, which has no legal authority over the operation of electric 

utilities, has a statutory timetable that requires as much as two full years for the implementation 

of a single rule.

The commenters explained that APPA notes that the east coast's Regional Greenhouse Gas 

Initiative (RGGI) began with formal discussions among various states in 2003 where the states 

then announced a memorandum of understanding in December 2005 and published a model rule 

in August 2006 setting forth the recommended regulatory framework for developing regulatory 

and statutory proposals for the various state members. The commenters explained that States 

then began their own in-state rulemaking processes to adopt a framework for each state to 

participate in a regional cap and trade program. The commenters stated that they considered and 

adopted regulatory rules or statutes governing a trading program, parameters for acceptable 

emission offset projects, and authorizing and regulating language for the auctioning of 

allowances. Commenters said states completed their regulatory and statutory work at the end of 

2008 and began a regional trading program in January 2009. The commenters provided a figure

showing the RGGI timeline, which includes dates/actions from 2005 to 2014. 

Thus, the commenters stated that it took a total of 5 to 6 years to go from formal planning to 

actual trading in RGGI, which is a much simpler program than the regional plans envisioned 

under EPA's Proposed Rule. Similarly, the commenters stated that California took several years 

to develop and adopt its cap and trade program. The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule 

should be revised to give additional time to the state planning process. The commenters 

recommended that it should provide states a full 5 years from the date the rule is finalized to 

submit their state plans, and EPA should also revise the final compliance deadlines by a 

corresponding length of time.

Commenters recommended that states be allowed a period of five years to develop a state plan to 

implement the rule once it is finalized (and extend the compliance deadlines an equivalent 

amount of time). The commenters pointed out that other major regulations under the Clean Air 

Act provide a similar amount of time for a state to develop an initial compliance plan, and the 

scope and breadth of this rule is far more complex than rules governing Regional Haze or SO2, 

for example. The commenters noted that, under the proposed Clean Power Plan, states are given 

one year for the planning and implementation of not just a rule, but of an entire program 

touching on many aspects of the utility industry including, but not limited to integrated resource 

planning, transmission and distribution upgrades and planning, dispatch of power in regional 

markets, resource development and financing, reliability, power quality, load following, peak 

shaving, and influencing consumer behaviors (energy efficiency). 

Comment 94: Comment stating that the SIP submission timeline must be extended, 

recommending no less than 5 years from rule finalization until initial SIPs submissions are due, 

with states pursuing multistate SIPs provided at least 7 years, and suggesting that these timelines 
189

should only start to run once the Rule has been fully litigated and a final decision on the Rule has 

been reached by the courts.

Response 94: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See sections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan submittal, the approval process, 

and timing in the CPP final rule preamble. See section VIII.D on state plan components and 

approvability criteria in the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the SIP submission timeline must be extended. The commenters noted 

that EPA has proposed that states submit SIPs slightly more than 1 year after the finalization of 

the Rule Proposal -- by June 30, 2016. The commenters noted that states submitting individual 

state plans may qualify for a 1-year extension (June 30, 2017); states pursuing multi-state plans 

may qualify for a 2-year extension (June 30, 2018). As a prerequisite for extension, the 

commenters noted that the state must submit an "initial plan" that includes a description of the 

plan approach, progress dates, initial quantification of levels of emissions performance, a 

comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan, and various other criteria. As a result, the 

commenters stated that EPA's proposed SIP submittal extensions provide little relief to the states. 

The commenters stated that in order to comply with the initial plan requirements due by June 30, 

2016, the bulk of preparation and planning must be completed. Further, the commenters stated 

that there is no certainty that EPA will approve the initial plan upon submittal, introducing 

uncertainty into the process. 

The commenters stated that Section 111(d) specifically refers to Section 110 as a model for 

adopting SIPs. The commenters stated that Section 110 allows up to 3 years for states to submit 

SIPs after the promulgation of new or revised NAAQS. The commenters noted that while 

NAAQS are certainly complicated rulemakings that require at least 3 years to implement, a 

traditional NAAQS SIP is far less complicated than a SIP required under this Rule Proposal; the 

Rule Proposal SIP must address various components of the electricity market, spanning 

numerous industries, and even reaching into the homes of electricity end-users. The commenters

stated that while EPA uses the NAAQS SIP rules as model, the scope of this Rule Proposal 

requires EPA to provide additional time to submit a SIP. The commenters recommended no less 

than 5 years from rule finalization until initial SIPs submissions are due, with states pursuing 

multistate SIPs provided at least 7 years. The commenters stated that these timelines should only 
190

start to run once the Rule has been fully litigated and a final decision on the Rule has been 

reached by the courts.

Comment 95: Comment arguing that the timeframes the EPA proposed are very short and 

recommended that EPA give the states at least five years to develop a state plan for a single state 

and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, rather than the maximum of two and three years, 

respectively, that EPA has proposed.

Response 95: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. EPA has aligned the single and multi-state plan submittal deadlines. See 

sections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan submittal, the approval process, and timing in the CPP 

final rule preamble.

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

Given the complexity of the tasks that EPA has assigned the states, commenters argued that the 

timeframes EPA proposed are very short and recommended that EPA give the states at least five 

years to develop a state plan for a single state and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, 

rather than the maximum of two and three years, respectively, that EPA has proposed. The 

commenters also recommended that the Agency provide an extra three years for developing any 

state plan upon a demonstration of reasonable progress toward development of a plan.

Comment 96: Comment proposing that the EPA allow each state at least five years to develop 

an individual state plan and up to seven years for a multi-state plan, and that the interim goals be 

eliminated.

Response 96: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities 

such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, 

legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive outreach to 

states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in 
191

form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state 

plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and 

other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy

and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated 

website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model rules for state plans which, 

when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state rule. EPA has 

aligned the single and multi-state plan submittal deadlines. See section VIII.E on state plan 

submittal, the approval process, and timing in the CPP final rule preamble. EPA has moved the 

compliance start date from 2020 to 2022. See section VII on statewide performance goals in the 

CPP final rule preamble. See the technical support document, Resource Adequacy and Reliability 

Analysis TSD for CPP Final Rule, in the docket for this final rule. Reliability and the reliability 

safety valve are also discussed in section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters proposed that EPA allow each state at least five years to develop an individual state 

plan and up to seven years for a multi-state plan. The commenters noted that EPA proposed to 

require states to submit their state plans within one year of any final rule. Though EPA proposed 

to allow extensions of one year for states proposing to submit plans alone and two years for 

states proposing to submit plans as part of a regional group, the commenters contended that these 

timeframes are woefully inadequate given the complexity of the rule. 

The commenters also proposed that EPA eliminate the interim goals that are to take effect in 

2020. According to the commenters, not only do states need more time to develop their state 

plans, they need more time to meet the various building block requirements (e.g., heat rate 

improvements, new transmission lines, pipelines and storage), all of which take years to 

complete. The commenters argued that the 2020 compliance goal provides no reasonable time 

for states, and the regulated utilities to complete these tasks and meet what is often 70 -80% of 

their 2030 reduction goals. The commenters noted that, in its November 2014 report, the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation concluded that, "The proposed timeline does not 

provide enough time to develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable operation of the 

grid by 2020. To attempt to do so would increase the use of controlled load shedding and 

potential for wide-scale, uncontrolled outages." For these reasons, the commenters recommended 

that the interim goals be removed. Furthermore, given the extensive legal, regulatory and 

physical changes that must occur first, the commenters recommended that EPA give states until 

2035 to achieve compliance with any emission reduction targets.

Comment 97: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 

modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive 

outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and 

support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of 
192

approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, 

templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule.

Comment stating that the timeframes the EPA proposes for state plan submissions are 

unnecessarily short, particularly given the complexity of the tasks EPA has assigned to each state 

or group of states, and recommending alternative compliance dates.

Response 97: See sections VIII.B and VIII.E on state plan submittal, the approval process, and 

timing in the CPP final rule preamble. See section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble for a 

discussion on remaining useful life. EPA has changed the compliance start date from 2020 to 

2022. Interim targets are discussed in section VII on statewide performance goals and in section 

VIII.B on state plan performance periods of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters argued that the rule is unworkable given the timeframes that EPA has set for 

compliance. First, and for a variety of reasons, the commenters stated that the timeframes EPA 

proposes for state plan submissions are unnecessarily short, particularly given the complexity of 

the tasks EPA has assigned to each state or group of states. The commenters stated that EPA 

must recognize the difficulty of any state to bring such a complex rulemaking and most stringent 

objective to a satisfactory conclusion, and should give the states at least five years to develop a 

state plan for a single state and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, rather than the 

maximum of two and three years, respectively, that EPA has proposed. The commenters said the 

Agency should also provide an extra three years for developing any state plan upon a 

demonstration of reasonable progress toward development of a plan. Further, and in accordance 

with their own regulations, the commenters said EPA should allow the states to adopt 

compliance deadlines that are based on the remaining useful lives of each of the designated 

existing facilities. Finally, given the extensive legal, regulatory, and physical changes that must 

occur, the commenters said EPA must relax the individual state compliance date until 2035 and 

EPA must abandon the interim targets it has proposed as completely unworkable.

Comment 98: Comment arguing that the tasks that a state must undertake to develop an 

approvable plan are immense and cannot be completed within the time frames proposed by EPA, 

and requesting five years to submit an individual state plan and seven years for a multi-state 

plan, with an extension of the final compliance deadline to at least 2035.

Response 98: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 
193

modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive 

outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and 

support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of 

approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, 

templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan 

submittal, approval process, and timing. EPA has aligned the single and multi-state plan 

submittal dates. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020.

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

Commenters argued that the proposed rule is extremely complicated and the tasks that a state 

must undertake to develop an approvable plan are immense and cannot be completed within the 

time frames proposed by EPA. Given the fact that the task EPA has handed the states exceeds the 

efforts to develop and submit a state plan, the commenters joined the National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association's request for five years to submit an individual state plan and seven 

years for a multi-state plan, with an extension of the final compliance deadline to at least 2035.

According to the commenters, the short one-year time frame to develop a complete plan-or even 

an initial plan to qualify for an extension-places significant challenges for the public and 

stakeholders to have meaningful input into the development of the state plans. The commenters

contended that EPA had seriously underestimated the effort its proposed rule will require. The 

commenters noted that companies will not be able to provide feedback to state plans until they 

are proposed, but states will need information from companies in order to develop plans. The 

commenters stated that the proposed rule thus creates a "chicken and egg" problem, as EPA is 

effectively requiring the electric power industry to be reorganized by state environmental 

regulators without sufficient detail to direct the planning process. In order for EPA's proposed 

rule to have the possibility to function as designed, the commenters said states will need input 

and cooperation from a wide range and large number of stakeholders. The commenters indicated 

that this is necessarily going to be an iterative process. The commenters noted that stakeholder 

involvement is a timely and costly process for the states and for the stakeholders themselves. The 

commenters said these hurdles are especially high for entities such as the commenters that have 

operations in more than one state. The commenters stated that their knowledge of their own 

systems and their expertise is vital to the development of the state plans. The commenters said it 

will take significant involvement and resources to participate in the development of one state 

plan, let alone many. 

Commenters also argued that, without additional time, stakeholders such as the commenters will 

not be able fully participate in the development of the state plans and states will not get the full 

benefit of the knowledge and experience of the stakeholders. The commenters said one year for 

an individual plan or two years for a multi-state plan is not enough. According to the 

commenters, the EPA, like it has done elsewhere in the proposed rule, should recognize that the 

unique nature and complexity of the proposed rule requires a greater deviation from the 
194

implementing regulations and should allow additional time for states to develop and submit state 

plans. Yet, with respect to timing, the commenters stated that EPA barely flexes its right to 

discretion under the regulation to extend the timing of submitting a state plan. Unlike the other 

instances where EPA has issued emission guidelines for existing sources under CAA section 

111(d), the commenters stated that the reach of the proposed rule goes far beyond the scope and 

even the boundaries of the previous guidelines-the proposed rule requires the entire electric 

energy industry to be reconstructed, reorganized, and rebuilt.

Commenters further argued that EPA cannot expect the states to complete the many complicated 

steps within one or even two years, including the new regulatory or statutory authorities that 

states may be required to develop and pass through its various legislatures and administrative 

bodies. According to the commenters, Congress and EPA have recognized that additional time is 

necessary to complete tasks as complicated as a SIP. The commenters noted that, in the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress amended section 110(a) (1) to increase the time for 

submission of a state implementation plan from nine months to three years. See Pub. L. No. 101-

952, 104 Stat. 2399, Conf. Rep., at 1462 (Oct. 29, 1990). The commenters also noted that EPA 

subsequently amended the PSD regulations to reflect this extension from nine months to three 

years for submittal of a revised SIP upon revision of the PSD and NSR rules. 67 FR 80186, 

80241 (Dec. 31, 2002); 40 CFR 51.166(a) (6) (i).

Comment 99: Comment stating that the time frames the EPA proposes are absurdly short, 

particularly given the complexity of the tasks EPA has assigned the States, and recommending 

that the EPA give the states at least five years to develop a state plan for a single state and seven 

years to develop a multi-state plan, and provide an extra three years for developing any state plan 

upon a demonstration of reasonable progress toward development of a plan.

Response 99: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans. The timeframe for mandatory reductions in the final Clean Power Plan begins in 

2022 instead of 2020. The final rule includes this additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and 

modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to continue extensive 

outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide timely assistance and 

support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the development of 

approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, 

templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal,

approval process, and timing. EPA has aligned the single and multi-state plan submittal dates. 

Section VIII.E also discusses state plan extensions.
195

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

Commenters argued that the time frames EPA proposes are absurdly short, particularly given the 

complexity of the tasks EPA has assigned the States. Recognizing this complexity, the 

commenters recommended that EPA give the states at least five years to develop a state plan for 

a single state and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, rather than the maximum of two and 

three years, respectively, that EPA has proposed. The commenters recommended that the 

Agency also provide an extra three years for developing any state plan upon a demonstration of 

reasonable progress toward development of a plan.

Comment 100: Comment arguing that states should be allowed more time to develop their state 

plans - at least five years to submit single state plans and at least seven years to submit multistate plans with extensions liberally granted when a state can demonstrate that it is making good 

faith efforts to develop its plan or when it is working with other states to develop a multi-state or 

regional plan. 

Response 100: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal, 

approval process, and timing. EPA has aligned the single and multi-state plan submittal dates. 

Section VIII.E also discusses state plan extensions.

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

Commenters argued that states should be allowed more time to develop their state plans. The 

commenters recommended that EPA grant states at least five years to submit single state plans 

and at least seven years to submit multi-state plans. The commenters also recommended that 

extensions be liberally granted when a state can demonstrate that it is making good faith efforts 

to develop its plan or when it is working with other states to develop a multi-state or regional 

plan.

The commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to allow the states about one year from the date 

the emission guidelines are adopted to submit their state plans establishing and applying 

standards of performance to affected facilities within their states. Although extensions of up to a 
196

year for states proposing plans alone and up to two years for states proposing plans in 

conjunction with other States are possible, the commenters argued that even these extended 

periods are too short given the complexity of the guidelines and the goals to be achieved.

The commenters noted that section 110 of the Act, "State implementation plans for national 

primary and secondary ambient air quality standards," affords states three years after the 

promulgation of a NAAQS to submit SIPs addressing those standards which are often complex 

in their own right. However, the commenters contended that even three years does not 

adequately account for the enormity of the task of determining the amount and the methodology 

for reducing emissions and the time and political challenges the states face in adopting any laws 

and regulations needed to achieve each state's goals given this rulemaking's unprecedented scale 

and scope.

Comment 101: Comment arguing that the timeframes under the proposed rule are far too short, 

unrealistic, and unworkable and that EPA should give the states at least five years to develop a 

state plan for a single state and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, as well as more 

flexibility in establishing a compliance date.

Response 101: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to finalize 

their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan 

submittals and timing. See section VIII.B of the CPP final rule preamble regarding state plan 

performance periods. See section XI of the CPP final rule preamble regarding the impacts of this 

action including energy, economic, and employments impacts. 

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

Commenters argued that the timeframes under the proposed rule are far too short, unrealistic, and 

unworkable, given the complexity of the tasks EPA has assigned the states and the need for 

states to coordinate with their neighbors, FERC and the RTOs and ISOs where electricity is 

dispatched. The commenters noted that EPA proposed to require states to submit their 

implementation plans within one year of any final emission guideline, with possible extensions 

of up to one year for states proposing individual implementation plans and two years for states 

proposing regional plans.
197

The commenters asked EPA to consider the potential political landmines alone that must be 

navigated for states to craft a workable regional plan. According to the commenters, not only 

will the plans need to be vetted and agreed to by various interested stakeholders, but

policymakers will also have to find agreement from diverse group of legislators, administrations 

and regulatory groups. The commenters said that finding consensus even within state boundaries 

is going to be difficult enough.

The commenters agreed with NRECA that EPA should give the states at least five years to 

develop a state plan for a single state and seven years to develop a multi-state plan, rather than 

the maximum of two and three years, respectively, that EPA has proposed. The commenters said 

this delay in implementation would also allow EPA and its stakeholders more time to sort 

through the practical implications and what the commenters see as some of the mistaken 

assumptions that went into the making of the rule. 

In addition, the commenters also urged the EPA to provide more flexibility in establishing a 

compliance date, allowing states and regions to take into consideration things such as current and 

projected market demand, the useful life of the various facilities within the Region, debt loads 

and the ability of utilities to borrow for transitional expenses. The commenters said this would 

help soften the potentially devastating financial impact of the proposed rule on some utility 

customers or electric cooperative members and ensure that regional markets retain reliable 

energy supplies.

Comment 102: Comment stating that a schedule analogous to most other rules and SIP calls, 

five to seven years, is much more appropriate given the complexity of potential compliance 

options and the lack of precedent for regulating CO2 emissions.

Response 102: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the EPA is committed to 

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them to provide 

timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, training and guidance to facilitate the 

development of approvable state plans within the timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance 

documents, tools, templates and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. Concurrent with this final rule EPA is also proposing model 

rules for state plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development 

of their state rule. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan 

submittals and timing. Note that EPA has changed the CPP compliance start date from 2020 to 

2022 in the final rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
198

Commenters argued that states need a much more realistic schedule for development, 

submissions approval and implementation of standards of performance and state compliance 

plans. The commenters noted that the CPP allows one to two years for most states. The 

commenters stated that a schedule analogous to most other rules and SIP calls, five to seven 

years, is much more appropriate given the complexity of potential compliance options and the 

lack of precedent for regulating CO2 emissions.

Comment 103: Comment stating that it is reasonable that states be allowed five years to prepare 

their compliance plans, given the experiences of the RGGI states and the MGA which 

demonstrate that an eight-year time period is reasonable in which to craft a collaborative 

approach.

Response 103: The EPA disagrees with the comments. In response to comments, the EPA is 

providing for up to three years for the submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The 

state plan submittal deadlines for initial and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2. of the 

preamble to the final rule. The examples provided by the commenters for why additional time is 

needed to submit a final state plan all speak to existing groundwork that has been done by states 

to develop viable approaches that could be used to meet the emission guidelines and existing 

models that could be drawn from in developing a state plan. Moreover, the EPA is aware of 

multiple dialogs across the country, among multiple states and stakeholders, which began in 

anticipation of the proposed emission guidelines and have continued to the present. The EPA 

believes that these past state efforts and continuing dialogs well-position states to be able to 

submit approvable final state plans within three years of the finalization of the emission 

guidelines. In addition, in response to comments, the EPA has extended the beginning of the first 

plan performance period to 2022. The EPA notes that this provides states with more than six 

years from the publication of final emission guidelines to the beginning of the first plan 

performance period, a period of time equivalent to that required to develop and implement the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Finally, concurrent with this rule, EPA is proposing a Federal Plan with model rules for state 

plans which, when finalized, states may wish to use to facilitate the development of their state 

rules. EPA remains committed to continue our extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and 

work closely with them to provide timely assistance and support in form of additional tools, 

training and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans within the 

timeframe specified in the rule. As guidance documents, tools, templates and other resources 

become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal 

agencies, will continue to make these resources available via a dedicated website.

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

Commenters noted that, when regulating other pollutants under the Clean Air Act, states are 

given much more than 12 months to develop their plans, and the commenters stated that it is only 

reasonable that they be allowed five years to prepare their compliance plans for this 

unprecedented regulation. The commenters said this will also enable regulators to get through the 

legislative and administrative rule-making processes, where required. The commenters said there 
199

remains a myriad of issues for them to work through in a thoughtful and methodical manner if 

they are to create a plan (whether self-correcting or not) that they will not be able to modify once 

it has been approved. 

If states are to be encouraged to collaborate on a multi-state approach, the commenters stated that 

even more time is necessary to bring together a diverse group of states with widely varying CO2 

reduction goals, resource fleets, and renewable energy and energy efficiency potential. The 

commenters stated that the experiences of the RGGI states and the MGA demonstrate that an 

eight-year time period is reasonable in which to craft a collaborative approach that can gain the 

support of multiple states. According to the commenters, these extensions of time for plan 

development (and corresponding extensions of compliance deadlines) are critical if meaningful 

and effective state plans are to be crafted and adopted by the states

Comment 104: Comment stating that the proposed rule is extremely complex with an aggressive 

timeline for planning and compliance that will make both developing and implementing a plan 

difficult and that a request for a 1- or 2-year extension is highly probable for Georgia.

Response 104: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble regarding state plan submittal and timing. For 

compliance, see section VIII.B concerning state plan performance periods and VIII.F concerning 

state plan demonstrations and compliance. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble 

addresses extensions. Note that EPA has changed the CPP compliance start date from 2020 to 

2022 in the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule is extremely complex with an aggressive timeline for 

planning and compliance that will make both developing and implementing a plan difficult. The 

commenters noted that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection 

Division is expected to craft the plan but will need significant input from the Commission, the 

Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (the State Energy office), the Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia (representing municipal electricity providers), Oglethorpe Power 

Corporation (representing electric membership corporation providers), as well as the City of 

Dalton. The commenters stated that plan development is further complicated due to power 

transmission crossing state lines as several plants in Georgia are co-owned by entities in 

neighboring states. The commenters stated that planning for changes to the state's energy 

infrastructure requires substantial lead time to develop the required studies and to undergo the 

Georgia Public Service Commission's public hearing, review, and approval process, in addition 

to the time required for actual development and construction of the necessary infrastructure. The 

commenters stated that a 1-year period to completely formulate the best plan is not realistic and 

will lead to mistakes and unintended long-term consequences. As such, the commenters stated 
200

that a request for a 1- or 2-year extension is highly probable for Georgia. The commenters noted 

that under a multistate plan, if a 2-year extension is requested and granted, the plan will not be 

finalized until June 2018 leaving only 18 months until the first benchmark will need to be 

realized. Given this scenario, the commenters stated that there is not enough time to properly 

prepare for all of the investments that will be needed to comply with the rules. 

Comment 105: Comment stating that EPA's proposal does not provide adequate time for 

development of state plans, that EPA's model underestimates the time required for Florida to 

develop and implement its SIP, and that additional coordination and time will also be required if 

a multi-state plan is to be considered.

Response 105: EPA disagrees as the commenters appear to suggest that a final plan must be 

submitted in June of 2016. The final rule provides states with a full three years to develop a final 

plan. In the final rule EPA clarified that requirements of the initial plan submittal are designed to 

be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final plan See section VIII.E 

of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittal and timing. For compliance, see sections 

VIII.B regarding state plan performance periods and VIII.F regarding state plan demonstrations, 

in the final rule preamble. Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble also addresses extensions. 

Note that EPA has changed the CPP compliance start date from 2020 to 2022 in the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal does not provide adequate time for development of state 

plans. The commenters noted that EPA proposes to finalize the rule by June 1, 2015, and to 

require states to submit state plans by June 30, 2016. According to the commenters, while EPA 

has acknowledged that the complexity of the proposal warrants greater time for state plan 

development than the 9 months typically provided under the section 111(d) rules, state plan 

development will take significantly longer than the additional 4 months EPA proposes to 

provide. The commenters stated that EPA's proposed goals would require most states to 

fundamentally reconfigure their electric generation industries and power supply markets which 

will likely require passing state legislation, developing and modifying agency implementing 

regulations, and agency planning and modeling of necessary infrastructure improvements, such 

as new natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, and EGUs. The commenters asserted that states 

cannot accomplish all of this in 13 months, and it is patently unreasonable, arbitrary, and 

capricious for EPA to require states to do so.

Commenters stated that the EPA's model underestimates the time required for Florida to develop 

and implement its SIP. The commenters noted that EPA's model shows a significant amount of 

Florida's coal- and oil-fired capacity retiring as early as 2016 and being replaced by natural gasfired combined-cycle capacity as early as 2018. The commenters stated that these projections are 

unachievable due to the time required for Florida to develop its SIP and to subsequently site, 

permit, and construct these new units. Quite simply, the commenters stated that these projected 

new units cannot come online as quickly as EPA's model assumes they can.
201

Commenters noted, in Florida for example, the state Legislature will almost certainly have to 

take some action in relation to Florida's state plan, either in passing specific statutory directives 

or authority, or ratifying rules that the FDEP promulgates. The commenters noted that Florida's 

Legislature meets for 2 months every year in March and April, and most bills have to be filed 

many months in advance. The commenters noted, assuming optimistically, that EPA's final 

guidelines have an effective date of June 30, 2015, Florida will have approximately 6 months to 

determine what legislative actions may be needed in the 2016 and 2017 Sessions. The 

commenters stated that this can only occur after it undertakes the enormous task of (1) 

understanding what the final guidelines require, (2) interacting with stakeholders, (3) identifying 

measures that it can implement without legislative action, (4) deciding which measures could 

achieve the state goal, (5) determining the costs of each of these measures on the affected parties 

and Florida's economy so as to minimize the impacts, and (6) coordinating with the FPSC on 

measures that it may be able to implement or must oversee (while ensuring that there are no 

adverse impacts on reliability). The commenters stated that the promulgation of any new rules to 

implement these measures, which will almost certainly require legislative ratification pursuant to 

Florida law, must also be timed to fit the Legislature's schedule. The commenters stated that any 

legal gaps in existing state agency authority to implement the final rule will require the Florida 

Legislature to enact new laws, a process that may not be completed, if at all, by EPA's 

compliance deadlines. Accordingly, the commenters stated that Florida would not have time to 

develop a complete state plan by June 30, 2016. Commenters added that even if Florida does 

somehow develop a complete SIP by June 30, 2016, new natural gas-fired combined-cycle units 

still cannot be sited, permitted, and constructed quickly enough to come online by 2018, as the 

compliance model so optimistically assumes. The commenters stated that realistically, Florida's 

SIP might not be ratified by the Legislature and submitted to EPA until mid-2017, which would 

render siting, permitting, and constructing new units by 2018 impossible.

Commenters stated that even if Florida does somehow develop a complete SIP by June 30, 2016, 

new natural gas-fired combined-cycle units still cannot be sited, permitted, and constructed 

quickly enough to come online by 2018, as the compliance model so optimistically assumes. The 

commenters stated that realistically, Florida's SIP might not be ratified by the Legislature and 

submitted to EPA until mid-2017, which would render siting, permitting, and constructing new 

units by 2018 impossible.

Commenters stated that additional coordination and time will also be required if a multi-state 

plan is to be considered. The commenters provided for example that in 2003, nine northeastern 

states began to develop a regional cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions from power plants. 

The commenters stated that in December 2005, seven of those states agreed to implement RGGI, 

and by August 2006, published a model rule. The commenters stated that it was not until the end 

of 2008, however, that each of the states completed their individual rulemaking processes and 

began participating in RGGI, nearly 6 years after the process began. The commenters stated that 

the history of RGGI illustrates the time required for states to negotiate and develop a multi-state 

plan. The commenters asserted that EPA proposes to provide states only 2 years, which is clearly 

insufficient.

The commenters stated that EPA proposes allowing states to seek an additional year for 

development of single-state plans or an additional 2 years for multi-state plans. The commenters 

stated that even if granted by EPA, these extensions provide minimal relief due to the 
202

burdensome requirements for state plans. The commenters noted that an extension request by a 

state must be submitted by June 30, 2016, and must contain very detailed information, such as a 

description of the intended approach and progress made on each element of the plan, as well as 

"a comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan." The commenters stated that even if seeking 

an extension, each state still must decide by June 30, 2016 what its state plan will be and if an 

extension is granted, it further exacerbates compliance timeframe issues because each state's 

interim compliance period would still begin in 2020. Accordingly, the commenters argued that 

the state plan development schedule in EPA's proposal is arbitrary and capricious, and EPA must 

provide states more time to develop state plans for such a complex and impactful rule.

Comment 106: Comment stating that EPA should allow states more time to develop plans 

because states will need time to coordinate between environmental regulators, electricity 

regulators, electric utilities, and other entities that may be affected by the plan and that the 

proposed 1-year extension for state plans is insufficient to resolve issues. 

Response 106: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure 

addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble on state plan submittal and timing, as well as the approval process. For compliance, see 

sections VIII.B regarding state plan performance periods and VIII.F regarding state plan 

demonstrations, in the final rule preamble. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble also 

addresses extensions. Note that EPA has changed the compliance start date from 2020 to 2022 in 

the final rule. Section V of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the best system of emission 

reduction including generation shifts among affected EGUs and the ability of EGUs to 

implement BSER.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should allow states more time to develop plans. The commenters

reiterated the proposed timeframe (final plans by June 30, 2016 with the option to extend 1 year 

for individual state plans or 2 years for multistate plans). The commenters suggested that EPA 

set the same extended submittal deadline for individual state plans and multi-state plans to 

encourage states to coordinate on multi-state plans; otherwise, states may submit individual plans 

due to concerns that the multi-state plan deadline may not allow them to resolve the many issues 

that must be addressed when multiple states are coordinating on a single plan. 

The commenters explained, assuming that EPA finalizes the Proposal by June 1, 2015, states 

would have only 13 months to submit their plans which is simply not a sufficient amount of time 

for a state to develop a plan in light of the breadth and complexity of the Proposed Rule, which is 

expected to cover not only existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs but all aspects of the electricity sector. 

The commenters stated that additional time is needed to allow states to (1) change regulations, 
203

policies, and even state laws to authorize the implementation of their plans; (2) coordinate 

among various state agencies; and (3) engage neighboring states.

According to the commenters, because of the stringency of the proposed goals, states will be 

required to enact broad initiatives to achieve the necessary CO2 emissions reductions, efforts that 

extend far beyond affected EGUs. The commenters contended that states will have to amend 

existing regulations and policies, or issue new regulations and policies, to ensure that state 

programs yield the CO2 emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate compliance. The 

commenters provided for example, states may need to revise integrated resource planning 

programs to account for redispatch to NGCCs; states with existing RPSs may need to revise their 

programs to guarantee achievement of the projected amount of avoided fossil generation; and 

states also may need to revise their existing EM&V standards for their EE programs so that the 

state can take credit for their EE measures. According to the commenters, such broad changes to 

existing state regulations and policies will take time to develop, and additional time will be 

needed to allow state agencies to comply with EPA's requirements for a public hearing, as well 

as with any state requirements for public comments, hearings and other administrative processes.

The commenters noted that it will be extremely difficult for states to model all of the changes to 

the bulk power electric system, in the order that they need to occur, that would be required for 

states to comply with the Proposed Rule. The commenters noted that this is further complicated 

by the fact that the electric system is regularly tested by the commodities markets (due to events 

like Hurricane Rita and the polar vortex) as well as weather events (like floods, ice storms, and 

extreme heat).

The commenters explained that, in many states, changes to regulations and policies will be 

insufficient to guarantee EPA approval of state programs, and many states will need to enact new 

legislation to empower state agencies to implement and enforce CO2 emission reduction 

programs. The commenters noted for example, state environmental agencies do not have 

authority to require redispatch to NGCCs; some states do not have legal authority to mandate 

redispatch at all. As a result, the commenters noted that states will need to pass legislation to 

authorize, for example, an environmental dispatch approach that takes CO2 emission rates into

account in the dispatch protocol used to schedule generation. See State Plan Considerations 

Technical Support Document at 11 (June 2014), Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0463. 

The commenters noted that states also will need to pass legislation to provide credits or 

adjustments to an EGU's CO2 emissions rate to take into account the effect of RE and EE 

measures. See Id. at 21. The commenters noted that many state plans will have to be approved by 

the state legislature, which in many states meet only for a few months during the year, or meet 

only every other year, making EPA's proposed timeline impossible to meet. The commenters

noted that the state legislatures of Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas meet 

biennially, in odd-numbered years.

The commenters explained that passing state legislation is a lengthy process (e.g., noncontroversial legislation in Wisconsin takes 27 months to pass, over twice as long as EPA's 

proposed 13-month period for the development and submittal of state plans). The commenters

stated that the time necessary to pass legislation associated with state plans that mandate CO2

reductions probably will be even longer, since it likely will be controversial (e.g., because any 
204

legislation involving climate change will face political opposition). The commenters stated that 

EPA's proposed timeline for state plans is unworkable because it does not provide enough time 

for state legislatures to pass the legislation necessary to authorize state agencies to implement the 

actions that will need to be included in the state plan, nor does it provide sufficient time for 

legislatures to approve plans in states where such approval is required, particularly plans that will 

need to be so broad in scope and have such significant impacts on the electricity sector and the 

economy. As of November 19, 2014, the commenters noted that two states (Florida and South 

Carolina) have enacted laws to require legislative approval of state compliance plans under 

certain circumstances and additional states are considering action to require such approval.

The commenters noted that states also will need time to coordinate between environmental 

regulators, electricity regulators, electric utilities, and other entities that may be affected by the 

plan. According to the commenters, complicating this process is the fact that many states have 

ongoing integrated resource planning (IRP) requirements for the electricity sector, which do not 

align with the planning processes for state environmental agencies or EPA's proposed timeline 

for state plan submissions. The commenters stated that the IRP process has the potential to 

greatly impact the development of state plans under the Proposal because states may need to rely 

upon IRPs to make their plan measures enforceable.

Finally, the commenters asserted that states will need more than 13 months to engage with 

neighboring states to address issues that may affect the development of individual state plans 

(e.g., states will need to coordinate about the redispatch of generation from power plants that

have existing agreements with out-of state distribution utilities). The commenters noted that 

states also may wish to explore the possibility of developing a multi-state plan, even if they 

ultimately decide to submit an individual state plan.

The commenters stated that the proposed 1-year extension for state plans is insufficient to 

resolve the issues outlined above. The commenters noted that the Proposed Rule would still 

require states to make an "initial submittal" by the June 30, 2016 deadline that is nearly as 

substantial and detailed as a final plan, which offers no practical relief for states that need 

additional time to develop their plans. The commenters noted that the initial submittal "must 

address all components of a complete plan, including identifying which components are not 

complete," and include a "comprehensive roadmap outlining the path to completion, including 

milestones and dates." 79 FR 34915. The commenters noted that states also must hold a public 

hearing on an initial submittal, just as they would for a final plan, 79 FR 34900, 34915, and the 

initial submittal must be approved by EPA. 79 FR 34916. The commenters recommended that 

EPA should make the initial submittal requirements less stringent.

Comment 107: Comment stating that a regional or multi-state approach requires extensive 

modeling and more planning time and that there should be additional opportunities for public 

comment as stakeholders gain experience with the Clean Power Plan.

Response 107: The EPA agrees that continued stakeholder input during the state plan 

development process is beneficial and encourages states to provide for a robust stakeholder 
205

involvement beyond the basic requirements set forth in the rule. The EPA will also continue 

extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them on the need for 

additional tools and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans.

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

Commenters stated that a regional or multi-state approach requires extensive modeling and more 

planning time. The commenters noted that states are undertaking modeling and projection efforts 

in order to prepare comments on the Clean Power Plan and anticipate a relatively short time 

frame in which to prepare these plans with no additional opportunity to comment after EPA 

releases a final rule. The commenters noted that any plan for Mississippi will have to take into 

consideration any MISO action or planning in response to the Clean Power Plan, as well as the 

multi-state operations of utilities that serve in Mississippi. The commenters stated that plan 

development will require stakeholder input and feedback, as well as coordination between state 

agencies. 

The commenters recognized that there are many unknowns and uncertainties regarding the Clean 

Power Plan. The commenters stated that the appropriate way to address these issues is to allow 

more time for developing plans, to make clear that EPA is committed to being responsive to state 

concerns after this comment period is over, and to welcome the input of other entities with 

expertise in areas such as fuel diversity, reliability, and rate-setting. The commenters urged EPA 

to recognize that there should be additional opportunities for public comment as stakeholders 

gain experience with the Clean Power Plan. While pre-proposal meetings were a good step, the 

commenters stated that they are not a substitute for continuing to be responsive to feedback as 

the plans are developed and implemented.

Comment 108: Comment stating that the rulemaking requires an additional comment period. . 

Response 108: The EPA does not agree that the rulemaking requires an additional comment 

period. The final rule is the product of one of the most extensive and long-running public 

engagement processes the EPA has ever conducted. See section II.K Stakeholder Outreach and 

Consultation of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that additional time for more public comment on the rule must be factored 

into state plan submission deadlines. The commenters stated that EPA hides behind a false cloak 

of "flexibility" in not providing the critical details and information necessary for power providers 

and states to actually understand how the rule will operate and impact their operations. While 

EPA asks for comment on a myriad of issues, the commenters said this, too, masks the alarming 

lack of any information on the actual scope and impact on individual sources, the states, and the 

electric power grid of the proposed rule. The commenters said this makes it virtually inevitable 

that any final rule issued as a result of the proposal will differ materially and significantly from 

the proposed rule. According to the commenters, such a final rule could not be seen as a logical 

outgrowth of the proposed rule, and would thereby require an additional comment period on the 

revised approach to implementing CAA section 111(d). 
206

Comment 109: Comment stating that it will likely take more than 6 months for plan 

development and 9-12 months for rulemaking with an additional comment supporting the 

inclusion of the optional two-phased submittal process for states to seek an extension of time for 

preparing and submitting plans to EPA.

Response 109: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states to 

finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this additional time and 

flexibility to manage complexities such as legislative changes, reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, etc. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble for information on state plan submittals, the approval process, and timing. This section 

also addresses extensions. Also see section VIII.D regarding state plan components and 

approvability criteria and section VIII.F regarding state plan performance demonstrations, in the 

final rule preamble. Note that EPA has moved the program compliance start date from 2020 to 

2022.

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

Commenters stated it will likely take more than 6 months for plan development and 9-12 months 

for rulemaking; therefore many states, will be forced to utilize the initial plan submittal and 

request an extension until June 30, 2017 for complete plan submittal. 

Commenters anticipated needing 6 months or more, depending on plan components and 

complexity, to evaluate, design, and develop a state plan following EPA's release of the final 

guidelines. The commenters stated that adoption of EGU emission limits with no other measures, 

such as EE or RE requirements, would be the simplest approach, but could be overly restrictive; 

therefore, the commenters would like the opportunity, and time, to evaluate a wide range of 

options for the state plan once EPA finalizes the guidelines. The commenters noted Tennessee's

uniqueness and lack of an EE or RE program infrastructure state-wide which is anticipated to 

make this evaluation time-consuming. The commenters stated that based on the proposed 

components of an approvable state plan, items integral to this work include:

• Determination of the appropriate approach (utility-driven or state-driven) and geographic 

scope and identification of affected entities.

• Identification of state emission performance level as rate-based or mass-based level of 

emission performance that must be met through the plan. Additionally, TDEC would 

need to determine if in-state emission trading will be permitted, and if so, how to 

implement such a program. A multi-state emission trading program would require 

additional work and program development.

• Determination of whether to adopt EE/RE measures as part of its state plan, as well as 

whether TDEC has the authority to require the implementation of EE/RE measures and/or 

request the appropriate authority from the legislature. TDEC will need to determine the 

specific EE/RE measures that should be implemented in the plan, the schedule for 
207

implementing those measures, and the appropriate EM& V to demonstrate EE 

compliance.

• Determination of the appropriate consequences of a failure to meet the emission 

performance goals for inclusion in the plan. TDEC would need to ensure the plan is selfcorrecting or develop periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program 

implementation. If the plan is not self-correcting, TDEC will need to develop corrective 

measures to be implemented if progress falls short of the plan projections, as well as a 

process and schedule for implementing any such measures.

• Demonstration that the actions taken pursuant to the plan are, when taken together, 

projected to achieve the initial (2020-2029) and final (2030) emission performance levels.

• Development of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements which 

demonstrate implementation and progress, including the actions taken by TDEC, affected 

EGUs, and any other affected entities under the plan.

• Development of supporting material and technical documentation related to applicable 

components of the plan.

• If adopted via rulemaking, a draft rule would need to be developed and must identify the 

affected entities and explain the legal and economic effects of the rule.

The commenters noted that all of the actions indicated above would need to be completed prior 

to the submittal to the Commissioner and Governor (in the case of a rulemaking) for review and 

approval. The commenters noted that if a rulemaking is required for state plan adoption then the 

time frame required is generally 9-12 months for the rule to become effective. The commenters

noted that there are circumstances, with relatively straightforward rulemakings that do not 

involve fees where the commenters have been able to finalize an effective rule in 6-9 months; 

however, the commenters are skeptical that this timeframe is feasible for this particular 

regulation.

Commenters supported the inclusion of the optional two-phased submittal process for states to 

seek an extension of time for preparing and submitting plans to EPA. The commenters believe 

that Tennessee will need to request this extension. The commenters further supported the 

proposed option of giving EPA a 1-year extended period for review of state plans (instead of the 

typical 4-month review period).

Comment 110: Comment noting that many states will require legislation to implement the 

renewable resource and demand-side management measures that EPA is depending on to replace 

the coal that EPA's proposal will phase out and that there is little prospect that these measures 

could be adopted, along with all of the other requirements that EPA has mandated, within one

year. 
208

Response 110: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as legislative changes. 

EPA decided not to finalize demand-side energy efficiency as part of the best system of emission 

reduction in building block 4. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion 

of state plan submittals and timing. EPA has aligned both the single and multi-state submittal 

deadlines. Note also that EPA has moved the program compliance start date from 2020 to 2022.

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

Commenters noted that, while a limited number of states may require legislative approval of 

NAAQS SIPs, a much larger group of states (including North Dakota) will require legislation to 

implement the renewable resource and demand-side management measures that EPA is 

depending on to replace the coal that EPA's proposal will phase out. The commenters noted that 

virtually every state that has an RPS has one because of a legislative enactment. Thus, the 

commenters concluded that states that do not currently have an RPS (like North Dakota) will 

need legislation to enact one, and states with existing RPSs that EPA is requiring to be 

strengthened will need legislation for that purpose. The commenters indicated the same is the 

case for demand-side management standards. The commenters noted that many state legislatures 

(like North Dakota) do not meet every year, and many that do meet have relatively short 

sessions. Thus, the commenters indicated there is little prospect that these measures could be 

adopted, along with all of the other requirements that EPA has mandated, within one year. 

Comment 111: Comment noting that state air regulating agencies have limited resources, and 

may be unfamiliar with important components of the proposal, such as renewable energy and 

energy efficiency. 

Response 111: The EPA is committed to work closely with state during the plan development 

process to provide training and tools to assist state in developing approval plans. As guidance 

documents, tools, and other resources become available, the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and other federal agencies, will continue to make these resources 

available via a dedicated website. The final rule includes additional time and flexibility to 

manage complexities such as legislative process and the adoption of new rules. See section 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of state plan submittals and timing. EPA 

has aligned both the single and multi-state submittal deadlines. Note also that EPA has moved 

the program compliance start date from 2020 to 2022.

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

Commenters noted that state air regulating agencies have limited resources, and may be 

unfamiliar with important components of the proposal, such as renewable energy and energy 

efficiency. The commenters pointed out that they are accustomed to regulating sources of 

pollution, and that is where their expertise lies. The commenters argued that imposing on air 
209

regulators the obligation of developing plans that regulate beyond the fence line demands that 

they be provided adequate time to marshal needed financial and human resources, hone their 

expertise in such areas and consult with their colleagues in other state agencies, including energy 

agencies and utility commissions. Just as it is essential for EPA to understand the operation of 

the electric industry and the economic and reliability impacts of its proposal, the commenters

said that state air agencies must be provided ample time to develop a working knowledge of the 

additional subject matter beyond the fence line which they are now expected to regulate. In 

addition, the commenters noted that states may need to request legislative authority to implement 

and secure funding for key portions of the Clean Power Plan, which may take several years to 

achieve. Likewise, the commenters noted that states may in turn be required to adopt 

administrative rules to govern the process of state plan development or components of it, which 

can easily consume an entire year or more. The commenters argued that it is essential to provide 

state air regulators adequate time to develop plans regarding CO2 in the same way that they were 

provided years to develop plans for the regulation of criteria pollutants.

Comment 112: Comment noting that some states' agencies do not have the current authority to 

mandate energy efficiency programs or renewable energy construction by the utilities and that 

these states would have to pass some sort of authorizing language for the agency or a mandate to 

implement the state plan. 

Response 112: EPA agrees that some states may need to pass additional legislation to authorize 

certain state measures. The final rule includes additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as legislative authorization. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble 

for a discussion of state plan submittals and timing. EPA has aligned both the single and multistate submittal deadlines. Note also that EPA has moved the program compliance start date from 

2020 to 2022.

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

Commenters noted that some states' agencies (like Iowa) do not have the current authority to 

mandate energy efficiency programs or renewable energy construction by the utilities. The 

commenters noted that these states would have to pass some sort of authorizing language for the 

agency or a mandate to implement the state plan (approaches that the commenters believe are 

unnecessary). According to the commenters, each state must have sufficient time for the political 

process to develop and debate appropriate bills that would implement any proposed state plan. 

The commenters stated that the proposed EPA rule does not account for the legislative action 

that would be necessary for the development and eventual implementation of a state plan. The 

commenters recommended that the proposed rule be revised to give additional time to the 

planning process.
210

Comment 113: Comment requesting that EPA add in more flexibility when various components 

of the plan are submitted to allow a gradual development of the more complicated building 

blocks and state agreements.

Response 113: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In addition, the glide 

path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the building blocks to be phased in 

over time. EPA decided not to finalize demand-side energy efficiency as part of the best system 

of emission reduction in building block 4. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for 

a discussion of state plan submittals and timing. Note also that EPA has moved the program 

compliance start date from 2020 to 2022. Section VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble 

addresses state plan components and approvability criteria.

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

NCDENR would like EPA to add in more flexibility when various components of the plan are 

submitted to allow a gradual development of the more complicated building blocks and state 

agreements. This might include additional one or two year extension to incorporate Building 

Block 3 and 4 and "other measures" if they are found to be legal options and a state chooses to 

consider them as BSER.

Comment 114: Comment stating that compliance plans are not viable without a regional 

transmission analysis and that the time required to determine the generation scenarios, perform 

the assessments, and determine solutions must be factored into the time line for development, 

submission, and approval of state plans and that new transmission needs, engineering, siting and 

construction will take anywhere from 5 to 10 years following development of the compliance 

plans.

Response 114: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 

addition, the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the construction 

of new transmission lines to be phased in over time. Regional analysis and reliability are

addressed in section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble. See also the resource adequacy and 

reliability TSD in the docket to the CPP final rule. Compliance is addressed in section VIII.F of 

the CPP final rule preamble. Section VIII.E of the final rule preamble addresses state plan 

submittals and timing. Commenters can find discussion on the best system of emission reduction

in section V of the CPP final rule preamble. Based on that, EPA has established CO2 
211

performance rates in section VI and statewide CO2 emission goals in section VII of the CPP 

final rule preamble. The flexibility states have in developing and submitting state plans is 

summarized at the beginning of the final rule, in section I., and also detailed in section VIII of 

the CPP final rule preamble on state plans. Note that EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 

2022 and also provided a more gradual glide path to the 2030 goals as explained in section VIII

of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that CPP compliance plans are not viable without a regional transmission 

analysis. Additionally, the commenters stated that the time required to determine the generation 

scenarios, perform the assessments, and determine solutions must be factored into the time line 

for development, submission, and approval of state plans. The commenters noted that 

accommodations must then be made that will allow time to construct necessary transmission 

projects before reliability is threatened. The commenters stated that only by performing a 

comprehensive transmission assessment prior to approval of state plans will it be possible to 

identify potential reliability threats, and the measures necessary to address them. However, the 

commenters stated, EPA must then provide the time necessary to develop the infrastructure that 

will be required to support the transformation envisioned by the proposed CPP. 

Commenters stated that the reality of the situation is that the combination of targets and timelines 

removes any level of flexibility EPA purports to have included in the plan. The commenters

stated that given EPA's assumptions on the retirements that would occur by 2020, it would be 

impossible to plan, engineer, site and construct transmission is this time frame that would 

provide for reliable operation of the grid. The commenters stated that time lines currently 

contemplated for compliance are simply misaligned with transmission realities. The commenters

stated that implementation of approved state plans will take time, as will potential mitigation 

measures to address unacceptable system conditions to accommodate retirements. The 

commenters stated that the identification of new transmission needs, engineering, siting and 

construction will take anywhere from 5 to 10 years following development of the compliance 

plans.

Commenters stated that the magnitude of the necessary transmission grid enhancements is 

expected to be substantial. The commenters stated that these grid enhancements cannot all be 

constructed at the same time. The commenters stated that the new transmission infrastructure 

will need to be staged and constructed in a manner that allows the grid operators to schedule 

necessary facility outages while continuing to maintain reliable operations and keep the lights on. 

The commenters stated that the need to stage the construction activities will increase the time 

frame required to fully implement the CPP.

Commenters stated that if enacted, the following recommendation should be considered as part 

of the minimum steps necessary to facilitate the evolution of the transmission system to 

accommodate these complex regulations. The commenters stated that the time required to 

determine the generation scenarios, perform the detailed analytical assessments, and identify the 

required grid enhancements and construct the necessary transmission infrastructure must be 

factored into the time line for compliance to ensure reliability is not threatened.
212

Comment 115: Comment stating that utilities will likely require additional time to prepare for 

compliance and that the time frames in the proposed rule are woefully inadequate to implement 

the sort of infrastructure, resource, and planning projects that would be required by the Clean 

Power Plan.

Response 115: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 

addition, the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the construction 

of new transmission lines to be phased in over time. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble on state plan submittals and timing. See section VIII.B regarding state plan 

performance periods and VIII.F regarding state plan performance demonstrations – which 

together address compliance. Reliability and the reliability safety valve are also discussed in 

section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble. Note that EPA has moved the program compliance 

start date from 2020 to 2022.

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

Commenters stated that utilities will likely require additional time to prepare for compliance. The 

commenters noted that under the timeline in the proposed rule, all states must submit initial 

emissions plans by June 30, 2016 or seek an extension to June 30, 2017 for individual plans or to 

June 30, 2018 for multi-state plans. However, the commenters noted that the January 1, 2020 

start date for affected sources would not be extended under the proposed rule. The commenters

stated that if EPA has 1 year to review a submitted state plan, then the earliest a final plan would 

be approved would be June 2018 (2.5 years before compliance begins), but if granted an 

extension a plan might not be finalized and approved until June 2019 - only 6 months before the 

start date. 

The commenters stated that the re-dispatch required by Building Block 2 will require extensive 

construction in multiple areas of the country. The commenters stated that it takes 3 to 5 years to 

build additional pipeline capacity, which entails planning, permitting, financing, and construction 

while planning and constructing replacement capacity is yet another undertaking.

The commenters stated that construction of new high-voltage transmission can take 5 to15 years, 

depending on the voltage class, location, and availability of necessary crews. The commenters

stated that any such new transmission required to implement the Clean Power Plan would not be 

available for compliance with the interim goal. Additionally, the commenters noted the 

transmission planning process will need to take into account resource retirement projections in 

state plans. 

The commenters contended that the time frames in the proposed rule are woefully inadequate to 

implement the sort of infrastructure, resource, and planning projects that would be required by 

the Clean Power Plan. The commenters expressed concern about the cost and reliability impacts
213

of being forced to choose a compliance path based on time constraints, rather than what will 

actually accomplish the goals of reducing CO2 from power plants while maintaining system 

reliability, protecting ratepayers, and promoting smart development.

Comment 116: Comment stating that the long timeframes associated with transmission 

development should be considered by the states as they develop their compliance plans and that 

the approval process for generation retirements is not linked to the transmission planning process 

with respect to resource adequacy, which can cause a gap between generation information 

disclosure and transmission planning to support resource adequacy. 

Response 116: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 

addition, the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the construction 

of new transmission lines to be phased in over time. See section VIII.G of the CPP final rule 

preamble on issues regarding reliability, final rule flexibility, planning, and state plan 

modifications. Section VIII.G also discusses a reliability safety mechanism. Additionally, there 

is a TSD addressing resource adequacy and reliability in the docket to this CPP final rule. See 

section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble for information on state plan submittals, timing, 

and the approval process. Compliance deadlines are discussed in section VIII.F of the CPP final 

rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the long timeframes associated with transmission development should be 

considered by the states as they develop their compliance plans. The commenters noted that, due 

to the aggressive timeframes stated in the rule, there is potential that states will develop their 

plans and begin working on implementation prior to receiving approval from the EPA. If the 

EPA then rejects a state's plan, the commenters said there is potential that the resources will be 

wasted or fail to achieve the required emission reduction goals prescribed by the rule. The 

commenters stated that, even though the rule focuses on changes to generation resources, 

transmission will be critical to ensuring implementation of the rule. However, according to the 

commenters, transmission development generally takes longer than generation development. The 

commenters noted that transmission projects must be approved through various regional and 

multi-regional planning processes, approvals must be obtained from numerous regulatory 

agencies, land must be acquired, materials with substantial lead times must be procured, and 

finally, the facilities must be constructed and placed into service. As the states develop their 

plans, the commenters said early consideration and commencement of transmission planning is 

critical. 

In addition, the commenters pointed out that the approval process for generation retirements is 

not linked to the transmission planning process with respect to resource adequacy, which can 
214

cause a gap between generation information disclosure and transmission planning to support 

resource adequacy. According to the commenters, proper and timely transmission planning will 

require knowledge of where generation resource retirements and additions will occur, and where 

inter-regional transfers will source and sink. Without a coordinated effort between the generation 

retirement and transmission planning processes, both regionally and inter-regionally, the 

commenters indicated that reliability issues for the bulk power system will be exacerbated.

To address some of these challenges, the commenters said there must be efforts undertaken to 

bridge the gap between generation information disclosure and the transmission planning process, 

either through scenario planning or other means to ensure early inputs into the lengthy 

transmission planning process. The commenters noted that such scenario planning often results 

in an identification of "no regrets" infrastructure that is common to all modeled scenarios; 

expanding the transmission grid in this fashion will facilitate the reliable transfer of electricity. 

According to the commenters, incentives to encourage early action, including information 

disclosure for transmission planning purposes, should also be considered. In addition, the 

commenters indicated that any mechanism designed to allow a change in compliance deadlines 

or to allow other flexibility in reaching state emission targets for reliability reasons should 

include a requirement that projects that will address that reliability concern be identified before 

the state emission targets are exceeded. The commenters stated that Regional Transmission 

Organizations ("RTOs") should also, where applicable, have the responsibility for optimizing 

proposed projects from generators to address reliability concerns.

Comment 117: Comment stating that ISOs would need to know years in advance of the 2020 

compliance period if additional generation is needed to support new customers, and that 

submittal of the state implementation plans may not come in time to satisfy that need.

Response 117: The final rule includes additional time and flexibility to manage complexities 

such as reliability, permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, 

legislative changes, etc. Specifically, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. See section 

VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble for a discussion of reliability and issues surrounding 

reliability. In addition, see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket to this final 

rule. Note that EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 2022. Section VIII.E of the CPP final 

rule preamble addresses state plan submittals, the approval process, and timing.

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

Commenters were concerned whether, in abandoning their status as a generator of electricity, 

there would be sufficient energy from other sources to meet their load and that of all the others 

who make the transition from generation to network customer at the same time. If additional 

generation is needed to support new customers, the commenters said Independent System 

Operators would need to know years in advance of the 2020 compliance period. According to the 

commenters, submittal of the state implementation plans may not come in time to satisfy that 

need.
215

Comment 118: Comment stating that the proposed rule effective requirement that North Dakota 

redesign its electric grids has such far-reaching impacts that North Dakota will not be able to 

develop a plan within one year.

Response 118: The EPA does not agree, the CPP final rule does not require a state to redesign 

its electric grid. See section III of the CPP final rule preamble for a summary of rule 

requirements. In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning concerns 

such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and regional 

planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule includes this 

additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, permitting, planning 

cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. Note also that EPA has 

moved the start date from 2020 to 2022. See section VIII.C of the CPP final rule preamble

regarding state plans approaches. See section VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble regarding

state plan components and approvability criteria. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble regarding state plan submittals, the approvability process, and timing. Section VIII.H

of the CPP final rule preamble offers resources for states to consider in developing state plans.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule effective requirement that North Dakota redesign its 

electric grids has such far-reaching impacts that North Dakota will not be able to develop a plan 

within one year. According to the commenters, EPA has analogized the required state plan to a 

state's NAAQS SIP, yet under CAA section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are given up to three 

years to submit a NAAQS SIP. The commenters stated that the three-year period recognizes the 

complexity involved in developing a SIP, both in terms of the substantive analysis required and 

the need to at least hold public hearings and, in some states, for legislation. The commenters

further stated that the CAA section 111(d) state plan that EPA is requiring here is much more 

complex than a typical NAAQS SIP. The commenters contended that reengineering the electric 

grid over the long term, as EPA is demanding, will be a highly complicated, highly contentious 

process, with effects rippling throughout North Dakota's growing economy. As a result, the 

commenters indicated a much broader group of government agencies and stakeholders must be 

involved in developing EPA's mandated CAA section 111(d) state plan than are involved in 

developing a NAAQS SIP. While the Department is generally the sole state agency involved in 

developing a NAAQS SIP, the commenters indicated that developing the type of CAA section 

111(d) state plan that EPA has mandated will require the direct involvement of, at least, the 

Governor, the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and a large number of affected 

stakeholders, including, commercial and industrial retail ratepayer groups, renewable resource 

companies, demand-side management companies and a diverse host of others who are not 

typically involved in developing a NAAQS SIP.

Comment 119: Comment stating that the EPA should extend the proposed rule's plan 

submission period, which would relieve some reliability concerns, and recommending that the 

plan submission deadline be extending just based on the number of parties involved.
216

Response 119: The EPA agrees that states should have more time to develop plans and has 

extended the time allowed for States to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. See 

section VIII on state plans in the CPP final rule preamble. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule 

preamble discusses state plan submittals and timing as well as extensions and modifications. See 

section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble regarding reliability, workforce considerations, 

and employment/economic development. There is also a resource adequacy and reliability TSD 

in the docket to this final rule. Section V of the CPP final rule preamble addresses the ability of 

EGUs, including those that comprise municipally-owned utilities, to implement the BSER.

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

Commenters had serious concerns about EPA's plan submission deadline, which the commenters

said were unrealistic and not achievable as presently set. The commenters noted that, under 40 

CFR 60.27(a), EPA has the ability to extend the period for submission of any plan when it finds 

it necessary. The commenters said EPA should extend the proposed rule's plan submission 

period, which would relieve some reliability concerns. 

The commenters stated that, under EPA's own admission, the proposed rule is unlike any prior 

section 111(d) regulation, as its effects span beyond the affected source, requiring every party 

from the production of to the consumption of electricity, to come together in unparalleled ways. 

According to the commenters:

• Generators must analyze the implementation of potential heat rate improvements at the 

unit, work with states to develop implementation plans, and strategize with RTOs on new 

dispatch methods;

• Transmission operators must analyze where new infrastructure is needed and upend its 

dispatch protocol from economic to environmental, all while complying with FERC and 

NERC's reliability requirements;

• Distributors must analyze the proposed rule's impact on rates and work with states on 

developing energy efficiency programs, as well as the potential of renewable portfolio 

standards.

The commenters noted that the interrelation between these three parties is further complicated 

when an entity falls into more than one category. Such a fate is the commenters' municipal power 

agency, which both generates and transmits electricity. The commenters further noted that their 

agency does not just sell its electricity to its 60 distribution members, but also represents their 

public power interests.

The commenters pointed out that states must then corral these parties to develop a plan or even 

expand the network of interrelated entities by creating a multi-state plan. The commenters

indicated the plans will then likely require new state legislation, budgeted funds, and bolstered 

environmental enforcement, amongst others. Just based on the number of parties involved, the 

commenters recommended that EPA extend the plan submission deadline.
217

Comment 120: Comment arguing that the time allowed between the final rule and state plan 

approval does not allow for adequate time to build new transmission lines to accommodate 

renewables and changes in generation mix.

Response 120: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. In 

addition, the glide path approach taken in the final rule allows measures such as the construction 

of new transmission lines to be phased in over time. See section VIII.G in the CPP final rule 

preamble addressing electric reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in 

the docket for this CPP final rule. Note that EPA has moved the compliance start date from 2020 

to 2022.

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

Commenters argued that the time allowed between the final rule and state plan approval does not 

allow for adequate time to build new transmission lines to accommodate renewables and changes 

in generation mix. Under the proposed CPP, the commenters anticipated the requirement to 

construct additional high voltage transmission to accommodate renewable energy sources and 

expanded use of NGCC generation. Using their latest transmission projects as the basis, the 

commenters reasonably expected between six to ten years to construct and energize a new line 

following approval. The commenters noted that the Blackberry Line in Oklahoma, Kansas and 

Missouri required seven years to construct following board approval.

Comment 121: Comment stating that the compliance timeline does not allow adequate time for 

the needed reliability assessments and system changes to be accomplished before 2020.

Response 121: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See section VIII.F of the final rule preamble on compliance. See section VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble for a discussion on reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in 

the docket for this CPP final rule. Note that EPA has moved the compliance start date from 2020 

to 2022.

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

Commenters stated that the compliance timeline does not allow adequate time for the needed 

reliability assessments and system changes to be accomplished before 2020.
218

Comment 122: Comments contending that the CPP does not allow enough time for states to 

plan and prepare for such significant changes to their electricity generating portfolio, let alone 

address "beyond-the-fence" energy efficiency programs.

Response 122: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state plan submittals and timing. Note that 

EPA has aligned the submittal deadlines for both single- and multi-state plans. EPA moved the 

start date from 2020 to 2022. EPA decided not to finalize EE and building block 4 as part of the 

Best System of Emission Reductions. See section V in the CPP final rule preamble for a 

discussion of this change from the proposal. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble 

addresses reliability. Additionally a TSD on resource adequacy and reliability is found in the 

docket for the CPP final rule.

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

Commenters contended that states have very little time to prepare and submit implementation 

plans--13 months from the time EPA issues a final rule, with a possibility of a one-year 

extension for individual state plans or two-year extension for multi-state plans. The commenters

indicated this is simply not enough time for states to plan and prepare for such significant 

changes to their electricity generating portfolio, let alone address "beyond-the-fence" energy 

efficiency programs. The commenters also stated that regional transmission operators must have 

time to evaluate and provide feedback on the state plans to address impacts on regional markets 

and ensure power reliability. The commenters referred to the 2014 Initial Reliability Review of 

EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan, in which the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

indicated it also needs time to assess resource adequacy and long-term reliability of the North 

American bulk power system.

Comment 123: Comment contending that due to required planning, studies, construction 

schedules, outage schedules, and other constraints (e.g., evaluations for PSD and NSR), the 

schedule in the proposed section 111(d) rule is not attainable.

Response 123: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc. 

See sections VIII.B and VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble regarding state plan timing and 

submittal. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble also covers initial state plans. Section X 

of the CPP final rule preamble addresses interactions with other EPA programs and rules, such as 

NSR and Title V (permitting).

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
219

Commenters had concerns that the time allowed to develop the initial state plan is not feasible, or 

reasonable. Due to required planning, studies, construction schedules, outage schedules, and 

other constraints, the commenters contended that the schedule in the proposed section 111(d) 

rule is not attainable. The commenters stated that resources and vendors are being stretched thin 

with numerous projects being undertaken to comply with other CAA rules (MATS, CSAPR, 

etc.). The commenters also noted that additional permitting work would be needed, such as 

evaluations for PSD and NSR, and modified or new permits would be needed for any projects to 

reduce GHG emissions. The commenters said these real world constraints make the currently 

proposed timing impossible to meet.

Comment 124: Comment stating that it is important for the EPA to allow the time needed for 

planning and permitting new energy and transmission projects on federal land.

Response 124: In response to this and similar comments regarding timing and planning 

concerns such as the commenters mention, the EPA has extended the time allowed for states and 

regional planning groups to finalize their plans and meet the first interim goal. The final rule 

includes this additional time and flexibility to manage complexities such as reliability, 

permitting, planning cycles, infrastructure addition and modifications, legislative changes, etc.

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

Commenters agreed with the perspective provided in recent comments on the CPP filed by 13 

western states in concert with the Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE) that federal 

lands are one key to future clean energy generation and transmission that will enable Western 

states and companies to achieve the goals of EPA's Clean Power Plan. Therefore, the 

commenters stated that it is important for the EPA to allow the time needed for planning and 

permitting new energy and transmission projects on federal land. 

Comment 125: Comment stating that it is costly for states to develop SIPs, and that those costs 

will be passed onto the consumer, and urging the EPA to not require states to develop their SIPs 

until there is regulatory clarity.

Response 125: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.
220

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

Commenters noted that it is well understood that the CPP will likely become the most litigated 

proposed rule in history. The commenters stated that given that it is costly for states to develop 

SIPs, and that those costs will be passed onto the consumer, the commenters urged EPA to not 

require states to develop their SIPs until there is regulatory clarity.

Comment 126: Commenters recommending that the EPA extend the timelines for state plan 

submission and for beginning the compliance calculation period to provide an adequate window 

for judicial review of any final emission guidelines before states invest significant resources to 

develop their plans.

Response 126: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development, submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters stated that if EPA insists on pursuing the Proposal in its current form, it will 

undoubtedly face legal challenges on numerous fundamental issues to the program. The 

commenters noted that these challenges will create significant legal uncertainty for states 

attempting to implement any final emission guidelines through state plans under section 111(d), 

and as a practical matter, this uncertainty will likely make it impossible for states to meet the 

compliance timelines proposed in this rulemaking. Regardless of what measures a state includes 

in its state plan, the commenters argued that regulated entities are unlikely to invest in measures 

to implement a plan until the validity of the Proposal itself has been confirmed and the applicable 

state plan has received final federal approval from EPA. The commenters recommended that 

EPA extend the timelines for state plan submission and for beginning the compliance calculation 

period to provide an adequate window for judicial review of any final emission guidelines before 

states invest significant resources to develop their plans. 

The commenters stated that if EPA's final emission guidelines differ significantly from the 

Proposal, then the timelines for submission of state plans and for the beginning of the 

compliance period should be adjusted accordingly. The commenters noted that states will need 

extra time to analyze the differences in the guidelines and determine how those changes affect its 

state plan. 
221

Comment 127: Comment stating that the EPA has failed to provide the states the necessary time 

to promulgate SIPs and/or take legal and regulatory actions to allow utilities to comply with the 

interim emissions rate targets, that the Rule Proposal's SIP submittal deadlines and ultimate

implementation timelines must only begin to run once the Rule has been fully litigated and all 

appeals have been heard, and that the SIP submittal deadlines and implementation timelines 

should also be lengthened to provide adequate time for compliance, after the close of litigation.

Response 127: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development, submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters stated EPA has failed to provide the states the necessary time to promulgate State 

Implementation Plans and/or take legal and regulatory actions to allow utilities to comply with 

the interim emissions rate targets. The commenters stated that the rule proposal is incurably 

flawed and should be withdrawn. The commenters noted that even if the substantive elements of 

the Rule Proposal were viable, which they are not, the timelines for states and utilities to comply 

with the Rule Proposal are irresponsibly short. The commenters asserted that it is impossible for 

states, particularly those with large deregulated electricity markets (such as Texas), to develop 

and submit SIPs in the timelines proposed by EPA and that EPA's proposed extensions provide 

no practical relief. The commenters stated that by proposing draconian emissions limitations 

beginning in 2020, even if a state was able to complete and submit a SIP by the compliance 

timeline, there will not be time to implement the substantive provisions of the SIP. 

The commenters stated that this Rule Proposal is laden with legal and technical faults. The 

commenters stated that it will be subject to significant litigation that will affect the timing and 

scope of implementation of the Rule, ultimately leading the courts to vacate the rule. The 

commenters noted that if states are compelled to submit SIPs and generators begin undertaking 

compliance actions prior to the completion of litigation, states may be forced to develop SIPs 

that are ultimately worthless and will require regulated entities to take unnecessary economically 

harmful actions.

The commenters stated that given the unprecedented burden and scope of the Rule Proposal, and 

the long period of time to undertake actions necessary to implement the Rule (if it survives legal 

challenge), the timelines contemplated in the Rule Proposal should be changed in two significant 

ways. First, the commenters stated that the Rule Proposal's SIP submittal deadlines and ultimate 

implementation timelines must only begin to run once the Rule has been fully litigated and all 

appeals have been heard. Second, the commenters stated that the SIP submittal deadlines and 
222

implementation timelines should also be lengthened to provide adequate time for compliance, 

after the close of litigation.

Comment 128: Comment arguing that the EPA should delay the submission deadline for state 

plans until the legality of the rule has been determined by the courts.

Response 128: The EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development, submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power. The DC Circuit in the case that commenters’ reference dismissed the challenges 

to the proposal.

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

Commenters argued that EPA should delay the submission deadline for state plans until the 

legality of the rule has been determined by the courts. The commenters stated that the proposed 

rule will be challenged in court if adopted in substantially the form now proposed, and EPA is 

already defending challenges to the proposed rule in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals. According to the commenters, to implement the building blocks, many states will have 

to enact enabling legislation, including such things as imposing requirements that companies 

construct new renewable generation sources, new transmission facilities, etc. The commenters

stated that this is a dramatic step for the agency to mandate, as it forces states to decide whether 

to engage their sovereign political processes under circumstances where profound uncertainty 

exists over the legality of EPA's dramatic undertaking and Congress' intent with the Clean Air 

Act to preempt state authority over retail electrical generation and sales. The commenters

concluded that EPA should therefore delay the deadline for submission of state plans until EPA's 

proposed rule is upheld after judicial review or the time for such review has expired. 

Comment 129: Comment argued that concerns with the EPA's legal authority to issue the rule at 

all will put the states at jeopardy if they are required to spend the time and resources to develop a 

state plan during the time that the rule's legality is at issue in the inevitable appeal of the rule.

Response 129: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 
223

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters argued that the serious and significant concerns with EPA's legal authority to issue 

the rule at all will put the states at jeopardy if they are required to spend the time and resources to 

develop a state plan during the time that the rule's legality is at issue in the inevitable appeal of 

the rule. The commenters noted that state resources are not unlimited and, given the 

unprecedented expansive approach EPA has taken in interpreting CAA section 111(d), EPA's 

rule should not require submission of state plans until the legality of the rule is ultimately 

determined by the courts. According to the commenters, this will also ensure that any serious and 

significant changes that might be made to electric power operations in anticipation of state plans 

are not prematurely undertaken to the detriment of the reliability and affordability of electric 

power, when the very premise of EPA's legal authority is in question.

Comment 130: Comment advocating for the amendment of the plan submittal deadlines 

contained in the subpart B regulations (the section 111(d) procedural regulations), that could 

either be a basic extension of the submittal deadlines or implementation of a "legal trigger" 

approach, given that litigation associated with the rulemaking is inevitable.

Response 130: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters indicated that, given that litigation associated with the rulemaking is inevitable, 

states and the regulated industry are at risk in moving forward with developing and enacting 

section 111(d) plans prior to the resolution of litigation. For that reason, the commenters

advocated for the amendment of the plan submittal deadlines contained in the subpart B 
224

regulations (the section 111(d) procedural regulations). The amendment could either be a basic 

extension of the submittal deadlines or implementation of a "legal trigger" approach.

Comment 131: Comment stating that this final rule, whatever form it ultimately takes, should 

not require states to begin taking action until the completion of the judicial review.

Response 131: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters stated that if this rule is finalized in its current form, states will be immediately 

required to amend not only their state air programs but will be required to fundamentally 

restructure their State's entire energy generation and delivery system. The commenters noted that 

this significant undertaking will run parallel with the judicial review of the rulemaking. 

The commenters noted that states have been through several exercises where EPA's legal 

interpretations have resulted in states taking actions to satisfy a federal rule that is later 

determined by the Courts to be illegal. 

The commenters stated that this final rule, whatever form it ultimately takes, should not require 

states to begin taking action until the completion of the judicial review. The commenters noted 

that this is to preserve the state's limited resources and ensure that actions taken in response to 

the EPA rule will not be for naught. The commenters urged the EPA to respect their state 

partners and include this provision in any final rule. 

Comment 132: Comment recommending that the EPA extend the submittal deadline for state 

plans under section 111(d) due to the complex nature of this regulatory initiative and the almost 

certain litigation that will ensue.

Response 132: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for 
225

this rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and 

VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 

rule requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Due to the complex nature of this regulatory initiative and the almost certain litigation that will 

ensue, commenters recommended that EPA extend the submittal deadline for state plans under 

section 111(d). The commenters noted that section 111(d) does not specify rulemaking schedules 

or deadlines for EPA or the states. At a minimum, the commenters recommended that 

EPA extend the deadline to three years following final rulemaking in parallel with the 

requirements for state implementation plans (SIPs) submitted under CAA section 110. Ideally, 

the commenters suggested that EPA extend the submittal deadline to three years following the 

conclusion of the judicial review process. The commenters stated that EPA could include such a 

timing provision in the emissions guidelines to help states and affected sources avoid spending 

resources, time, and money on plans and rulemakings until the legal path forward is certain. In 

addition, the commenters noted that an extended timeline would be helpful to states that may 

require statutory changes before proceeding with a state plan to regulate CO2 emissions from 

existing EGUs. 

Comment 133: Comment urging the EPA to allow states to file their state plans once the 

litigation is resolved.

Response 133: EPA disagrees with the comments that the prospect of the final rule being 

litigated should be factored in to the timeframe for state plan development and submittal and rule 

compliance. In the final rule preamble and other parts of the record for this rulemaking, we 

explain that this rule’s impacts on electricity consumers are limited, the benefits of this rule in 

reducing the adverse impacts on climate change of CO2 emissions, and the legal authority for this 

rule. State plan submittal and timing requirements are described in sections VIII.B and VIII.E of 

the CPP final rule preamble. Section III of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the rule 

requirements and the legal basis for the rule. Section VIII.G of the CPP final rule preamble

discusses reliability. Also see the resource adequacy and reliability TSD in the docket for this 

final rule. The RIA in the docket for the CPP final rule addresses affordability and cost of 

electric power.

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

Commenters expected that there will be extraordinary challenges within states to coordinate an 

acceptable state plan in a timely fashion and said it is widely understood that the proposed rule 

will be heavily litigated. Because of this certainty, the commenters urged the EPA to allow states

to file their state plans once the litigation is resolved. By so doing, the commenters said 

unnecessary costs would be avoided, which are costs consumers would not incur.
226

Comment 134: Comment agreeing with the EPA that the compliance methodology must avoid 

double-counting.

Response 134: EPA appreciates the comment recognizing that double counting must be avoided 

and agrees that individual state should have more time to develop a plan. The final rule extends 

by a year the date by which an individual state plan is due. See section VIII.E of the CPP final 

rule preamble concerning state plan submittals and timing. See section V of the CPP final rule 

preamble for a comprehensive discussion of RE. See section VIII.G of the CPP final rule 

preamble regarding RE credits and monitoring and verification criteria for RE to avoid doublecounting. 

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

Commenters agreed with the USEPA that the compliance methodology must avoid doublecounting. The commenters stated however, if states must negotiate and reach agreement 

regarding the attribution of RE credits to avoid double-counting, a single year for plan 

submission is not realistic, and the USEPA must give more time to states to submit 

implementation plans.

Comment 135: Comment recommending that any enlargement of time for state plan submittal 

beyond the extension of time from 9 months to 13 months that EPA has proposed for all states be 

based on documented exigencies stemming from state laws that preceded the proposed Clean 

Power Plan, and that any initial plan submittal that requests an enlargement of time meet certain 

recommended criteria.

Response 135: EPA does not agree that there may be circumstances that would warrant an 

extension to the 13 month initial plan submittal deadline and has not provided for such an 

extension in the final rule. In the final rule, EPA clarified that requirements of the initial plan 

submittal are designed to be readily achievable by states that intend to submit an approvable final 

plan. 

Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plan submittals, the approval 

process, and timing. Conditions for state plan extensions are also discussed in section VIII.E. 

Deadlines for both single- and multi-state plans have been aligned. See section VIII.C of the CPP 

final rule preamble on state plan approaches, including a comprehensive discussion of multi-state 

plans. Section VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble covers state plan components and 

approvability criteria, including performance demonstrations. Permitting is described in section 

X of the CPP final rule preamble on interactions with Title V.

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

Commenters noted that EPA has proposed allowing states to apply for a 1-year extension beyond 

the state plan submission deadline if it is not possible to complete a state plan in 1 year and for a 

2-year extension if the state is pursuing a multi-state approach. The commenters stated that this 
227

goes well beyond general EPA requirements, and that EPA's long-standing regulations 

implementing section 111(d) generally require state plan submittal within 9 months of EPA's 

final Emissions Guidelines. 40 CFR 60.23(a) (1). The commenters stated that with only one 

exception (the Clean Air Mercury Rule), EPA has set the deadline for submitting state plans 

within 12 months of its final guidelines. 

While the commenters expressed appreciation for EPA's efforts to balance the importance of 

timely state plan submittal with other considerations, the commenters expressed concern about 

delays in carrying out these important emission reductions. The commenters argued that states 

have ample authority to carry out the Emission Guidelines through long established emission 

reduction measures that apply to the regulated sources, such as Title V operating permits 

implementing, for example, intrastate emissions averaging across regulated sources.

The commenters stated that they recognize the dual environmental and economic benefits of 

regional collaboration, and stated that these benefits can be fully realized through timely 

submittal of state plans developed under existing authority that rely on informal MOUs or agreed 

upon consistencies across state plans to harness efficiencies in existing cross state markets and 

platforms within the plan development period provided. The commenters provided for example 

that states can adopt state programs under existing law and effectuate MOUs for crediting the 

emission reductions associated with RECs or energy efficiency "white tags" across states to 

smooth compliance across jurisdictions. Further, the commenters suggested that states could 

develop stand-alone state plans initially and subsequently submit revised plans to enable multistate collaboration.

The commenters stated that EPA seems to erroneously presuppose that well designed and 

efficient regional collaboration must necessarily take the form of formalistic and complex 

regional programs that impose new burdens on long established, time tested state authorities and 

prerogatives. The commenters stated that this is not the case because there are an extensive suite 

of opportunities and approaches that states can deploy to mobilize and optimize the synergies of 

cross border coordination that are thoroughly anchored in existing law and states can always 

develop more formal inter-state frameworks over time.

The commenters recommended that any enlargement of time for state plan submittal beyond the 

extension of time from 9 months to 13 months that EPA has proposed for all states be based on 

documented exigencies stemming from state laws that preceded the proposed Clean Power Plan. 

The commenters suggested that those exigencies should be limited to democratic process 

requirements-a legislative calendar that is demonstrably not within the state plan development 

window in a state where legislative action is required for state plan submittal, or a regulatory 

process that must, by its express terms, take more than 13 months to complete.

The commenters stated that there is no justification for providing extensions for actions or steps 

beyond those in a state's plan development process that make the extension necessary. As such, 

the commenters suggested that EPA require all steps that can be completed during the provided 

time period to be completed.
228

To effectuate these central principles, the commenters recommended the following minimum 

criteria for any initial plan submittal that requests an enlargement of time for plan submittal 

beyond 13 months:

• A complete regulatory framework (with regulatory text) and a demonstration that the plan 

will meet the state targets, understanding that the plan might change while undergoing 

pre-existing mandated regulatory or legislative processes that would manifestly take 

longer than a year. As suggested by EPA, it is also reasonable to require that a state must 

document that it has at least proposed any necessary regulations and introduced any 

necessary legislation within the first 13 months to qualify for additional time to complete 

a state plan.

• A demonstration that completion of the plan during one year is, in fact, not possible given 

preexisting regulatory requirements or legislative processes that cannot be completed 

within one year. If legislative processes are cited, the submittal must also demonstrate 

that the plan cannot be put in place through regulatory processes standing alone. Neither 

technical work nor coordination with third parties should be a sufficient predicate for a 

one-year extension.

• Documentation of notification provided to the owners and operators of all regulated 

sources that their operating permits will come up for review at a specified date to enable 

eventual state plan requirements to be incorporated (sufficiently prior to 2020 to enable 

compliance with the interim targets to be achieved). This is important as some states may 

not have an existing framework in place to ensure that state plan requirements can be 

incorporated into regulated source operating permits in a timely fashion.

• For all operating permits of regulated sources, a requirement that the source not increase 

its CO2 emissions, measured on an annual basis, to be in place until replaced by 

requirements incorporated in the final state plan.

• A comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan expeditiously with clear and concrete 

milestones and timetables that would become the basis for plan disapproval if not 

achieved.

• For formal, joint multi-state plans, a demonstration that the specific extension requested 

is necessary and documentation that all plan development steps that can be completed 

without formal multi-state agreements have been carried out. For multi-state plans that 

could function initially as state-only plans (e.g. plans that establish intra-state trading

mechanisms but allow for inter-state trading of credits or allowances), complete state 

plans should be submitted by the deadline with the multi-state components to follow

within the extension period. States seeking an extension for development of a multi-state 

plan should also be required to develop a "backup" stand-alone, compliant state plan by

the June 2016 deadline to be put in place should the multi-state process not be completed 

in the allotted time.
229

Comment 136: Comment supporting the proposed timelines for states to develop their state 

plans.

Response 136: EPA does not agree. Based on concerns voiced by other commenters, the final 

aligns the single-state and multi-state plan submittal deadlines rule and has moves the initial rule 

compliance date from 2020 to 2022. State plan submittal and approval process and timing 

requirements are described in section VIII.E of the CPP final rule. Initial submittals are also 

addressed in section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters supported the timeline for states to develop their state plans. 

Commenters appreciated that when EPA delayed the public comment period to Dec. 1, it did not 

likewise change future timetables for release of the final rule and for states' development of their 

respective plans by June 30, 2016. The commenters stated that EPA should adhere to its intended 

date for issuance of the final rule, as well as its timeline for states to develop their compliance, or 

"state implementation" plans, for EPA to approve them, and ultimately to ensure states are on 

track to meet their compliance targets. The commenters said this is especially important because 

any slippage of meeting those targets means GHG emissions are continuing at rates above the 

stated targets, which in turn delays state development and implementation of the components of 

their plans, which in turn erodes the intent of this Clean Air Act rule and the Act itself.

Commenters noted that the EPA has proposed an optional two-phase process for state 

compliance plans, which the commenters supported. The commenters stated that this approach 

allows for the requisite amount of certainty that states are making progress on their plans, while 

allowing for the time it may take for completing detailed analytic work to inform state plans, to 

pass or update legislation in support of state goals, and to coordinate with the diverse 

stakeholders needed to achieve a successful outcome. The commenters agreed with the 

requirement that states must file an initial plan by June 30, 2016, "that documents the reasons the 

state needs more time and includes commitments to concrete steps that will ensure that the state 

will submit a complete plan by June 30, 2017 or 2018, as appropriate." The commenters noted 

that a final state plan would then be due by June 30, 2017, or by June 30, 2018, in the case of a 

multi-state plan. The commenters agreed that providing more time for multi-state compliance 

plans is reasonable. According to the commenters, multi-state approaches create greater 

flexibility and can help achieve emission reductions at a lower cost. Giving states additional time 

to coordinate could encourage more states to take this approach, driving greater benefits to all.

Comment 137: Comment contending that there will be sufficient flexibility to allow the Nevada 

legislature to act and comply with the final rule.

Response 137: EPA agrees that the timeframes in the final rule are sufficient for states to 

submit and implement complete plans. See section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble on state 

plan submittal and approval process and timing. EPA has moved the start date from 2020 to 
230

2022. State plan compliance is found in section VIII.F of the CPP final rule preamble. Section 

VIII.D of the CPP final rule preamble describes interim period performance rates or state goals.

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

Commenters contended that there will be sufficient flexibility to allow the Nevada legislature to 

act and comply with the final rule since the rule will allow states to phase in the various elements 

of the plan over approximately 9 years.

Comment 138: Comment stating that only those states actively working on a state plan should 

be allowed an extension in the deadline to submit the plan for EPA approval.

Response 138: EPA agrees that an initial submittal reflects a state actively working on a plan 

and has defined in the final rule what circumstances constitute an acceptable appropriate 

explanation for an extension. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plan 

submittal, timing, and the approval process, including the components of an initial state plans. 

Section VIII.E also discusses the legal issues regarding the state plan process including 

extensions and failures to submit a state plan.

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

Commenters indicated that only those states actively working on a state plan should be allowed 

an extension in the deadline to submit the plan for EPA approval. The commenters noted that the 

EPA solicited comment in the proposed emission guidelines on whether there are other elements 

that a state must include in its initial submittal to qualify for a date extension. According to the 

commenters, the EPA specifically requested comment on whether the guidelines should require a 

state to have taken significant, concrete steps toward adopting a complete plan for the initial plan 

to be approvable. 

The commenters agreed that the EPA should grant a one-year extension to those states working 

on a regional plan. However, the commenters argued that those states must prove that they are 

working in good faith by providing a draft or interim plan at the end of the first planning year. 

The commenters believe that the State of Louisiana plans to sue the EPA and not engage in 

developing a plan, in the hopes that the courts will side with industry. From the commenters' 

legal analysis, the commenters asserted that it would take up to 2 years after the rule is finalized 

for the DC court to issue a decision. Hence, the commenters concluded that only those states 

actively working on a plan should be allowed an extension. Otherwise, the commenters stated, 

the State of Louisiana will use the extra year to wait out the courts.

Comment 139: Comment stating that more timing flexibility for developing multistate 

arrangements would help other states that file their state plans and then wish to consider 

multistate opportunities.
231

Response 139: EPA agrees with the comment and the final rule provides states with an 

additional year to consider the possibility for multistate arrangements in their plan development 

process. Section VIII.E of the CPP final rule preamble addresses state plan submittals, the 

approval process and timing. Section VIII.C of the CPP final rule preamble covers state plan 

approaches, including multi-state plans, in detail.

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

Commenters believed the current timelines in the draft rule are ample for states to develop and 

submit their individual state compliance plans, and the extra year allowed for submitting a 

multistate plan will help states with already aligned policies or states that intend to join an 

existing regional framework (RGGI). However, the commenters also believed more timing 

flexibility for developing multistate arrangements would help other states that file their state 

plans and then wish to consider multistate opportunities. The commenters indicated this is 

especially so given that important elements of EPA's final rule will remain uncertain until mid2015. According to the commenters, it appears most states are likely to focus first on their own 

compliance plans, looking later to multistate options.

Comment 140: Comment stating that the EPA should adjust the time frames for submitting state 

plans and compliance periods in consideration of the forthcoming revised ozone standards.

Response 140: EPA disagrees. As the 2015 ozone NAAQS has not been finalized, it is 

premature to speculate about it. Section X of the CPP final rule preamble discusses the 2015 

proposed ozone NAAQS in light of commenters’ concerns. 

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

Commenters stated that EPA should adjust the time frames for submitting state plans and 

compliance periods in consideration of the forthcoming revised ozone standards. According to 

the commenters, many EGUs, including those affected by the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), 

will have new compliance burdens for ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs) once the revised 

NAAQS for ozone are final. The commenters indicated that integrated planning for the CPP and 

state implementation plans (SIPs) for new ozone standards will be very difficult. The 

commenters noted that strategies that work for ozone may conflict with those that work for the 

CPP (and vice versa). The commenters stated that the revised ozone standards and the CPP will 

lead to increased regulatory costs and additional permitting burdens for industry, as well as 

increasing the resources required by air agencies for planning. The commenters recommended 

that EPA consider parallel rulemaking to allow states to integrate requirements for affected 

facilities in both state plans under CAA section 111(d) and SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas.

Comment 141: Comment stating that public participation is an implementation barrier that 

states must resolve, and that the EPA needs to provide states the time to fully engage 

stakeholders on their state plans. 
232

Response 141: EPA is strongly committed to a public process that engages all stakeholders. 

This commitment is discussed in section II.K of the CPP final rule preamble regarding how the 

EPA requires that states engage with all members of the public, including low-income 

communities, minority communities, and tribal communities. In addition, the requirements 

regarding engagement with communities and some of the recommendations that the EPA has for 

states as they engage meaningfully with communities is described in sections IX of the CPP final 

rule preamble.

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

As part of their request for more time, commenters stated that public participation is an 

implementation barrier that states must resolve. The commenters noted that States will need to 

engage the public on the significant impacts of the CPP. The commenters noted that the CPP will 

have far reaching impacts, not just on the power plants that are directly regulated under the CPP, 

but electricity customers could see their electricity bills increase as a result of the CPP. The 

commenters stated that workers at power plants could lose their jobs because the CPP forces the 

retirement of the plant. The commenters noted that the CPP requires that states hold a public 

hearing on the plan to address issues such as these. 79 FR 34838. The commenters noted that 

many states will go beyond a single public hearing and engage interested stakeholders to ensure 

that state plans are fully informed and responsive to stakeholder's concerns. The commenters

stated that EPA needs to provide states the time to fully engage stakeholders on their state plans. 

Comment 142: Comments stating that the CPP will require changes to state laws and statutes for 

which time is not allowed under the current schedule for implementation.

Response 142: EPA agrees that some states may need to pass additional legislation to authorize 

certain state measures. The final rule includes additional time and flexibility to manage 

complexities such as legislative authorization. The final rule provides considerable discretion to 

the states in setting emission standards and related plan requirements. As explained in section 

VIII.C.6.d of the CPP final rule preamble, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed portfolio 

approach, so comments specific to this proposed approach to 111(d) state plan design are moot. 

Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an “emission standards” plan type, 

which includes only federally enforceable measures on affected EGUs, or a “state measures” 

plan type. A state measures plan type would require only measures applicable to affected EGUs 

to be federally enforceable. EE, RE, and other measures applicable to entities other than affected 

EGUs would not be federally enforceable under this plan type but must meet requirements for 

state enforceability. A state measures plan must also include a backstop of federally enforceable 

standards on affected EGUs that fully meet the emission guidelines and that would be triggered 

if the plan failed to achieve on schedule the required emission reductions. See Section VIII.C.3 

and VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For the mechanisms in the final emission 

guidelines that ensure that states keep pace with their emissions reductions trajectories, see 

Section VIII.F.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We are also concurrently proposing a federal plan and model rules that states can use to develop 

their state plans.
233

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

Commenters stated the state plan development preferred by the CPP requires state environmental 

agencies to regulate in areas outside of their normal jurisdiction. Commenters said the CPP will 

require the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to establish enforceable limits for 

renewable energy and energy efficiency. Commenters stated the environmental agencies do not 

have the staffing, funding or legal authority to perform those functions in their state. 

Commenters stated the CPP will require changes to state laws and statutes for which time is not 

allowed under the current schedule for implementation. Commenters said some states may not 

elect to provide the authority to the environmental agencies making the state plan unenforceable. 

Commenters stated the CPP has by its structure established a program that may not be 

achievable. 

6.4.2 Components of an initial state plan submittal and approvability criteria

This section discusses the limits on EPA’s discretion to approve or disapprove initial state plans

and the information needed in those initial plans. The EPA proposed that states would submit 

plans 1 year after promulgation of the guidelines, with the opportunity to qualify for a 2-year 

extension through the submittal of an initial state plan. The EPA also proposed the requirements

for an initial state plan and for public participation in the development of the initial state plan.

The comments in this section address the timing and content of the initial state plan and the 

approvability criteria for initial state plans.

We agree with the following specific comments made under this subsection:

• The EPA must defer to states' determination of a satisfactory compliance plan in the 

review and approval of state plans.

• The proposed June 30, 2016, deadline to submit an initial plan is not sufficient and has 

extended the deadline to September 6, 2016.

• States may not be far enough long in the decision-making process for an initial plan to be 

able to quantify emission performance levels achieved through the complete plan, and 

this is not a requirement in the final rule.

• States may need a total of 3 years to complete final plans (assuming they submit an initial 

plan after 1-year), instead of the total 2 years that was proposed.

States should not be required to submit proposed rules and legislation as part of the initial plan 

submittal.

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

topics (comments) below. Responses are also provided for these topics.
234

Comment 1: The EPA must defer to states' determination of a satisfactory compliance plan in 

the review and approval of state plans. 

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that States are in the best position to develop 

their own plans, taking into account state-specific economic, energy, and environmental 

considerations, but disagrees with the commenters’ statement that the EPA must approve state 

plans unless they are arbitrary or capricious.

The commenters suggest that, to be consistent with the delegation of authorities under the CAA, 

the EPA must provide states with broad discretion to consider the unique characteristics of the 

states and sources in each state in developing their plans. Section 111(c) of the CAA provides 

that, if a state develops and submits “adequate procedures” for “implementing and enforcing” 

111(b) standards of performance for new sources in that state, the Administrator shall delegate to 

the state the Administrator’s authority to “implement and enforce” those standards. The EPA has 

interpreted this ambiguous provision in the EPA’s “Good Practices Manual for Delegation of 

NSPS and NESHAPS.” The manual notes that section 111(c) places no explicit conditions (other 

than that the state’s procedures be adequate) on the delegation of authority. 

The commenters further suggest that the EPA proposed to impose state-wide emission rate 

limitations that have wide ranging energy and economic implications, which could result in 

significant loss of employment and could force significant reallocation of resources, and that the 

States are in the best position to develop their own plans, taking into account state-specific 

economic, energy, and environmental considerations. The EPA agrees with this statement, and is 

finalizing a “state measures approach” which, unlike the proposed portfolio approach, does not 

require federally enforceable measures against entities other than affected EGUs. In this 

approach, state enforceable measures against entities other than affected EGUs would need to be 

included in the state plan documentation.

The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ statement that the EPA must approve state plans unless 

they are arbitrary or capricious. The EPA will not approve a plan that does not contain the state 

plan components discussed in section VII.D.2 of the CPP final rule preamble. The EPA does 

agree with the commenters’ statement that the “EPA cannot second-guess state decisions on how 

to reduce CO2 emissions.” States have discretion in deciding on the measure they will use to 

reduce CO2 emissions provided those measures meet the criteria for acceptability in the 

emissions guidelines. 

The commenters also stated that the EPA must have a reasoned basis for disapproving a state 

plan in whole or in part and that the EPA should not be able to disapprove a state plan simply 

because EPA would have chosen different measures or applied the building blocks in a different 

way. The EPA agrees with this statement and will provide comment to the state regarding why a 

state plan was disapproved through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, similar to the 

process used for approving state implementation plan submittals under section 110 of the CAA.

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

Commenters stated that EPA must defer to states' determination of a satisfactory compliance 

plan in the review and approval of state plans. The commenters stated that under Section 111 of 
235

the Clean Air Act EPA is obligated to establish a procedure under which states are to develop 

and submit plans that establish performance standards for existing sources of air pollutants. The 

commenters stated that the Administrator has the same authority if a state fails to submit a 

satisfactory plan, but, it is clear that the state is given the primary authority to establish 

performance standards for the existing sources and that EPA can step in and dictate only if the 

state fails in its obligation. Consequently, to be consistent with the delegation of authorities 

under the Clean Air Act, the commenters stated that EPA must provide states with broad 

discretion to consider the unique characteristics of the states and sources within each state in 

developing their plans. According to the commenters, this is particularly the case where, as here, 

EPA proposes to impose state-wide emission rate limitations that have wide ranging energy and 

economic implications, which could result in significant loss of employment and could force 

significant reallocation of resources. The commenters argued that States are in the best position 

to develop their own plans, taking into account state-specific economic, energy, and 

environmental considerations. The commenters asserted that only by giving the states such 

discretion will the CPP rule be consistent with the congressional direction under Section 111(d). 

The commenters stated that EPA must approve state plans unless they are arbitrary or capricious. 

Section 111(d) of the CAA directs EPA to approve a state plan if it is "satisfactory." 79 FR 

34830; EPA, Clean Power Plan Proposed Legal Memorandum at 3-4. The commenters stated 

that EPA cannot second-guess state decisions on how to reduce CO2 emissions. See 40 FR 

53340, 53343 (Nov. 17, 1975). The commenters stated that although courts have not yet 

addressed EPA's review of state plans under CAA Section 111(d), because Section 111(d) calls 

for EPA to review state plans in a manner similar to Section 110 SIPs, court rulings on EPA's 

approval of Section 110 SIPs provide insight into the limits of EPA's discretion in determining 

whether a Section 111(d) state plan is "satisfactory." The commenters stated that EPA's role in 

approving state plans is "confine[d]" to the ministerial function of reviewing [state plans] for 

consistency with the Act's requirements."

Thus, with respect to Section 111(d) plans, the commenters stated that EPA's determination of 

whether a state plan is "satisfactory" should be limited to determining whether the state plan is 

consistent with the criteria enumerated in the statute and with the objectives of the final rule. 

Further, the commenters stated that EPA must have a reasoned basis for disapproving a state plan 

in whole or in part. The commenters argued that EPA should not be able to disapprove a state 

plan simply because EPA would have chosen different measures or applied the building blocks 

in a different way.

Comment 2: Commenters argued that the requirements for an initial plan should be more 

flexible and should have fewer requirements than proposed. 

Response 2: The EPA disagrees with the commenters and does not believe the initial submittal 

requirements are too prescriptive and burdensome. The EPA is finalizing that a state must make 

an initial plan submittal by September 6, 2016 if it is unable to prepare and submit a final plan by 

that date. In response to the commenters’ concern that initial submittal requirements are too 

prescriptive or burdensome, the EPA clarified these requirements in the preamble to the final 
236

rule in section VIII.E.3. –The initial submittal components are necessary to ensure that a state is 

able to submit a final state plan by 2018.

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

Commenters argued that the requirements in section 60.5760 (Can I include existing 

requirements, programs, and measures in my state plan?) for an initial submittal in lieu of a 

complete plan are too prescriptive and burdensome. The commenters noted that the proposed 

rule currently requires ten components for an initial plan versus twelve components for a 

complete state plan. The commenters contended that many of the ten components are items for 

which the state will need an extension of time to develop. The commenters said this is an area 

where states should be given more flexibility, and the commenters proposed that the initial plan 

be limited to the following four components: 

• A description of the plan approach and progress made to date in developing each of the 

plan elements in section 60.5750.

• A commitment by the state to maintain existing programs and measures that limit or 

avoid CO2 emissions from affected entities.

• Justification of why additional time is needed to submit a complete plan.

• A commitment to submit a complete plan by the due date.

Comment 3: Commenters asked for clarification on what is required in an initial plan, and noted 

that the proposal implied that the initial plan may require some demonstrations that may not be 

feasible by the proposed deadline for initial plans.

Response 3: The EPA has finalized that the initial plan must be submitted by September 6, 2016, 

not the proposed June 30, 2016, if a state is unable to prepare and submit a final plan by that 

date. See section VIII.E in the final rule preamble for a discussion on initial plan submittal 

requirements

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

Commenters noted that if a state needs additional time, then it must still submit an initial plan by 

June 30, 2016. The commenters stated that the proposal says that 

"To be approvable, the initial plan must include specific components, including a 

description of the plan approach, initial quantification of the level of emission 

performance that will be achieved in the plan, a commitment to maintain existing 

measures that limit CO2 emissions, an explanation of the path to completion, and 

a summary of the state's response to any significant public comment on the 

approvability of the initial plan."
237

The commenters asked if this requires a demonstration that the plan will meet the required 

reductions and be enforceable, and means that any legislation or state agency determinations 

must be complete in order to receive approval for the initial plan and an extension.

Comment 4: The commenters were concerned with the proposed requirements for initial plans 

that (1) states must maintain existing measures to limit or avoid CO2 emissions at least until the 

complete plan is approved, (2) the initial plan must include a comprehensive roadmap for 

completing the plan, including process, analytical methods, and schedule (with milestones) 

specifying when all necessary plan components will be complete, and (3) the initial plan must 

include an initial quantification of the level of emission performance that will be achieved, but 

the EPA does not specify the parameter to use or the accuracy expected.

Response 4: In response to the commenters concern that the rule would require a state’s existing 

measures to be maintained in order to be granted an extension, the final rule makes clear that a 

state may choose to address the requirements of the initial submittal by including a commitment 

to maintain any existing measures applies to those measures the state intends to rely upon for its 

final plan in order to achieve the necessary reductions once the performance period begins, it 

does not require a state to maintain all existing measures.

The commenters argued there should be flexibility in the comprehensive roadmap for completing 

the plan that states must provide in an initial plan submittal. The proposed roadmap included a 

schedule (with milestones) specifying when all necessary plan components will be complete 

(e.g., demonstration of projected plan performance; implementing legislation, regulations and 

agreements; any necessary approvals). The commenters also stated that the EPA’s proposed 

requirement that an initial plan submittal must contain an initial quantification of the level of 

emission performance that will be achieved through the plan, but there is not enough information 

provided to know what this entails.

In order to address these concerns, the EPA acknowledges that a state may not be far enough 

long in the decision-making process to be able to accurately quantify the exact emission 

performance levels achieved through the complete plan and the final rule does not contain this 

requirement. Also, while the EPA is keeping the requirement that an initial plan submittal must 

contain a comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan, this roadmap must only include a 

schedule with milestones and dates. The milestones should outline the state’s path to submitting 

a final plan by the 2018 final plan submittal deadline.

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

Commenters expressed concern with three of the requirements U.S. EPA is proposing must be in 

an initial plan in order for it and an extension to be approved.

First, the commenters noted that the EPA will require a commitment to maintain existing 

measures that limit or avoid CO2 emissions (e.g., RE standards, unit-specific limits on operation 

or fuel utilization), at least until the complete plan is approved. The commenters stated that there 

are practical concerns with this requirement. The commenters explained that currently Ohio EPA 

has no regulatory requirements to address CO2 emissions in the state of Ohio, except for a few
238

permits issued under the PSD program. The commenters asserted that the U.S. EPA cannot 

require Ohio EPA to maintain programs out of their regulatory control. In actuality, the 

commenters stated that they would already be out of compliance with this provision because 

Ohio's RPS under SB221 (the very plan that U.S. EPA used to inform RE goals for the states in 

our region under this proposal) is already frozen by the legislature. The commenters stated that 

the Ohio EPA has no authority to require implementation of those reductions to continue into the 

future. Therefore, the commenters noted that Ohio EPA would already not qualify for an 

extension on this basis alone. The commenters contended that the U.S. EPA cannot create an 

extension process to address the needs of the states by limiting their ability with criteria such as 

this.

Second, the commenters stated that the EPA will require a comprehensive roadmap for 

completing the plan, including process, analytical methods, and schedule (with milestones) 

specifying when all necessary plan components will be complete (e.g., demonstration of 

projected plan performance; implementing legislation, regulations and agreements; any 

necessary approvals). The commenters argued there should be flexibility in such a provision and 

that there should not be consequences associated with timelines, milestones, strategies or 

analytical methods forecasted that don't come to fruition, legislative action, or any other longterm consideration over which the Ohio EPA has no authority.

Third, the commenters stated that the EPA is requiring initial quantification of the level of 

emission performance that will be achieved through the plan but there is not enough information 

provided to know what this entails. The commenters questioned what quantification could U.S. 

EPA expect in an initial plan other than the fact that states will develop a final plan with the 

intention of meeting U.S. EPA's interim and final goals? The commenters asked if the EPA is 

suggesting states commit to meeting their interim and rate based goals, or is the EPA expecting 

states commit to a glide path or identify specifics regarding control strategies and how those 

strategies will achieve the goals? The commenters argued that this provision is un-necessary for 

an initial plan submittal and extension request, and any detailed quantification at that stage 

would be virtually impossible or so inaccurate that it is effectively worthless.

Comment 5: Commenters objected the amount of information and analysis required in an initial 

plan to obtain a 1-year extension for submitting a final plan.

Response 5: See response to comment 4 and section VIII.E.3 - Components of an initial state 

plan submittal and 2017 update and approvability criteria, in the preamble to the final rule.

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

Regarding extension timing, commenters objected to the EPA's proposal that states must provide 

the following information as part of an initial plan in order to be eligible for a 1-year extension:

1. A description of the plan approach and progress made to date in developing each of the 

plan elements in Section 60.5740;
239

2. An initial projection of the level of emission performance that will be achieved under the 

complete plan:

3. A commitment by the state to maintain existing state programs and measures that limit or 

avoid CO2 emissions from affected entities (e.g., renewable energy standards, unitspecific limits on operation or fuel utilization), which must at a minimum apply during 

the interim period prior to state submission and EPA approval of a complete plan, and 

must continue to apply in lieu of a complete plan if one is ultimately not submitted and 

approved.

4. Justification of why additional time is needed to submit a complete plan:

5. A comprehensive roadmap for completing the plan, including process, analytical methods 

and schedule (including milestones) specifying when all necessary plan components will 

be complete (e.g., projection of emission performance implementing legislation, 

regulations and agreements; necessary approvals);

6. Identification of existing and future programs, requirements, and measures the state 

intends to include in the plan:

7. If a multi-state plan is being developed, an executed agreement(s) with other states (e.g., 

MOU) participating in the development of the multistate plan; and

8. A commitment to submit a complete plan by June 30, 2017, for a single-state plan, or 

June 30, 2018, for a multi-state plan, and actions the state will take to show progress in 

addressing incomplete plan components prior to submittal of the complete plan.

9. A description of all steps the state has already taken in furtherance of actions needed to 

finalize a complete plan.

10. Evidence of an opportunity for public comment and a response to any significant 

comments received on issues relating to the approvability of the initial plan.

The commenters stated that the EPA again fails to recognize the effort that is needed to even 

obtain an extension for 1 year. The commenters noted that a state would have to have completed 

a draft plan with emission targets under the EPA's proposal. The commenters argued that EPA 

fails to grasp that some of the elements of this required plan are not within the purview of the

state air quality agency. The commenters stated that the Ohio EPA would not be able to even 

submit a request for 1-year extension without legislative approval and Ohio EPA cannot dictate 

the timeframe of operation of the Ohio General Assembly to pass authority on the wide ranging 

commitments demanded by the U.S. EPA.

Commenters said, the commitment requirement in proposed section 60.5760(a)(3) makes it 

impossible for a state to qualify for an extension if the state has renewable energy standards, 

energy efficiency standards, or any other measure in state law that might somehow limit or avoid 

CO2 emissions from EGUs. Commenter said, proposed section 60.5760(a)(3) should be removed 

from the rule. 
240

Comment 6: The 1-year time period to develop a state plan, or two years if a state first submits 

an interim plan, is not sufficient and is less than the time given to states to develop plans under 

other CAA programs (e.g., state implementation plans under the NAAQS).

Response 6: The EPA in this final rule is not requiring that a state must submit a complete plan 

within one year. If a state cannot meet the 2016 deadline, the EPA is finalizing that a state may 

submit an initial plan submittal to the EPA that, if approved, would give the state two additional 

years to develop a final plan submittal to the EPA in 2018. This gives a state receiving an 

extension a total of three years to pass any necessary legislation, coordinate with other agencies, 

states, industry, and stakeholders. This three years is the same timeframe the commenters cite as 

being given to states under CAA Section 110 to develop and submit a complex NAAQS SIP.

The commenters noted that virtually state that has an RPS has one because of a legislative 

enactment, and that states needing an RPS or needed an existing RPS strengthened will need 

legislation for that purpose. The commenters also stated that submitting an interim plan within 

one year provides little help because the interim plan must reflect final decisions on the critical 

plan elements. In order to respond to the comment that one year is not enough time for states to 

have made final decisions in the initial plan, the EPA is clarifying in this final rule that it is not 

necessary for a state to have legislation passed, or have made final decisions on what their final 

state plan submittal will look like. A state may pursue more than one option (e.g., individual or 

multi-state plan, rate or mass-based approach) in the initial submittal without committing to an 

approach. This is discussed in section VIII.E.3 of the final rule preamble.

The commenters also contended that the interim plan approach doesn’t work because it is 

dependent on EPA taking final approval/disapproval action. The commenters asserted that it is 

likely that the EPA will cause the interim plan approval process to be unworkable, as the EPA 

will be unable to timely process the necessary approvals. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters. The proposal outlined an approach where the initial plan submittal would be 

deemed complete if the EPA did not notify a state by letter of its disapproval. The EPA is 

finalizing this approach in the final rule.

The commenters asserted that legislation will also be needed for states to join multi-state plans, 

and that a state will not be able to commit to a regional approach in an initial plan submittal. The 

commenters opined that it is seriously doubtful that multiple legislatures can be counted on to 

approve those plans within the EPA’s three-year window for final plans, much less the EPA’s 1-

year window for interim plans. In this final rule the EPA is not requiring that a state commit 

itself to any one type of approach. A state may pursue multiple options at the same time. While 

ultimately legislation may be needed for states committing to a multi-state approach, it is not a 

required element of an approvable initial plan submittal. 

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

Commenters argued that States cannot adopt the plans EPA is demanding within 1 year, not even 

"interim" plans. The commenters noted that EPA proposes to give states 1 year to submit a plan 

or 2 years if states submit an interim plan in 1 year; and EPA also proposes that states that 
241

commit to a regional plan in their interim plan will have 3 years to submit the regional plan. The 

commenters argued that the EPA's plan-submittal timeline, however, is unworkable because, as 

the Kansas Corporation Commission has commented, the EPA's requirement that states redesign 

their electric grids has such far-reaching impacts on states that they will be unable to develop a 

plan within 1 year. 

The commenters stated that EPA has analogized the state plan that it is requiring here to a 

NAAQS SIP, yet under Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are given up to 3 years to submit a 

NAAQS SIP. The commenters stated that the 3-year period recognizes the complexity involved 

in developing a SIP, both in terms of the substantive analysis required and the need to at least 

hold public hearings and, in some states, for legislation. 

The commenters contended that the section 111(d) SIP that EPA is requiring here is much more 

complex than a typical NAAQS SIP because reengineering the electric grid over the long term, 

as EPA is demanding, will be a highly complicated, highly contentious process, with effects 

rippling throughout the state's economy. As a result, the commenters noted that a much broader 

group of government agencies and stakeholders must be involved in developing EPA's mandated 

Section 110(d) state plan than are involved in developing a NAAQS SIP. The commenters noted 

that while the state environmental regulator is generally the sole state agency involved in 

developing a NAAQS SIP, developing the type of Section 111(d) that EPA has mandated will 

require the direct involvement of, at least, the Governor, the state energy office, the state public 

service commission, and a large number of affected stakeholders, including, commercial and 

industrial retail ratepayer groups, renewable resource companies, demand-side management 

companies and a host of others who are not typically involved in developing a NAAQS SIP.

Additionally, the commenters stated that while a limited number of states may require legislative 

approval of NAAQS SIPs, a much larger group of states will require legislation to implement the 

renewable resource and demand-side management measures that EPA is depending on to replace 

the coal that EPA's proposal will phase out. The commenters stated that virtually every state that 

has an RPS has one because of a legislative enactment. Thus, the commenters noted that the 

states that don't currently have an RPS will need legislation to enact one, and states with existing 

RPSs that EPA is requiring to be strengthened will need legislation for that purpose. The 

commenters argued that the same is likely the case for demand-side management standards. The 

commenters noted that many state legislatures do not meet every year; many that do meet for 

relatively short sessions so there is little prospect that these measures could be adopted, along 

with all of the other requirements that EPA has mandated, within 1 year. The commenters

reiterated, as Arkansas has informed EPA, assuming, the rule is finalized in June 2015, 

"the General Assembly will not even meet in regular session again to consider 

any necessary legislation until January of 2017, when the state is scheduled to 

meet some of the renewable goals" and after the state's plan was due."

The commenters stated that EPA's proffered mechanism under which states would have 2 years 

to submit a final plan if they submit an interim plan within 1 year provides little help because the 

interim plan must reflect final decisions on the critical plan elements. For instance, the 

commenters noted that the interim plan must include "the plan approach" per 40 CFR 60.5760(a) 

(1), presumably meaning such fundamental elements as whether the final plan will use a mass-
242

based or rate-based approach, whether the final plan will use "portfolio" measures or will rely 

solely on draconian reductions in operations of coal EGUs, and whether the plan will be 

enforceable against third parties or just the regulated facilities. Similarly, the commenters noted 

per 40 CFR 60.5760(a) (2) the interim plan must include "an initial projection of emission 

performance that will be achieved under the complete plan." The commenters noted that in order 

to estimate emission reductions, the interim plan must include a full compilation of measures, 

perhaps subject to change, from which to estimate the reductions. The commenters noted the 

state must also include a "comprehensive roadmap" for completing the plan, including

milestones such as anticipated dates for required legislative action per 40 CFR 60.5760(a)(3).

The commenters contended the state, however, is highly unlikely to know any of this information 

at the end of 1 year. (e.g., a state will not know whether it can adopt an RPS of any particular 

amount until the state legislature adopts authorizing legislation). The commenters noted without 

such legislation, the state cannot even submit an interim plan including an assumption that the 

legislature will adopt the RPS, because no state agency can know in advance what the legislature 

will do. The commenters asserted that states may need to develop an RPS as a compliance 

strategy in order to replace the large amount of coal generation that must be eliminated for states 

to meet their goals. As a result, the commenters stated that if the legislature has not acted on an 

RPS within 1 year, the state will be left unable to formulate even an interim plan that sets forth 

what the state's overall approach will be, what emission reductions the state will make, and what 

the milestones for final completion of the plan will be. The commenters asserted that the notion 

that a state agency can represent to a federal agency when the state legislature will take action on 

any particular provision is absurd.

The commenters contended that the interim plan approach also doesn't work because it is 

dependent on EPA taking final approval/disapproval action. The commenters stated that having 

submitted an interim plan, a state will need to know quickly whether EPA will approve the plan, 

in which case the state can develop a final plan, or whether EPA will disapprove the plan, in 

which case the state is liable to become subject to a federal plan. However, the commenters

noted that the EPA's history of acting within statutory or regulatory deadlines on SIP approvals 

or indeed for any other CAA actions is spotty, to say the least. Based on past experience, the 

commenters asserted that the likelihood is that EPA itself will cause the interim plan approval 

process to be unworkable, as the EPA will be unable to timely process the necessary approvals.

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal to allow states 3 years to submit regional plans is 

even more unworkable. The commenters noted that states wishing to participate in regional plans 

must nevertheless submit interim plans containing the same information as is required for states 

wishing a 1-year extension to submit a standalone state plan per 40 CFR 60.5755(c). The 

commenters stated that a regional plan is even more complex than a standalone state plan given 

that developing a regional plan requires layering interstate negotiations on top of the already 

complicated intrastate processes that must take place for a state to determine how it wishes to 

comply with EPA's Section 111(d) requirements. Moreover, the commenters asserted that each 

state will require legislative approval to enter into a regional plan and to adopt specific state 

elements of that plan (e.g., an RPS). Thus, the commenters contended that states will not be able 

to commit to a regional approach in an interim plan absent legislation in multiple states. Given 

the time it will take to work out a regional approach, the commenters argued that it is seriously 
243

doubtful that multiple legislatures can be counted on to approve those plans within EPA's 3-year 

window for final plans, much less EPA's 1-year window for interim plans.

Comment 7: The EPA has no need or legal basis for requiring states to submit proposed rules 

and legislation as a condition for the EPA to grant an extension to submit a state plan. Such a 

requirement is unreasonable and places state agencies in the untenable position of being forced to 

propose rules based on draft legislation before they have the legal authority to do so.

Response 7: In response to this and similar comments regarding the proposed requirement that to 

be granted an extension the initial submittal must contain proposed rules and legislation, the 

EPA is not requiring that states submit proposed rules and legislation as part of the initial plan 

submittal in the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA has no need or legal basis for requiring states to submit 

proposed rules and legislation as a condition for the EPA to grant an extension to submit a state 

plan. According to the commenters, such a requirement is unreasonable and places state agencies

in the untenable position of being forced to propose rules based on draft legislation. The 

commenters stated that they cannot propose a rule that the agency does not have legal authority 

to propose. 

The commenters noted that the EPA is taking comment on whether states should be required to 

submit proposed rules and legislation to EPA as part of initial plan (79 FR 34916). Specifically, 

the commenters noted that the EPA states that "it may be reasonable to require that a state must 

document that it has at least proposed any necessary regulations and introduced any necessary 

legislation within the first thirteen months to qualify for additional time to submit a complete 

plan." Then commenters stated that not only is such a requirement unreasonable and unnecessary 

micromanagement of the states, the EPA would be placing the states in the untenable position of 

attempting to propose rules based on draft legislation. The commenters argued that the EPA's 

assumption that a state agency could propose a rule to implement legislation based solely on the 

introduced legislation is flawed. The commenters explained that a state agency would not have 

the legal authority to propose a rule to implement legislation necessary for the state plan until 

that legislation has been passed and signed into law. According to the commenters, the state's 

legal authority notwithstanding, to propose a rule prior to finalization of the law would likely 

force a state agency to re-propose the rule if the legislation changed from the introduced version 

of the bill, which happens frequently in the legislative process. Furthermore, the commenters

stated that legislation is beyond the control of the administrator of the state air program, to whom 

the proposed rule applies. As an agency of the executive branch of state government, the 

commenters explained that their agency is prohibited from lobbying the legislature.

Comment 8: States must have the ability and a formal process to appeal decisions by the EPA 

that initial plans do not meet the EPA’s minimum requirements and that extension requests have 

been denied.
244

Response 8: See section VIII.E of the final rule preamble of the CPP for EPA’s response to this 

comment. THIS RESPONE IS NOT ADEQUATEAs described in section VIII of the final rule 

preamble, if an extension request based on an initial submittal cannot be granted, the EPA will 

notify the state that such extension is denied and that the state has failed to submit a final state 

plan required by September 6, 2016. The EPA will publish such notification in the Federal 

Register. This finding of failure to submit is final agency action that is judicially reviewable.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA is proposing states with initial plans and extension requests 

must provide an opportunity for public comment on a substantial draft but this public comment 

opportunity will not be governed by the procedural requirements of the framework regulations 

that apply to the state's adoption of a complete plan. The commenters stated that the EPA would 

use the comment period to determine if the initial plan submittal meets the minimum 

requirements and to advise the state whether it is on track to submit an approvable initial plan. 

The commenters noted that if the state's request meets the requirements it "will be deemed 

granted." The commenters expressed concern that states will have no mechanism to appeal a 

decision by the EPA that initial plans do not meet the EPA's minimum requirements. The 

commenters stated that the EPA is requiring a very formal initial plan submittal but appears to be 

very informal about the approval or disapproval of that submittal. The commenters stated that 

more time is necessary for plan submittals, and that providing sufficient time would eliminate the 

need for extension requests. However, the commenters stated that if the EPA intends to keep this 

unreasonable implementation schedule, the EPA must provide a mechanism for states to appeal 

decisions by the EPA regarding initial plan submittals. The commenters noted that states will 

spend significant time developing an initial plan, time that will take resources away from 

working on a final plan submittal. The commenters stated that potentially unjustifiable denials of 

extension requests due to concerns with initial plan submittals could place states in a position of 

being unable to meet a final plan submittal deadline. The commenters stated that the EPA is 

imposing a massive regulatory program on the state without adequate implementation time, even 

for an extension request. The commenters stated that to deny the extension request without due 

process is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The commenters noted that states 

must have recourse to appeal arbitrary actions by the federal government.

Comment 9: If the EPA determines that the initial plan does not meet the guidelines (identified 

in the rule language), EPA will notify the state by letter, within 60 days, that the agency cannot 

approve the state's initial plan as submitted. The commenters questioned whether the 60-day 

letter would serve as some sort of extension of the period for submission of the initial plan, or if 

it would serve as EPA's official proposal for disapproval, thereby triggering EPA's obligations to 

propose its own plan for a State.

Response 9: If a state submits an acceptable initial plan submittal by September 6, 2016, as 

specified in the plan guidelines, then the deadline extension for submitting a final plan submittal 

that the state requested will be deemed granted. If the EPA determines that the initial plan 

submittal does not meet the guidelines, the EPA will notify the state by letter, within 90 days, 
245

that the agency cannot approve the extension request based the state’s initial plan submittal as 

submitted. The EPA will notify a state by letter only if the initial plan submittal does not meet 

the guidelines. An extension for submitting a final plan submittal will be deemed granted if the 

EPA does not deny the extension request based on the initial plan submittal. The EPA has 

determined this approach is authorized by, and consistent with, 40 CFR 60.27(a) of the

implementing regulations. EPA has clarified the requirements for approvable initial plan 

submittals and 2017 updates in the final rule preamble section VIII.E. If the state does not 

submit an acceptable 2017 update by September 6, 2017, the state will have failed to meet the 

conditions for the 2-year extension and the EPA will develop a federal plan unless the state 

submits a final plan during this time.

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

Commenters requested clarification regarding the EPA's proposal (70 FR 34915) that, if EPA 

determines that the initial plan does not meet the guidelines (identified in the rule language), 

EPA will notify the state by letter, within 60 days, that the agency cannot approve the state's 

initial plan as submitted. The commenters stated that EPA believes this approach is authorized 

by, and consistent with, 40 CFR 60.27(a) of the implementing regulations. 

The commenters stated that EPA's intent for the initial plan approval/disapproval process is 

unclear. The commenters stated that under 40 CFR 60.27(a), EPA may extend the period for 

submission of any plan or plan revision. The commenters questioned if EPA is suggesting that 

the 60-day letter will serve as some sort of extension of the period for submission of the initial 

plan, or if it would serve as EPA's official proposal for disapproval, thereby triggering EPA's 

obligations to propose its own plan for a State (section 60.27(c)). The commenters stated that 

EPA's proposed rule language 40 CFR 60.5760(b) suggests that EPA's 60-day letter will find that 

the initial submittal does not meet the plan requirements, which would suggest EPA considers 

the letter as a disapproval. However, the commenters stated that 40 CFR 60.27(b) indicates that

EPA will propose a plan for approval or disapproval, suggesting a formal notice and comment 

period. The commenters requested clarification of EPA's procedure for disapproved initial plan 

submittals, and indication where States will be afforded the opportunity for formal notice and 

comment of such disapprovals, prior to EPA's promulgation of its own plan for a State. 

Comment 10: Each state's development of implementation plans must allow for equity-based 

input from all stakeholders, particularly from communities that are most impacted by coal 

pollution directly and indirectly through climate change.

Response 10: The EPA agrees with the comment. In this state plan development process for this 

rule, there are various requirements and opportunities for public input prior to initial plan 

submittal, prior to complete plan submittal, and when the EPA proposes to act on a state plan and 

publishes a notice in the Federal Register. Additionally, one of the appropriate explanations for 

seeking an extension is for states who wish to actively engage with communities, including

vulnerable communities, throughout the state plan development process beyond the public 

participation requirements of 40 CFR 60.27. More detail is provided in section VIII.E.2 – State 

plan submittal and timing - of the preamble.
246

The following is a summary of the specific public comment under this comment:

Commenters stated that each state's development of implementation plans must be done 

inclusively so that equity-based input is heeded and all stakeholders are heard, particularly 

communities that are most impacted by coal pollution directly as well as indirectly through 

climate change.

Comment 11: The EPA's requirement that a state hearing must be certified should be stronger to 

guard against misleading claims during the plan approval process. Given the complexity of state 

plans and the complexity of the planning process, third parties should be allowed as interveners 

to formally protest misinformed and deceptive claims about 111(d) plans. Actual protests could 

be screened for significance by outside planning experts, to prevent frivolous cases, before being 

turned over to EPA for a response.

Response 11: The EPA does not agree with that commenters’ claim that the requirement that a 

state hearing must be certified should be stronger to guard against misleading claims during the 

plan approval process. A standard part of the federal rulemaking process is public participation, 

and a state plan will go through multiple rounds of public input at the state and federal level. 

This final rule contains a requirement for public participation prior to the initial state plan 

submittal to the EPA, another round prior to submitting a final plan to the EPA, and finally, the 

public will be able to submit comments to the EPA on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking when 

the EPA takes formal action on a state plan. If a member of the public wants more information 

on or has information that contradicts a claim made in a state plan, the three rounds of public 

input are the public’s opportunity to have these concerns addressed. The state is required to make 

the EPA aware of any significant comments on the initial plan submittal and final plan, and any 

comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be addressed in the response to 

comments document of the Final Rule.

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

Commenters stated that since self-reporting by states can be misleading, the EPA's requirement 

that a state hearing must be certified should be stronger to guard against misleading claims 

during the plan approval process. The commenters noted that section VIII.E.3 of the EPA's 

proposal preamble states the following in regard to comments states receive during hearings:

"The EPA can use this comment opportunity to advise the state whether it is on 

track to submit an approvable initial plan. When the state submits its initial plan, 

it must provide the EPA with a response to any significant comments it received 

on issues relating to the approvability of the initial plan so that the EPA can fully 

assess whether it is approvable." 

The commenters stated that formal reviews of state energy plans and state legal requirements 

(e.g., sunshine laws) are failing to reveal some misleading claims by state officials about what 

their plans will accomplish. The commenters stated that a contributing factor is that some state 

officials are newcomers to energy planning and the regulatory environment. Given the 

complexity of state plans and the complexity of the planning process, the commenters stated that 
247

misinformed and deceptive claims about 111(d) plans might continue unchallenged for years 

unless the EPA allows third parties (interveners) to protest the validity of misleading state 

claims. The commenters suggested that EPA permit a limited range of protests when the integrity 

of a plan is at stake. The commenters stated that any actual protests could be screened for 

significance by outside planning experts (to prevent frivolous cases) before being turned over to 

EPA for a response. 

The commenters provided an example involving an individual state's EE program, where the 

commenters asserted that the public disclosure process failed due to reliance on self-reporting by 

state officials. The commenters stated that while EPA's proposal requires milestones and 

backstop measures that could be used in 111(d) plans, by the time backstop measures would take 

effect, a new administration would be responsible for state planning. The commenters noted that 

the prior administration would have "kicked the can down the road," and saddled successors with 

the plan's shortcomings (a real problem in some states). 

The commenters stated that the EPA's challenge in scrutinizing state plans is complicated by the 

watered down feedback states receive on their EE planning. The commenters stated that plan 

reviews from EE experts tend to be long, technical exercises with a narrow focus, where 

reviewers are often reluctant to correct misconceptions, believing it might hurt their business 

interests. Consequently, the commenters stated that many EE experts do not alert their audience 

to big picture concerns, and provide criticisms on plans in technical jargon that the average 

person can't understand. The commenters stated that this type of feedback on EE planning needs 

to change in order for EE to achieve its potential to fulfill 111(d) planning needs at the lowest 

cost, and to provide valuable co-benefits.

6.4.3 Process for EPA review of state plans

This section discusses the process that EPA will use to review and approve state plans. The EPA 

proposed that, because of the diverse approaches states were expected to take to meet the 

emission performance goals in the emission guidelines, the EPA proposed a 12-month period for 

EPA to review and approve or disapprove state plans. The comments in this section addressed 

the relative timing of developing the process for submitting and reviewing state plans and the 

requirements for those plans, the time-frame for reviewing and approving plans, and possibility 

of including partial or conditional approvals.

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

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

We agree with the following specific comments made under this subsection:

• The procedures for submitting and reviewing state plans should be in place in time for 

the states to submit their plans under this guideline and for EPA’s review of those 

submissions.
248

• The CPP, like other EPA air programs, is more complicated than the programs that 

resulted immediately after Congress established the CAA in 1970 and established the 

4-month SIP review and approval period.

• Additional consideration should be given to adopting partial or conditional approval 

mechanisms into the 111(d) procedures.

• Implementing the CPP EPA will be a major undertaking and a challenge to both state 

and federal environmental agencies. State agencies and EPA must work together to 

build on the lessons learned under section 110 in the SIP program, and adopt relevant 

best practices, such as the NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP reform workgroup.

• The EPA needs to establish and adopt uniform criteria for evaluating the 

completeness of state plans and to quantify the effectiveness of RE and EE measures 

in plans, and to establish procedures for EPA feedback and technical support of plans 

early in their development.

• The EPA should provide states with objective information on the relative cost of 

different emission reduction strategies to help states make sound choices in 

structuring their state plans under this guideline.

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

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

Comment 1: An appropriate process governing submission and approval of Section 111(d) plans 

should be finalized before rules governing substantive content of the plans are promulgated. The 

EPA has not sufficiently established procedures that will adequately and appropriately govern 

this process considering the inter-relatedness of the different aspects likely to be contained in a 

Section 111(d) plan. The EPA cannot substitute the process under Section 110 for a process 

specific for plans under Section 111(d). The fact that the approval process has not been finalized 

makes it difficult for states to comment on other parts of the proposal, so an additional comment 

period on the proposed rule should be provided.

Response 1: EPA agrees that the procedures for submitting and reviewing state plans should be 

in place in time for the states to submit their plans under this guideline and for EPA’s review of 

those submissions. EPA disagrees with the idea that every detail of the procedures the states and 

EPA must use has to be finally settled before EPA can finalize the rules governing the 

substantive content of the state plans. With the promulgation of this guideline, EPA is finalizing 

the substantive requirements for state plans and also the great majority of the procedures for 

submitting and reviewing state plans. But there are some procedural elements that may be 

promulgated in a subsequent action, such as partial and conditional approvals on which EPA has 

decided to take further comment of proposed rule language. EPA does not believe a state or 

interested parties are substantially constrained or prejudiced in the initial development of a state 

plan because they may not know which different approval options EPA will have available when 
249

the Agency finally acts on the state’s plan. As long as the necessary section 111(d) procedures 

are finalized in time for the states to use them to submit plans and EPA to use them to review 

plans, the agency has complied with the Act’s requirement to “prescribe regulations which shall 

establish a procedure.”

EPA agrees that section 111(d) provides for EPA to establish specific procedures to implement 

that section. The Agency is not simply substituting section 110 procedures rather than 

developing procedures specifically designed to implement section 111(d). For example, EPA 

understands that developing state plans under this guideline may be complicated and could 

require careful coordination across state agencies, or even across governments of different states. 

Therefore, EPA has developed a process for state plan development that could give the state up 

to three years to submit a complete plan. This submittal process is just one example of the way 

EPA has adapted the general outline of section 110 procedures to create a similar process under 

section 111 that is nevertheless tailored to the particular needs of states responding to this 

guideline.

EPA notes that it will be taking further comment on whether to incorporate the partial 

approval/partial disapproval mechanism into the section 111(d) framework procedures. EPA is 

not taking final action on that issue today. With that said, EPA agrees with the commenters’ 

concerns that the agency must be careful when partially approving a state plan that the elements 

EPA approves must be truly severable from the elements EPA disapproves. As with state 

implementation plan submittals under section 110, EPA cannot pick and choose elements of a 

state submission and approve them in a way that yields a program the state did not intend to 

implement. Nevertheless, EPA wishes to take further comment on the possibility that there may 

be reasonably free-standing elements of a state plan that EPA could approve, even if the entire 

plan does not meet all the guideline’s requirements. The goal would be to empower the state to 

implement as much of the guideline as possible.

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

Commenters stated that an appropriate process governing submission and approval of Section 

111(d) plans should be finalized before rules governing substantive content of the plans are 

promulgated.

The commenters stated that section 111(d) (1) of the Clean Air Act provides that EPA "shall 

establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each 

State shall submit to the Administrator a plan?" The commenters stated that the Act appears to 

require that EPA shall establish a specific procedure "similar to that provided by section 7410," 

and does not appear to allow EPA to merely substitute the Section 7410 process instead of 

establishing a specific process governing the submission of Section 111(d) plans.

The commenters argued that the EPA has not sufficiently established procedures that will 

adequately and appropriately govern this process considering the inter-relatedness of the 

different aspects likely to be contained in a Section 111(d) plan. The commenters noted that the 

EPA has requested comment on the appropriate mechanism for approval of state plans, 

proposing two different options. According to the commenters, many aspects of the proposed

process may be appropriate for certain state implementation plan submittals; however, they are 
250

not applicable to Section 111(d) plans of this nature, because of the manner in which these plans 

are likely to be woven and developed. The commenters provided, as one example, partial 

approvals/partial disapprovals may not be appropriate even though certain approvable portions of 

a plan may be considered severable by EPA. The commenters stated that development of these 

plans will likely take much negotiation at the state level, and although a portion may be 

considered severable by EPA standards it may have been a key consideration in the state-level 

process that resulted in the plan being submitted.

Also, the commenters stated that the mere fact that the approval process has not been finalized 

provides challenges to the states' efforts to comment on other parts of the proposal. The 

commenters stated that the EPA has proposed two processes for the submittal and approval of 

state plans, which makes it difficult to provide meaningful comments without knowing the 

specific process that will apply. Further, the commenters stated that EPA must bear in mind 

when choosing a plan approval mechanism that preparing and compiling this plan will require 

the cooperation and negotiation of several different government agencies and, therefore, 

subsequent plan modifications will similarly require a challenging process that includes

negotiations amongst different state agencies. The commenters stated that unlike many state 

implementation plans, this plan will not be easily severable if parts are disapproved, and the 

alteration of one part could have a negative impact on the viability of another portion of the plan. 

The commenters stated that assuring that there are no unintended consequences and coordinating 

the various interests will be an arduous process; thus, EPA's approval process will need to be 

accommodating.

The commenters stated that since there is uncertainty related to the appropriateness of the 

procedure that states are required to follow in submitting the mandated plan, states are being 

denied the opportunity to consider that process as they develop substantive comments on the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters stated that the EPA should finalize the requisite procedure for 

submission and approval of a Section 111(d) plan in sufficient detail to allow for the meaningful 

evaluation of the process while the states and the public have an opportunity to comment on the 

Proposed Rule. In other words, the commenters stated that an additional comment period on the 

Proposed Rule may be necessary once the submittal and approval process is finalized.

Commenters stated that EPA should clearly specify the state plan approval and provide a dispute 

process available to states to address differences regarding plan approval and reported energy 

savings and avoided emissions.

Comment 2: The EPA has not allowed enough time for the EPA process to review state plans, 

including review of multistate plans, and additional time will be needed given that states will be 

required to achieve emission reductions as early as 2020 to meet interim goals.

Response 2: EPA acknowledges that acting on state plans under this guideline within the 12-

month period the agency is establishing today will be a significant challenge. EPA disagrees that 

the only way for the agency to meet that deadline is to disregard its other obligations under the 

Act. It is important to remember that in the cooperative federalism framework the Act creates, 

EPA works with states as they develop CAA plans, whether they be SIPs under section 110 or 
251

state plans under section 111(d). EPA very commonly works with states as they draft plans, 

often sharing drafts and ideas back and forth even before the state puts its plan out to broader 

public notice. The section 111(d) procedures require that the state provide public notice of its 

plan before submitting it to EPA, as with SIPs under section 110. Where there are remaining 

questions that could not be resolved prior to the state’s public notice, the agency typically 

participates in the state’s public process to register any remaining comments and create a basis 

for working with the state to resolve those questions in the state’s final plan. So when the state 

submits a state plan to EPA, the agency ordinarily is not seeing it for the first time. This 

cooperative work together should help EPA act on state plans under this guideline within the 12 

month period.

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

Commenters expressed concern that EPA has not allowed enough time for its plan review 

process. 

Commenters expressed concern that EPA will be unable to review all of the plans in the 12-

month timeframe without completely disregarding its other obligations under the Clean Air Act. 

The commenters stated that the timeframe in the Proposed Rule is impracticable because states 

need additional time to negotiate and draft effective multi-state plans, and EPA needs sufficient 

time to perform thorough reviews of all submitted plans.

Commenters noted that EPA proposes that states submit plans to EPA in the 2016-2018 

timeframe. The commenters stated that since emissions reductions would be required as early as 

2020 to meet the proposed interim goal, EPA has allowed insufficient time for its own regulatory 

approval process.

Commenters expressed skepticism that the 1-year EPA plan review and approval timeframe is 

adequate based on EPA's past practices for approving Regional Haze and other CAA 

implementation plans.

Comment 3: Given that states are allowed only one-year (with the potential for a 12-month 

extension under certain conditions) to develop a plan, the EPA will be flooded with state plan 

approval applications, and the process for approval that will create a federally-enforceable plan is 

going to take time for EPA regional offices to process. The fact EPA deviated from its standard 

4-month review period to allow a full year for review suggests that the proposed regulatory 

structure is excessively complex.

Response 3: To the extent this comment is raising concerns about EPA’s ability to meet the 12 

month time frame for acting on state plan submittals, please see the response to Comment 2 

immediately above.

To the extent this comment is arguing that the 12 month time frame for EPA action is evidence 

that the guideline is “excessively complex,” EPA disputes that assertion. EPA does not deny that 

state plans under this guideline could take advantage of many options the agency has designed 

into the guideline to give states flexibility. Some of those options or combinations of them will 
252

be more complex than others. But the decision to extend EPA’s review period to 12 months is 

no acknowledgement of “excessive” complexity in this particular guideline.

Rather, it is an acknowledgement that developments since 1970 make a four month time period 

for acting on state plans of all sorts unrealistic. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments provided 

EPA four months to act on initial SIP submittals. It was long argued that this four month period 

also applied to SIP revisions, until the Supreme Court held it did not in the General Motors case. 

So EPA’s section 111(d) framework regulations picked up this four month time period for 

agency action, and it has not been revisited since.

In the meantime, Congress and EPA have clearly acknowledged that a variety of factors make 

the four month time period for agency action unrealistic. Under both sections 110 and 111, EPA 

does informal rulemaking when acting on state submissions. That process is not as informal as it 

used to be in the early 1970’s. The number of statutory requirements and executive directives 

EPA must address in that process has swollen considerably since then. 

In addition, programs of all sorts have grown more complicated since Congress provided four 

months for actions on initial SIPs. Shortly after passing the 1970 amendments, the states had lots 

of low-hanging regulatory fruit to harvest, and it was a major accomplishment to simply get a 

power plant to limit is emissions. Programs under the Act have matured, embraced principles of 

economic incentives and markets, and developed flexibilities unheard of in the 1970’s. 

Reviewing these sorts of programs requires more than four months, not because they are 

“excessively” complex, but because modern air pollution control programs often have multiple 

components to assess compared with the quite simple emission limits first designed into SIPs. In 

recognition of all of these factors, Congress provided in the 1990 amendments that EPA should 

act on SIP revisions within 12 months. EPA has concluded it is reasonable to apply this 

timeframe to EPA’s action on plans under this guideline as well for essentially the same reasons 

Congress revised section 110.

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

Given that states are allowed only one-year (with the potential for a 12-month extension under 

certain conditions) to develop a plan, commenters noted that the EPA will be flooded with state 

plan approval applications. The commenters stated that the process for approval that will create a 

federally-enforceable plan is going to take time for EPA regional offices to process in this firstof-its-kind regulatory scheme. The commenters stated that the fact that the EPA deviates from its 

standard 4-month review period to allow EPA review to take a full year is a tacit 

acknowledgement that this unprecedented regulatory structure is excessively complex. 79 FR 

34838. 

Comment 4: Recognizing that plan disapprovals should be rare, given EPA's limited review 

authority under section 111(d), the EPA should use hybrid approval mechanisms (similar to

those under section 110) to assist the states in implementing the section 111(d) program by 

providing partial or conditional approval of state plans.
253

Response 4: In today’s action, EPA will not be taking final action on adopting partial or 

conditional approval mechanisms into the section 111(d) procedures. EPA will be taking further 

comment on a proposal to amend the section 111(d) framework regulations to include those 

mechanisms. EPA is making that proposal because the agency agrees with the commenters that 

the flexibility those provisions introduce into the approval process may help states begin to 

administer as much of a program under this guideline as possible. EPA also hopes that 

disapprovals under this guideline will be rare, because the agency looks forward to states 

submitting robust and approvable plans. But EPA disagrees that the agency’s review authority is 

“limited,” at least to the extent that the commenters might be suggesting EPA lacks authority to 

ensure that state plans are consistent with the requirements of the guideline.

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

Commenters noted that EPA requests comment on whether it should authorize itself to use the 

hybrid approval mechanisms it has developed under section 110 - the "partial approval/partial 

disapproval" and the "conditional approval." Id. at 34916. The commenters stated that 

recognizing that disapprovals should be rare given EPA's limited review authority under section 

111(d), the commenters suggested that EPA should make use of its section 110 hybrid approval 

mechanisms where use of such mechanisms will assist the states in implementing the section 

111(d) program. 

Comment 5: The EPA should have the ability to conditionally or partially approve state plans 

and remand the noncompliant portions of the plan back to the state for further revision and 

subsequent review by the EPA. These options would allow states to move forward with emission 

reductions while developing final plans. 

Response 5: In today’s action, EPA will not be taking final action on adopting partial or 

conditional approval mechanisms into the section 111(d) procedures. EPA will be taking further 

comment on a proposal to amend the section 111(d) framework regulations to include those 

mechanisms. EPA is making that proposal because the agency agrees with the commenters that 

the flexibility those provisions introduce into the approval process may help states begin to 

administer as much of a program under this guideline as possible.

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

Commenters supported EPA's ability to conditionally approve state plans. Commenters stated 

that EPA should have authority to conditionally approve the state plan while remanding the 

noncompliant components of the plan back to the state for further revision and subsequent 

review and approval by EPA. 

Commenters stated that EPA should include in the procedures for acting on complete state plans 

the range of options Congress included in CAA Section 110, including partial approval/partial 

disapproval and conditional approval. The commenters stated that since the overall goal is to 

have approvable state plans which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limiting options for 

approval is counterproductive.
254

Commenters stated that it has been the policy over the years of partially approving section 110 

plans that were not entirely approvable, asking the state to make specified revisions. The 

commenters suggested that this practice should also be extended to these 111(d) state plans 

because it is always better to be moving forward from a specific base that trying to start all over.

Commenters noted that EPA is taking comment on whether the agency may use two state plan 

approval mechanisms provided for in CAA sections 110(k)(3) and (4). The commenters noted 

the first mechanism is partial approval/partial disapproval, and the second mechanism is a 

conditional approval. The commenters stated that both partial approval and the conditional 

approval options for state plans are legally permissible and should be part of the mechanisms for 

eventual plan approval. The commenters supported the broadest possible mechanisms for 

allowing full or partial plan approval.

Commenters stated that the EPA should include in the procedures for acting on complete state 

plans the range of options Congress included in CAA section 110, including partial 

approval/partial disapproval and conditional approval. The commenters stated that limiting

options for approval is counterproductive since the overall goal is to have approvable state plans 

which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment 6: The EPA’s suggestion for incorporating partial or conditional plan approval 

mechanisms is inconsistent with the language of section 111(d) (2) which gives EPA authority to 

prescribe a plan to establish standards of performance when a state fails to submit or enforce a 

plan. The EPA’s attempting to fit this proposal into a proposal similar to a section 110 SIP would 

be an expansion of the EPA's authority that is counter to section 111(d).

Response 6: In today’s action, EPA will not be taking final action on adopting partial or 

conditional approval mechanisms into the section 111(d) procedures. EPA will be taking further 

comment on a proposal to amend the section 111(d) framework regulations to include those 

mechanisms. Nevertheless, it may be appropriate here to explain the basis on which EPA expects 

to make such a proposal and why EPA invited comment on the question of including partial and 

conditional approvals in the section 111(d) procedures.

The commenters suggest that EPA has no authority to include these mechanisms in the section 

111(d) process because section 111(d) refers to section 110 in the context of procedures “under 

which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan.” The suggestion appears to be that 

EPA can look to section 110 for guidance on processes for state submission of plans but not for 

EPA’s action on those submissions. First, a plain reading of the statute shows this interpretation 

is implausible. Congress does not direct states to submit plans to EPA under either sections 110 

or 111(d) so that EPA may put those plans on a shelf. The whole purpose of plan submission is 

so that EPA can review and act on the plans. So in referring EPA to section 110 to develop 

procedures for states to “submit” plans to EPA, it is reasonably clear that Congress was 

envisioning that those procedures would govern both the state giving EPA a plan and EPA acting 

on it. Second, even if one were to concede that a plain reading of the statute did not compel EPA 

to develop procedures to review state plans, it is at least ambiguous whether Congress was 

forbidding EPA to look to section 110 in devising procedures for acting on state plans. EPA’s 
255

interpretation of that ambiguity should get deference. Accordingly, EPA expects to propose that 

it has the authority to adopt section 110 procedures for acting on state implementation plans into 

section 111(d).

The commenters also suggest that section 111(d)(2) controls when EPA can prescribe a federal 

plan for a state and, therefore, somehow limits the types of actions EPA can take when acting on 

a state plan under 111(d) more narrowly than Congress provided for in section 110. EPA does 

not see any such limitation in section 111(d) (2). If anything, a plain reading of the provision 

leads to the opposite conclusion. Section 111(d) (2) (A) describes EPA’s authority to issue a 

federal plan by reference to section 110: 

“The Administrator shall have the same authority to prescribe a plan for a State 

in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have under 

section [110(c)] in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan.”

42 U.S.C. §111(d)(2)(A)(emphasis added). Under section 110(c), EPA’s authority to issue a FIP 

in a state is defined by the scope of EPA’s approvals and disapprovals under sections 110(k), 

including the scope of any partial or conditional approvals under sections 110(k)(3) and (4). 

There is no obvious reason why EPA’s authority to issue a federal plan under section 111(d) 

could not be similarly defined. Again, EPA expects to propose that it has authority to adopt 

section 110 procedures for acting on state implementation plans into section 111(d).

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's regulations do not explicitly provide for different forms of 

approval similar to the Section 110 SIP program. 

The commenters noted that the EPA is requesting comment on incorporating the partial and 

conditional approval mechanisms provided for in CAA sections 110(k)(3) and (4). The 

commenters stated that the basis the EPA cites is found in Section 111(d)(1) which provides that 

the EPA "shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided 

under Section 110 under which each state shall submit..." The commenters argued that the 

provisions regarding the EPA's requirement to "establish a procedure similar to that provided 

under Section 110" is with respect to providing procedures for each state to "submit...a plan 

which establishes standards of performance." The commenters noted that section 111(d) (2) is 

clear on the EPA's authority to prescribe a plan when a state fails to submit or to enforce a plan. 

The commenters stated that unlike Section 110, the EPA is given no explicit authority to provide 

for different types of approvals. The commenters stated that once again U.S. EPA is attempting 

to fit this proposal into a Section 110 SIP type proposal due to its overly complex nature, which 

is not the intent of a Section 111(d) requirement. The commenters disagreed with this expansion 

of the EPA's authority.

Comment 7: The EPA should reject the option of granting conditional approval of state plans 

because this would reward states that fail to submit plans meeting all requirements by the 

applicable deadline. Moreover, the extended 1-year timeframe for states to correct their 
256

conditionally approved plans would exceed the 6 months that EPA provides in current 

regulations for states to address deficiencies in plans that are disapproved by the EPA.

Response 7: In today’s action, EPA will not be taking final action on adopting the conditional 

approval mechanism into the section 111(d) procedures. EPA will be taking further comment on 

a proposal to amend the section 111(d) framework regulations to include that mechanism. 

Nevertheless, it may be appropriate here to explain the basis on which EPA expects to make such 

a proposal and why EPA invited comment on the question of including conditional approvals in 

the section 111(d) procedures.

The commenters suggest that it is inappropriate for EPA to allow for conditional approvals of 

state plans under this guideline when EPA is also providing the states up to one year to submit an 

initial plan, which if approved, will provide the state with one or two additional years to submit a 

final plan. EPA does not see any inconsistency between the final plan submission framework the 

agency is developing and the use of the conditional plan approval mechanism. The initial plan 

process gives a state the chance to take an additional year or two to develop a complete plan. 

When EPA reviews and acts on that complete plan, the agency can only use the conditional 

approval mechanism if it concludes that the state has submitted a substantially complete plan that 

can be successfully implemented for up to a year while the state cures any remaining defects. 

EPA would not be giving the state yet another year to submit a complete plan, but rather more 

time to fix elements of a plan EPA has determined is substantially complete enough to be 

implemented.

The alternative that the commenters’ position would require is not reasonable. Without 

conditional approval authority, EPA would be forced to disapprove a state plan that the agency 

has concluded is substantial enough to implement and where the state has made a written 

commitment to cure any remaining defects within a year. It is much more consistent with the 

cooperative federalism structure of the Act in that circumstance to empower the state to move 

forward with its plan, rather than disapproving the state and having EPA take over 

implementation. 

The commenters suggest that the conditional approval mechanism is inconsistent with section 

60.27(d) of the section 111(d) framework regulations because that provision only gives states up 

to six months to respond to an EPA disapproval before EPA imposes a federal plan, whereas the 

conditional approval mechanism allows up to a year for a state to cure any program deficiencies. 

EPA does not see these timing requirements as inconsistent when one bears in mind the different 

posture of the state plan under each provision. If EPA has disapproved a plan, the agency has 

concluded that there is no prospect that the state plan in its current form can potentially meet the 

requirements of the guideline. In that case, it is important to ensure that a plan of some type be 

in place to control carbon emissions from affected sources. While section 60.27(d) provides for 

up to six months before EPA promulgates a federal plan, that is an outside date, and it is 

available to EPA to issue a federal plan sooner than six months following disapproval. When 

EPA makes a conditional approval of a state plan, the agency has concluded that the state plan is 

substantially complete enough to control emissions consistent with the guideline and only needs 

minor revision to be fully approvable. If the goal is to have a plan controlling carbon emissions 

from affected sources, it would best advance that goal to give EPA the flexibility to authorize a 
257

state that is willing to fix a substantially complete plan to implement the program rather than 

forcing EPA to disapprove it due to flaws that the state has committed to cure.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should reject the option of granting conditional approval of state 

plans. The commenters stated that EPA seeks comment on using the CAA 110(k) (4) conditional 

approval mechanism for state plans. As described in the proposed rule, the commenters stated 

that this would allow EPA to approve state plans that fail to meet all requirements, so long as the 

state commits to curing the deficiencies within one year. See FR 34,916-17. The commenters

stated that because EPA is proposing to require states to submit their initial plans in June 2016, 

there should be no need to apply the Act's conditional approval process to the state plans 

proposed to meet the Clean Power Plan's emission goals. The commenters stated that EPA will 

have an opportunity to review the state's initial plan to identify issues that may foreclose 

approval if adopted into the plan. The commenters stated that making conditional approvals 

available would only reward states that fail to submit plans meeting all requirements by the 

applicable deadline. Moreover, the commenters stated that the extended 1-year timeframe for 

states to correct their conditionally approved plans would conflict with the 6 months EPA's 

current regulations provide for states to address the presumably more wide-ranging plan 

deficiencies that result in disapproval of the plan by EPA.

Comment 8: The implementation of this program will require a substantial allocation of EPA 

and state resources that could cause other air programs to fall behind schedule. The EPA should 

review and adopt best practices developed by the NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP reform workgroup 

and incorporate them in to the section 111(d) planning and approval process. 

Response 8: EPA agrees that starting up state programs under this guideline will be a major 

undertaking and a challenge to both state and federal environmental agencies. EPA also agrees 

that state agencies and EPA must work together to build on the lessons learned under section 110 

in the SIP program, and adopt relevant best practices by the NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP reform 

workgroup for processing state plans under section 111(d). While there will be some important 

difference between the SIP and section 111(d) processes, as directed by section 111(d)(1), the 

section 111(d) process that EPA has developed for this guideline is broadly similar to the SIP 

process under section 110. Therefore, the ideas and reforms that the states and EPA have 

developed for processing SIPs more efficiently should find ready application in the section 

111(d) process. EPA is committed to supporting states in developing state plans to implement 

this guideline. The President’s budget for FY2016 includes $25 million to help States develop 

their state plans under this guideline.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/investing.pdf (p. 20, 

visited on May 8, 2015).

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
258

Commenters expressed concern that EPA review of section 111(d) state plans could cause EPA 

to fall behind on approval of other state air quality plans, and urged EPA to employ best 

practices in its review of the state plans.

Commenters noted that in experience with SIP approvals under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 

EPA review of state programs is a slow process which could lead to significant delays in 

implementing new program elements and compliance demonstrations under the finally approved 

state plan. The commenters expressed concern that the 111(d) process could become 

unnecessarily complicated, diverting other EPA staff from important SIP reviews and approvals, 

and causing EPA to fall behind on approval of other state air quality plans. The commenters

urged EPA to review the best practices developed by the NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP reform 

workgroup and incorporate them in to the 111(d) planning and approval process. 

Commenters stated that the 111(d) planning process will place a significant administrative 

burden on both state agency and EPA staff. The commenters stated therefore, it is critical that 

EPA and the states work efficiently together and that EPA exercise as much flexibility as 

possible when reviewing and approving state 111(d) plans. The commenters noted that Western 

states have air quality programs whose resources are already committed to implementing other 

federal and state programs. The commenters noted that the Administration is seeking reallocation 

of funds from the United States Congress for state air quality planning in the FY2015 budget, 

and that it is important for EPA to provide states with additional assistance wherever possible to 

help state air agencies meet deadlines under 111(d). The commenters stated that it is also 

important that the 111(d) process does not cause EPA to fall behind on its approval of other state 

air quality plans. The commenters stated that the best practices section of the "Commitments and 

Best Practices for Addressing the SIP Backlog" developed by the NACAA-ECOS- EPA SIP 

Reform Workgroup provides a good model for how states and EPA should approach the 111(d) 

planning and approval process. 

Commenters stated that EPA must ensure that it dedicates sufficient resources to review state 

111(d) plans and to continue approving other state air quality plans. The commenters noted that 

EPA and the states recently agreed on an approach to reduce the backlog of State 

Implementation Plan approvals. The commenters recommended that EPA apply these principles 

to the process for approving 111(d) plans.

Comment 9: The EPA should ensure consistent evaluation and quantification of state plans, 

even while the EPA is also trying to provide flexibility. To accommodate a range of state and 

regional program designs, the EPA should provide program evaluation metrics along with the 

draft guidelines. These metrics should offer a transparent, nationally consistent, and readily 

usable way for states to evaluate their existing programs to determine whether they are sufficient

to comply with the guideline's emissions level, or if additional reductions will be required. 

Recommended guidance included "Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable 

Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans" or the 2012 State 

and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network's "Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation 

Guide" available at www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/impactguide.

Response 9: Regarding the comment that the EPA should build on current program evaluation 

guidance such as the "Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies 
259

and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans" or the 2012 State and Local Energy 

Efficiency Action Network's "Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide," we note 

that in the proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA sought comment on the appropriateness of 

existing EPA guidance on enforceability in the context of state plans under CAA section 111(d). 

We also referred to the Roadmap guidance as an example of guidance that states are already 

adopting for addressing energy efficiency/renewable energy in their State Implementation Plans. 

Comments received regarding the appropriateness of using existing guidance for section 111(d) 

have been considered in developing the final rule. 

The Department of Energy is an important Federal Partner for evaluating energy 

efficiency/renewable energy as it relates to section 111(d) compliance. Regarding the comment 

pertaining to the need for consistent quantification methodologies for evaluating energy use, we 

note that the Department of Energy, in the Uniform Methods Project, has developed protocols to 

evaluate gross energy savings for each of the most common residential and commercial measures 

and programs offered by ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in the United States. 

Using a single measurement and verification protocol to calculate the energy savings from a 

particular measure or program will increase the credibility of the reported savings. 

The EPA understands the concerns raised by commenters regarding the need to ensure national 

consistency in EPA’s review and approval decisions for section 111(d) plans. Pursuant to 40 

CFR Part 56, the EPA is currently developing systems and processes to foster communications 

among Regional and Headquarters offices and to ensure consistency in EPA actions. Through 

various workgroups and regularly held conference calls, the EPA is keeping the communications 

lines open between Headquarters and Regional Offices. 

One example of a system that the EPA is developing to foster communications and ensure 

consistency is the State Plan Electronic Collection System (SPeCS). Through SPeCS, states will 

be able to submit their plans electronically and track EPA actions pertaining to their plans. They 

will also be able to track EPA actions pertaining to other state plans. This transparent system will 

help ensure that the EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters are apprised of plan decisionmaking in real-time. In addition to the development and use of SPeCS, the EPA is evaluating the 

extent to which our past practices for review and approval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 can serve as a model for ensuring consistency for CAA 

section 111(d).

Regarding the concern raised about the need for detailed central guidance and direction 

regarding approvable plan elements, we note that the final rule describes in detail each of the 

components of the state plan submittal. The EPA has determined that a satisfactory state plan 

that meets the required plan components discussed in the preamble will characteristically meet 

the June 2014 proposed approvability criteria. The EPA, therefore, has incorporated the proposed 

approvability criteria into the final preamble section titled “Components of a state plan 

submittal” (section VIII.D.2)

To ensure consistency in processing state plan submittals, the EPA also intends to promulgate 

completeness criteria that will allow the EPA to determine whether a final state plan submission 

contains the components necessary to enable the EPA to determine through notice and comment 

rulemaking whether such submission complies with the requirements of section 111(d). 
260

Establishment of completeness criteria is a procedural requirement under CAA section 110(k)(1), 

and the EPA believes this requirement is appropriate to establish under section 111(d)’s direction 

of the EPA to prescribe through regulations a procedure similar to that provided by section 110. 

However, because the EPA did not propose such regulations as part of the proposal for this 

action, the EPA intends to do so as part of the upcoming Federal Plan proposal for section 

111(d). The upcoming completeness criteria will not add to or change the required components 

of the state plan submittal, but will allow the EPA to identify whether there are absent or 

insufficient components in the plan submission that would render the EPA unable to act on such 

submission because it is incomplete. The EPA believes these completeness criteria will enhance 

consistency in processing state plan submittals. 

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

Commenters requested that EPA ensure consistent evaluation of state plans across EPA regions.

Commenters stated that EPA should ensure consistent evaluation and quantification of state 

plans. The commenters stated that accommodating a range of state and regional program designs 

will require EPA to provide program evaluation metrics along with the draft guidelines. The 

commenters stated that those metrics should offer a transparent, nationally consistent, and readily 

usable way for states to evaluate their existing programs to determine whether they suffice to 

comply with the guideline's emissions level, or if additional reductions will be required. The 

commenters stated that by setting out these goal posts early, EPA will make it easier for states to 

quickly advance strong programs through the Section 111(d) process, and to identify ways to 

improve weaker ones.

The commenters recommended that EPA build on current program evaluation guidance such as 

the "Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs 

into State and Tribal Implementation Plans" or the 2012 State and Local Energy Efficiency 

Action Network's "Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide" available at

www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/impactguide. According to the commenters, these guides 

describe the terminology, structures, and approaches used for evaluating energy and demand 

savings as well as methods for calculating avoided emissions and other non-energy benefits 

resulting from energy efficiency programs that are implemented by local governments, states, 

utilities, private companies, and nonprofits. The commenters stated that these guides provide 

context, planning guidance, and discussion of issues that help illustrate appropriate evaluation 

objectives and approaches for different efficiency portfolios. By promoting the use of standard 

evaluation terminology and structures and approaches, the commenters stated that evaluations 

can support the adoption, continuation, and expansion of effective efficiency actions for

consistent inclusion in State Plans. The commenters suggested that EPA and DOE should 

continue to work with state and local energy and environmental agencies to ensure that 

renewable energy and energy efficiency programs are evaluated transparently and consistently so 

that appropriate credit is provided for these programs.

The commenters noted that energy efficiency evaluation methodologies are particularly 

important for programs ranging from LED lighting replacement to combined heat and power 

projects. The commenters stated that consistent quantification methodologies are needed for 
261

projecting reductions in energy use as part of a baseline energy use forecast and for calculating 

reductions documented after-the-fact as part of a compliance effort.

Commenters applauded the flexibility in choosing compliance strategies provided by EPA's 

proposal; however, the very same flexibility can potentially result in significant uncertainty, and 

even disparate treatment, for regulated entities, including states and affected facilities. Plan 

approvals and disapprovals will, presumably, occur at EPA regional office level. The 

commenters stated that without detailed central guidance and direction regarding approvable 

plan elements, similar compliance strategies could be viewed differently amongst different EPA 

regional offices. The commenters stated that EPA must ensure consistent plan review across all 

regions in order to provide regulatory certainty to all stakeholders. 

Commenters recommended that review of state 111(d) plans be conducted in a consistent manner 

that minimizes the differences in interpretation across EPA regions. Historically, the commenters

noted that EPA has not consistently implemented regulations across its regions. However, the 

commenters stated that given the new and novel approaches inherit to this proposal, EPA needs 

processes in place to ensure consistent, reliable interpretations and standards when implementing 

this rule. The commenters stated that given both the complexity of the proposed rule and the 

multitude of compliance pathways potentially available, state plans need to be evaluated 

consistently by the different EPA regional offices. The commenters stated that EPA needs to 

ensure that a particular compliance approach, rate-to-mass conversation methodology, or other 

regulatory interpretation found by an EPA regional office to be acceptable for one state should 

be acceptable for all others.

Comment 10: The EPA needs to provide sufficient guidance to Regional Administrators to 

ensure that all state plans are evaluated and approved consistently across different regions. The 

final rule should allow for partial or conditional approval of state plans, provided EPA develops 

a specified procedure for the state to cure the deficiencies identified in a partially or 

conditionally approved plan before EPA imposes a federal plan.

Response 10: For the comment on EPA making consistent decisions across Regional offices on 

state plan approvals and disapprovals, please see the response to Comment 9, immediately 

above.

For the comment on EPA’s consideration of adding partial or conditional approval mechanisms 

to the procedures for section 111(d) state plans, please see the responses to comments 5 through 

7 in this section above.

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

Commenters stated that just as consistency and rigor are key criteria for EM&V methodology, 

consistent evaluation and approval of individual state plans will help ensure a well-functioning 

national program and equitable treatment among states. The commenters stated that this 

consistency will be especially important given the flexibility provided to states to develop unique 

state plans to suit individual state situations. The commenters stated that they generally 

supported the required plan components and evaluation criteria as proposed; however, they 
262

requested that EPA provide sufficient guidance to Regional Administrators to ensure that all 

state plans are evaluated and approved consistently across different regions. 

The commenters stated that in response to EPA's request for comment on the option of partial or 

conditional approval, they encouraged EPA to finalize a rule that allows for partial or conditional 

approval of state plans, provided EPA develops a specified procedure for the state to cure the 

deficiencies identified in a partially or conditionally approved plan before EPA imposes a federal 

plan. Additionally, the commenters supported EPA's proposal to allow states to modify approved 

state plans so long as the state demonstrates that the revision will not reduce the plan's emission 

performance.

Comment 11: The EPA should provide guidance on reporting, such as including interim 

reporting, and should offer to review and comment on state EM&V plans prior to submission to 

give states greater assurance that their plans will be accepted by EPA.

Response 11: EPA will be providing guidance to states on how to report their progress under 

approved section 111(d) plans. EPA has provided states with substantial flexibility to design a 

state plan under this guideline, and EPA is encouraging states to engage creatively in the process 

of designing their plans. The agency has consistently worked with states to advise them 

informally about the design of state programs that might be submitted for EPA’s review and 

approval under the CAA, and will enthusiastically engage in that practice under this guideline as 

well. In the SIP process, for example, it is routine for states to share with EPA drafts of 

proposed SIP regulations before the state goes out to public notice on its rule so that the state can 

factor in EPA’s advice in advance of asking the public for comment. Such informal exchanges 

between the states and EPA Regions happen all the time, and the agency would encourage the 

states to continue that practice when developing state plans under this guideline.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should provide guidance on reporting, such as including interim 

reporting, and should offer to review state EM&V plans prior to submission and provide interim 

comments to give states greater assurance that their plans will be accepted by EPA.

Commenters stated that EPA should work with states to develop clear paths to evaluate and 

approve state 111(d) plans, as well as clear and transparent reporting protocols to determine 

whether carbon reductions are occurring as planned. Commenters stated EPA and states should 

consider interim reporting and periodic updating of state 111(d) plans.

Comment 12: The EPA should allow states to seek early EPA feedback and technical support on 

the approvability of the state’s draft plan to encourage creativity and to utilize the flexibility 

provided in EPA’s approach.

Response 12: See response to comment 11, immediately above.
263

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

Commenters stated that EPA has appropriately and commendably provided states with nearly 

unprecedented levels of flexibility to tailor state plans to the specific needs and conditions found 

in each state. The commenters stated that this flexibility has the potential to lead to confusion by 

state air administrators as to what constitutes an approvable state plan. The commenters stated 

that while many stakeholders have asked EPA to provide clarifying guidance on key topics, 

residual confusion may exist. The commenters stated that rather than creating a scenario where 

states are afraid to exercise creativity in developing a state plan for fear that it may be rejected, 

the commenters encouraged EPA to allow states to seek an informal "pre-check," in which EPA 

provides technical support to states with respect to the approvability of a draft state plan.

Comment 13: To avoid overreliance on gas-fueled generation at a national level as a compliance 

option, the EPA should provide easily understood and objective plan feedback on the relative 

costs of new fossil fuel generation (including NGCC and other natural gas options) and untapped 

EE resources for each state, and pertinent economic and environmental benefits of energy 

efficiency, so that these two can be easily compared in the plan development process.

Response 13: The agency does not understand the commenters to be advocating that EPA 

impose any requirement on states to use energy efficiency measures rather than gas-fueled 

generation. EPA is providing the states substantial flexibility in designing their plans, and as long 

as the state’s plan meets the emission reduction targets required under the guideline, EPA will 

not second-guess state’s decisions about how those reductions are accomplished. 

With that said, however, EPA agrees that providing states with as much information as possible 

about the relative cost of different emission reduction strategies will help states make sound 

choices about how to structure their state plans under this guideline. EPA is glad to work with 

state and federal agencies, ISOs and RTOs, and any other party with reliable information about 

the cost of energy efficiency programs and how they compare with other emission reduction 

strategies. Making such information available as states develop plans provides the best hope that 

states can make environmentally and economically wise decisions in designing their plans.

The commenters also suggest that there might be a productive feedback loop possible as states 

gain experience implementing their plans over the ten-year compliance period the guideline 

provides. EPA agrees that such information could be valuable not only in designing a state plan, 

but also developing refinements or mid-course corrections.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should provide feedback on approved state plans when a state 

opts for new NGCC capacity or similar new fossil fuel capacity. 

The commenters stated that, when developing 111(d) plans, many influences will lead states to

rely heavily on new NGCC units and similar new gas-fueled generation, while underutilizing EE 

programs. To avoid overreliance on gas-fueled generation at a national level, the commenters

suggested that the EPA should provide plan feedback on the relative costs of new fossil fuel 
264

generation and untapped EE resources for each state, and pertinent economic and environmental 

benefits of energy efficiency. The commenters stated that the push for states to choose gas will 

be powerful for many reasons. The commenters noted that since its early days, the electric power 

industry has favored large, fossil fuel EGUs. Secondly, the commenters noted that consultants 

who forecast costs for 111(d) plans will use power system optimization models that model EGUs 

with great care while failing to model demand-side energy efficiency adequately. The 

commenters noted an example would be the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) used by EPA. 

Third, the commenters stated that partisans and partisan attitudes try to stereotype new energy 

sources like solar as government waste, regardless of the actual costs and benefits.

The commenters stated that cost-effective energy efficiency and demand-side management, 

acquired through well-designed programs, remain the lowest cost ways for a state to meet its 

energy needs while avoiding environmental harm and power system infrastructure costs 

associated with new generation. Nevertheless, the commenters stated that these advantages will 

not keep states from building more wasteful and polluting EGUs. The commenters asserted that 

states and the residents of those states can be reminded that they pay a price for wasteful, 

shortsighted energy use. According to the commenters, it is up to individual states and their 

residents to realize the potential benefits. For simplicity, the commenters recommended that 

when EPA reports on the cost of new generation and overlooked EE resources, EPA can use 

representative levelized cost data. The commenters stated that this relieves EPA of the burden of 

additional data collection, and EPA would avoid unnecessary debates about what specific, new 

EGUs will cost.

The commenters stated that they favor simplified, easily understood analysis to provide feedback 

on state plans at the time a 111(d) plan is approved. The commenters noted that if EPA 

disapproves of a state's plan, such feedback may be unnecessary and unwelcome. Therefore, the 

commenters suggested reporting the expected amount of new gas-fueled generation under an 

approved plan and comparing that quantity of new generation with the same amount of energy 

savings acquired through a conventional utility EE program(s). The commenters noted that it 

may also be helpful to report this information when a state requests an extension due to an 

incomplete plan, and periodically if a state welcomes the feedback.

The commenters stated that the EPA can offer rough estimates of economic consequences from 

pursuing energy savings instead of the new gas-fueled generation. The commenters stated that 

reports need to include average bill savings (monthly, annual and long-term) for the residential 

sector and projected state employment. Since energy efficiency projects are more labor intensive 

than the oil and gas sector and the power production sector, the commenters stated that they 

expect a shift to EE to result in a net increase in state employment with some exceptions. 

Additional simple metrics are needed for environmental benefits. The commenters stated that the 

aim is to provide clear, easy to understand feedback on clean, cheap resources that the state plan 

has not targeted. The commenters stated that potential benefits of pursuing EE should be 

described unambiguously in simple English in order to keep misinterpretations to a minimum.

The commenters did not propose any particular report format. However, the commenters

explained that the states and state residents deserve feedback on their approved plans, pointing 

out what resources they can pursue over the long-term to help their environmental and economic 

well-being.
265

Comment 14: EPA should adopt as part of its final rule a "reliability safety valve" (RSV) 

process to provide states with the flexibility to modify their implementation plans to resolve or 

mitigate reliability-related issues. The EPA has previously recognized that additional flexibility 

may be necessary to manage unforeseen issues as state plans are being implemented. The

commenters described several scenarios in which state plans may need to be modified to address 

reliability issues, especially with respect to multi-state dispatch regions.

Response 14: Many of these comments concerning reliability and ideas about a reliability safety 

valve are addressed in the discussion in section VIII.G.2 of the preamble to the final rule, and the 

reader is encouraged to review that section.

To briefly summarize, EPA agrees that a state should consider reliability in designing its plan. 

The final rule requires states to document how they have considered reliability, and recommends 

that states do so by consulting with the relevant ISO/RTO’s. The guideline requires that the state 

demonstrate it has gone through a process to consider reliability in developing its plan, but EPA 

is not imposing a substantive reliability standard as a condition for approving a state plan.

Given the enormous flexibility states have in designing their plans, EPA anticipates that plans 

will be flexible enough to adjust to incidents that might affect reliability. But as described in the 

preamble, EPA has agreed to include a reliability safety valve mechanism that states can use to 

authorize a short term modification of otherwise applicable limits in the state plan and provide 

alternate compliance requirements for up to 90 days.

Again, as discussed in the preamble, EPA has structured the state plan development process so 

that reliability will be a consideration the state must address when promulgating its plan. When 

EPA reviews plans, it will use the notice and comment informal rulemaking process to act on 

state plan submittals. If there are reliability concerns about a state’s plan that interested parties 

have even after the state’s consideration of this issue at the state level, those parties or agencies 

can always comment to EPA during the agency’s review. At that stage in the process, the Clean 

Air Act requires EPA to focus on whether the state’s plan meets the emissions reduction goal set 

for the state under this guideline. But in the unlikely event that a state’s plan creates such a 

substantial reliability issue that it draws into question the practicality or reality of the state’s 

emissions reduction projections under its plan, EPA would consider those comments in its 

review of the state plan. EPA is currently developing on-going arrangements with DOE and 

FERC to work with EPA and consult on reliability issues should they arise during EPA’s review 

of a state plan.

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

Multiple commenters discussed implementation of a reliability safety valve (RSV) approach 

through the state plan submittal and review process. 

Commenters suggested that the Agency establish criteria in the final rule for EPA to use in 

reviewing the State Plan component that describes the evaluation and consideration of impacts to 
266

state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability from the implementation of the proposed State 

Plan. 

Commenters stated that EPA should adopt as part of its final rule a "reliability safety valve" 

(RSV) process to provide states with the flexibility to modify their implementation plans to 

resolve or mitigate reliability-related issues. The commenters noted that the EPA has previously 

recognized that additional flexibility may be necessary to manage unforeseen issues as state 

plans are being implemented. The commenters appreciated the EPA's perspective on ensuring 

sufficient flexibility for states to respond to unexpected circumstances. However, the 

commenters stated that a formal process is required to ensure that actions can be taken, without 

the initiation of an enforcement process, if implementing the state plan would result in negative 

impacts to state or regional grid reliability. The commenters stated that maintaining electric 

reliability, on which the public health and safety depend, must be the top priority in 

implementing this proposed rule.

Commenters recommended that the EPA adopt the RSV process set forth in the IRC comments. 

Commenters stated that the RSV provides appropriate flexibility in the implementation of state 

plans to allow for the development and execution of solutions necessary to resolve or mitigate 

identified reliability issues. The commenters recommended that the EPA adopt the IRC's 

recommendations, as it did when it adopted a reliability safety valve in its final Mercury and Air 

Toxics rule.

Commenters noted that a RSV is appropriate when examining the specifics of a State Plan 

submitted in conformance with the Final Rule. Consistent with Section 111(b), the Proposed 

Rule grants the Administrator discretion to "review plan submittals for approvability" but does 

not specifically outline how the approval determination will be made. Commenters stated that 

section 111(b) as well as the Proposed Rule both indicate that submitted State Plans must meet 

"energy requirements," an otherwise undefined term. Commenters stated that as the EPA has 

proposed that the "system" for purposes of defining the "Best System of Emission Reduction" 

can include improvements to virtually all aspects of the production, delivery and consumption of 

electricity, then "energy requirements" must correspondingly be read to include system needs as 

opposed to requirements of a particular unit or emissions control device. Commenters stated that 

although the Proposed Rule sets forth procedurally what needs to be included in a submitted 

State Plan, it says little about the criteria the Administrator will use in "approving" a submitted 

State Plan or how she will determine if the submitted State Plan meets "energy requirements" as 

required under Section 111(d). Commenters stated that although the Proposed Rule provides 

some explanation of what constitutes an "approvable" State Plan relative to the emissions 

requirements of the submitted State Plan, it notably omits any mention of review of the reliability 

impacts of a proposed State Plan as one of the essential criteria of an "approvable" State Plan. 

According to the commenters, it is possible that compliance approaches in one State Plan can 

create a regional reliability issue affecting another state and/or region. The commenters stated 

that for example, a State Plan could include a restriction on the output (or equivalently, the runtime) of a generator located within the state's borders, but when that limitation is reflected in a 

regional dispatch, it could create a transmission constraint or operational issue in another state(s) 

within the region or even within a neighboring region that leads to a NERC reliability criteria 

violation when considered in the transmission planning process and, thus, requiring the need for 
267

transmission upgrades to cure the reliability problem. Commenters stated that for example, there 

are a number of instances where an EGU is owned by a utility in one state but is physically 

located in another. Commenters stated that moreover, region-wide security constrained economic 

dispatch dispatches plants across the entirety of the region and co-optimizes the dispatch of 

energy and ancillary services across the larger region. Commenters stated that as a result, actions 

in one state affecting a particular unit almost, by definition, have interstate impacts within the 

region. Commenters stated that moreover, an output restriction does not automatically place a 

cost/price on that constraint in dispatch, and absent such a cost/price in the units' offers, could 

result in using up all output or hours leaving the company without sufficient resources to meet 

summer and winter peak conditions.

Commenters stated that another example of possible reliability impacts occurs when two states 

adopt very different plans. Commenters stated consider two states, on with a rate-based target 

that does not include 111(b) resources and another with a mass-based target that does not include 

111(b) resources. Commenters stated that in the absence of these differences, new units would 

want to site in the mass-based state that would help alleviate transmission constraints. 

Commenters stated however, given the posited differences, the incentives for new combined 

cycle units is to site in the rate-based state and for existing combined cycle resources in the ratebased state to want to run more than in the mass-based state. Commenters stated that such a 

situation could lead to exacerbating already existing congestion in moving power from the rate 

based state to the mass-based state creating transmission reliability issues requiring upgrades due 

to increased transfer from existing resources in the rate-based state and lack of new resources in 

the mass-based state.

For these reasons, the commenters suggested that an appropriate RSV can be used to address 

potential conflicts that could arise between State Plans and RSV reliability assessments and 

proposed solutions in multi-state regional dispatch areas, with a goal to ensure reliability reviews 

encompass a regional and even interregional analysis during the State Plan development process. 

Commenters stated that they are committed and have already taken steps towards working with 

the states within their region so that the reliability impacts of any considered State Plans are 

thoroughly reviewed and understood by the relevant state officials. Commenters stated 

nevertheless, the transmission grid is highly interconnected and effects triggered in one region or 

state can have far reaching implications for other regions and states. Commenters stated that yet, 

because of some of the targets and timelines required under the Proposed Rule, and the statecentric design of Section 111(d) in the first instance, the sort of regional review proposed by the 

commenters, both in the formulation of a plan at the individual state level and its review at the 

federal level, is a critical element of ensuring grid reliability.

Commenters stated that given the importance of electric system reliability, the Final Rule should 

make clear that a well-supported state plan would be one that includes an analysis of any electric 

system reliability impacts of the proposed State Plan on the RTO/ISO region as a whole as well 

as neighboring regions if applicable. (Pursuant to FERC Orders 890 and 1000, the borders of 

regions and protocols for interregional planning analyses have been submitted by Planning 

Authorities to the FERC through their compliance filings.) Commenters stated that the analysis 

would identify the nature of any reliability violations which could occur and provide a projection 

of the potential timing and cost of mitigation of same in order for the state to meet the interim 

and final compliance targets. 
268

Commenters stated that moreover, there should be an option for neighboring states or grid 

operators to be able to seek additional review of those submitted plans if the proposed plan will 

have an adverse reliability impact on that state or a neighboring group of states in the region.

Commenters stated that accordingly, the Final Rule should require that a State Plan include a 

reliability analysis which includes: 

• An analysis by the RTO/ISO (or NERC Reliability Authority in non-RTO regions) of any 

regional or interregional reliability impacts;

• Steps which are planned to address any such reliability impacts during the compliance 

period; and

• Appropriate means for monitoring and addressing any future reliability impacts through 

potential State Plan modification or other means.

Commenters stated that the submittal should be placed for public comment before acceptance by 

the Administrator and subjected to FERC and DOE consultation as part of the review process. 

Comment 15: Will there be an in-state comment-review process or federal level commentreview process once a state submits their plan for the 12-month EPA review?

Response 15: As described in Section VIII.D.2.a.6 of the preamble to the final guideline, a state 

is required to hold a public hearing on its state plan before submitting it to EPA, taking comment 

on that plan, and addressing those comments. At the federal level, as described in Section 

VIII.E.4 of the final rule preamble, EPA will provide the public an opportunity to comment on 

its proposed action on a state’s plan, and EPA will address those comments before 

finalizing its action on the plan. So at both the state and federal level, the public can be involved 

in the development and review of state plans.

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

Commenters asked if there will be an in-state comment-review process or federal level 

comment-review process once a state submits their plan for the 12-month EPA review.

6.4.4 Failure to submit a complete plan

This section addresses comments on the possibility that states do not develop an approvable state 

plan, particularly development of a Federal Plan. For the proposal, the EPA specified that if a 

state did not submit an approvable state plan the EPA would develop a Federal Plan for the state 

to implement the emission guidelines. Implementation of a Federal Plan would be an interim 

action and would be automatically withdrawn if/when a state plan is approved. The comments in 

this section address the need for a proposed Federal Plan and the timing of Federal Plan

development and implementation.
269

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

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

We agree with the following specific comments made under this subsection:

• It is necessary for the EPA to promulgate a federal plan for states that do not submit 

an approvable state plan.

• The EPA should provide model rule for states to use for developing emission 

standards under a state plan.

• The EPA should defer to the states to design the most cost-effective and equitable 

pathways to achieve reductions; the EPA generally views states as the preferred

implementers of Clean Air Act programs and should work closely with states to 

develop approvable state plans.

• The deadline for promulgation of a Federal Plan needs to be clarified in terms of 

which provisions within 40 CFR 60.27 would actually determine the deadline.

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

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

Comment 1: In light of the possibility that states do not develop and submit approvable state 

plans, the EPA needs to clearly establish the timing and process for developing and enforcing 

federal plans, and the EPA should specify what the federal plan will entail, including the legal 

basis for imposing legal obligations on third-parties in the absence of a state plan.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it is necessary for the EPA to promulgate 

a federal plan for states that do not submit an approvable state plan. The EPA is proposing a 

federal plan concurrent with the finalization of the emission guidelines. In proposing a federal 

plan concurrent with the finalization of the emission guidelines, the EPA is moving expeditiously 

to respond to commenters’ desire to see the contents of a federal plan or model rule. 

The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to implement the 

Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are beyond the 

scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Multiple commenters mentioned the need for EPA to develop federal plans in the event 

that states do not submit an approvable state plan and requested clarification and guidance. 

Commenters expressed concern that EPA may miss deadlines or that some states where elected 

officials dispute established scientific evidence may postpone implementation. Commenters

stated that EPA has the authority and needs to develop federal plans in cases where states decline 

to develop their own. 
270

Commenters urged the EPA to quickly and clearly spell out the timing and process for how to 

enforce federal plan for states that fail to meet the requirements.

Commenters stated that EPA needs to be developing its federal plan to implement the final rule 

so it can be quickly implemented in states which have failed or chosen to not develop and 

implement a state plan.

Commenters stated that EPA should clarify the ability and intent to impose a Federal plan or 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on states in the event it does not have an approvable state 

plan by the required deadline and what such a Federal plan or FIP would contain.

Commenters warned EPA to prepare for recalcitrant states that are resistant to implementing 

state plans.

Commenters said the EPA must be willing to reject inadequate state plans and swiftly establish 

meaningful rules for utilities in states that fail to comply. Commenters said whether or not a

state's plan meets the EPA's approval, the federal agency must be prepared and willing to take 

enforcement action on its own. 

Commenters stated that there may be states that significantly miss the compliance plan deadline 

or are not able to gain regulatory authority to implement this rule. In these circumstances, 

commenters stated that the EPA needs to provide assistance to these states. Additionally, the 

commenters noted that states may submit compliance plans that are ultimately not approved by 

the EPA. In these cases, the commenters noted that a federal plan is inevitable. In lieu of a state 

compliance plan, commenters stated that it is crucial that EPA indicate the specifics of a federal 

plan in the final rule.

Commenters agreed that EPA should provide more clarity to states regarding what a federal plan 

will entail if a state fails to produce a state plan that complies with the final rule, or fails to 

produce any state plan. Commenters stated that they anticipate significant political opposition 

from states, and in the event that this opposition leads to a failure of those states producing an 

acceptable state plan, a federal plan will be needed to ensure that the public health and welfare 

will be adequately protected. The commenters suggested that the EPA should issue guidance on 

what a federal plan may look like, including the legal basis for imposing legal obligations on 

third-parties in the absence of a state plan.

Commenters recommended the EPA prepare the federal implementation plan sooner rather than 

later. Commenters urged the EPA to initiate the development of the FIP now so that the FIP is in 

place, ready for those states that fail to submit their state plan. 

Comment 2: Because it is necessary for the EPA to promulgate a federal plan for states that do 

not submit an approvable state plan, the EPA should have proposed a model rule or Federal Plan, 

or should include one in a Notice of Data Availability (NODA). The Federal Plan could also be 

used by states for comparison in developing their state plans. Proposed 40 CFR 60.5725 should 

be revised to specifically allow states the option to not submit a state plan because it is a choice 
271

given states by Congress under CAA section 111(d). The lack of a proposed Federal Plan stems 

from the fact that the EPA lacks authority to regulate non-emitting entities and activities.

Response 2: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it is necessary for the EPA to promulgate 

a federal plan for states that do not submit an approvable state plan. The EPA is proposing a 

federal plan and model rules concurrent with the finalization of the emission guidelines.

The EPA disagrees that the emission guidelines should be revised to specifically allow states the 

option to not submit a state plan. The guidelines provide states with the initial opportunity to 

submit a satisfactory state plan, and provide states flexibility in developing that plan. If a state 

declines to take advantage of that opportunity, affected EGUs in that state will instead be subject 

to a federal plan implemented by the EPA for the state. There will be no penalty for states that do 

not submit an approvable state plan. See Section VIII.E.6 of the final rule preamble.

The EPA disagrees that it did not propose a federal plan or model rule because it lacks authority 

to implement the Emission Guidelines. Nothing in the Clean Air Act or Part 60 requires the 

Agency to provide a federal plan or model rule concurrently with Emissions Guidelines. In 

proposing a federal plan concurrently with the finalization of the Emission Guidelines, the EPA 

is moving expeditiously to respond to commenters’ desire to see the contents of a federal plan or 

model plan. 

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

Multiple commenters argued that EPA should have proposed a model rule or Federal Plan for 

states to use for comparison. 

Commenters stated that proposed 40 CFR 60.5725 should be revised to specifically allow states 

the option to not submit a state plan. The commenters noted that unlike prior CAA section 

111(d) rulemakings, the EPA has not proposed a federal plan with the proposed emission 

guidelines. The commenters noted that proposed 40 CFR 60.5725 requires a state to either 

submit a state plan or submit a negative declaration and makes no allowance for a state to choose 

not to submit a state plan. The commenters noted that states have elected to not submit state 

plans in the past for prior CAA section 111(d) regulatory actions. The commenters noted that if a 

state chooses to not submit a state plan under this proposed rule, the state might be considered in 

violation of 40 CFR 60.5725. The commenters argued that this provision is in direct opposition 

to the choice given states by Congress under section 111(d) to not submit state plans. 

Commenters stated that EPA should revise 40 CFR 60.5725 to reflect Congress' intent and the 

actual practice of how the EPA has implemented section 111(d) in the past. The commenters

noted that in prior CAA section 111(d) rulemakings, the EPA has included a model rule to serve 

as the federal plan should a state not submit a state plan. The commenters noted that with the 

current proposal, not only has the EPA not provided a draft of the federal plan that would take 

the place of a state plan, the EPA has refused to answer questions regarding what a federal plan 

would entail.

Commenters stated that it is appropriate to include language in a subsequent Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) regarding how a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) might be structured 
272

and implemented so that states can take this into consideration in evaluating alternative scenarios 

for states to comply with the final rule.

Commenters stated that EPA needs to describe what a 111(d) Federal Implementation Plan 

would include. The commenters noted that under EPA's proposal, states that fail to submit a plan 

implementing EPA's rule by the applicable deadline are subject to EPA imposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). Commenters stated that neither EPA's proposal, nor any subsequent 

public explanation, has elucidated what the contents of a FIP would or might contain. Concurrent 

with finalizing this rule, the commenters stated that EPA needs to describe its understanding of 

what a FIP would include, so that this information can be considered in state planning processes.

Commenters also expressed concern that, to date, no federal implementation plan (FIP) has been 

put forth, which is necessary for states to assess whether to propose their own SIPs, or rely on the 

FIP. In order to remedy this void, the commenters stated that EPA is obligated to develop a FIP 

and the final rule should include a FIP for comparison and consideration.

Commenters acknowledged the EPA's authority to implement a federal compliance plan for 

states that either do not submit a 111(d) state compliance plan or fail to submit a compliance plan 

that will achieve that state's designated emission rate goal. Commenters stated that the EPA 

should include framework or guidance on what a federal compliance plan and enforcement 

would work when it releases the final CPP.

Commenters stated that in order to facilitate state plan development, EPA should clearly specify 

as soon as possible, but no later than a month after the release of the final guideline, the 

framework of a federal plan that would be implemented in the event a state does not file an 

adequate state plan.

Similarly, commenters noted that EPA determined the Best System of Emission Reduction 

(BSER) to be the application of four building blocks and the EPA applied these building blocks 

to set a goal for each state, although the EPA is not requiring each state to implement the 

building blocks in the particular manner that the EPA did as it developed the state goals. 

Commenters stated that EPA has not provided a model rule or plan for implementation of the 

Clean Power Plan by each state. The commenters expected to face difficulty in developing any 

future state plan because of the decision not to issue a model rule - on which any Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) might be based - that would allow states to assess how their own 

plans compare. The commenters surmised that this lack of a model rule stems in part from the 

fact that EPA lacks statutory authority to impose the building blocks (beyond building block one) 

on sources (and especially on non-sources), and that it would therefore not be possible for EPA 

to implement a FIP based on all four building blocks. 

Comment 3: If EPA were to impose a federal plan, EPA does not have jurisdiction to directly 

implement RE and EE measures because regulation of such non-emitting activities and entities is 

beyond EPA's authority under the CAA.
273

Response 3: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated that EPA cannot enforce emissions reductions from non-affected entities. 

The commenters argued that, if EPA were to impose a federal plan, EPA does not have 

jurisdiction to directly implement RE and EE measures because regulation of such non-emitting 

activities is beyond EPA's authority under the CAA. The commenters stated that EPA also does 

not have jurisdiction over non-EGU entities or over retail sales of electricity. Consequently, the 

commenters stated that EPA cannot include RE and EE measures in a federal plan because it 

would require coopting the authority of state energy regulators that have jurisdiction over nonEGU activities and retail electricity sales. Commenters stated that when EPA attempted to 

require state regulators to implement federal transportation control plans in the 1970s, courts 

held that EPA could not require state officials to affirmatively implement vehicle inspection and 

maintenance programs because it commandeered state agencies in violation of the Tenth 

Amendment. 

Commenters contended that EPA could not promulgate a federal plan that includes measures 

over which EPA does not have jurisdiction, which raises the question of whether a federal plan 

that could not be as comprehensive as a state plan would be of any utility in remedying the 

failure of a state to achieve its emissions goals. The commenters suggested that EPA address 

how it would handle such situations

. 

Comment 4: The EPA needs to provide guidance on how renewable energy would be 

considered under a Federal Plan.

Response 4: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule does not provide any guidance as to how renewable 

energy would be considered under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for those states which 

are unable or unwilling to submit a satisfactory State Implementation Plan (SIP). Commenters

stated that a FIP should significantly rely on renewable energy given renewable energy's 

demonstrated cost-competitiveness with other types of generation and renewable energy's ability 

to dramatically lower carbon emissions, create jobs, foster private investment, and drive 

technological innovation. 

Comment 5: The EPA should ensure that Federal Plans do not disrupt the reliability of the 

electric system within a state by taking into account such factors as the remaining useful life of a 

source.
274

Response 5: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

According to commenters, where a state fails to submit an approvable plan, a federal plan should 

be based on plant-specific targets for jurisdictional units, taking into account energy, economic, 

and environmental factors and the remaining useful life of the source. In exercising this 

authority, the commenters stated that the EPA should ensure that its plan would not disrupt the 

reliability of the electric system within the state.

Comment 6: In a Federal Plan, the EPA can only require measures that it has the authority to 

impose, and the EPA does not have the authority to force the re-dispatch of power plants subject 

to FERC/RTO reliability, cost, and contractual constraints, nor to force the merchant owners of 

power plants to purchase RPS credits or fund demand-side EE projects.

Response 6: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA must also take into account real world realities and challenges 

when devising a federal plan in the event a state fails to submit a plan or the EPA disapproves a 

state plan. Commenters stated that the EPA can only require measures that it has the authority to 

impose. Commenters stated that the EPA does not have the authority to force the re-dispatch of 

power plants subject to FERC/RTO reliability, cost, and contractual constraints. Commenters

stated that the EPA does not have the authority to force the merchant owners of power plants to 

purchase RPS credits or fund demand-side EE projects, placing them at a competitive 

disadvantage in the electricity market.

Comment 7: Due to legal uncertainty with certain compliance options, the EPA needs to 

consider the impacts of a Federal Plan that relies only on actions taken at affected power plants, 

including heat rate improvements and dispatch changes.

Response 7: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated that the Agency fails to consider significant legal problems with assumed 

compliance options. Commenters stated that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether 

states will embrace EPA's proposal and implement it through a SIP like process. Consequently, 

the commenters stated that if the Agency forcibly imposes a Federal implementation plan on 
275

states, EPA's options may be limited to regulating the power plants themselves. Accordingly, the 

commenters stated that an alternative policy analysis should assess the impact of the guidelines 

under a scenario limited to heat rate improvements and dispatch changes among affected power 

plants. 

The commenters noted that in the event North Dakota does not submit a "satisfactory" Section 

111(d) plan, it is unclear at this time how EPA will mandate the required reductions through a 

federal implementation plan. Commenters stated that the North Dakota emission rate goal is 

based on measures that are beyond the scope of EPA's authority to implement in a federal plan 

under the Act. Commenters stated that if EPA were to promulgate a federal implementation plan 

requiring all reductions be made by affected sources, even though the emission reduction goals 

are not based on actions that may be taken at affected sources, such a plan would be arbitrary and 

capricious. The commenters noted that it would require wide-spread shutdown of coal-fired units 

and cripple the electric generating industry.

Commenters thought that although the EPA has not defined what measures would constitute a 

federal implementation plan, the EPA’s regulatory purview is limited to existing sources only. 

Commenters stated in order to achieve the reductions needed, the EPA would need to impose 

limits or mandates in the FIP that would result in plant shutdowns. Commenters asked whether 

the EPA believe that it has the administrative authority, under the guise of disapproving a state 

compliance plan to limit CO2 emissions at EGUs by shuttering operations through 

implementation of the FIP.

Comment 8: If the EPA develops a Federal Plan, it will not have the statutory authority to 

mandate non-economic dispatch, impose a renewable portfolio standard, or otherwise infringe on 

the regulatory jurisdiction of the states, especially those with deregulated generation. Similarly, 

many state environmental regulatory agencies will be unable to comply with the emission 

guidelines except by those measures that may be feasible under Building Block 1.

Response 8: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves. The EPA disagrees that the emission 

guidelines restrict state environmental regulatory agencies’ ability to comply with the emission 

guidelines other than under Building Block 1. The guidelines provide states with the initial 

opportunity to submit a satisfactory state plan, and provide states great flexibility in developing 

that plan. If a state declines to take advantage of that opportunity, affected EGUs in the state will 

instead be subject to a federal plan implemented by the EPA for the state. See Section VIII.E.6 of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that Section 111(d) provides that in cases where a state fails to submit a 

satisfactory 111(d) Plan the "Administrator shall have the same authority to prescribe a plan for a 

state ... and to enforce the provisions of such a plan." However, the commenters noted that if a 

state fails to submit a satisfactory 111(d) plan, it is unclear what legal and statutory authority 
276

EPA has to issue an enforceable Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). For example, the 

commenters stated that the EPA does not have the statutory authority to mandate non-economic 

dispatch, impose a renewable portfolio standard, or otherwise infringe on the regulatory 

jurisdiction of the states-particularly a state like Ohio that has deregulated its generation. 

Likewise, the commenters stated that the Agency has placed the state environmental regulatory 

agencies in an untenable situation where they are also unable to promulgate rules that force 

compliance with any SIP requirements other than those that may be feasible under Building 

Block 1 of the proposed CPP.

Comment 9: The EPA should identify in this rulemaking both the nature and the scope of the 

federal implementation plans the EPA would prescribe if a State fails to submit a satisfactory 

plan, and a model state plan that would be deemed minimally acceptable for approval. Similarly, 

the EPA should provide guidance to states on how to consider “the remaining useful life of the 

sources” and other factors in developing their state plans. This lack of guidance is a conspicuous 

failure of the proposed rule that should be corrected by including a model federal plan in a 

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on which the EPA accepts public comment.

Response 9: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it is necessary for the EPA to promulgate 

a federal plan for states that do not submit an approvable state plan. The EPA is proposing a 

federal plan and model rules concurrent with the finalization of the emission guidelines

The EPA disagrees that the absence of discussion of a federal plan in the proposed guidelines is a 

“conspicuous failure.” Nothing in the Clean Air Act or Part 60 requires the Agency to provide a 

federal plan or model rule concurrently with Emissions Guidelines. In proposing a federal plan 

and model rules concurrently with the finalization of the Emission Guidelines, the EPA is 

moving expeditiously to respond to commenters’ desire to see the contents of a federal plan or 

model rules. 

For consideration of remaining useful life and other factors, see Section VIII.G.1 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. The EPA is also providing a toolbox of decision support resources at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/ www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox. The state plan decision support 

section of the toolbox includes information to help states evaluate different approaches and 

measures they might consider as they initiate plan development. See Section VIII.H of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Multiple commenters requested state plan templates and a model federal implementation plan. 

Commenters stated that EPA should identify in this rulemaking both the nature and the scope of 

the federal implementation plans it would prescribe where a State fails to submit a satisfactory 

plan. The commenters noted that section 111(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act gives the EPA 

Administrator the authority to issue a "federal implementation plan" (FIP) if a State-submitted 

SIP is unsatisfactory and to enforce the FIP provisions if a State fails to do so. The commenters

noted that in crafting a FIP, the EPA must consider the same factors Section 111 permits States 

to consider when crafting their SIPs, including "the remaining useful lives of the sources in the 
277

category of sources to which such standard applies. Commenters stated that one of the problems 

States will encounter in crafting their SIPs is the lack of clarity in the Proposed Rule concerning 

how and to what extent States are to consider the "remaining useful lives of the sources" and 

"other factors" while crafting SIPs that have a chance of being approved. Commenters stated that 

it would be helpful for the EPA to promulgate in the Final Rule a model plan that will be deemed

minimally acceptable for approval. Commenters stated that specification of the general terms of 

a FIP that it would issue to replace an unsubmitted or unsatisfactory SIP would provide muchneeded guidance on the minimum elements of state plans that must be included for such a plan to 

be approved. Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule contains no model state plan and not 

even the broadest outline of what EPA believes it could lawfully prescribe in lieu of a submitted 

or acceptable state plan. Commenters stated that this glaring absence is a conspicuous failure of 

the rule as it has been proposed because it leaves States guessing as to what aspects of the 

proposed existing source emission guidelines EPA believes it could prescribe under the Act if it 

were acting in the shoes of a State. The commenters recommended that EPA should therefore 

provide the States and regulated community with its views on the nature and scope of such a plan 

so that the States may be guided by the EPA's assessment of what the law Clean Air Act allows 

with respect to considering the "remaining useful life" of sources and "other factors."

The commenters requested that EPA issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 

which it specifies, and invites public comment on, the common elements of the federal plan it 

would prescribe if a State failed to submit a satisfactory plan. Commenters stated that this should 

include, among other things, identification of each of the four Building Blocks EPA would 

expect to include in a federal plan and the legal rationale for them, discussion of how EPA would 

calculate a State's emission reduction goal under a FIP, and how EPA would, in crafting such a 

plan, take into consideration the various factors, including the remaining useful life of the 

regulated sources, the Act requires it to consider.

In order to support states in their efforts to design plans to meet their carbon emission reduction 

targets commenters recommended that EPA provide templates for different plan designs (e.g. a 

mass-based trading framework, a rate- based trading framework, multi-state compliance, and a 

utility-based portfolio approach) and for specific plan components (e.g. how to incorporate a 

state renewable energy standard and an energy efficiency program into a state plan; how to 

assess the emission reductions delivered by renewable energy and energy 

efficiency). Commenters stated that one or more of the state plan templates could take the form 

of the federal implementation plan that will become the default framework for any states that 

choose not to submit a compliant implementation plan.

Similarly, commenters noted that states must be required to show that they have adequate 

resources and authority to implement and verify actual reductions and enforce their plans. To aid 

states and ease implementation, the commenters requested that the EPA establish model federal 

plans that are published and confirmed in the final rule. The commenters explained that states 

that propose implementation plans generally consistent with the model federal plans should have 

a fair level of confidence that their plans would be approved.
278

Comment 10: The EPA should provide a model Federal Implementation Plan for states to adopt 

if they so choose that takes the mass based target and establishes a tradable allowance program 

with an EPA-administered allowance registry, allowance tracking system, and compliance 

systems. By establishing a ready-made optional Federal Implementation Plan, the EPA will 

significantly lower the regulatory and legal burden for states and doing so will significantly 

increase the odds of regional collaboration within regional electricity markets. The EPA cannot 

compel states to adopt any particular compliance strategy under the CPP, but the EPA has almost 

always offered model Federal Implementation Plans for past section 111 rules.

Response 10: The EPA agrees with the commenters that it is necessary and important for the 

EPA to promulgate a federal plan for states that do not submit an approvable state plan. The EPA 

is proposing model rules for both rate- and mass-based programs in conjunction with the

proposed Federal Plan. These effectively can serve as a template for states when preparing their 

state plan submittals. We also agree that the EPA cannot compel states to adopt any particular 

compliance strategy under the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should provide a model Federal Implementation Plan for states 

to adopt if they so choose that takes the mass based target supplied and sets rules for a tradable 

allowance program. Further, the commenters stated that the EPA should facilitate adoption of the 

Federal Implementation Plan by developing an EPA administered allowance registry, allowance 

tracking system, and compliance systems. According to the commenters, by establishing a readymade Federal Implementation Plan that states could opt into if they so choose, the EPA will 

significantly lower the regulatory and legal burden for states that choose a compliance strategy 

that avoids many of the pitfalls we describe above. Also, the commenters stated that doing so 

will significantly increase the odds of regional collaboration within regional electricity markets. 

Commenters stated that the EPA should leave to states that opt into the Federal Implementation 

Plan the decision about how to allocate allowances and/or allowance revenue under their massbased compliance state power to allocate allowances might serve to deter participation in a 

Federal Implementation Plan.

According to the commenters, longstanding legal precedent indicates that the EPA cannot 

compel states to adopt any particular compliance strategy under the CPP. However, the 

commenters stated that the EPA has almost always offered model Federal Implementation Plans 

for past Section 111 rules and for rules applying the Good Neighbor Provision of Section 110,

which cover the sources at issue in the Plan. Commenters stated that the EPA should not deviate 

from this precedent because this approach has resulted in widespread adoption of the EPA 

proposed compliance strategies. The commenters noted that states face high administrative 

burdens in developing their own compliance strategies and are happy to adopt EPA-approved

approaches that help them avoid those costs. The commenters suggested that the EPA should 

take similar action for the CPP to minimize disruption of economic dispatch in wholesale 

electricity markets.
279

Comment 11: The EPA should identify the nature and the scope of the federal implementation 

plan that it would prescribe where a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan.

Response 11: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters requested that EPA identify the nature and the scope of the federal implementation 

plan that it would prescribe where a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan.

Comment 12: In developing a Federal Plan, the EPA has no experience in the management of 

the electricity grid.

Response 12: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated that should Indiana or Ohio fail to submit a 111(d) Plan, EPA will be forced 

to promulgate a Federal 111(d) Plan. Questions of legality aside, the commenters stated that the 

EPA is ill-equipped to make the specific technical decisions about Ohio's deregulated power 

sector or Indiana's regulated power sector that a Federal Plan would require. Commenters stated 

that the EPA has no experience overseeing reliability, conducting local cost analysis, verifying 

demand response or any myriad of other decisions that are critical for maintaining the integrity 

of the electricity grid.

Comment 13: The EPA should prepare a Federal Plan only if, after good faith effort and 

opportunity to modify an initial plan, the Agency concludes that the state will not submit a 

satisfactory plan. Consistent with the EPA’s authority under Section 111(d) and its expertise, the 

EPA should not attempt to create state clean energy programs to reduce emissions, and instead, 

the EPA should design the plan based only on plant-specific targets for jurisdictional units, 

taking into account the factors identified in Section 111, including energy, economic, and 

environmental factors and the remaining useful life of the source. The EPA can help states by 

including in the 111(d) guidelines specifics on what constitutes an approvable state plan.

Response 13: The EPA generally views states as the preferred implementers of Clean Air Act 

programs and intends to work closely with states to develop approvable state plans. We agree 

with the commenters that the EPA should defer to the states' to design the most cost-effective 

and equitable pathways to achieve reductions. The EPA is providing states with great flexibility 

in developing approvable plans under CAA section 111(d), including the ability to impose 

source-by-source limitations reflecting the BSER performance rates to each affected EGU or to 
280

adopt rate-based or mass-based emission performance goals, and to rely on a wide range of CO2

emission reduction measures, including measures that are not part of the BSER. 

We agree with the commenters that the final guidelines must contain specifics on what 

constitutes an approvable state plan. See Section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

We agree with the commenters that a state should have an opportunity to modify a state plan 

submittal that is not approvable. In the concurrent federal plan proposal, the EPA is proposing an 

amendment to the section 111(d) implementing regulations that would add partial 

approval/disapproval and conditional approval mechanisms. See Section VIII.E.5 of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.

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

In a March 2014 comment resubmitted following proposal, commenters explained that although 

states under this program would have a powerful incentive to design their own flexible state 

plans to fulfill their Section 111(d) obligations, a few states may not submit a plan or may submit 

a plan that does not comply with the statute. Commenters stated that this scenario is specifically 

addressed in Section 111(d), which provides that EPA may create its own federal plan if a state 

plan is not "satisfactory." The commenters suggested that EPA can help states by including in the 

111(d) guidelines specifics on what constitutes an approvable state plan and by deferring to the 

states' to design the most cost-effective and equitable pathways to achieve reductions. 

The commenters argued that EPA should not jump immediately to a federal plan if a state 

submits a plan that, without adequate justification, does not meet the required targets. The 

commenters argued that it should first provide the state with an opportunity for revision and resubmittal. Commenters stated that the EPA should prepare its own plan only if, after good faith 

effort, the Agency concludes that the state will not submit a satisfactory plan. At that point, 

consistent with its authority under Section 111(d) and its expertise, the commenters stated that

the EPA should not attempt to create state clean energy programs to reduce emissions. 

Commenters stated that it should design the plan based on plant-specific targets for jurisdictional 

units, taking into account the factors identified in Section 111, including energy, economic, and 

environmental factors and the remaining useful life of the source.

Comment 14: In those states that refuse to implement a state plan, or to take other actions 

consistent with the implementation of the Federal Plan, the eventual implementation of the 

Federal Plan will result in a catastrophic loss of electricity for state residents. The EPA is 

ultimately threatening the health and safety of residents of states that refuse to adopt its vision of 

state regulation of matters entirely outside its statutory authority, and a more clear-cut, and more 

dangerous, example of coercion is difficult to imagine.

Response 14: Though the contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal 

plan to implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking 

and are beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves, the EPA strongly disagrees 

that implementation of the Federal Plan would “result in a catastrophic loss of electricity.”
281

We also strongly disagree that states may be “coerced” into taking certain actions in order to 

avoid the prospect of a federal 111(d) plan applying to sources in the state. The final guidelines 

provide states with the initial opportunity to submit a satisfactory state plan, and provides states 

flexibility in developing that plan. If a state declines to take advantage of that opportunity, 

affected EGUs in that state will instead be subject to a federal plan that satisfies statutory 

requirements. See Sections VIII.E.6 and VIII.G.5 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the timing of Federal Plan imposition is a concern that impacts health 

and safety of state residents. The commenters noted that states that intend to challenge the 

Proposed Rule will presumably refuse to submit State Plans. Commenters stated that when the 

Federal Plan is imposed, those states may still be holding hope that one of the challenges will 

succeed, or that new political leaders will pull the EPA back from fully implementing the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters noted that such states will have no desire to adjust their 

regulations and invest in new electrical generating capacity prospectively, on the timetable that 

would be necessary to make up for the forced retirement of EGUs that exceed the performance 

standards specified in the Federal Plan. The commenters noted that in those states, eventual 

implementation of the Federal Plan will simply result in a catastrophic loss of electricity for state 

residents, a harrowing prospect that endangers their very lives. Commenters stated that the "gun 

to the head" in this case is therefore something more than purely figurative: EPA is ultimately 

threatening the health and safety of residents of states that refuse to adopt its vision of state 

regulation of matters entirely outside its statutory authority. Commenters stated that a more 

clear-cut, and more dangerous, example of coercion is difficult to imagine. 

Comment 15: The deadline for promulgation of a Federal Plan needs to be clarified in terms of 

which provisions within 40 CFR 60.27 would actually determine the deadline.

Response 15: EPA agrees with the commenters that the deadline for promulgation of a Federal 

Plan in 60.27 is in need of modification. EPA is proposing changes accordingly in the concurrent 

Federal Plan proposal.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should confirm what actions it must and will take if a state plan or 

portion thereof is not submitted or cannot be approved. The commenters stated that EPA has 

proposed that in the absence of an approvable state plan, the agency will develop a federal plan 

"according to [40 CFR 60.27.]" 79 FR 34951 (proposed 40 CFR 60.5720). Commenters stated 

that although the proposed rule therefore appears to apply the deadlines for a federal plan 

codified in section 60.27, EPA should clarify in the final rule that is the case. The commenters

noted that Section 60.27(d) provides that EPA must promulgate a federal plan "within six months 

after the date required for submission of a plan or plan revision" if the agency determines that a 

state has failed to submit a plan or plan revision, or if it disapproves any portion of a state plan or 

revision. Commenters stated that because the proposed rule only supersedes the requirements of 

subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60 to the extent they are inconsistent with the proposed rule, see 79 FR 
282

34951 (proposed 40 CFR 60.5700), the federal plan deadline in 40 CFR 60.27(d) appears to 

govern any federal plan needed under the CPP. Commenters stated that this 6-month deadline 

also appears to provide the timetable for state action to correct any plans that EPA has 

disapproved, in whole or in part. Commenters stated that EPA should clarify that the deadline 

also governs state action to amend any plans determined by EPA to be inadequate subsequent to 

their initial approval by the agency. 

Comment 16: The EPA's supplemental proposed tribal lands rule issued on November 4, 2014 

(79 FR 65481) fails to include several deadlines, including for the submission of a tribal 

implementation plan, a deadline for EPA to make a "necessary or appropriate" finding that a 

federal plan should be developed, and a deadline by which EPA will issue a federal plan after the 

agency finds such a plan is necessary or appropriate. The proposed supplemental tribal rule 

should also include a provision that requires EPA to determine whether it is "necessary or 

appropriate" to issue a federal implementation plan if a tribe does not adopt a tribal plan.

Response 16: The EPA appreciates the commenters’ suggestions to clarify the deadlines for 

action. In the concurrent federal plan proposal, we are proposing some changes to the process for 

action on state plans and implementation of a federal plan, including adjusting the timeline for 

EPA action to promulgate a federal plan. Those changes are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Regarding the comment that the CPP should be revised to include a requirement that EPA issue a 

federal plan within 180 days of any EPA finding that a state did not submit a plan, or submitted 

an inadequate plan, the agency intends to propose several changes to the subpart B framework 

regulations for section 111(d) as a part of the federal plan rulemaking. The timelines for agency 

action on state plans and promulgation of a federal plan will be included in that proposal.

The comment that EPA should have a mandatory deadline for making a necessary or appropriate 

finding is beyond the scope of this action as it relates to the Tribal Authority Rule in 40 CFR Part 

49, which the agency did not and is not proposing to change. In the federal plan rulemaking, the 

EPA intends to take action on whether to propose a finding that it is necessary or appropriate to 

regulate the affected EGUs in Indian country. The comments that the proposed supplemental 

tribal rule should include a provision that requires EPA to determine whether it is "necessary or 

appropriate" to issue a federal implementation plan in light of tribal inaction and that the 

supplemental proposed tribal rule should be revised to include a commitment that EPA will issue 

a federal implementation plan without unreasonable delay also relate to the Tribal Authority 

Rule in 40 CFR Part 49, which the agency did not and is not proposing to change, and are 

therefore outside the scope of this action.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's supplemental proposed tribal lands rule issued on November 

4, 2014 (79 FR 65481) is fundamentally flawed and unenforceable. The commenters noted that 

the proposed tribal rule fails to include a deadline for the submission of a tribal implementation 
283

plan, fails to include a deadline for EPA to make a "necessary or appropriate" finding that a 

federal plan should be developed, and fails to set forth a deadline by which EPA will issue a 

federal plan after the agency finds such a plan is necessary or appropriate. 

Commenters stated that the EPA should establish the same deadline for tribes to submit a plan as 

EPA has for states and territories: June 30, 2016. Adopting EPA's language, the commenters

noted that tribes would have the "opportunity, but not the obligation" to submit a plan by that 

date.

With respect to the failure of any state to submit a complete or initial state plan by June 30, 2016, 

the commenters proposed that the CPP include a provision that requires EPA to make a Section 

110(c)(1)(A) finding of non-submission within 30 days of June 30, 2016. With respect to the 

submission of state plans that fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of either a complete or 

initial plan, the commenters proposed that the CPP include a provision that requires EPA to 

make a Section 110(c)(1)(A) finding of inadequate submission within 90 days of June 30, 2016. 

The commenters suggested that failures to meet the 2017 and 2018 deadlines would be treated 

similarly. 

The commenters noted that the CPP also should be revised to include a requirement that EPA 

issue a federal plan within 180 days of any EPA finding that a state did not submit a plan, or 

submitted an inadequate plan, that includes federally-enforceable measures sufficient to ensure 

the attainment of the 2030 CO2 reduction target for that state. 

If any tribe decides not to embrace this "opportunity" by June 30, 2016, in whole or in part, the 

commenters suggested that the proposed supplemental tribal rule should include a provision that 

requires EPA to determine whether it is "necessary or appropriate" to issue a federal 

implementation plan in light of such tribal inaction. 40 CFR 49.11; CAA Section 301(d). The 

commenters suggested that the EPA should impose a 30-day deadline - July 30, 2016 - by which 

the agency commits by rule to making this determination. 

Commenters stated that the supplemental proposed tribal rule should be revised to include a 

commitment that EPA will issue a federal implementation plan without unreasonable delay, after 

the agency makes a "necessary or appropriate" finding pursuant to 40 CFR. 49.11. To be 

specific, the commenters suggested the revision should include a statement that if EPA takes 

longer than 180 days to issue a federal implementation plan after making a "necessary or 

appropriate" finding, such delay shall be presumed to be unreasonable.

Comment 17: Commenters support the EPA’s proposal to include emission targets for existing 

power plants as part of FIP and exclude RE and EE measures for other entities.

Response 17: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
284

Commenters noted that others have raised concern that EPA would impose a renewable portfolio 

standard and/or energy efficiency requirements as part the FIP; however, the commenters noted 

that nothing in section 111 of the Clean Air Act or the Proposed Rule requires EPA to do so (see 

42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(2)(A)). Commenters said the language in the Proposed Rule rebuts the notion 

of a federal takeover of state energy plans, and specifically, if EPA implements a federal 

implementation plan because a state has failed to meet its 111(d) obligations, EPA would 

implement the emission targets through regulation of power plants, not other entities. 

Commenters said compare 40 C.F.R. 60.5790 ("If a state does not submit an approvable 

Plan...EPA will implement and enforce a Federal plan...to ensure that each affected EGU within 

the state that commenced construction on or before January 8, 2014 reaches compliance") with 

40 C.F.R. 5740(a) (requiring state plans to include "emission standards for each affected entity," 

a term defined to include EGUs or other entities with compliance obligations). Commenters

concluded for example, EPA could choose to impose a cap on steam and natural gas power 

plants, with or without provisions for trading among the capped entities, and such a plan would 

not include renewable energy or energy efficiency measures, although it could incentivize power 

plants and/or states to adopt such measures to reduce the cost of compliance.

Comment 18: Comments claiming the EPA’s lack of authority to implement a federal plan if the 

states declines to act or does not submit an approvable state plan.

Response 18: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated the flaws in EPA's BSER determination come into sharp relief if a state 

declines to act or does not submit an approvable state plan, and, in that case, EPA declares that it 

will develop and impose a federal plan. Commenters said EPA does not have the authority to 

impose dispatch decisions in states (meaning that it cannot implement Building Block 2), require 

the installation and operation of new renewable or replacement generation, regardless of fuel 

type (meaning that it cannot implement Building Block 3), or impose end-user restrictions on the 

amount of electricity consumed or other DSM measures (meaning that it cannot implement 

Building Block 4). Commenters said the only Building Block that EPA could even arguably 

claim authority to implement is Building Block 1, but a six percent heat rate improvement is 

unreasonable, unachievable for every unit in the state, and unsustainable even at percentages less 

than six. Commenters said enforcing the mandatory state goals entirely through Building Block 1 

would require even more aggressive (and impossible) heat rate improvements. Commenters said 

EPA lacks authority to develop a federal plan in the event a state cannot (or decides not to) enact 

the laws and regulations that the Agency attempts to mandate though the various Building 

Blocks.

Commenters asked if the EPA rejects a State Plan (or if a state fails to submit one), will the EPA 

then attempt to force an RPS and/or EERS on a state via a Federal Plan, despite the EPA's 
285

admission that it lacks the authority to do so? If so, commenters questioned how the EPA will 

reconcile this action with having conceded to an absence of such authority?

Comment 19: Comments stating that the EPA cannot identify in the CAA any provision that 

authorizes it to establish and enforce RPS, to make dispatch decisions, to provide rebates for 

programmable thermostats, or to undertake any of the other notions that it has for Blocks 2-4 of 

its BSER.

Response 19: The contents, rationale, and basis of authority for a section 111(d) federal plan to 

implement the Clean Power Plan Emission Guidelines will be set out in that rulemaking and are 

beyond the scope of the Emission Guidelines themselves.

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

Commenters stated section 111(d)(2)(A) requires the EPA to impose a federal ESPS plan when a 

state fails to adopt its own EPA-approved plan. Commenters said by clear implication, the EPA 

may only require ESPS that it can administer if a state can't or won't submit a satisfactory plan. 

Commenters stated the EPA has no authority to enact state renewable energy mandates, fleet 

dispatch policies, or demand-reduction incentives. Commenters said hence ordering states to 

revise their energy policies is beyond the EPA's authority as well. 

Commenters continued that while the EPA certainly could adopt and impose emission limitations 

on "existing sources," it has no authority whatsoever to prescribe state-wide energy policy, as it 

is directing the states to do for themselves. Commenters stated the EPA cannot identify in the 

CAA any provision that authorizes it to establish and enforce renewable portfolio standards 

(RPS), to make dispatch decisions, to provide rebates for programmable thermostats, or to 

undertake any of the other notions that it has for Blocks 2-4 of its "best system of emission 

reduction." Commenters said and so those blocks must be outside of the options delegated to the 

EPA by Congress under section 111.

6.4.5 Modification of an approved state plan

This section discusses comments on the process for modifying or revising approved state plans.

In the proposed rule, state plans could only be revised with approval by the Administrator. If one 

or more of the elements of the state plan required revision to reach the established emission 

performance goal, a state could submit a request to the Administrator indicating the proposed 

corrections to the state plan needed to meet the emission performance goal. We proposed that 

revisions “should not result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs 

specified in the original approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission 

performance through a plan modification would be allowed. The comments in this section

addressed the process for revising a state plan, and the types of changes that could be needed, 

and the circumstances that could warrant a change to an approved state plan.
286

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

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

Comment 1: In recognition that a state plan benefits from course correction as circumstances 

(e.g., available technologies) states should be permitted to submit modified plans at any time 

during the compliance period so long as reasonable progress toward targets is not compromised. 

If the modified plan continues to be "satisfactory" under section 111(d) then state modification of

the plan should be permissible, and should not be subject to a limitation that it cannot result in 

reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs (i.e., “backsliding”) specified in 

the original approved plan, because EPA has no authority to impose this limitation. EPA should 

consider a mechanism for periodic review and "reset" of the program to adjust for unanticipated 

events, such as increased electric load growth.

Response 1: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ suggestion that states should be permitted to 

submit modified plans at any time during the compliance period, however, we note that the 

modifications must meet all the administrative and procedural aspects outlined in the final rule. 

The EPA is not placing any restrictions on the frequency that a state may submit modifications, 

but this will be inherently limited by the length of the state rulemaking process. Modifications to 

state plans are discussed in sections VIII.E.7 and VIII.E.7.b of the preamble to the final rule.

For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. of the final rule 

preamble – State plan modifications. We proposed that revisions “should not result in reducing 

the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original approved plan. In 

other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a plan modification 

would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not have a basis in 

section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of a section 

111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for implementation 

and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance emission rates or 

goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard for revisions 

should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal was unclear as 

to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same as for 

submittals. We have finalized this position.

For a discussion on mechanisms for periodic review and “reset” of the program to adjust for 

unanticipated events, such as increased load growth, see section VIII.E.7.b of the final rule 

preamble – Modifications to interim and final CO2 emissions goals and the discussion on the 

reliability safety valve in section VIII.G.2 of the final rule preamble.

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

Multiple commenters supported allowing states to modify their state plans. 

In recognition that a state plan benefits from course correction as circumstances (e.g., available 

technologies) change, commenters suggested that states should be permitted to submit modified 
287

plans at any time during the compliance period (but not more often than every X years) so long 

as reasonable progress toward targets is not compromised.

Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule also notes that states may need to modify their plans 

over time, and EPA proposes that modification will generally be allowed provided the revision 

"does not result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in 

the original approved plan." 79 FR 34917. Commenters stated that EPA cites no authority for 

imposing this limitation. The commenters argued that if the modified plan continues to be 

"satisfactory" under section 111(d) then state modification of the plan should be permissible.

Commenters argued that to promote maximum state flexibility in the design of approvable 

compliance plans and to enable states to take into account changed circumstances (e.g., 

improvements in clean energy and other technologies), the final guidelines should clarify that 

states can modify plans, subject to EPA approval. The commenters stated that the final 

guidelines also should affirm that EPA will approve compliance plans that satisfy the 

requirements for such plans. Finally, the commenters stated that the guidelines should recognize 

a range of potentially approvable options for defining state emission glide paths that would be 

unique to the specific circumstances within a state or multi-state program and, in particular, 

should support the use of existing programs and market mechanisms.

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow states the flexibility to amend plans as needed to 

reflect new developments and changing conditions in the electricity market. Commenters said 

the states and their affected electric power industry face significant uncertainties in planning for 

future generation, transmission, and distribution needs over the next 15 year time period. 

Commenters stated these forecasts will not necessarily predict the economic and reliability 

impacts of the Proposed Rule and the impacts that the Proposed Rule will have on electric 

generation and transmission. Commenters said the EPA should allow states maximum flexibility 

to adjust their state plans to account for major changes in the assumptions underlying state plans 

or the costs or impacts of those plans.

Commenters stated that EPA should provide a mechanism for states to modify their plans. 

Commenters stated that this may be necessitated by technology changes, or by states entering or 

leaving multi-state arrangements. Commenters stated that with respect to regional plans, without 

an ability to adjust plans due to participants entering or leaving, it could be foreseen that states 

would be more reluctant to enter into multi-state arrangements.

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow states to determine when their plans need to be 

updated. Given the accelerated timeline for developing state plans, in addition to the length of 

the period the plan will cover and changing nature of the power sector, the commenters noted 

that state plans will likely need to be updated during the plan's lifetime. The commenters argued 

that states should have the flexibility to determine when plan updates are needed, with the 

expectation that EPA will review submittals for adequacy.

Commenters asserted that states should have the flexibility to modify their overall plan and glide 

path based on technology developments that may occur before 2030. The commenters explained 

that, by 2030, it is inevitable that technology will evolve in ways that cannot be anticipated. The 

commenters noted that development of energy storage mechanisms, flue gas carbon removal 
288

systems, new or improved energy generation and distribution systems, advances in energy 

efficiency and countless other developments could have significant impact on our energy 

infrastructure. Historically, the commenters noted that environmental rules have focused on 

regulating existing systems based on current understanding of pollution control systems and are 

not very effective at anticipating technology developments. Commenters stated that the Clean 

Power Plan will be implemented over a 15 year or longer period in which significant changes in 

generation technology and energy consumption are likely to occur. The commenters

recommended that the final rule should have mechanisms to allow states to adapt the 

requirements to these inevitable developments and avoid locking EPA, states, and the regulated 

entities into an ineffective or wasteful set of actions.

Commenters urged EPA to consider the potential electric load growth that may result from 

increased utilization of electric vehicles (EV). Commenters stated that given that increased EV 

utilization will reduce GHG emissions overall, the commenters urged the EPA to work with 

states to evaluate how to encourage this reductions through section 111(d) compliance plans. The 

commenters agreed with other stakeholder comments that recommend that the EPA consider a 

mechanism for periodic review and "reset" of the program to adjust for unanticipated events, 

such as increased electric load growth.

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow states the flexibility to amend plans as needed to 

reflect new developments and changing conditions in the electricity market.

Commenters asked if EPA will revise Subpart B to allow for corrections in the estimated 2030 

generation rates and mass rate limit.

Commenters stated that the final rule should clarify that states can modify plans, subject to EPA 

approval, to address changing circumstances, thereby giving states the flexibility to incorporate 

changing and improved technologies that benefit all customers.

Comment 2: EPA should clearly allow states and entities the flexibility to modify plans with 

minimal difficulty and as many times as needed.

Response 2: See response to comment #1 in this section

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

Commenters stated that EPA should clearly allow states and entities the flexibility to modify 

plans with minimal difficulty and as many times as needed. The commenters noted that it is 

impossible to predict the circumstances that may cause a state to need to modify its plan, but 

examples of when a modification may be necessary include: 

• Entities may plan to contract for the purchase of renewable energy, but they may not be 

able to come to terms with a counter party.

• Gas prices may fall or rise, making fuel switching a more or less attractive option.
289

• When transmission upgrades are needed to install a utility's new renewable energy, the 

timing may be outside of the utility's control due to requirements of the regional 

transmission organization (RTO), and may need to be modified. New technology may 

emerge that was not envisioned when the plan was initially filed.

Comment 3: The proposed Clean Power Plan does not allow enough flexibility for states to 

amend their state plans once they are enacted, and the EPA should establish a process that would 

allow states to revisit and revise their state plans to address unforeseen circumstances.

Response 3: See response to comment #1 in this section and sections VIII.E.7 and VIII.E.7.b of 

the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed Clean Power Plan does not allow enough flexibility for 

states to amend their state plans once they are enacted. The commenters requested that EPA 

establish a process that would allow states to revisit and revise their state plans to address 

unforeseen circumstances. 

Commenters stated that the compliance period of the proposed Clean Power Plan spans 10 years, 

and will require state actions and planning both before and after this period in order to achieve 

and maintain compliance. As such, the commenters noted that states will need the ability to 

amend their state plan in response to various technical, environmental, and economic changes 

within and beyond the utility power sector. The commenters noted that States may find that 

investments in certain types of generation or emission controls prove more or less effective than 

originally estimated, and will need the flexibility to respond accordingly. The commenters

asserted that locking states into their original state plans for the duration of the compliance 

period may result in a Clean Power Plan that is more costly and less effective at reducing 

emissions.

The commenters contended that this same state plan flexibility would also be vital in addressing 

any unexpected power plant shutdowns resulting from natural or man-made disasters, equipment 

failures or safety hazards beyond anyone's control, and other force majeure events. Commenters

stated that, for example, flooding on the Missouri River in 2011 forced an extended shutdown of 

the Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant Station and threatened 

other facilities in Nebraska, significantly altering the state's generation portfolio and carbon 

intensity. The commenters stated that without the flexibility to respond to such occurrences, 

states may be forced into impossible situations if their original state plan depends on certain 

generation assets that suddenly become unavailable. The commenters therefore requested that the 

EPA allow states to revisit and revise their state plans as appropriate. The commenters concluded 

that by establishing a clear and timely process now, EPA can assure consistency in plan 

adjustments.
290

Comment 4: States should be allowed an opportunity to adjust their final 2030 reduction goals, 

the year that the goals are to be achieved, and/or the glide path based on materially changed 

circumstances, to account for either late discovery of errors in EPA assumptions or new 

information that becomes available to the state after the close of comment period for the 

proposed CPP, and other factors including changes in population, industry, or in transmission or 

generating facilities.

Response 4: Modifications to interim and final CO2 emission goals are discussed in section 

VIII.E.7.b of the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters recommended that states should be allowed an opportunity to adjust their final 

reduction goals, the year that the goals are to be achieved, and/or the glide path based on 

materially changed circumstances. Commenters stated that the Proposed Rule should be 

modified to expressly permit a state to seek an adjustment of its 2030 emission reduction goal at 

any time to account for either late discovery of errors in EPA assumptions or new information 

that becomes available to the state after the close of this comment period. Commenters stated 

that the Proposed Rule relies on a number of highly questionable assumptions including 

assumptions related to the price and availability of natural gas, reliability, economics and 

availability of renewable energy, long-term performance of energy efficiency programs, 

functioning of wholesale electricity markets, and the time required to develop state compliance 

plans. Commenters stated that the Proposal also does not properly recognize or account for other 

relevant factors, such as shifts in population, growth in the manufacturing sector, impediments to 

the development of new transmission facilities, or the risk associated with relicensing existing 

nuclear and hydro generating units. Commenters stated that unanticipated events can and will 

occur that adversely affect a state's ability to meet its required reductions. Commenters stated 

that states should be afforded an opportunity at any time to submit to EPA an amendment to their 

state compliance plan that adjusts elements of that plan to equitably account for materially 

changed circumstances. Commenters stated that this should include the ability to adjust the level 

of the final reduction goal, the year in which that reduction is to be achieved, and the glide path 

to reach that goal. The commenters noted that states bear the burden to adequately support, 

document, or otherwise justify any proposed changes to state plans. However, when that 

justification is adequately provided, the commenters recommended that EPA approve the 

changes requested by the state.

Comment 5: EPA should withdraw its "anti-backsliding" prohibition imposed on plan 

modifications because it is unnecessary and not required by the CAA as long the modified plan 

meets the state’s the final emission guideline as either the minimum rate goal or reduction goal. 

This approach would be consistent with the process for developing state implementation plans 

for attaining national ambient air quality standards under section 110 of the CAA. Congress did 

not include ant-backsliding provisions in section 111, but did in other sections.
291

Response 5: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

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

Commenters opposed EPA's proposed "anti-backsliding" provision as unnecessary and not 

required by the CAA. Rather, the commenters asserted that states should have broad discretion to 

make any changes to their plans so long as they achieve the minimum applicable state emission 

rate goal - the minimum federal requirement. 

Commenters stated that the EPA should withdraw its "anti-backsliding" prohibition imposed on 

plan modifications. The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule places an unnecessary 

limitation on a state's authority to revise or modify its approved final section 111(d) plan for 

implementing its CO2 emission rate goal. The commenters noted that for EPA to grant a 

modification request, the particular state must show that the revised set of measures would result 

in emission performance equal to or better than that of the original plan. In other words, the 

commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to prohibit states from "backsliding" after the initial 

approval of a state plan - even if the revised state plan would still allow the state to meet the 

state's interim or final emission guideline. The commenters stated that for any substantive 

changes, or for substitution of new measures for old ones, the EPA would apparently require the 

state to demonstrate that the plan would continue to perform as well as or better than the original 

plan by submitting additional projections that model the expected emission performance impacts 

of the revised plan.

According to the commenters, allowing states broad discretion to make changes (that meet the 

minimum rate goal) is consistent with the process for developing state implementation plans for 

attaining national ambient air quality standards under section 110 of the CAA. Section 111(d) 

requires that EPA "establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 110" for the 

development of state implementation plans.

The commenters stated that further evidence that this proposed anti-backsliding proposal is not 

legally authorized is the fact that Congress has included various anti-backsliding provisions in 

other sections of the CAA, providing no such requirement in section 111, either expressly or 

implied. According to the commenters, the fact that Congress specifically included antibacksliding provisions in certain section of the Act, while failing to include such a provision 

anywhere in section 111 strongly suggests that Congress did not intend for state plans under 

section 111(d) to be subject to anti-backsliding requirements. Moreover, the commenters stated 
292

that the EPA cites no authority to support its proposal to require revised plans to require EGUs to 

meet the same emission performance levels they would have had to meet under previously 

approved plans.

Finally, the commenters stated that it makes no sense from a policy perspective to impose the 

proposed anti-backsliding requirements on states. The commenters noted that States and their 

affected electric power industry face significant uncertainties over the economic and reliability 

impacts of the Proposed Rule and the impacts that the Proposed Rule will have on electric 

generation and transmission. The commenters stated that this uncertainty can best be addressed 

and managed by according states maximum flexibility to adjust their state plans to account for 

major changes in the assumptions underlying state plans or the costs or impacts of those plans.

Similarly, commenters noted that states should have broad flexibility in the development of 

programs that implement the EPA emission guidelines. Accordingly, the commenters stated the 

EPA should not include the proposed "anti-backsliding" restriction in the final rule. According to 

the commenters, this limitation is not required by the CAA, and reduces states' flexibility by 

placing an unnecessary constraint on states' broad authority to implement the federal emissions 

guidelines.

The commenters noted that while Congress included anti-backsliding provisions in other sections 

of the CAA, section 111 does not contain an anti-backsliding requirement. The commenters

stated that the absence of such a provision in section 111, while it is included in other sections, 

indicates that Congress specifically did not intend for state plans under section 111(d) to be 

subject to anti-backsliding requirements. Further, the commenters stated that the EPA provides 

no support for its inclusion of an anti-backsliding requirement for revised state plans.

The commenters stated that the EPA's inclusion of an anti-backsliding requirement places an 

unnecessary constraint on states' broad authority to implement the federal emission guidelines. 

The commenters stated that section 111(d) of the CAA gives states the authority to establish 

performance standards and the standards may be based on consideration of the remaining useful 

life of existing sources and other factors. In addition, the commenters asserted that states and 

their affected units face significant uncertainties regarding the impacts of the Proposed Rule on 

the electricity system. According to the commenters, providing states with flexibility to adjust 

their compliance plans to respond to these uncertainties as long as the amended plan still meets 

the state's target, will allow states to respond to future constraints while minimizing cost and 

reliability impacts to electric customers.

Comment 6: The anti-backsliding provision could prevent two or more states that initially 

submitted separate state-specific plans from submitting a revised multi-state plan, because such a 

plan could be politically or economically workable only if it would result in a reduction in the 

requirements for some EGUs. Similarly, the EPA's anti-backsliding provision could prevent a 

state from changing its state plan from one that is based on a rate-based approach to one that is 

based on a mass-based approach (or vice versa). The EPA should at least clarify that the "no 

backsliding" provision in the proposal does not apply to states that enter into a multi-state plan or 
293

modular agreement after submittal of an individual state plan, as long as the states meet the state 

plan requirements overall.

Response 6: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed anti-backsliding requirement could interfere with states' 

abilities to form regional plans; a preference for which EPA has reiterated on numerous 

occasions. In particular, the commenters stated that the anti-backsliding provision could prevent 

two or more states that initially submitted separate state-specific plans from submitting a revised 

multi-state plan, because such a plan could be politically or economically workable only if it

would result in a reduction in the requirements for some EGUs. Similarly, the commenters stated 

that EPA's anti-backsliding provision could prevent a state from changing its state plan from one 

that is based on a rate-based approach to one that is based on a mass-based approach (or vice 

versa). Thus, the commenters stated that the anti-backsliding proposal could significantly reduce 

states' flexibility to implement the federal guideline while maximizing the economic and 

regulatory efficiency of compliance with the Proposed Rule. The commenters stated that as long 

as revised state plans continue to meet EPA's basic requirements for approvability, it would be 

both unnecessary and unwise to prohibit state plans from reducing the required emission 

performance of their EGUs, if such a reduction is necessary to better implement the federal 

guideline. 

Other commenters noted that EPA proposes that a state with an approved plan may revise its 

plan "provided that the revision does not result in reducing the required emission performance 

for affected EGUs specified in the original approved plan. In other words, no 'backsliding' on 

overall plan emission performance through a plan modification would be allowed." The 

commenters stated that as EPA recognizes, a multi-state collaboration would likely offer lower 

cost-effective approaches to achieving CO2 reduction goals amongst the states versus an 

individual state. Thus, the commenters recommended that EPA at least clarify that the "no 

backsliding" provision in the proposal does not apply to states that enter into a multi-state plan or 

modular agreement after submittal of an individual state plan as long as the states meet the state 

plan requirements overall. Given the different timelines that states may have in developing and 
294

implementing their plans, the commenters recommended that the final CPP include the ability for 

a state to join a multi-state plan or agreement after the compliance period start date.

Comment 7: The Section 110 "backsliding" provisions do not apply to Section 111(d) and the 

EPA has no legal authority to apply these provisions, and they should be removed. The EPA 

must provide a mechanism to adjust goals and overall plan emission performance when 

warranted, when the projection methods, tools, and assumptions used reflect the latest data and 

assumptions, such as assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology 

cost and performance.

Response 7: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

The EPA is allowing for adjustments to state goals in certain circumstances which are discussed 

in section VIII.E.7.b of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to provide a mechanism for states to make 

adjustments to the enforceable measures in their plans but affords no ability to make necessary 

adjustments to the goals. The commenters stated that the EPA is proposing that the state may 

revise its state plan provided that the revision does not result in reducing the required emission 

performance for affected EGUs specified in the original approved plan. The commenters stated 

that "in other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a plan 

modification would be allowed." The commenters stated that the EPA is taking comment on 

whether, for such new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, and 

assumptions used should match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of 

plan performance, or should be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as 

assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. 

The commenters stated that under this type of proposal, the EPA must provide a mechanism to 

adjust goals and overall plan emission performance when warranted. Furthermore, the 

commenters stated that flexibility should be provided when making changes to plans. The 

commenters stated that it should be left to the states to determine whether the original data and 

assumptions or updated data and assumptions are appropriate given the specifics of the change 

proposed by the state. The commenters stated that the EPA should not be placing regulatory or 
295

policy restrictions on the ability for states, in working with the EPA, to determine the best 

method of analysis and use of data. The commenters stated that the Section 110 "backsliding" 

provisions do not apply to Section 111(d) and the EPA has no legal authority to apply these 

provisions.

Comment 8: EPA's proposed timing for submittal and updating 111(d) compliance plans is 

inconsistent with resource planning principles, where resource plans are updated on a routine 

basis to accommodate changing conditions. State plans would be required to achieve emission 

rate goals on a timeframe up to 12 years after being submitted to EPA. Rather than requiring plan 

modifications and corrective actions at an arbitrary fixed 10-percent variation from the glide 

path, EPA should clearly allow states the ability to determine the appropriate triggering events 

that necessitate plan modifications. EPA should also include mechanisms for states to modify 

their approved 111(d) compliance plans without the need to submit revised plans for approval if 

they still achieve the overall 2030 reduction goal.

Response 8: The commenters stated that the proposed timeline for state plan submittal is 

contrary to resource planning processes that are updated on a routine basis. In order to rectify 

this, the commenters recommended that EPA’s regulatory approach should reflect the “most 

basic” of all resource planning principles, which is to update the plan as conditions change. The 

EPA is finalizing that for new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, 

tools, and assumptions do not have to match those used for the projection in the original 

demonstration of plan performance; they can be updated to reflect the latest data and 

assumptions, such as assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology 

cost and performance. This is discussed in section VIII.E.7.a – Modifications to an approved 

state plan, in the preamble to the final rule. EPA disagrees with commenters’ statement that a 10 

percent trigger for corrective measures is not appropriate and that states should decide define the 

triggering mechanism. We have decided to finalize the trigger at 10 percent exceedance because 

we view 10 percent as both low enough to ensure that states that need corrective measures 

implement them before they exceed their specified level of emission performance to a degree 

that might be irreversible, and high enough that corrective measures are not triggered by 

fluctuations in emissions that do not indicate that a state may not be able to achieve its projected 

goal. In response to comments concerning modifying plans without EPA approval, States may 

rely upon state only measures such as energy efficiency policies and programs as a matter of 

state law through the state measures approach. For a discussion of requirements regarding the 

state measures approach, please see section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble.

[NEED RESPONSE FOR LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS]

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

Commenters stated that EPA should grant states the flexibility to easily update their plans based

on changing economic and other resource related conditions. 
296

Commenters stated that EPA's proposed timing for submittal and updating 111(d) compliance 

plans is also inconsistent with resource planning principles. The commenters noted that the 

proposed rule requires states to submit a 111(d) compliance plan to EPA in the 2016 to 2018 

timeframe, and subject to EPA approval of these plans, states will be required to submit interim 

reports to EPA beginning in 2022 to demonstrate interim goals are being met before achieving 

full compliance by 2030. In effect, commenters stated that this regulatory mechanism could 

require states to commit to future resource plans no later than 2018. The commenters stated that 

these plans would be required to achieve emission rate goals over the 2020 to 2029 timeframe on 

a path that achieves compliance in 2030 - up to 12 years after state plans are submitted to EPA. 

Commenters stated that this is contrary to resource planning processes where resource plans are 

updated on a routine basis to accommodate changing conditions and in accordance with 

regulatory requirements. 

Commenters stated that they regularly update its resource plans to reflect changes in the planning 

environment, which can include changes to load forecasts, cost and performance characteristics 

of existing resources, cost and performance characteristics of new resource technologies, 

permitting requirements for new generation and transmission infrastructure, procurement 

requirements, commodity price forecasts, other market conditions, cost and timing of major 

transmission projects, and other regulatory obligations. To address this issue, the commenters

stated that EPA's proposed regulatory approach should reflect to a greater extent the most basic 

of all resource planning principles, which is to update the plan as conditions change.

Commenters noted that the 111(d) proposal also contemplates a process whereby states would be 

required to submit a modified compliance plan which includes corrective actions when there is a 

ten percent variation from the state compliance plan. The commenters stated that rather than 

requiring plan modifications and corrective actions at an arbitrary fixed ten percent variation 

from the glide path, EPA should clearly allow states the ability to determine the appropriate 

triggering events that necessitate plan modifications.

Accordingly, in its final rule, the commenters stated that EPA should include mechanisms for 

states to modify their approved 111(d) compliance plans, which, while still achieving the overall 

2030 reduction goal, may be modified without the need to submit revised plans for approval. The 

commenters stated that EPA should consider such modified state plans as presumptively 

approved so long as the overall goal will still be met.

Commenters stated that allowing states to plan for compliance according to their own individual 

resource mix and energy planning constraints would preserve the principles of federalism that 

underlie the Clean Air Act.

Comment 9: Provisions that allow states to correct deficiencies in state plans should also include 

definitive deadlines and consequences for both EPA and states for not meeting those deadlines. 

The rule should be revised to specify that a state plan is approved by default if the EPA fails to 

either act on the state plan submittal or fails to notify the state of a deficiency in the state plan.
297

Response 9: The EPA does not agree with the commenters’ assertion that definitive deadlines 

and consequences for the EPA and states need to be added in the final rule. Set timelines for 

action as well as consequences for not adhering to deadlines are already part of the 111(d) 

program, including this rule. Under CAA section 111(d)(2), the Administrator has the authority 

to prescribe and enforce a federal plan if a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan. The EPA is 

also subject to litigation for failing to act on a state plan within statutory or regulatory deadlines. 

The EPA also does not agree with the commenters’ suggestion that a state plan should be 

approved by default if the EPA fails to act on the state plan submittal for notify the state of a 

deficiency in the state plan. Default approvals for state plans would be contrary to EPA’s 

rulemaking process and would deny outside parties from having the ability to comment on the 

rule and have meaningful involvement. 

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

Commenters agreed with the EPA's proposal to allow states time to correct deficiencies in state 

plans. The commenters stated that such a provision would be consistent with the SIP 

development process and is particularly important given the aggressive schedule that the EPA is 

proposing. However, in the interest of providing clarity for the states and all interested parties, 

the commenters recommended that such a provision include definitive deadlines as well as 

consequences for both the EPA and states. The commenters noted that, as the EPA has pointed 

out, there are consequences to a state failing to submit plan by the required deadline (i.e., the

EPA may issue a federal plan). Similarly, the commenters stated that EPA should face 

consequences for not acting by its required deadline. The commenters suggested that the rule be 

revised to specify that a state plan is approved by default should the EPA fail to either act on the 

state plan submittal or notify the state of a deficiency in the state plan. Rather than excuse itself 

from its regulatory obligations, the commenters asserted that the EPA should hold itself to the 

same standard it imposes on states.

Comment 10: States are not required to request approval to submit a revised SIP and should not 

be required to request approval to submit revisions to a Section 111(d) plan. This should be 

clarified.

Response 10: See response to comment #1 of this section. The EPA is not requiring a state to 

request approval prior to submitting a state plan revision to the EPA; however, a state plan 

revision must go through the EPA rulemaking process, including notice and comment, prior to 

becoming a federally enforceable part of the state plan.

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

Commenters recommended that EPA clarify the proposed provisions requiring states to obtain 

approval from EPA prior to submitting revisions of their own plans, found at Section 60.5785 

(79 FR 34954). The commenters noted that States are not required to request approval to submit 

a revised SIP and should not be required to request approval to submit revisions to a Section 

111(d) plan. The commenters stated that EPA proposes in multiple places that the Section 111(d) 

state plans be treated similarly to SIPs. The commenters stated that SIPs may be revised at any 
298

time by a state, without having to require prior approval from EPA, and are subsequently 

submitted to EPA for review. The commenters stated that since EPA proposes similar treatment 

to SIPs and to preserve the spirit of cooperative federalism found in the CAA, states should not 

have to receive approval from EPA to revise their Section 111(d) plans. 

Comment 11: The EPA should outline a process for states to submit revised implementation 

plans for EPA approval so that states can continue to optimize their implementation plans to 

account for technology and market changes that occur over time. State compliance should be 

determined by whether states have achieved the carbon emission targets outlined in their 

approved implementation plans, not whether states have achieved their carbon emission targets 

in the manner originally set out in their implementation plans.

Response 11: The EPA agrees that there should be a process to revise state plans. The final rule 

provides that new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, and 

assumptions do not have to match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of 

plan performance; they can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as 

assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. 

The EPA is not finalizing any circumstances under which a state may or may not revise its state 

plan, with the exception that a state may not revise its state plan in a way that results in the 

affected EGU’s not meeting the requisite CO2 emission performance levels. See section VIII.E 

of the CPP final rule preamble. 

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

Commenters stated that EPA needs to outline a formal process for states to revise their state 

implementation plans once they have been approved by EPA. The commenters stated that 

between 2017 and 2030, many things will change within the electricity sector. The commenters

stated that technologies for reducing a state's carbon emission rate that are not currently costeffective may, by 2030, become not only competitive with existing technologies but may become 

the least cost options for reducing carbon emissions. The commenters stated that market 

developments may significantly change the makeup of a state's electricity generating sector in 

unpredictable ways before 2030. The commenters suggested that EPA outline a process for states 

to submit revised implementation plans for EPA approval so that states can continue to optimize 

their implementation plans to account for technology and market changes that occur over time. 

The commenters also suggested that state compliance should be determined by whether states 

have achieved the carbon emission targets outlined in their approved implementation plans, not 

whether states have achieved their carbon emission targets in the manner originally set out in 

their implementation plans.

Comment 12: Implementation of the rule would be improved if EPA offered each state the 

option to have a mid-course correction to their state plans in order to adjust plans half way 

between the years 2016 and 2030. The EPA should allow the reset process used by RGGI as a 
299

means of possible midcourse corrections to ensure mass-based targets remain comparable to the 

rate-based alternative.

Response 12: The EPA agrees with the commenters that mid-course corrections (i.e. 

modifications) to state plans may be beneficial for states to include additional technology and 

programs that are not available at the time of original state plan approval, and we are allowing 

for modifications in this final rule. The process for states to modify their state plans is discussed 

in VIII.E.7 – State plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters suggested EPA allow for mid-course corrections to state plans. 

Commenters stated that implementation of the rule would be improved if EPA offered each state 

the option to have a mid-course correction to their state plans in order to adjust plans half way 

between the years 2016 and 2030 to allow for inclusion of additional technology and programs 

that may become available during the 2015-2023 timeframe. The commenters stated that this 

would provide State agencies the option to modify and optimize their program in this timeframe.

Commenters stated that one lesson EPA and other states should learn from RGGI is that a 

periodic review and "reset" of the program may be desirable to adjust for unanticipated events. 

The commenters stated that in its program review carried out in 2012 and 2013, for example, 

RGGI made several adjustments to its program, including a significant reduction in capped 

emissions levels. The commenters stated that EPA should recognize and allow the currently 

established reset process used by RGGI as a means of possible midcourse corrections for the 

existing source performance standards to ensure mass-based targets remain comparable to the 

rate-based alternative. The commenters stated that moreover, as long as the new mass-based 

targets agreed upon in the RGGI reset process remain comparable to the rate-based targets 

assigned in the final 111(d) guideline, the reset should not require a new SIP. The commenters

anticipated that the RGGI plan(s) would include this reset process.

Comment 13: States should have an opportunity to reassess and recalibrate their state plans over 

the multi-year timeframe to implement their state plans. State plans developed under the CAA 

section 111(d) should not be subject to the same resource-intensive process for changing State 

Implementation Plans, and in fact should allow for changes that reflect current information and 

data.

Response 13: The EPA agrees with the commenters that states may want the ability to reassess 

and recalibrate their state plans after submitting their final state plan to EPA. The EPA is 

finalizing that for new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, and 

assumptions do not have to match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of 

plan performance; they can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as 

assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. 

This is discussed in section VIII.E.7.a – Modifications to an approved state plan, in the preamble 

to the final rule.
300

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

Commenters stated that it is important that states have an opportunity to reassess and recalibrate 

their state plans over the multi-year timeframe set forth in the proposal. The commenters noted 

that the state plans envisioned by EPA's proposal represent uncharted territory for both EPA and 

the states. The commenters stated that EPA admits that while the Integrated Planning Model is 

the model of choice to project carbon reductions, there are limitations in applying this model to 

project reductions more than 15 years into the future. The commenters stated that many state air 

regulators have not traditionally had direct involvement in RES programs (which may include 

tradable allowances and allow for cost off-ramps) and in DSM evaluation, measurement and 

verification. According to the commenters, these responsibilities are outside the jurisdiction of 

the CDPHE. The commenters explained that state plans will hinge upon many variables and 

assumptions, with very real limitations. Further, the commenters previously mentioned issues in

meeting individual building blocks that illustrate the potential for creating unintended 

consequences between the building blocks, adding to the inherent uncertainty in projecting 

compliance with the state goal. As a result, the commenters recommended that state plans 

developed under the CAA section 111(d) should not be subject to the same resource-intensive 

process for changing more standard State Implementation Plans, and in fact should allow for 

changes that reflect current information and data.

Comment 14: The EPA's position on anti-backsliding for the purposes of CAA section 111(d) 

appears to be more stringent than CAA section 110(l) regarding SIP revisions, and goes beyond 

just ensuring that the revised state plan still demonstrates compliance with the state goals, the 

actual enforceable component the states are required to meet. 

Response 14: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA's discussion in the proposal preamble regarding modification of 

an approved state plan and anti-backsliding is unclear but appears to be more stringent than CAA 
301

section 110(l) regarding SIP revisions. Regarding modification of approved state plans, the 

commenters referred to the preamble statement that

"the state may revise its state plan provided that the revision does not result in 

reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the 

original approved plan." The commenters note that the EPA goes on to state that 

the state must "demonstrate that the revised set of enforceable measures in the 

modified plan will result in the emission performance at affected EGUs that is 

equivalent or better than the level of the emission performance required by the 

original state plan."

The commenters asserted that EPA's anti-backsliding discussion appears to go beyond just 

ensuring that the revised state plan still demonstrates compliance with the state goals, the actual 

enforceable component of this proposed rule that the states are required to meet. The 

commenters stated that the EPA's position on anti-backsliding for the purposes of CAA section 

111(d) appears to be more stringent than CAA section 110(l) regarding SIP revisions. The 

commenters noted that while section 110(l) is not directly applicable to section 111(d), section 

110(l) only states that the Administrator shall not approve a revision to a SIP if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The commenters asserted that any 

anti-backsliding requirement regarding the proposed rule under section 111(d) should be based 

solely on whether the revised plan will interfere with meeting the state goals.

Comment 15: Under the EPA's proposed “anti-backsliding” provisions, the state would not be 

able to modify its plan to make it less stringent that its initial approved plan, and potentially less 

costly, even if the modified plan would still meet or exceed the state's goal. States must have the 

flexibility to modify their approved plans, including the required emission performance for 

affected EGUs, in response to changing conditions, and have the performance of the modified 

plan judged solely against the state's goal and not a previously approved state plan.

Response 15: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. of the 

final rule preamble – State plan modifications. We proposed that revisions “should not result in 

reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original approved 

plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a plan 

modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not have 

a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of a 

section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
302

Commenters stated that the EPA's proposal for modifying a state plans is inappropriate and must 

be revised; the commenters also stated that the modified plan should only be judged against the 

state's goal. 

The commenters stated that the EPA proposes that a state may revise an approved plan provided 

the revision does not result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs 

specified in that state's original approved plan. The commenters stated that for the EPA to grant a 

modification request, the state must show that the revised set of measures would result in 

emission performance equal to or better than that of the original approved plan. In other words, 

the commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to prohibit states from "backsliding" after the 

initial approval of a state plan - even if the revised state plan would still meet the state's interim 

or final goals. The commenters stated that such a provision is not required by the CAA and the 

EPA cites no authority to support it. The commenters noted that the only test that should be 

applied to a state plan modification is whether on the whole it meets or exceeds a state's goal; 

which is the minimum federal requirement. The commenters noted that the provisions in a 

previously approved state plan that might be more stringent than a proposed plan modification 

must not disqualify the modification if the modified plan as a whole would meet or exceed the 

state's goals.

The commenters stated that the number of highly uncertain variables that will need to be 

considered by the states as they develop plans to meet the requirements of the Proposed 

Guidelines years into the future is significant, and it is highly unlikely that a state would be able 

to get a plan "right" the first time. The commenters noted that regulated utilities are required to 

prepare and submit IRPs as frequently as every year, and development of a state compliance plan 

would be more challenging than developing an IRP. The commenters stated that it would be 

unreasonable to expect that a state would be able to develop a compliance plan that looks out 

many years and that plan would not need to be revised periodically to reflect changing 

conditions. The commenters stated that one could envision a situation where after several years 

of implementation, a state plan is shown to result in emissions that are far below where they were 

needed to be due to the fact that assumptions used in the development of the initial plan proved 

to be inaccurate or simply have changed with time, and the high level of plan performance is 

expected to continue into the future. Under such a scenario, the commenters stated that it would 

be reasonable for the state to want to modify its plan to bring it more in line with the state's goals 

and in the process lower the cost of compliance.

The commenters stated that under the EPA's proposal, however, the state would not be able to 

modify its plan to make it less stringent that its initial approved plan, and potentially less costly, 

even if the modified plan would still meet or exceed the state's goal. The commenters stated that 

this would inappropriately force higher compliance costs on the state than necessary. The 

commenters noted that meeting the state goals should be the only measure of plan acceptability. 

The commenters noted that states must therefore have the flexibility to modify their approved 

plans, including the required emission performance for affected EGUs, in response to changing 

conditions, and have the performance of the modified plan judged solely against the state's goal 

and not a previously approved state plan. The commenters stated that this would not be 

backsliding because the state plan would still meet or exceed the goals set for the state. As 

proposed, the commenters stated that EPA's limit on a state's ability to make such changes 

violates the cooperative federalism on the CAA and specifically violates Virginia v. EPA.
303

Comment 16: The EPA's proposed “anti-backsliding” provisions are not required by section 111 

and the EPA has not authority for this provision. States must have the flexibility to modify their 

approved plans, including the required emission performance for affected EGUs, considering the 

uncertainty in the underlying assumptions and in response to changing conditions. The 

performance of the modified plan should be judged solely against the state's goal.

Response 16: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal to prohibit back-sliding in state plans is not required by 

section 111 and would unnecessarily constrain states' broad authority to implement federal 

emission guidelines. The commenters noted that under EPA's proposal, states would be 

prohibited from revising state plans in the future if the revision would "result in reducing the 

required emission performance for affected EGUs." The commenters stated that this anti-

"backsliding" proposal is neither required by section 111 nor is it necessary or appropriate in the 

context of EPA's proposed structure for regulating existing EGUs under section 111(d). 

According to the commenters, although Congress included various anti-backsliding provisions in 

sections of the CAA, section 111 contains no such requirement, either express or implied. The 

commenters stated that the fact that Congress specifically included anti-backsliding provisions in 

certain sections of the Act, while failing to include such a provision anywhere in section 111 

strongly implies that Congress did not intend for state plans under section 111(d) to be subject to 

anti-backsliding requirements. Moreover, the commenters noted that the EPA cites no authority 

to support its proposal to require revised plans to require EGUs to meet the same emission 

performance levels they would have had to meet under previously approved plans. 

The commenters stated that the EPA's proposal would also place an unnecessary constraint on 

states' broad authority to implement the federal emission guidelines. The commenters stated that 

section 111(d) clearly gives states authority to establish performance standards and to craft those 

standards based on consideration of the remaining useful life of existing sources and other 

factors. Moreover, the commenters noted that states and their EGUs face significant uncertainties 

over the economic and reliability impacts of the Proposed Rule and the impacts that the Proposed 

Rule will have on electric generation and transmission. The commenters noted that this 
304

uncertainty can best be addressed and managed by according states maximum flexibility to 

adjust their state plans to account for major changes in the assumptions underlying state plans or 

the costs or impacts of those plans.

Comment 17: Florida's ratepayers could be adversely affected if, once the state incorporates the 

final goals into an EPA approved state plan, the resulting targets, and their corresponding costs, 

became inflexible.

Response 17: The EPA agrees that states may want the ability to reassess and recalibrate their 

state plans after submitting their final state plan to EPA. The EPA is finalizing that for new 

projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, and assumptions do not have 

to match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of plan performance; they 

can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as assumptions for current and 

future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. This is discussed in section 

VIII.E.7.a – Modifications to an approved state plan, in the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that although the Proposed GHG Rule is clear in that the EPA is not 

mandating the method an individual state must use to reach the proposed CO2 goals, it is clear 

that the proposed State target of a 38% reduction in CO2 emissions (regardless of the method or 

combination of methods chosen by Florida) will impact cost recovery/rate impact, thereby

impacting Florida's citizens. The commenters expressed particular concern for Florida's 

ratepayers over comments by EPA officials during press conferences indicating that, once a State 

incorporates the Final Goals into an EPA approved State Plan, the resulting targets, and their 

corresponding costs, will be inflexible.

Comment 18: Because some states are uncertain about the amount of energy efficiency and 

renewable energy that can be deployed for compliance, the EPA should incorporate an update 

mechanism, allowing states to revise/update their Plans, based on performance, as they go 

forward.

Response 18: The EPA agrees with the commenters that allowing states to revise/update their 

state plans may be beneficial for states to include additional technology and programs that are 

not available at the time of original state plan approval, and we are allowing for modifications in 

this final rule. The process for states to modify their state plans is discussed in VIII.E.7 – State 

plan modifications, in the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters noted that some states are uncertain about the amount of energy efficiency and 

renewable energy that can be deployed for compliance, which creates reluctance for some states 

to rely on energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies in their compliance Plans. To 

overcome this barrier, the commenters recommended that EPA incorporate an update 
305

mechanism, allowing states to revise/update their Plans, based on performance, as they go 

forward. The commenters stated that this will give states more flexibility and comfort to think 

outside the box as they develop their Plans, knowing that if a given strategy does not deliver, 

their Plan can be adjusted to deliver the required emission reductions. 

Comment 19: States should not be limited to modifying plans only to address the failure of a 

plan element to perform as projected. States need the flexibility to modify compliance plans and 

emission glide paths to address uncertainty and changing technology and the needs of the 

interconnected power sector. States should be able to propose modifications as long as the 

modified plan is designed to achieve the 2030 goals.

Response 19: The EPA agrees with the commenters that modifications to state plans may be 

beneficial for states to update or alter existing enforceable measures or add new enforceable 

measures, and we are allowing for modifications in this final rule and not limiting revisions to 

plan elements that require revision with respect to reaching the emission performance goal. The 

EPA is finalizing that new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, 

and assumptions do not have to match those used for the projection in the original demonstration 

of plan performance; they can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as 

assumptions for current and future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. 

As discussed in more detail in section VIII.G.2 of the CPP final rule preamble, the final rule has 

several measures to ensure that it does not interfere with the industry’s ability to maintain 

reliability. One such measure is that if a state cannot address a reliability issue in accordance 

with an approved state plan, the state can submit a request to the EPA to modify the state plan. 

See section VIII.G.2 for a more detailed discussion of this issue. The EPA is not finalizing any 

circumstances under which a state may or may not revise its state plan, with the exception that a 

state may not revise its state plan in a way that results in the affected EGU’s not meeting the 

requisite CO2 emission performance levels.

The process for states to modify their state plans is discussed in VIII.E.7 – State plan 

modifications.

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

Commenters expressed concern that the proposed guidelines potentially limit states' flexibility to 

propose modifications to approved plans to update or alter existing enforceable measures or add 

new enforceable measures. See 79 FR 34917. 

The commenters noted that the ability to modify state plans is an important state flexibility as it 

allows states to address changing circumstances over the long life of compliance. The 

commenters stated that it is unlikely that plans developed in 2016 would reflect the emission 

reduction options available in 2025, nor could they. The commented noted that plans developed 

in 2016 also may not be able to appropriately address the requirements of the interconnected 

power system in the future. The commenters noted that implementation of the Building Blocks 

simultaneously will require fundamental changes in how the power system is operated and 

planned - many of these changes cannot be anticipated at the time state plans are submitted and 
306

before implementation has begun. The commenters stated that allowing states to revisit plans to 

adjust glide paths or enforceable reductions actions and measures is both reasonable and 

necessary to ensure the continued reliable provision of electricity to customers and to reflect 

unanticipated circumstances. The commenters stated that the EPA's proposed approach to state 

plans appropriately requires that revised state plans continue to demonstrate that the 2030 goals 

will be met to prevent backsliding. See Id. 

However, the commenters noted that the proposed regulations potentially limit states' flexibility 

to propose amendments to their compliance plans and are inconsistent with the preamble's clear 

statement that states can seek EPA approval for modified plans. Specifically, the commenters

stated that the proposed regulations could be read to limit states' ability to propose modifications 

to plans by requiring that modification be limited to plan elements that "require revision with 

respect to reaching the emission performance goal." See proposed 40 CFR 60.5785, 79 FR 

34954.

The commenters asserted that states should not be limited to modifying plans only to address the 

failure of a plan element to perform as projected. The commenters explained that states need the 

flexibility to modify compliance plans and emission glide paths to address changing technology 

and the needs of the interconnected power sector. The commenters reiterated that as long as 

states can continue to demonstrate that plans are designed to achieve the 2030 goals, states 

should be able to propose modifications and the EPA should clarify the proposed regulation 

accordingly.

Comment 20: States that wish to modify their plans must do so in a manner that provides for 

public notice and comment.

Response 20: The EPA agrees with the commenters that public notice and comment should be 

required for modifications to state plans. Existing regulations in 40 CFR 60, subpart B (40 CFR 

60.23 and 60.28) provide for public notice and comment, including a public hearing, for state 

plans and state plan modifications.

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

Commenters asserted that states that wish to modify their plans must do so in a manner that 

provides for public notice and comment.

Comment 21: States should be allowed to modify the energy efficiency policies and programs 

contained in state plans during the implementation phase, without seeking or obtaining approval 

from the EPA. Because some state energy efficiency policies such as energy efficiency resource 

standards, appliance efficiency standards, building energy codes or financing initiatives require 

legislative approval in most states, the EPA should allow states to include such policies in their 

plans with the understanding that the policy will go forward only if legislative approval is 

obtained, and a state will modify its plan with other measures to meet the CO2 emissions rate 

targets if this approval is not obtained.
307

Response 21: States may rely upon energy efficiency policies and programs as a matter of state 

law through the state measures approach. For a discussion of requirements regarding the state 

measures approach, please see section VIII of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters explained that states should be allowed to modify the energy efficiency policies and 

programs contained in state plans during the implementation phase, without seeking or obtaining 

approval from the EPA. The commenters stated that this helps to ensure that new technologies 

can be incorporated into energy efficiency programs as they become available, results from 

EM&V work can be acted upon, and otherwise supports best energy efficiency practices as they 

evolve over time. The commenters stated that this flexibility would also allow states to make 

adjustments in order to make up for any emissions reduction shortfall if energy efficiency 

policies and programs are not as effective as expected, and allows for other adjustments if energy 

efficiency policies and programs turn out to be more effective than expected in the initial state 

plans. 

According to the commenters, a related issue is the fact that some state energy efficiency policies 

such as energy efficiency resource standards, appliance efficiency standards, building energy 

codes or financing initiatives require legislative approval in most states. The commenters

suggested that the EPA should allow states to include such policies in their Section 111(d) 

implementation plans with the understanding that the policy will go forward only if legislative 

approval is obtained, and that a state will modify its plan and implement other measures in order 

meet the CO2 emissions rate targets if this approval is not obtained. As long as a state is meeting 

its targets, the commenters stated that the EPA should make it clear it will not micro-manage the 

details as to how it is being achieved.

Comment 22: The EPA should allow and define mechanisms for states to modify state plans at 

any time subject to EPA approval. The EPA should develop clear guidelines and procedures for 

modification of state plans beyond what is described in 40 CFR part 60 subpart B.

The rule should include an option for a state in a multi-state plan to change its compliance 

approach in later years to a single state plan.

The procedures in 40 CFR 60.5785 should be revised to clarify whether the Administrator must 

give a state permission before the state can make revisions to its plan, as it is in 40 CFR 60.27 

and 60.28. If EPA does not choose to explicitly allow a state to submit a completely revised plan, 

the final rule may not need to include 40 CFR 60.5785 and instead could rely on the procedures 

in 40 CFR 60.27, 60.28, and 60.29 for revisions to a state plan.

Response 22: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ suggestion that states should be allowed to 

modify state plans at any time subject to EPA approval. With respect to the commenters

assertion that modifications can only be to “strengthen” the state plan, in section VIII.E.9.b. –

State plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA clarified our discussion on 
308

“anti-backsliding” provisions that were in the proposal. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

The commenters also suggested that a state should have the ability to switch compliance 

approaches from a multi-state to a single state plan. The EPA is not prohibiting a state from 

changing compliance approaches from the one contained in the initial plan in this final rule, 

however, the state must still make a demonstration that it is meeting the interim and final state 

goals as well as submit all necessary components of a state plan revision.

The commenters also requested clarification on the language contained in the proposal at 40 CFR 

60.5785, which the commenters interpreted to be ambiguous. The EPA is clarifying that only the 

Administrator or her designee may approve a state plan revision. A state does not need to receive 

permission from the Administrator in order to submit a state plan revision to EPA.

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

Commenters suggested that EPA allow and define mechanisms for states to modify state plans at 

any time subject to EPA approval. The commenters suggested that EPA develop clear guidelines 

and procedures for modification of state plans beyond what is described in 40 CFR part 60 

subpart B. The commenters stated that when undertaking modifications to state plans, states 

should be required to use the latest data, methods and assumptions, but not be held to the 

criterion in 60.26 that the revision must be to strengthen the plan. The commenters stated that the 

revision may simply be to better reflect a change in state laws and the power supply system or 

development of a multi-state plan that cannot be envisioned at the time the plan is originally 

submitted. 

The commenters also recommended providing the option for a state in a multi-state plan to 

change its compliance approach in later years to a single state plan. The commenters suggested 

that EPA consider the appropriate timeline under which states opting to join multi-state plans 

should evaluate the efficacy of implementation, and when states or groups of states should adopt 

changes to the multi-state implementation approach in the event that evaluation indicates 

insufficient progress toward interim or final targets. The commenters stated that this opportunity 

is important in case several states want to pursue a multi-state plan but are unable to finalize one 

in the very limited time that EPA is allowing states to come up with such a plan. The 

commenters stated that similarly for a state that finds participation in a multi-state plan is not 

beneficial or the state's legislature chooses to alter state law to prevent participation in a 

multistate plan, the commenters stated that the opportunity is important to allow a state to have a 

fall-back position.
309

Commenters noted that 40 CFR 60.5785 outlines the procedure for making revisions to approved 

state plans. The commenters stated that the first sentence of this section contains text that is 

unclear whether the Administrator must give a state permission before the state can make 

revisions to its plan or, as in 40 CFR 60.27, states that only the Administrator can approve a 

state's revision to its plan. The commenters suggested the text be explicit such as it is in 60.27 

and 60.28. The commenters also suggested that if EPA does not choose to explicitly allow a state 

to submit a completely revised plan, the final rule may not need to include 60.5785 and instead 

rely on the procedures in 60.27, 60.28, and 60.29 for revisions to a state plan.

Comment 23: The final rule should incorporate the ability of the state or ultimately the 

Administrator, after notice and comment, to suspend the implementation of a particular aspect of 

an accepted State Plan if necessary to address any adverse unforeseen reliability impacts that 

may arise prior to or during the compliance period. These requirements should be clearly 

identified as limited options that should be exercised pursuant to a State Plan outside of the 

enforcement context so as to avoid the possibility of citizen lawsuits or findings of noncompliance, if they are followed and the relief sought is approved by the Administrator.

Response 23: The EPA agrees with the commenters and in this final rule we are providing a 

reliability safety mechanism that provides a path for a state to come to the EPA during an 

immediate unforeseen, emergency situation that threatens reliability to inform the EPA that an 

affected EGU or EGUs may need to temporarily comply with modified emission standards to 

respond to this kind of reliability concern. The reliability safety valve is discussed in section 

VIII.G.2.e in the preamble to the final rule. 

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

Commenters discussed implementation of the RSV through the compliance process. The 

commenters stated that the Final Rule should incorporate the ability of the state or ultimately the 

Administrator, after notice and comment, to suspend the implementation of a particular aspect of 

an accepted State Plan if necessary to address any adverse unforeseen reliability impacts that 

may arise prior to or during the compliance period. The commenters stated that such action 

should, of course, not be taken lightly and should be done in close consultation with reliability 

authorities and neighboring states in the region. Moreover, the commenters stated that such 

action should be undertaken outside of the context of forbearance of use of enforcement 

authority but instead should be an option written into the Final Rule and individual state plans in 

the first instance. In this way, the commenters stated that EGUs or any other entities identified in 

State Plans with compliance obligations can avoid the "Hobson's Choice" of facing penalties for 

reliability violations versus penalties for non-compliance with Section 111(d) of the Clean Air 

Act. 

The commenters stated that just as grid operations are dynamic and can change as a result of 

externalities, it is impossible to make a one-time static determination that reliability can be 

maintained over the life of a submitted State Plan. The commenters stated that, accordingly, the 

RSV process should also be applied during the compliance stages to identify potential reliability 

issues and, as necessary, to enable entities to petition for a modification to a State Plan to address 
310

unforeseen reliability impacts within that state or a neighboring state. The commenters stated that 

petitioning entities should be able to seek modification to, or suspension of, the State Plan 

through a clearly defined and efficient process set forth in the Final Rule.

The commenters stated that the length of time during which a suspension or modification is 

authorized should be driven by the time needed to implement cost effective, timely and efficient 

"work-a-rounds" that address the identified reliability problem. The commenters stated that such 

solutions could include maintaining a unit otherwise slated for retirement, construction of a new 

transmission line or the development of targeted and localized demand response and energy 

efficiency programs. The commenters stated that it is important that the scope and burden of 

proof associated with such a petition be clearly identified in the Final Rule so these instances are 

limited to those situations where a potential reliability violation has been clearly identified and 

verified, and would include a showing that there are no compliance alternatives (or other 

alternatives within the ambit of the State Plan) that are sufficient to address the non-compliance 

within the remaining time period for compliance. The commenters stated that verification of the 

reliability challenge and the time for alternative solutions to be implemented can be provided by 

independent entities, such as the region's RTO/ISO, with further review and comment by the 

state Public Utility Commissions, NERC, and FERC if so desired.

The commenters stated that these requirements should be embodied in the Final Rule and clearly 

identified as limited options which should be exercised pursuant to a State Plan outside of the 

enforcement context. According to the commenters, this would avoid the specter of citizen 

lawsuits or findings of non-compliance as conditions precedent to the ability of a state or the 

Administrator to grant the requested relief.

Commenters stated that although the reliability safety valve (RSV) adopted in the MATS rule 

was a successful model of RTO/EPA coordination and cooperation, implementation of the RSV 

in that instance needed to be accomplished through an awkward process of an EPA 

"Enforcement Memorandum" outside of the rule itself which suggested enforcement forbearance 

in defined circumstances. Moreover, the commenters noted the MATS RSV process did not 

remove the specter of citizen lawsuits for extensions beyond April 16, 2016. Rather, the 

commenters stated that it required entities which could not meet the MATS deadlines of April 

16, 2016 to first receive findings of non-compliance through an EPA Administrative Order 

which could be used against them in related civil litigation. 

The commenters stated that Section 111(d) provides a great deal more flexibility than was 

available to EPA under the MATS rule. Moreover, the commenters stated that section 111(d) 

compliance plans will require a greater deal of regional coordination as a reliability compliance 

issue may affect a neighboring state requiring that state, rather than the original submitting state, 

to seek a modification. For these reasons, the commenters stated the traditional "forbearance 

from enforcement" model utilized in MATS is a poor fit for adjustments to State Plans needed to 

address demonstrated reliability challenges arising during the compliance period.

Accordingly, the commenters requested that the availability of a limited RSV for demonstrated 

reliability problems which arise during the compliance period be written into the Final Rule itself 

as a permissible means that, if followed and approved by the Administrator, would not trigger a 
311

violation of the Rule itself. The commenters, along with the ISO/RTO Council, proposed specific 

language in the Attachments included in their comment to address this issue.

Comment 24: The "no backsliding" provision in the proposed rule raises concerns because the 

term "backsliding" is not defined and, for a rule as expansive as the Section 111(d) rule, where 

one state's actions can have a significant impact on another state, inclusion of this provision may 

generate litigation and create an inflexible limitation on the Administrator's ability to address 

legitimate reliability needs through revised state plans as part of the reliability safety valve 

(RSV).

Response 24: For a discussion on “anti-backsliding” provisions, see section VIII.E.9.b. – State 

plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule. We proposed that revisions “should not 

result in reducing the required emission performance for affected EGUs specified in the original 

approved plan. In other words, no ‘backsliding’ on overall plan emission performance through a 

plan modification would be allowed.” We received adverse comments that this standard did not 

have a basis in section 111(d). According to commenters, since the standard for EPA approval of 

a section 111(d) plan is whether the plan is satisfactory in establishing and providing for 

implementation and enforcement of standards of performance that achieve the performance 

emission rates or goal, the same standard should apply to revisions. In other words, the standard 

for revisions should be whether the plan as revised is satisfactory. We believe that our proposal 

was unclear as to this point and we agree that the same standard for revisions should be the same 

as for submittals. We have finalized this position.

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

Commenters stated that the RSV they discuss elsewhere contemplates modifications to a state 

plan during the compliance period and possible submission of amended plans to address 

demonstrated reliability challenges that are identified and verified. However, the commenters

expressed concern about the "no backsliding" provision in the proposed rule. The commenters

stated the Proposed Rule does not define the term "backsliding." The commenters stated that 

although this term is commonly used in EPA parlance, for a rule as expansive as the Section 

111(d) rule, where one state's actions can have a significant impact on another state, inclusion of 

this provision may simply prove grist for litigation and an inflexible limitation on the 

Administrator's desire to address legitimate reliability needs. For example, the commenters stated 

that RTOs have had the authority under their Tariffs to compensate generators for operating 

beyond their otherwise desired deactivation dates to address temporary needs to provide 

generation support in load pockets while various transmission fixes or other generation additions 

were being constructed. The commenters stated that technically, retaining generators otherwise 

slated for retirement through "Reliability Must Run" contracts, although limited and justified 

only for local reliability needs, could well be deemed "backsliding" and thus in violation of the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters noted that often RTOs and federal and state regulators need to 

make quick decisions on whether or not to allow a generator to continue in this manner. The 

commenters stated it would be unwise for EPA to set up an enforcement "trap" (or the specter of 

citizen lawsuits) around such agreements by including in the Final Rule an absolute prohibition 

on "backsliding" governing any revised State Plan provision. The commenters stated that what 
312

one could pejoratively describe as "backsliding" another could quite clearly justify as needed to 

ensure system reliability while alternative measures are being put into place. The commenters

noted that central to the RSV is the ability to modify State Plans when necessary to adapt to 

demonstrated and verified reliability issues that arise during the compliance period. Commenters

stated that a "no backsliding" provision, although an important goal that should be addressed by 

RTOs and others seeking such agreements, should not become its own legally enforceable sword 

to thwart attempts to make needed modifications to address unforeseen reliability issues that 

cannot be mitigated during the compliance period. As result, the commenters urged that EPA 

eliminate the rigidity of this language in the Proposed Rule and, at most, require that it be one 

matter to be considered in the Administrator's review of any modifications to a State Plan filed to 

address unanticipated reliability issues.

Comment 25: The EPA must give States the opportunity to adjust their SIPs dynamically in 

response to changes in the electric grid that at the time of original SIP development were not 

foreseeable. This ongoing assessment and flexibility is essential because the proposed rule has an 

unprecedented scope and degree of complexity, and it requires a wide range of entities to take 

action over a long period of time.

Response 25: The EPA agrees with the commenters that modifications to state plans may be 

beneficial for states to adjust their state plans in response to changes in the electric grid that at 

the time of original state plan development are not foreseeable. In order to account for changes in 

the electrical grid that were not foreseeable at the time of original state plan development, the 

EPA is finalizing that for new projections of emission performance, the projection methods, 

tools, and assumptions do not have to match those used for the projection in the original 

demonstration of plan performance. The process for states to modify their state plans is discussed 

in VIII.E.7 – State plan modifications, in the preamble to the final rule.

In this final rule we are also providing a reliability safety mechanism that provides a path for a 

state to come to the EPA during an immediate unforeseen, emergency situation that threatens 

reliability to inform the EPA that an affected EGU or EGUs may need to temporarily comply 

with modified emission standards to respond to this kind of reliability concern. The reliability 

valve is discussed in section VIII.G.2 of the final rule preamble. 

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

Commenters stated that EPA must adopt a dynamic reliability safety valve that provides the 

States the flexibility they need to ensure reliability. The commenters stated that EPA must also 

give States the opportunity to adjust their SIPs dynamically in response to changes in the electric 

grid that at the time of original SIP development are not foreseeable. The commenters stated that 

the IRC recognized this in proposing that "the final rule should allow for the use of a "rolling" 

RSV process to assess system reliability on a prospective basis at multiple states both prior to the 

SIP being finalized and approved and at various steps during its implementation, as necessary. 

The commenters stated that this kind of ongoing assessment and flexibility is essential because 

the proposed rule has an unprecedented scope and degree of complexity. The commenters stated 

that it requires a wide range of entities to take action over a long period of time, including but not 
313

limited to FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, federal resource agencies responsible for 

permitting new electric and gas infrastructure, state legislatures, state regulators, state-regulated 

utilities and a wide range of non-state-regulated entities including transmission owners and 

operators, regional transmission entities, gas producers, owners of gas storage, gas pipelines, 

independent power producers, providers of energy efficiency services, and financial entities. 

The commenters stated that the States' and EGUs' ability to comply with the Proposed Rule, and 

to maintain compliance with it, depends on an unusually broad range of conditions that are 

completely beyond the States' and EGUs' ability to control. The commenters stated that the 

resources on the grid and their ability to serve consumers' energy needs change dynamically in 

response to intentional and unintentional changes in grid architecture, changes in market design 

and market conditions for the different participants, changes in technology, fires, floods, ice 

storms, and even economic growth and contractions. The commenters stated that by defining the 

"best system of emissions reductions" to encompass the whole electric system, the EPA has 

made compliance dependent on all of those changing factors. The commenters listed eleven 

examples.

The commenters noted that the States ought to be considering the availability, dispatchability, 

and emissions impacts of different emissions control approaches in developing their SIPs. The 

commenters stated that however these factors are interdependent across the electric system and 

change dynamically. The commenters stated that if EPA does not permit States to amend their 

SIPs and their compliance goals dynamically as the system changes -- and thus as the best 

system of emissions reductions available to the States changes -- EPA will force the States to 

choose between compliance and reliability, economic growth, and technological innovation. The 

commenters noted that States and EGUs could face EPA compliance penalties and citizen suits 

due to factors entirely beyond their control. EPA cannot permit that result.

Comment 26: The rule should have a periodic process to consider changed circumstances or 

unanticipated events that require changes to the state implementation plans and schedule.

Response 26: The EPA does not agree with the commenters that a periodic process to consider 

changed circumstances or unanticipated events should be required in the final rule. States, 

industry, and RTOs are in the best position to assess future needs of the electrical grid. In the 

event that changed circumstances or unanticipated events do require a change to the state plan, 

the state may submit a state plan modification to the EPA at any time. Modifications to state 

plans are discussed in section VIII.E.7 of the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that there should be a periodic process to consider changed circumstances or 

unanticipated events that require changes to the state implementation plans and schedule. The 

commenters stated that the periodic review process should include participation by FERC and 

state commissions, for consideration of the implementation schedule and whether rates continue 

to be just and reasonable. The commenters stated that impacts of plant closings and the schedule 

for retirements should continue to be studied at the RTO level, with the study results and time 

frames incorporated in the periodic review process. 
314

Comment 27: States must be able to amend or modify plans, including interim milestones and 

the mix of emission reduction strategies, to account for changes in technology or unforeseen 

delays within the state in adopting some of the planned control measures or associated 

infrastructure (e.g., new transmission lines). This flexibility is needed to maintain a robust 

transmission/distribution grid while keeping high reliability.

Response 27: The EPA agrees that states may want the ability to reassess and recalibrate their 

state plans after submitting their final state plan to EPA. The EPA is finalizing that for new 

projections of emission performance, the projection methods, tools, and assumptions do not have 

to match those used for the projection in the original demonstration of plan performance; they 

can be updated to reflect the latest data and assumptions, such as assumptions for current and 

future economic conditions and technology cost and performance. This is discussed in section 

VIII.E.7.a – Modifications to an approved state plan, in the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters explained that states must be able to amend plans, and to provide alternatives, offramps, or delays as necessary to assist utilities in meeting the statutory obligations and to comply 

with the Clean Power Plan while maintaining a robust transmission/distribution grid while 

keeping high reliability. However, the commenters noted that once a state plan is submitted and 

approved by EPA, it is a federally enforceable plan and may not be altered. The commenters

noted for example, a state may adopt a renewable energy mandate as part of its state plan, but a 

few years into implementation, severe transmission constraints might arise or transmission 

construction might be delayed by litigation, limiting the amount of renewable power that can be 

carried. The commenters explained that a state cannot adjust the interim milestones to allow for 

the time of transmission build-out ahead of the renewables; their hands are tied because a state 

cannot change its plan to lower the renewable mandate and to increase natural gas dispatch to 

meet the unexpected transmission challenge. Likewise, the commenters stated that technology 

may develop to the point that a state legislature may abandon its renewable energy mandate in 

favor of carbon capture technology (assuming its development eventually occurs at a commercial 

level). According to the commenters, if the state ends the renewable energy mandate in favor of 

another technology - even one that creates more GHG savings, that state cannot simply change it 

at the legislature, but rather it is "stuck" until such time as an extraordinary application for 

modification is made under Clean Air Act section 111(f) and the state plan is re-written, resubmitted to the EPA, re-evaluated, re-opened for comment and hopefully approved by the EPA. 

Comment 28: Comment stating that, by allowing states to modify their plans, the EPA can 

ensure that the 2030 goals are achieved while allowing states sufficient flexibility to design their 

own compliance glide path using the proposed approach to state plans, and recommending that 

the final guidelines should clarify that states can modify plans to promote maximum state 

flexibility in the design of compliance plans that would be approved by the EPA and to enable 

states to take into account changed circumstances, such as improvements in clean energy and 

other technologies.
315

Response 28: The EPA agrees with the commenters that allowing modifications is beneficial 

and allows states more flexibility in designing their own plans and to account for any changed 

circumstances. Modifications to state plans are allowed in this final rule, and are discussed in 

section VIII.E.7 of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters noted that states would be required to demonstrate reasonable and verifiable 

progress toward the 2030 goal and could not delay taking action to reduce emissions. The 

commenters noted that the EPA's proposed guidelines already would require that states submit -

and that EPA approve - plans that clearly set forth how states would achieve the 2030 goal. The 

commenters noted that once approved by EPA, a state's plan, including the emission reduction 

glide path, would become federally enforceable. The commenters noted that 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. The commenters stated that ultimately, if states could not show reasonable 

progress toward the 2030 goal, EPA would have the authority to call for a state to correct its plan 

or issue a federal plan of its own. The commenters stated that, by allowing states to modify their 

plans, EPA can ensure that the 2030 goals are achieved while allowing states sufficient 

flexibility to design their own compliance glide path using the proposed approach to state plans. 

The commenters recommended that the final guidelines should clarify that states can modify 

plans to promote maximum state flexibility in the design of compliance plans that would be 

approved by the EPA and to enable states to take into account changed circumstances, such as 

improvements in clean energy and other technologies. The commenters recommended that the 

final guidelines should also affirm that EPA will approve compliance plans that satisfy the 

requirements for such plans. Finally, the commenters recommended that the guidelines should 

recognize a range of potentially approvable options for defining state emission glide paths that 

reflect "reasonable progress" that would be unique to the specific circumstances within a state or 

multi-state program and, in particular, should support the use of existing programs and market 

mechanisms.

Additionally, the commenters supported both ideas described in the NODA Section III.A (The 

2020 to 2029 Glide Path) which could modify the state's existing goal glide path. The 

commenters noted that the first idea related to glide path modification on the basis of needed 

infrastructure improvements and the second idea related to the pace at which existing generation 

assets are shifted to new generation resources, thus avoiding customer excessive costs and 

stranded assets. The commenters agreed that providing each state this flexibility to modify the 

overall 2020-2029 glide path, based upon source specifics, is a necessary consideration in the 

final rule.

6.4.6 Plan templates and electronic submittal

This section discusses the comments received in the need for a state plan template and on the 

option of submitting state plans electronically. For the proposal, the EPA requested comment on 
316

the creation of a template for state use in preparing initial and complete state plan submittals to 

provide greater certainty of approval in preparing state plans. The EPA also requested comment 

on whether it should provide for, or require, electronic submittal of initial and complete plans. 

The comments in this section address these two subjects on which EPA requested comment.

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

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

Comment 1: The EPA should provide state plan templates because they could facilitate the 

development of state plans. However, it should be clear that these templates are not prescriptive 

and states are not required to follow the templates. 

Response 1: The EPA has determined that the broad range of approaches states may take in 

preparing individual or multi-state plans makes the development of specific templates 

challenging and likely not useful to states. However, the EPA is proposing model rules for both 

rate- and mass-based programs in conjunction with the proposed Federal Plan. These effectively 

can serve as a template for states when preparing their state plan submittals. The EPA will

continue extensive outreach to states and stakeholders and work closely with them on the need 

for additional tools and guidance to facilitate the development of approvable state plans.

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

Commenters agreed that state plan templates would be helpful. 

Commenters stated that EPA's suggestion of creating a state plan template would not hurt states 

and could help streamline EPA's approval process. However, the commenters stated that the 

template should not be prescriptive and must ensure that ample flexibility for states is still 

allowed.

Commenters supported template plans as long as it is clear that states are not required to follow 

the template. Similarly, commenters stated that the twelve state plan components are familiar to 

states that have been required to prepare state plans for incineration sources under CAA sections 

129 and 111(d). The commenters stated that all of those twelve components are sensible and easy 

to comprehend in the context of requiring particular sources to meet emissions limitations for 

identified pollutants. The commenters noted that EPA's issuance of state plan templates can be a 

useful means of facilitating timely state plan submission and assist states that have had less 

experience with state plan submissions or state implementation plan submissions under CAA 

Section 110. Additionally, the commenters stated that templates may also facilitate consistency 

across the various EPA regions. However, the commenters stated that EPA should not mandate 

the use of the templates. The commenters noted that state plan templates can also serve the 

purpose of specifying the minimum level of information necessary to secure an extension. The 

commenters stated that EPA must recognize that there will be factors outside the control of state 

environmental agencies (e.g., the schedule of convening state legislative bodies) that may require 

accommodation and additional time may be necessary to develop multi-state plans.
317

Comment 2: Model plans are needed so states and affected entities will have a sufficient 

understanding of what a state plan must look like in order to be approved by EPA. The model 

plans should specify the level of state jurisdictional authority that must be imbedded into a state 

plan for each of the building blocks and to what degree the enforcement authority must be clearly 

transferable to the EPA in order to be approvable. For example, there are no precedents for 

including activities that are governed by state PUCs and these activities should be written into a 

state plan.

Response 2: The EPA is proposing model rules for both rate- and mass-based programs in 

conjunction with the proposed Federal Plan. These effectively can serve as a template for states 

when preparing their state plan submittals. We disagree that not proposing a model plan is cause 

for the EPA to reissue the proposed guidelines. Nothing in the Clean Air Act or Part 60 requires 

the Agency to provide a federal plan or model rule concurrently with Emissions Guidelines. In 

proposing a federal plan concurrently with the finalization of the Emission Guidelines, the EPA 

is moving expeditiously to respond to commenters’ desire to see the contents of a federal plan or 

model plan. 

The final rule provides considerable discretion to the states in setting emission standards and 

related plan requirements. As explained in section VIII.C.6.d of the preamble, the EPA is not 

finalizing the proposed portfolio approach, so comments specific to this proposed approach to 

111(d) state plan design are moot. Instead, the EPA is finalizing an option to submit either an 

“emission standards” plan type, which includes only federally enforceable measures on affected 

EGUs, or a “state measures” plan type. Under a state measures plan type, a mass CO2 emission 

goal may be partially or entirely achieved through state measures that impose requirements on 

entities other than affected EGUs, that are only enforceable by the state, and are not included in 

the federally enforceable section 111(d) state plan. Therefore, under the commenters’ example, a 

citizen could not sue a building owner under the CAA for failing to comply with building 

standards that are incorporated into a state plan. If the state opts to submit a state measure plan 

type, it must submit standards of performance for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the 

form of a federally enforceable “backstop” that would be triggered if the state measures fail to 

achieve the required CO2 emission performance level or the state misses a performance 

milestone. The backstop emission standards constitute the standards of performance required by 

section 111(d), and the state plan provides for the implementation and enforcement of such 

standards of performance by specifying the trigger mechanism and conditions under which the 

backstop emission standards apply to affected EGUs. Upon EPA approval of a state measures 

plan under section 111(d), the backstop emission standards become federally enforceable 

requirements, which EPA and citizens may enforce against affected EGUs under section 113 and 

section 304 of the Act, respectively, once triggered and implemented to address a shortfall in 

necessary emission reductions. See section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble. 

The final emission guidelines require that all section 111(d) state plans, including state measures 

plans, specify CO2 emission monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for affected 

EGUs, demonstrate that plan measures are enforceable as a practical matter, and contain the 

process, content and schedule for state reporting to the EPA on plan implementation and 

progress toward meeting the required CO2 emission performance level. For state measures plans 

in particular, the final emission guidelines also require states to submit annual reports to the EPA 

that address periodic programmatic milestones to show progress in program implementation. See
318

section VIII of the final rule preamble. The EPA intends to review each submitted state plan on a 

case-by-case basis to determine whether it satisfactorily addresses the Act’s enforceability 

requirements. Final EPA action on any submitted 111(d) state plan, including a state measures 

plan, is subject to judicial review under section 307(b) of the Act. For the required components 

of a state plan, including components related to federal and/or state enforceability under different 

plan types and existing guidance documents, see Section VIII.D.2 of the CPP final rule 

preamble.

The EPA is finalizing the option of a state measures plan type, which would place federally 

enforceable measures only on affected EGUs. EE, RE, and other measures that are not on 

affected EGUs would not be federally enforceable under this plan type and would only be 

enforceable by the state. See Section VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

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

Commenters stated EPA should develop several model plans for states to evaluate as templates 

for implementation at the state level. 

Commenters asserted that states and affected entities currently lack a sufficient understanding of 

what a state plan must look like in order to be approved by EPA. The commenters stated that the 

failure of EPA to provide a draft plan or plans is especially troubling given the novelty of the 

type of plan that must be submitted by states under EPA's new interpretation of the CAA. 

The commenters questioned, for example, what level of state jurisdictional authority must be 

imbedded into a state plan in order to meet EPA's expectations of a minimal level of federal 

enforceability to be approved? The commenters stated that there are no precedents for including 

activities that are governed by state PUCs that could inform how state authorities should write 

these activities into a state plan. The commenters argued that the lack of a model plan for how to 

accomplish this is both troubling and cause alone for EPA to reissue this rule with additional 

guidance for comment. 

The commenters stated that model plans should clearly lay out what authorities EPA expects 

states to imbed into a state plan under each of the building blocks and to what degree each 

building block enforcement authority must be clearly transferable to the EPA in order to be 

approvable. The commenters suggested that the EPA more clearly explain in what manner those 

authorities are to be federally enforceable under the CAA, how EPA might enforce CAA 

authorities under a state plan if an affected entity failed to meet the interim or final goal, and how 

citizen suits are to interrelate to state and federal enforcement authority. The commenters asked 

for example, can a citizen sue a building owner under the CAA for failing to comply with 

building standards that are incorporated into a state plan? If so, the commenters asked what 

potential CAA enforcement and penalty liability will building owners be accepting with the 

incorporation of building standards into a state plan. The commenters stated that the EPA's 

failure to provide a model state plan is an oversight that impairs the ability of states and affected 

entities to understand how a state plan can be crafted.
319

Comment 3: To support state plan development, EPA should provide model plan components 

that include, for example, flexible, source-permit-based rate-based programs and mass-based 

programs with trading. The model components should also emphasize deployment of renewable 

energy and demand-side energy efficiency. The EPA should also provide guidance on the full 

range of potential multistate approaches, including joint state plans and allowing emission 

reduction credits to cross state lines.

Response 3: The EPA is proposing model rules for both rate- and mass-based programs in 

conjunction with the proposed Federal Plan. Renewable energy is discussed in sections V.E and 

VIII.G in the preamble to the final rule. Additionally, section VIII.H of the CPP final rule 

preamble describes resources for states to consider in developing plans. EPA decided not to 

finalize demand side energy efficiency as part of the best system of emission reduction. 

However, states may use EE as a non-BSER compliance measure as discussed in section VIII of 

the CPP final rule preamble. State approaches, including multi-state plans and multi-state 

coordination, are addressed in section VIII.C of the CPP final rule preamble. Emission reduction 

credits are found in section V of the CPP final rule preamble.

For the required components of a state plan, including components related to federal and/or state 

enforceability under different plan types and existing guidance documents, see Section VIII.D.2

of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters stated that in order to support state plan development, EPA should provide model 

plan components that states could utilize (for example flexible, source-permit-based rate-based 

programs and mass-based programs with trading). The commenters stated that EPA should 

emphasize model components facilitating state deployment of renewable energy and demandside energy efficiency. The commenters stated that EPA should also specify minimum criteria or 

requirements for each policy approach to ensure enforceability. Further, the commenters stated 

that EPA should provide guidance on the full range of potential multistate approaches from 

agreements about renewable energy and energy efficiency, to frameworks allowing emission 

reduction credits to cross state lines, to joint state plans. 

Comment 4: The EPA should allow but not require electronic submittal of state plans, and the 

EPA should have this program in place in time for states to take advantage of it at the discretion 

of each state.

Response 4: The EPA disagrees that electronic submittal should not be required. It is the EPA’s 

experience that electronic submittal of information has increased the ease and efficiency of data 

submittal and data accessibility. Requiring electronic submittal is in keeping with current trends 

in data availability and will result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic 

submittal will facilitate two-way business communication between states and the EPA, will 

guide states through the submittal process to ensure submission of all required plan components, 

and will enable states to submit proposed plans to the EPA electronically for early EPA 

comments. Electronic submittal will also facilitate, expedite and promote national consistency in 
320

the EPA’s review of state plans and promote transparency by providing stakeholder-specific

access to updated information on state plan status and posting of plan requirements for viewing 

by the public, government regulators and regulated entities. The EPA believes electronic 

submittal will be enormously beneficial in terms of improving coordination and cooperation 

between the EPA and its state partners in developing approvable state plans. The EPA is 

finalizing the requirement that submissions related to CPP be submitted electronically. 

Specifically, that includes negative declarations, state plan submittals (including any supporting 

materials that are part of a state plan submittal), any plan revisions, and all reports required by 

the state plan. The EPA is developing the State Plan Electronic Collection System (SPeCS), a 

web accessible electronic system to support this requirement that will be accessed at the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx/). Detailed instructions for accessing 

CDX and SPeCS will be outlined in the “111(d) SPeCS User Guide: How to submit state 111(d) 

plan material to EPA” which will be available on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan Toolbox for 

States. The EPA will provide SPeCS training for states prior to the state plan submittal due date.

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

Commenters addressed the EPA's request for comment on whether to provide for, or require, 

electronic submittal of initial and complete plans (79 FR 34917). 

Commenters stated that the EPA should allow but not require electronic submittal of state plans. 

According to the commenters, while allowing electronic submittal of state plans may provide 

some advantages, states should be allowed to decide the most appropriate media to make 

submittals based on the circumstances. The commenters suggested that EPA should not consider 

such a requirement until an electronic submittal system is fully established and vetted by the 

states.

As an active participant in EPA's Electronic State Implementation Plan Submission Pilot,

commenters agreed that the electronic submittal of information increases the ease and efficiency 

of data submittal and accessibility; and has environmental benefits. The commenters stated that 

electronic submittal is entirely suitable for state plans under section 111(d) as well as for state 

implementations plans (SIPs) under section 110, and encouraged the EPA to have this program 

in place in time for states to take advantage of it at the discretion of each state.

Comment 5: The EPA should prepare a state plan template to provide greater certainty of 

approval in preparing state plans, and it is imperative that the template be provided concurrent 

with the final regulation to ensure its use by states. Because of the diverse nature and magnitude 

of the state plans that are likely to be submitted, compared to section 110 SIPs (which have been 

through a pilot project), these plans may not be amendable to electronic submission at this time.

Response 5: The EPA has determined that the broad range of approaches states may take in 

preparing individual or multi-state plans makes the development of specific templates 

challenging and likely not useful to states. However, the EPA is proposing model rules for both 

rate- and mass-based programs in conjunction with the proposed Federal Plan. These effectively 
321

can serve as a template for states when preparing their state plan submittals. As the commenters

mentioned, the recent successful implementation of electronic submittal of state implementation 

plans, which are comparable in complexity to section 111(d) plans, supports the EPA finalizing 

the requirement that submissions related to CPP be submitted electronically. The EPA is 

developing the State Plan Electronic Collection System (SPeCS), a web accessible electronic 

system to support this requirement that will be accessed at the EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) (http://www.epa.gov/cdx/). The EPA will provide detailed instructions for accessing 

CDX and the use of SPeCS will be outlined in the “111(d) SPeCS User Guide: How to submit 

state 111(d) plan material to EPA” which will be available on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan 

Toolbox for States. The EPA does not agree that section 111(d) state plans are not amenable to 

electronic submission. It is the EPA’s experience that electronic submittal of information has 

increased the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility and is in keeping with 

current trends in data availability and will result in less burden on the regulated community. 

Electronic submittal will also facilitate, expedite and promote national consistency in the EPA’s 

review of state plans and promote transparency by providing stakeholder-specific access to 

updated information on state plan status and posting of plan requirements for viewing by the 

public, government regulators and regulated entities. The EPA believes electronic enormously 

beneficial in terms of improving coordination and cooperation between the EPA and its state 

partners in developing approvable state plans. Submittal will be 

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

Commenters noted that EPA requested comment on the creation of a template for state use in 

preparing initial and complete state plan submittals and supported preparation of a template by 

EPA to provide greater certainty of approval in preparing state plans. According to the 

commenters, it is imperative that the template be provided concurrent with the final regulation to 

ensure its use by states. The commenters also noted that EPA requested comment on whether it 

should provide for, or require, electronic submittal of initial and complete plans. The 

commenters noted that electronic submittal of SIPs has been through a pilot project, but has not 

yet been applied across the board. The commenters indicated that this particular plan, being a 

CAA section 111(d) state plan versus a section 110 SIP, may not be the most appropriate one to 

roll out the project because of the diverse nature and magnitude of the plans that' will be 

submitted to EPA.

6.4.7 Multi-state plans

This section discusses the process and timeline for the submittal, review, approval, and 

modification of multi-state plans. The EPA proposed that states developing a plan that includes a

multi-state approach would have one year after the emission guidelines are finalized to submit an 

initial plan and three years to submit a final plan. Further, the EPA proposed that states

participating in a multi-state plan may submit a single joint plan on behalf of all of the 

participating states, and took comment on other submittal approaches. The comments in this

section also address whether a state could change at a later time from a single-state plan to a 
322

multi-state plan. The comments also considered the proposed schedule for developing interim 

and final multi-state plans.

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

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

Comment 1: States in a multi-state plan should have the option of submitting individual state 

plans that separately address the joint and state-specific plan elements. The EPA should provide 

more time for the development of multi-state plans and provide clear guidelines for multi-state 

plans.

Response 1: In response to comments, the final emission guidelines allow states to submit 

multistate plans in different forms, including a single multistate plan submittal, a single 

multistate plan submittal that addresses common multistate plan elements complemented by 

single-state plan submittals that address state-specific elements, and multiple single-state plan 

submittals that address common plan elements and state-specific plan elements. The different 

submittal forms for multistate plans are discussed in section VIII.E.1 of the preamble to the final 

rule.

In response to comments, the EPA is providing up to three years for the submittal of a final 

single-state or multistate plan. The deadlines for initial and final plan submissions, including the 

rationale for these deadlines, are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule. 

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

The commenters noted that EPA's Proposed Guidelines assert that states participating in multistate plans should submit a single plan signed by authorized officials from each participating 

state and that all required plan components must be included and address these requirements for 

the group as a whole. The commenters noted that EPA also requests comment on whether states 

should submit a single joint multi-state plan along with individual state plans addressing 

separately joint and state-specific plan elements. Id. The commenters noted that EPA also asks 

for comment on whether each state participating in a multi-state plan should submit its own plan 

without submitting any joint plan. Id. The commenters recommended that EPA allow states to 

proceed how they wish because different processes will work more effectively for different 

parties, and EPA gains nothing by arbitrarily limiting state discretion. 

Commenters generally supported allowing states to enter into multi-state plans if they wish. 

However, the commenters noted that developing and finalizing multi-state plans in the timeframe 

allowed by EPA's Proposed Guidelines would be extremely challenging if not impossible. The 

commenters stated that EPA should provide more time for the development of these plans and 

provide clear guidelines for multi-state plans.

Comment 2: The EPA should provide flexible plan submittal options for multi-state agreements.
323

Response 2: See response to comment number 1.

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

Commenters supported maintaining flexible plan submittal options for multi-state agreements, 

including individual state compliance plans, a single compliance plan submittal for all states 

participating in a multi-state approach, or a single compliance plan for all common components 

of a multi-state approach supplemented by individual plans for state-specific plan components.

Comment 3: States in a multi-state plan should be given the option of providing a single 

submittal for their respective state and should have additional time to submit a complete multistate plan. The EPA should provide states an avenue to create issue-specific multi-state 

agreements even if they cannot agree on a comprehensive multi-state compliance plan.

Response 3: See response to comment number 1. In response to comments, the EPA is providing 

for additional means of interstate collaboration where states do not submit a multistate plan that 

meets a joint rate-based or mass-based state CO2 goal. These approaches allow for states to 

coordinate in the implementation of rate-based and mass-based emission trading programs, 

through the interstate transfer of ERCs and emission allowances, respectively. These plan 

approaches are described in sections VIII.C.5.c and VIII.C.5.d of the preamble to the final rule. 

These plan approaches functionally provide for a similar type of flexibility as that addressed by 

the commenters. 

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

The commenters stated that EPA's proposal that only one multi-state plan could be submitted on 

behalf of all participating states should help encourage the adoption of such approaches. But, 

states participating in a multi-state plan should also be given the option of providing a single

submittal for their respective state. The commenters supported the proposal that a state would 

have additional time to submit a complete multi-state plan. The commenters noted that while 

compliance timeframes should be as short as possible, giving more time in this respect could 

serve to incentivize more states to embrace a multi-state approach.

The commenters supported EPA's effort to encourage cooperation and urged EPA to further help 

states see the benefits of engaging in regional compliance discussions. The commenters also 

encouraged EPA to make clear that states need not form full multi-state compliance plans to 

benefit from regional coordination. The commenters stated that multi-state agreements on 

discrete issues - such as the treatment of interstate renewable energy flows and related 

accounting and compliance issues - can help reduce interstate conflict. The commenters noted 

that such plans also simplify compliance obligations and market structures for businesses 

operating in multiple states and increase market transparency and competition, ultimately leading 

to lower implementation costs. The commenters suggested that the EPA should provide states a

clearly approvable avenue to realize the benefits of issue-specific multi-state agreements even if 

they cannot come to an agreement on drafting a comprehensive multi-state compliance plan. For 

instance, the commenters urged the EPA to provide states an avenue to form and join multi-state 
324

compliance plans over time - potentially as part of the regular Section 111(d) review cycle 

proposed herein.

Comment 4: The EPA should consider the same approach used for multistate nonattainment 

areas for criteria pollutants and should vary from that approach only if EPA believes that 

administrative and cost efficiency would be achieved by an alternative approach.

Response 4: The EPA received broad support in comments for allowing states to implement 

multi-state plan approaches, and has made multiple changes in the final rule to address many 

suggestions outlining different approaches states may want to take. These changes are intended 

to provide streamlined approaches for multi-state coordination while maintaining transparency 

and assuring that the CO2 emission performance rates or state CO2 emission goals are achieved. 

See section VIII.C.5 of the final rule preamble for a detailed discussion of multi-state plans. 

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

Commenters stated that with regard to states that may be adopting a multi-state approach to CPP 

compliance, the commenters noted that for multistate nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, 

each state is required to submit an individual attainment plan, although the states must coordinate 

actions during the planning process and may rely on common inventories and modeling to satisfy

the individual state plan requirement. The commenters noted that Connecticut has participated in 

such multistate ozone and particulate matter attainment planning and knows that the process will 

work to achieve the desired result. The commenters stated that EPA should consider whether this 

same approach might be well-suited to multistate areas under the CPP and whether states and 

EPA could benefit from the familiarity of that approach. The commenters stated that EPA should 

vary from that approach only if EPA believes that administrative and cost efficiency would be 

achieved by an alternative approach. 

Comment 5: The EPA should clarify what is expected for the "initial quantification of the level 

of emission performance," and indicate whether different levels of analysis are needed based 

upon whether a state expects to participate in a single or multi-state plan. The commenters

recommended that initial emission performance quantifications be provided on an overall basis 

for all states participating in a given multi-state plan, rather than a state-level basis.

Response 5: The EPA is not finalizing this specific proposed component of an initial submittal. 

Components of an initial plan submittal are discussed in section VIII.E.3 of the preamble to the 

final rule. An initial submittal must describe progress toward addressing all components of a 

final plan. These final plan components, which are discussed in section VIII.D of the preamble to 

the final rule, includes a demonstration that a plan will achieve the CO2 emission performance 

rates for affected EGUs or the state rate-based or mass-based CO2 goal for affected EGUs in the 

emission guidelines. Depending on the design of a state plan, this demonstration may not require 
325

a projection of future CO2 emission performance by affected EGUs under the state plan. For a 

multistate plan, where the plan is designed to achieve the CO2 emission performance rates or a 

joint state CO2 goal, this demonstration is for all affected EGUs subject to the multistate plan. 

Put another way, this demonstration is a joint one for all affected EGUs subject to the multistate 

plan. State-by-state demonstrations are not necessary as part of a multistate plan.

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

Commenters also requested clarification on EPA's expectation regarding the "initial 

quantification of the level of emission performance," and indication whether EPA expects 

different levels of analysis based upon whether a state expects to participate in a single or multistate plan. For a multi-state plan, the commenters noted that state-level quantifications of 

emissions performance may be difficult to produce by mid-2016 (or ever, depending on whether 

a region were to create a trading program or other system where performance is dependent upon 

regional operations that may vary throughout the compliance period). The commenters

recommended that initial quantifications of the level of emission performance be provided on an 

overall (all states participating in a given multi-state plan) basis, rather than a state-level basis.

Comment 6: The EPA should clarify whether the initial (June 30, 2016) submittal for states in 

multi-state plans should be individual preliminary plans or joint plans. One (joint) submittal for 

both initial and final plan submittals for all states in a multi-state plan is recommended.

Response 6: As further explained in section VIII.E of the preamble to the final rule, an initial 

submittal is the vehicle through which states may request an extension for submitting a final 

plan, and does not itself contain legal, enforceable obligations. Though states may submit a joint 

multi-state plan, states must submit individual initial submittals when requesting an extension. 

An individual submittal may contain information about multi-state final plans a state is 

considering.

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

Commenters noted that EPA's proposal (70 FR 34915) indicates that only one multi-state plan 

would need to be submitted on behalf of all participating states. The commenters requested 

clarification on expected procedures for initial (June 30, 2016) submittals - specifically will 

states expecting to participate in multi-state plans be expected to submit individual preliminary 

plans, or joint plans? The commenters recommended that EPA require one (joint) submittal on 

behalf of all states expected to participate in a multi-state plan, for both initial and final plan 

submittals.

Comment 7: It should be up to the participating states to determine whether one plan would 

represent all participating states, or the individual state would submit its own plan.

Response 7: See response to comment number 1.
326

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

Commenters supported two possible approaches for a multi-state plan submittal. The 

commenters stated that it should be up to the participating states to determine whether one plan 

would represent all participating states, or the individual state would submit its own plan. The 

commenters stated that it is conceivable that states participating in a multi-state plan may do so 

through an interstate agreement, and this agreement might be referenced as part of the state plan. 

Similarly, commenters noted that the EPA seeks feedback on whether states participating in a 

multi-state plan should be given the option of providing a single submittal or allowing individual 

state submittals that address all elements of a multi -state plan. (79 FR 34910-11). The 

commenters urged the EPA to give the states flexibility to determine the best reporting structure 

for their particular situation.

Comment 8: When states submit a multi-state plan they should be allowed to submit a partial 

plan for the multistate region and supplemental plans from their own state that complete their 

obligation.

Response 8: See response to comment number 1.

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

Commenters suggested that when states submit a multi-state plan they should be allowed to 

submit a partial plan for the multistate region and supplemental plans from their own state that 

complete their obligation. The commenters stated that it is difficult for multiple actors to agree 

on every detail of something so complex. The commenters stated that some measure of multistate cooperation is more likely to be achieved if stated are allowed to submit that which they can 

agree on and separately dispose of that which they could not agree on.

Comment 9: The EPA should not limit nor precisely dictate the form of a multi-state plan 

submittal, provided the elements are approvable and appropriate signatures are included.

Response 9: See response to comment number 1. The EPA has determined that it is necessary to 

prescribe the basic forms of a multistate submittal to provide information to states about 

acceptable forms and to facilitate review of state plan submittals by the EPA.

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

The commenters noted that the EPA is requesting comment on multi-state plan submittal 

approaches; specifically, whether states participating in a multi-state plan should also be given 

the option of providing a single submittal that addresses common plan elements along with 

individual submittals that provide state-specific elements, or all states participating in a multistate plan separately make individual submittals that address all elements of the multi-state plan. 

The commenters stated that they expect few, if any, states that have not developed multi-state 

plans in the past will be prepared or have sufficient time to plan a multi-state approach under this 
327

proposal. The commenters stated that there is no reason to limit and precisely dictate the form of 

a multi-state plan submittal. The commenters stated that provided the elements are approvable 

and appropriate signatures are included there is no reason to prescribe in regulation this level of 

detail.

Comment 10: The EPA should determine the process to be followed for states whose initial 

strategies may change between initial and final plan submittal when a states decides to withdraw 

from a multi-state plan or when good faith efforts among states fail and states will need to do a 

single-state plan.

Response 10: The EPA is providing for up to three years for the submittal of both final singlestate and multi-state plans. As a result, the potential problems raised by the commenters are no 

longer relevant. Moreover, the EPA has clarified in the final emission guidelines that a state may 

indicate in its initial plan submittal that it is evaluating different plan approaches (which may 

include both single-state and multi-state approaches); a state does not need to commit to which 

of these approaches it will use in its final plan. This is described in section VIII.E.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters requested additional detail regarding EPA's process for States whose initial 

strategies may change between initial and final plan submittal. The commenters provide the 

example of a failure of a Memorandum of Agreement for a multi-state plan that results in a State 

choosing to withdraw and pursue a single-state plan after the single-state plan submittal deadline 

passes. The commenters questioned if EPA would automatically consider the State to have failed 

to submit its plan, would it find the State deficient only after the multi-state deadline passed, or 

does EPA intend to provide some mechanism authorizing such a change in strategy in its final 

rulemaking? The commenters asked for a State that initially intended to submit a single-state 

plan but which, after June 30, 2016, chooses to instead participate in a multi-state approach, must 

they complete a formal revision of their initial plan submittal to indicate the revised approach? 

Similarly, commenters expressed concern regarding how the EPA may take action when a state 

receives an extension for multi-state plan and later finds that collaboration falls through and the 

state will need to do a state-only plan. The commenters stated that the EPA should not take 

premature action when good faith efforts among states fail.

Comment 11: The EPA should clarify whether states can choose to create multi-state plans after 

the June 30, 2018 deadline with advance notice to EPA.

Response 11: A state or states could enter into an existing approved multistate plan subsequent 

to the EPA approval of a single-state plan. This would require a plan modification on the part of 

the state(s) entering the existing multistate plan, as well as a plan modification by the states 

participating in the preexisting multistate plan. States could also enter into linked rate-based or 
328

mass-based emission trading approaches under single-state plans, subsequent to the EPA 

approval of single-state plans that did not include such links. This would require a plan 

modification by all approved single-state plans subject to the link. Where approved single-state 

plans are designated as “trading-ready” by the EPA, these plans would not need to be modified 

when new trading-ready states enter the linked emission trading system. New states entering 

such a linked system with preapproved plans that are not designated as trading-ready would need 

to modify their plans to meet requirements necessary to be designated as trading ready. These 

multistate plan approaches are described in section VIII.C.5.c. of the preamble to the final rule. 

Treatment of multistate plans as part of the plan modification process is described in section 

VIII.E.7. of the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should clarify whether an approach to fostering multi-state 

collaboration would be to allow states that did not file multi-state plans originally, the ability to

negotiate agreements for multi-state plans subsequent to the June 30, 2018 deadline with advance 

notice to the EPA. The commenters stated that this would be consistent with the flexibility 

provided by the EPA to develop new systems for carbon emission tracking, reporting, and 

trading.

Comment 12: The EPA and states will need to allow for the entrance and exit of potential 

collaborating states from multi-state plans, depending on the outcomes of subsequent individual 

state decisions.

Response 12: See response to comment number 10 and 11.

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

Commenters noted that EPA and states will need to allow for the entrance and exit of potential 

collaborating states from multi-state coordination, depending on the outcomes of subsequent 

individual state decisions.

Comment 13: The EPA should clarify that a state does not lose its extension if a multi-state plan 

is ultimately unsuccessful in whole or in part, and should grant states more time to implement 

contingencies for states entering or leaving a multi-state plan.

Response 13: See response to comment number 10.

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

Commenters suggested that EPA should clarify that a state does not lose its extension if multistate coordination is ultimately not successful in whole or in part, and grant states more time to 
329

implement contingencies to respond to a state or states dropping out of or joining a multi-state 

compliance plan.

Comment 14: The EPA should clarify the applicability of a granted extension when a state or 

group of states pursue a multistate plan and then are unable to finalize a multi-state plan and 

instead finalize individual state plans. Could the states be subject to federal enforcement action 

or be subject to citizen suits?

Response 14: See response to comment number 10.

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

Commenters supported the option to pursue multi-state plans, and providing a longer time frame 

for multi-state planning efforts. The commenters requested clarity regarding the circumstances 

when a state or group of states may request an extension to pursue a multistate plan and then are 

not able to finalize a multi-state plan and instead finalize individual state plans. The commenters

noted that in the proposed guidelines, the EPA briefly requests comment on additional options 

for multi-state plan submittals and mentions that these options might address contingencies 

during plan development where a state fails to finalize its participation in a multi-state plan, but 

does not provide sufficient information as to how this circumstance would be handled by the 

EPA and why the EPA believes the alternative options would avoid or otherwise compensate for 

this contingency. Given the relatively tight timeframe for plan development and the complexity 

of negotiating a multi-state plan (even prior to required legislative or regulatory actions), the 

commenters recommended that EPA plan for the reality that states may pursue this option, only 

to realize that they cannot receive the necessary approvals to actually participate in a multi-state 

plan. In this case, the commenters recommended that the EPA should provide more information 

in the final guidelines as to what action the EPA plans to take should this occur. The commenters

asked: 

Will states be subject to federal enforcement in the event one or more states have been granted 

the multi-state plan extension, but end up pursing individual state plans? 

Will states be subject to citizens suits in this case? 

Given the complexity and scope of EPA's proposal and the actual amount of time it took to 

launch the same multi-state trading programs the EPA relies on to demonstrate that multi-state 

plans can work, the commenters stated that it seems logical to presume that while some states 

may earnestly want to engage in multi-state planning efforts, to do so will likely require 

legislative or other changes that are not entirely within the environmental agency's control; 

therefore, may not result in the necessary approvals to follow through and implement a multistate plan. The commenters requested clarity here and recommends that EPA provide the 

information necessary for states to be able to adequately evaluate the overall risk and benefits 

that may come with pursing such a plan.
330

Comment 15: Before states submit compliance plans, the EPA should provide clear guidance on 

how to attribute GHG reductions associated with RE among states in the planning area to avoid 

double counting reductions. Clear guidance on attribution might encourage states to develop 

cooperative approaches for addressing the interstate effects of RE generation.

Response 15: The EPA is not finalizing the specific approach mentioned by the commenters, as 

it is not relevant in the context of a multistate plan where states are jointly meeting a single 

multistate rate-based or mass-based CO2 goal. Such state-by-state recognitions of resources used 

to meet the emission guidelines are not relevant in a multistate plan context. In addition, states 

may address such issues by providing for the interstate transfer of ERCs or emission allowances

under emission trading programs implemented under a single-state plan. These plan approaches 

are discussed in section VIII.C.5.c of the preamble to the final rule. Furthermore, the final 

emission guidelines allow states to tap out-of-state resources, such as RE, under a single-state 

rate-based plan. Geographic eligibility for resources that may be used to adjust the reported CO2 

emission rate of an affected EGU are addressed in section VIII.K.1.a (2)(c) of the preamble to 

the final rule.

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

The commenters noted that EPA proposes that states participating in multi-state 

plans would be allowed to "distribute the CO2 emission reductions associated 

with renewable energy among states in the planning area, as long as the total 

CO2 emission reductions claimed are equal to the total of each state's in-state 

emission reductions from RE measures." 79 FR 34922. The commenters noted 

that multi-state planning would mitigate some double counting concerns, but 

states may not be able to design multi-state plans in the limited amount of time 

between finalization of the guidelines and the due date for compliance plans.

While EPA should incentivize multi-state planning, the commenters stated that it should not 

punish states that are unable to develop regional compliance plans by limiting their use of RE 

reductions for compliance. Instead, the commenters suggested that the EPA should minimize 

double counting concerns by providing clear guidance as to how to attribute reductions 

associated with RE before states submit compliance plans. Indeed, the commenters stated that 

clear guidance on attribution might help to incent states to develop cooperative approaches for 

addressing the interstate effects of RE generation.

The commenters suggested that the EPA also should ensure that the final guidelines provide 

sufficient time for states to attempt regional compliance. The commenters stated that the EPA 

proposes to allow states an additional 2 years to submit multi-state plans. 79 FR 34915. The 

commenters stated that if states are working on multi-state plans, but require more time to 

finalize them, then EPA should provide it. The commenters stated that the benefits of multi-state 

plans outweigh reasonable delays in plan submittal. In addition, the commenters recommended 

that the EPA should allow states to revise compliance plans if they are able to develop regional 

compliance plans after 2020. Furthermore, commenters stated that the EPA should allow states 

to join a multi-state plan after the start of the compliance period, when the benefits of multi-state 

coordination may become more apparent.
331

Comment 16: States should have the flexibility to change from a stand-alone state plan to a 

multi-state plan at any point during plan implementation because some states have no experience 

with multi-state programs.

Response 16: A state or states could enter into an existing approved multistate plan subsequent 

to the EPA approval of a single-state plan. This would require a plan modification on the part of 

the state(s) entering the existing multistate plan, as well as a plan modification by the states 

participating in the preexisting multistate plan. States could also enter into linked rate-based or 

mass-based emission trading approaches under single-state plans, subsequent to the EPA 

approval of single-state plans that did not include such links. This would require a plan 

modification by all approved single-state plans subject to the link. Where approved single-state 

plans are designated as “trading-ready” by the EPA, these plans would not need to be modified 

when new trading-ready states enter the linked emission trading system. New states entering 

such a linked system with preapproved plans that are not designated as trading-ready would need 

to modify their plans to meet requirements necessary to be designated as trading ready. These 

multistate plan approaches are described in section VIII.C.5.c. of the preamble to the final rule. 

Treatment of multistate plans as part of the plan modification process is described in section 

VIII.E.7. of the preamble to the final rule.

A multi-state plan modification may be submitted to the EPA at any time. However, an 

approved multi-state plan modification may only take effect at the beginning of a new interim or 

final plan performance period. These requirements are further discussed in section VIII.E.7. of 

the preamble to the final rule.

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

The commenters noted that states that have no experience with multi-state programs have not 

been able to evaluate the pros and cons of a multi-state plan in the short time allotted for CPP 

comments. The commenters noted that even if a state determined that a multi-state approach 

made sense, the practical challenges of constructing such a program from scratch are 

considerable. The commenters suggested that the final rule should provide states flexibility to 

join an existing or form a new multi-state program at any point during plan implementation.

Comment 17: States wishing to enter into multi-state arrangements after the current EPA 

deadline for multistate submissions should be expected to first have an accepted state 

implementation plan and be in compliance.

Response 17: See response to comment number 16.

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

Commenters stated that it appears most states are likely to focus first on their own compliance 

plans, looking later to multistate options. The commenters suggested that EPA be flexible with 
332

respect to both design and timing of multi-state transactions, in order to capture the likely lower 

compliance costs available from a wider pool of reduction options that can be shared across 

utility and state boundaries. The commenters suggested that states wishing to enter into multistate arrangements after the current EPA deadline for multistate submissions should be expected 

to first have an accepted state implementation plan and be in compliance. 

Comment 18: States should be permitted to join a multi-state plan at a later date and after their 

individual plans have been approved. However, any multi-state or regional compliance approach 

must ensure that the result is no lower than what would have been achieved from individual state 

compliance plans.

Response 18: See response to comment number 16. A state plan must meet the emission 

guidelines, and the emission guidelines prescribe the methods for aggregating single-state ratebased or mass-based CO2 goals into a joint CO2 goal.

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

Commenters suggested that as states decide whether to partner with other states in a regional 

compliance approach, the additional time to do so should appropriately be allowed. Furthermore,

the commenters indicated that states should be permitted to join a regional compliance regime if 

they decide to do so at a later date and after their individual plans have been approved. At a 

minimum, however, the commenters stated that any multi-state or regional compliance approach 

must ensure that the result is no lower than what would have been achieved from individual state 

compliance plans, ensuring that states do not recognize lower reduction targets as a result of their 

collaborating with other states.

Comment 19: EPA must provide more time than the 1 year allotted under the proposed rule for 

states to reach agreement to pursue a multi-state approach. States should receive a total of 3 

years from issuance of the final guideline by EPA for submitting a final compliance plan or 

plans, so long as they demonstrate that they are actively engaged in a process with other 

jurisdictions to consider multi-state coordination and that they are developing multi-state or

individual state plans that contemplate such coordination.

Response 19: In response to comments, the EPA is providing for up to three years for the 

submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The state plan submittal deadlines for initial 

and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters noted that each state will need to follow its own established political, legal and 

regulatory process for making compliance decisions. The commenters stated that EPA's timeline 

for multi-state coordination does not currently allow for differing decision-making processes 

across states. Due to the complex nature of multi-state coordination, the commenters stated that 
333

EPA must provide more time than the 1 year allotted under the proposed rule for states to reach 

agreement to pursue a multi-state approach. 

Commenters stated that EPA must acknowledge that states will receive a total of 3 years from 

issuance of the final guideline by EPA for submitting a final compliance plan or plans, so long as 

they demonstrate that they are actively engaged in a process with other jurisdictions to consider 

multi-state coordination and that they are developing multi-state or individual state plans that 

contemplate such coordination.

Commenters stated that EPA has not allowed sufficient time for the development of multistate 

plans.

Comment 20: The EPA should provide an additional 2 years to submit their proposed Section 

111(d) plans for states that will be complying through a regional grouping of states, instead of 

the additional 1 year proposed. 

Response 20: See response to comment number 19.

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

The commenters explained that compliance on a regional basis is considerably more complex 

than complying on an individual state level. The commenters noted that state officials will have 

to understand the emissions portfolio of the region, and may need to create new multigovernmental entities. The commenters stated that this may require state regulations and possibly 

even legislative action. The commenters stated that the additional year currently provided under 

EPA's rule is not a sufficient amount of time for states to coordinate. The commenters suggested 

that the EPA provide states complying on a regional basis an additional 2 years to submit their 

proposed Section 111(d) plans.

Comment 21: The EPA should remove the interim performance requirements for multi-state 

plans because there will not be enough time to meet them following EPA’s plan approval.

Response 21: In response to comments, the EPA has extended the beginning of the interim plan 

performance period to 2022.

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

Commenters noted that EPA has provided states the opportunity to request an extension of time 

(up to 2 years, or June 30, 2018) to develop and submit multi-state plans. The commenters stated 

that even with this extension of 2 years, it may be very difficult for states to consider and 

implement multi-state and regional approaches. The commenters suggested that more time may 

be warranted to allow sufficient opportunities for states to develop the partnerships, programs 

and agreements necessary to support multi-state and regional implementation strategies. The 

commenters stated that this also underscores the need to remove the interim performance 
334

requirements, because there simply will not be enough time following EPA's approval of multistate plans to achieve the initial necessary reductions.

Comment 22: Based on the example of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and 

others, states in a multi-state plan should be provided 5 to 8 years to submit a proposed plan and 

the compliance date should be extended an equivalent amount of time. The recommended 

extensions would also provide an incentive for genuine cooperation among states to develop 

multi-state plans.

Response 22: The EPA disagrees with the comments. In response to comments, the EPA is 

providing for up to three years for the submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The 

state plan submittal deadlines for initial and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the 

preamble to the final rule. The examples provided by the commenters for why additional time is 

needed to submit a final state plan all speak to existing groundwork that has been done by states 

to develop viable approaches that could be used to meet the emission guidelines and existing 

models that could be drawn from in developing a state plan. Moreover, the EPA is aware of 

multiple dialogs across the country, among multiple states and stakeholders, which began in 

anticipation of the proposed emission guidelines and have continued to the present. The EPA

believes that these past state efforts and continuing dialogues well position states to be able to 

submit approvable final state plans within three years of the finalization of the emission 

guidelines. In addition, in response to comments, the EPA has extended the beginning of the first 

plan performance period to 2022. The EPA notes that this provides states with more than six 

years from the publication of final emission guidelines to the beginning of the first plan 

performance period, a period of time equivalent to that required to develop and implement the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

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

Commenters asserted that if states wish to collaborate to develop a multi-state plan, they should 

be provided 5 to 8 years to submit a proposed plan (and the compliance date should be extended 

an equivalent amount of time.) The commenters stated that an example of the time truly needed 

to develop a plan among a group of states is reflected in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI) currently operated in the northeastern United States. The commenters noted that the 

RGGI development discussions began in 2003, followed by a memorandum of understanding in 

2005, model rule framework in 2006, individual state regulations based on the framework in 

2008, and the beginning of the regional trading program in 2009. All totaled, the commenters

stated that it took 5 to 6 years for the RGGI program to go from formal planning to actual trading 

(which does not account for the time period during which informal discussion took place leading 

up to the first formal meetings in 2003). 

The commenters stated that another example of the lack of sufficient planning time in the 

proposed rule is the experience of the Midwest Governors Association (MGA). The commenters

explained that the MGA is a group of Midwestern states that work on a variety of policy issues 

that cut across the upper Midwest, including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 
335

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. The commenters stated that beginning in late 2007, 

members of the MGA along with the Province of Manitoba, created an advisory group to study 

and to make recommendations for the establishment of regional emissions reductions and for the 

possible design of a regional cap and trade program. The commenters stated that the advisory 

group had a series of meetings over a year that resulted in recommendations in 2009 that did not 

conclude with an actual regional or state plan, but rather, the end result was a list of concerns, 

priorities and general recommendations as to how a cap and trade program might be 

designed. The commenters noted that after more than 2 years of work, the MGA was still a long 

way from a firm plan for a regional program. The commenters stated, as the MGA experience

demonstrates, the 1-year time period for a state plan and 2 years for a regional plan given in the 

proposed rule are simply insufficient to contemplate and resolve all of the potential issues that 

will arise in the development of a workable plan that also protects power reliability and quality, 

as well as the economy. The commenters noted that the MISO also points to the need for more 

time to provide a meaningful opportunity for states and regions to work together, an outcome 

that might help to make implementation more cost-efficient.

The commenters explained that any multi-state plan that is developed will need equitable, 

efficient, and enforceable rules for governing the multi-state program that is to be put in place 

under the plan. Based on an initial review, the commenters stated that it appears that the RGGI 

program would be able to meet the requirements to qualify as a multi-state program under the 

Clean Power Plan. However, the commenters stated that the proposed rule does not provide 

sufficient time to establish a similar program under a multi-state plan in other regions.

According to the commenters, states must be encouraged to work together to find regional 

solutions because the electric industry does not fall neatly within state borders; most utilities 

operate in interstate commerce, serving customers in multiple states. The commenters suggested 

that the best way that EPA can encourage states to collaborate is to provide them sufficient time 

to not only work out how their individual state is affected by the rule, but how their neighboring 

states are impacted, as well as utilities and customers throughout the region. The commenters

stated that the EPA will provide the necessary incentive for genuine cooperation by allowing a 

full 8 years for the development of multi-state plans.

Comment 23: The EPA should allow more than 3 years for states submit a regional or multistate plan. States negotiating in a regional plan cannot be expected to meet the same interim plan 

deadline as is required for states wishing a 1-year extension to submit a standalone state plan. 

Response 23: See response to comment number 22. In addition, in the final emission guidelines, 

states may indicate that they are exploring the development of different types of state plans, both 

single-state and multi-state.

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

Commenters stated that EPA's proposal to allow states 3 years to submit regional plans is 

unworkable. The commenters noted that states wishing to participate in regional plans must 

nevertheless submit interim plans containing the same information as is required for states 
336

wishing a 1-year extension to submit a standalone state plan. See proposed 40 CFR 

60.5755(c). Yet the commenters noted that a regional plan is even more complex than a 

standalone state plan given that developing a regional plan requires layering interstate 

negotiations on top of the already complicated intrastate processes that must take place for a state

to determine how it wishes to comply with EPA's CAA section 111(d) requirements. Moreover, 

the commenters noted that each state will require legislative approval to enter into a regional 

plan and to adopt specific state elements of that plan (for instance, an RPS). The commenters

indicated that states will not be able to commit to a regional approach in an interim plan absent 

legislation in multiple states. Given the time it will take to work out a regional approach, the 

commenters questioned whether multiple legislatures can be counted on to approve those plans 

within EPA's 3-year window for final plans, much less EPA's 1-year window for interim plans.

Comment 24: Given the time needed to develop, plan, and implement complex multi-state 

programs for 111(d) compliance, the EPA should give a minimum of 5 years between the dates

that EPA approves a multi-state plan and the start of the first compliance period, and even longer 

than 5 years should be considered.

Response 24: See response to comment number 22

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

Commenters stated that if Michigan chooses to enter into a multi-state compliance program, 

sufficient time must be allowed for the participating states to discuss, negotiate, and agree on a 

multi-state plan. The commenters noted that once a multi-state plan is agreed upon among 

participating states, additional time is needed for Michigan to enact legislation and conduct 

rulemaking to implement Michigan's portion of the multi-state program. The commenters noted 

for example, EPA cites the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the preamble of the 

proposed rule as an example of a multi-state program. RGGI took nearly 6 years from when 

discussions among the RGGI states first began, to January 2009 when ten participating states 

completed their individual rulemaking processes to formally adopt RGGI. The commenters noted 

that this was in an area where most governors and legislatures supported the concept, but much 

work must occur before Midwest governors and legislatures reach even a partial level of 

agreement. 

Based on the RGGI timeline, the commenters suggested that states interested in pursuing a 

similar approach under the 111(d) guidelines would need to begin discussions in 2014 on such a 

program in order to be able to implement the program in time for the beginning of the interim 

compliance period. The commenters stated that while they and Michigan have been participating 

in Midwest Power Sector Collaborative discussions around formulating comments to EPA's 

proposed section 111(d) rule, there have been no serious discussions among the states in 

developing a regional compliance program.

The commenters noted that the 2 extra years EPA offers states to complete a multistate 

compliance plan is still not enough time. The commenters contended that, given the time needed 

to develop, plan, and implement complex multi-state programs for 111(d) compliance, a 
337

minimum of 5 years is needed between the dates that EPA approves a multi-state plan and the 

start of the first compliance period, and it will likely take even longer than 5 years.

Comment 25: The EPA should allow the full 2-year extension period for circumstances other 

than working on full regional plans, such as the fact that states do not have full legislative 

sessions each year and the fact that some states may enter into inter-jurisdictional agreements 

that do not qualify as full regional plans.

Response 25: In response to comments, the EPA is providing for up to three years for the 

submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The state plan submittal deadlines for initial 

and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should consider allowing states the full 2-year extension for interjurisdictional cooperation other than joint regional plans. The commenters stated that many 

compliance options will require states to seek legislative authority. The commenters noted that 

because many states do not have full legislative sessions each year, this could become 

problematic if they are not granted an extension beyond the 1-year extension discussed in the 

Proposed Rule. The commenters stated that the EPA should also consider that some states, such 

as New Mexico, will be working within a multiple jurisdiction framework, whether working with 

other states or not. Similarly, the commenters stated that New Mexico may enter into strategic 

agreements with other jurisdictions which fall short of full regional plans. The commenters stated 

that both multi-jurisdictional and strategic agreements will require significant coordination, for 

both planning and gaining any needed legislative authority. For these reasons, the commenters

stated that the full 2-year extension period should be allowed for circumstances other than 

working on full regional plans.

Comment 26: EPA should adjust the language at 40 CFR 60.5745 and 60.5755 to include 

multiple jurisdictions and strategic agreements to more fully encompass the range of cooperative 

possibilities, such as agreements with tribes and with cities and counties that have their own air 

quality rules and SIPs.

Response 26: The EPA disagrees that such mechanisms are necessary. Under individual and 

multi-state plans, states are free to enter into agreements with tribes and cities that support the 

implementation of state plans. In addition, such may utilize resources, such as RE, that occur on 

tribal lands to meet the emission guidelines. The final emission guidelines allow states to tap outof-state resources, such as RE, under a single-state rate-based plan. Geographic eligibility for 

resources that may be used to adjust the reported CO2 emission rate of an affected EGU are 

addressed in section VIII.K.1.a(2)(c) of the preamble to the final rule.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
338

Commenters stated that EPA should adjust the language at section 60.5745 and section 60.5755 

to include multiple jurisdictions and strategic agreements to more fully encompass the range of 

cooperative possibilities. The commenters noted that the EPA gave extra consideration to states 

working with other states, but failed to address multi-jurisdictional possibilities such as working 

with tribes or working with intrastate jurisdictions. (The commenters intend to work closely with 

the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, which is recognized by EPA as a separate 

jurisdiction with its own rules and SIP.) Further, the commenters stated that while not every state 

will choose to develop full multi-state plans, many may wish to seek cooperation on such issues 

as re- dispatch, RE, and EE. The commenters stated that limiting the language to only include 

full multi-state plans also limits the incentive for cross-jurisdictional cooperation, further limiting 

possibilities for emissions reductions.

Comment 27: The EPA needs to clarify the review and approval process for multistate plans, in 

particular if the multistate plan crosses EPA regional authorities. Will approval be needed from 

each affected EPA region or from EPA headquarters?

Response 27: Where multistate plans involve states served by more than one EPA Regional 

Office, EPA headquarters will coordinate review of the multistate plan in consultation with the 

relevant Regional Offices.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA needs to clarify the review and approval process for multistate 

plans, in particular if the multistate plan crosses EPA regional authorities. While the EPA has 

made clear that states may enter into multistate agreements for showing compliance with the 

state goals and submit multistate plans, the commenters argued that EPA has not explained how

multistate plans will be reviewed and approved by the EPA. As the proposed rule does not 

appear to restrict which states may participate in a multistate plan, in particular, the commenters

requested clarification regarding how the EPA intends to handle approval of multistate plans that 

cross EPA regional authorities. The commenters suggested that the EPA needs to clarify whether

approval from all applicable EPA regional offices will be necessary or if EPA headquarters 

approval will be needed in such situations. The commenters noted that states need to understand 

how this will work before deciding whether or not to pursue a multistate plan. 

Similarly, commenters requested clarification of the approval authority for multi-state plans that 

cross EPA regions. The commenters stated that though geographic proximity is not a 

requirement for a multi-state plan, it is likely that many, if not most, multi-state plans will 

include nearby states in similar ISO/RTO systems. The commenters stated that Minnesota and 

the four states it borders are a part of MISO, yet cross three EPA regional office boundaries.

Comment 28: In order to achieve the most efficient approach, which is likely multi-state, the 

EPA should extend the period prior to compliance to allow sufficient time for states to properly 
339

evaluate compliance alternatives and develop plans with real flexibility for cost-effective 

compliance.

Response 28: See response to comment number 22.

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

Commenters stated that the proposed rule offers 2 additional years for states to submit plans if 

they decide to collaborate with other states, but fails to give extra time for compliance for multistate plans. The commenters stated that the modeling and planning requirements of the Clean 

Power Plan are quite significant, and modeling different regional scenarios requires additional 

efforts. The commenters stated that in order to achieve the most efficient approach, which is 

likely multi-state, EPA should allow sufficient time to fully plan, as well as to understand and 

address concerns with such an approach. The commenters suggested that EPA extend the period 

prior to compliance to allow sufficient time for states to properly evaluate compliance 

alternatives and develop plans with real flexibility for cost-effective compliance.

Comment 29: Because of the interstate nature of the grid, the EPA should outline a process by 

which states (or multi-state collaborations) are encouraged or required to consult with 

neighboring jurisdictions, and the latter are allowed to evaluate and provide meaningful 

comments on the development of state plans that will affect them before the plans are submitted 

to the EPA for review and approval.

Response 29: The EPA disagrees that such a requirement for states to consult with neighboring 

jurisdictions is necessary. The EPA is aware of multiple dialogues across the country, among 

multiple states and stakeholders, which began in anticipation of the proposed emission guidelines 

and have continued to the present. In addition, under the emission guidelines, states are required 

to provide for public comment on their plans prior to submission of a final plan to the EPA. This 

requirement is discussed in section VIII.D.2.a.(6) of the preamble to the final rule. In addition, 

states are also required to seek public input on their initial plans prior to submission to the EPA. 

This requirement is discussed in section VIII.E.3 of the preamble to the final rule. As a result, in 

addition to the multiple informal dialogs among states that are already taking place, every state 

will have the opportunity to provide input and formally comment on the plans of neighboring 

states prior to the submittal of those plans to the EPA.

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

Commenters stated that there is an important role for neighboring jurisdictions in development 

and review of state or multi-jurisdictional plans. The commenters noted that while states will 

likely weigh the costs and benefits of the combination of measures included in their plans, they 

will not necessarily consider the regional effects or opportunities to maximize cost effectiveness. 

For example, the commenters stated that the lowest cost approach from a regional perspective 

may involve leveraging renewable energy generation and demand-side resources throughout the 

region, rather than relying solely on an in-state only approach relying on building blocks one and 

two. The commenters stated that they are willing to pay its fair share of the cost of addressing 
340

carbon pollution from existing power plants, as the benefits of cleaner air and avoiding the cost 

of climate change will far outweigh the costs; provided that it has an opportunity to comment and 

have meaningful input in the state plans that will affect the commenters. Consequently, the 

commenters requested that EPA outline a process by which neighboring jurisdictions can provide 

meaningful comments on the development of state plans that will affect them.

The commenters noted EPA is proposing that, upon receipt of a complete state plan, the agency 

will review the plan and approve or disapprove the plan within 12 months. The commenters

noted that this process would involve a notice-and-comment rulemaking process similar to that 

used for approving state implementation plan submittals under section 110 of the CAA. The 

commenters stated that it is not clear what, if any, opportunity for public comment EPA would 

require prior to the submission of the plan that would allow for neighboring jurisdictions to 

evaluate and respond to plans prior to them being submitted to EPA.

The commenters proposed that, in the Final Rule, EPA encourage or require states (or multi-state 

collaborations) to consult with neighboring jurisdictions likely to be affected by their plan as a 

result of the interstate nature of the grid prior to submitting the plan to EPA. The commenters

stated that this arrangement could be similar to the coordination required between States/Tribes 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) under the Regional Haze Rule (40 C.F.R. section 51.308(i)). 

The commenters supported EPA's proposal that the ISOs and the RTOs could effectively play a 

facilitative role in coordinating development and implementation of region-wide, multi-state 

plans, or coordinated individual state plans. The commenters stated that the ISOs and RTOs in 

this role could also facilitate the consultation of affected, neighboring jurisdictions and ensure 

that costs and benefits are shared.

Comment 30: Are there any types of multi-state arrangements that EPA believes would require 

Congressional consent under the Compact Clause?

Response 30: No. The EPA has determined that all of the state plan approaches described in 

section VIII.C. of the preamble to the final rule, including multistate variants of these approaches 

described in section VIII.C.5, could be implemented by states based on their own individual 

statutory and regulatory authority.

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

Commenters asked if there any types of multi-state arrangements that EPA believes would 

require Congressional consent under the Compact Clause.

Comment 31: States exploring and pursing a multi-state system should be granted up to an 

additional 5-year period from promulgation of the final section 111(d) rules to form an inter-state 

plan, and not be penalized if their good-faith effort to form a potential inter-state partnership 

does not reach fruition.

Response 31: See responses to comments number 10 and 22.
341

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

Commenters were concerned the EPA has not allowed sufficient time for the development of 

multistate plans. Commenters thought that additional time was needed to develop multi-state 

plans due to the varied legislative and rule making schedules of different states. 

Commenters requested that states exploring and pursing a multi-state system be granted up to an 

additional 5-year period from promulgation of the final 111(d) rules to form an inter-state plan, 

and not be penalized if their good-faith effort to form a potential inter-state partnership does not 

reach fruition. Commenters argued that an additional five years is needed to craft enabling 

statutory language in each state, develop common tracking and trading programs, develop 

unified regulations between state agencies, and establish a joint office to implement the multistate program. 

Commenters noted that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program took five to six 

years to develop.

Comment 32: In addition to allowing states to submit a single multi-state plan, the EPA should 

also allow states the options of: 1) submitting individual plans for state-specific elements and 

including a common submittal that addresses common plan elements, and 2) separate individual 

submittals that are materially consistent for all common plan elements that apply to all 

participating states.

Response 32: In response to comments, the final emission guidelines provide for these different 

forms of a multistate plan submittal. See response to comment number 1.

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

Commenters requested that EPA provide states the broadest number of options for how to 

incorporate multi-state collaborations into state plans. Specifically, the commenters requested 

that in addition to allowing states to submit a single multi-state plan, EPA also allow states the 

options of: 1) submitting individual plans for state-specific elements and including a common 

submittal that addresses common plan elements, and 2) separate individual submittals that are 

materially consistent for all common plan elements that apply to all participating states. The 

commenters stated that these two options would provide the necessary flexibility for states to 

develop interstate agreements while keeping autonomy over state-specific plan elements, and 

may encourage more states to participate in multi-state collaborations. The commenters urged 

EPA to finalize both additional multi-state plan submittal options on which the Agency takes 

comment.

Comment 33: The EPA should consider adding elements to the CPP to provide for additional 

flexibility in plan submission deadlines. In particular, the EPA should consider tolling the start of 
342

the CPP interim goal compliance period for states that choose either of the extension options 

provided for state plan submittal.

Response 33: In response to comments, the EPA is providing for up to three years for the 

submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The state plan submittal deadlines for initial 

and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule. Also see 

response to comment number 22.

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

Commenters stated that several proposals have been advanced for broad state cooperation and 

regional solutions based on prior experiences such as RGGI or the California-Quebec 

market while other parties and firms have developed proposals for specific RTOs. The 

commenters stated that the design, development and negotiation of such agreements are likely to 

require more time and resources than the EPA-proposed deadlines anticipate given the 

significant challenges associated with developing regional air quality plans. The commenters

stated that there are numerous barriers to establishing multistate plans and compliance options 

that will take additional time to address. According to the commenters, there are at least three 

types of barriers to adopting and implementing regional compliance agreements and 

organizations in time to meet the proposed CPP emission targets: 1) time constraints; 2) political 

constraints; and 3) parochialism.

Time constraints: The commenters noted that in many instances, for legal reasons, states 

will need to pass enabling legislation in order to join together to form regional 

approaches. The commenters provided an appendix (Appendix B to comment 23973) to 

document the significant legal, statutory and regulatory changes that needed to be 

adopted prior to final approval to the RGGI emissions compliance program. The 

commenters noted that many state legislatures in the West do not meet each year, or if 

they do, one year's session is dedicated exclusively to budget issues. Accordingly, the 

commenters noted that there are small windows for the enactment of state laws needed to 

implement regional approaches.

Political constraints: The commenters noted that New Jersey was once a member of 

RGGI, but was later pulled out of the program by Governor Chris Christie. The 

commenters noted that a similar experience occurred in the western states with 

implementation of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) where significant parts of the 

original design of the WCI fell apart when supportive Governors were unable to pass 

enabling state legislation (see Appendix B to comment 23973 for more information).

Parochialism: The commenters explained that states will naturally assume a stance of 

examining opportunities to reduce emissions within its own borders first before linking 

up with other states. The commenters provided for example, California state legislation 

increasing the stringency of its renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in 2011 gave greater 

preference to renewables constructed within California. The commenters stated that such 

parochialism could represent a barrier to other states in the region accessing RPS 

reductions toward an interstate CPP compliance goal. 
343

To address these concerns, the commenters suggested that the EPA consider adding elements to 

the CPP to provide for additional flexibility in plan submission deadlines. In particular, the 

commenters stated that the EPA should consider tolling the start of the CPP interim goal 

compliance period for states that chose the either of the extension options provided for state plan 

submittal.

Comment 34: The EPA needs to provide state air quality and economic regulators with 

sufficient time to take advantage of the flexibility in the CPP while reflecting the regional nature 

of transmission planning, wholesale energy markets, and transmission cost allocation.

Response 34: In response to comments, the EPA is providing for up to three years for the 

submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The state plan submittal deadlines for initial 

and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule. Also see 

response to comment number 22.

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

Commenters stated that while the proposed CPP provides states with significant flexibility for 

compliance, the EPA has not provided state air quality and economic regulators with sufficient 

time to take advantage of this flexibility. As a consequence, the commenters anticipated there 

will be few, if any, submitted compliance plans that reflect the regional nature of transmission 

planning, wholesale energy markets or transmission cost allocation. The commenters stated that 

none of these issues are currently addressed on a state-specific basis within SPP, but rather are 

addressed regionally in a transparent environment where state boundaries are not acknowledged 

since the grid crosses city, county and state boundaries.

Comment 35: In order to pursue a tribal or a regional approach, or both, more time is needed to 

complete needed negotiations and submittal of a state plan. Therefore, states should be given 3 

years to submit plans with the provisions for extensions as proposed.

Response 35: In response to comments, the EPA is providing for up to three years for the 

submittal of final single-state and multi-state plans. The state plan submittal deadlines for initial 

and final plans are described in section VIII.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

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

In light of the EPA's most recent Supplemental 111(d) proposal issued October 27, 2014, 

commenters stated that if Nevada pursues a tribal or a regional approach, or both, the time frame 

for completing those negotiations leaves little room for timely submittal of a state plan. 

Therefore, the commenters recommended that states be given 3 years to submit plans with the 

provisions for extensions as proposed.
344

6.4.8 Other

This section discusses other comments related to the process of developing and approving state 

plans. The comments in this section focused on how the issue of grid reliability should be 

considered in state plan development and review. For the proposal, the EPA met with 

independent system operators several times to discuss any potential impact of this rule on grid 

reliability (79 FR 34899). The ISO/RTO Council, a national organization of electric grid 

operators, offered analytic support to help states design programs that do not compromise the 

regional bulk power system. They also offered to help states develop regional approaches which 

may reduce costs and strengthen the reliability of the electricity grid.

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

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

Comment 1: Many states and other stakeholders commend EPA for this significant outreach on 

the proposal, and this type of engagement represents a model for future engagement on Agency 

matters of national significance and import such as this one. Significant engagement and 

outreach will remain important as EPA prepares to final rule and as states formulate, submit, and 

implement the resulting plans. The EPA needs to maintain regular forums and contact with states 

prior to finalization, and then during implementation, of the rule.

Response 1: EPA agrees with the commenters. See section II.K of the preamble for the CPP 

final rule on stakeholder outreach and consultation.

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

Commenters noted that states have long supported early, meaningful, and substantial state 

involvement in the development and implementation of environmental statutes and related rules. 

The commenters stated that EPA must engage states as co-regulators prior to and during the 

rulemaking process, and Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) recognizes EPA's 

extensive efforts to do so for this proposed rule. The commenters noted that the Agency's time 

and effort spent on calls, meetings, and outreach to states, individually and through ECOS and 

other associations, regarding the proposed rule has been almost unprecedented. The commenters

noted that many states and other stakeholders commend EPA for this significant outreach on the 

proposal, and the commenters suggested that this type of engagement represents a model for 

future engagement on Agency matters of national significance and import such as this one. 

The commenters noted that the Agency's efforts have addressed many state inquiries about the 

proposal, but questions remain. The commenters stated that significant engagement and outreach 

will remain as important as EPA prepares to finalize the proposal and as states then formulate, 

submit, and implement the resulting plans. The commenters encouraged EPA to maintain regular 

forums and contact with states prior to finalization, and then during implementation, of the rule.
345

Comment 2: The Final Rule should explicitly: (1) require that State Plans include a component 

describing the assessment of potential impacts to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability 

from the implementation of the State Plan; and (2) incorporate criteria to evaluate this 

component of each State Plan as part of EPA's process to determine whether a State Plan is 

"approvable." The EPA itself should not perform a de novo reliability review nor perform a 

critical analysis of the State Plan reliability assessment. Instead, the State Plan review and 

approval process should evaluate State Plans to ensure that they describe the reliability 

assessment performed, the results of such assessment, and how the state considered and/or 

addressed any potential impacts to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability in the final 

development of its State Plan.

Response 2: See section VIII of the CPP final rule preamble on state plans. Specifically, section 

VIII.A provides an overview, section VIII.D addresses state plan components and approvability 

criteria, and section VIII.E covers state plan submittals, timing, and the approval process. Note 

that EPA addresses reliability in section VIII.G, including a reliability safety mechanism and a 

requirement to consider reliability in state plan development. Also see the resource adequacy and 

reliability TSD in the docket for the final CPP rule. While the CPP does not require regional 

assessment, we continue to encourage states to cooperate regionally and believe that reliability 

assessments are an important tool to meeting system needs in the most cost-effective, efficient 

and reliable way, as explained in the Executive Summary of the CPP final rule preamble.

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

Commenters recommended consideration of grid reliability in state plan development and 

review. The commenters stated that in response to EPA's request for comments on the criteria it 

intends to utilize to evaluate the "approvability" of State Plans and the components that must 

comprise each State Plan (79 FR 34911), the commenters recommended that the Final Rule 

explicitly: (1) require that State Plans include a component describing the assessment of potential 

impacts to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability from the implementation of the State 

Plan; and (2) incorporate criteria to evaluate this component of each State Plan as part of EPA's 

process to determine whether a State Plan is "approvable." According to the commenters

addressing the interconnected nature of the grid and related operational issues, such as 

transmission and generation usage patterns, proactively during the relevant State Plan 

development and review stages would identify reliability issues and support informed decisions 

during the development and implementation of the Final Rule to ameliorate potential adverse 

impacts to grid reliability. 

Commenters stated that section 111(d) grants EPA discretion to approve State Plans based on 

defined criteria, while meeting "energy requirements, and section 111(a) of the Clean Air Act 

defines "standard of performance" as 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 non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has 

been adequately demonstrated. Consistent with this authority and intent, the commenters stated 

that the Final Rule should establish State Plan approval criteria that ensure adequate 
346

consideration of state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability issues during the 

implementation of the Final Rule. 

The commenters stated that they are not proposing that EPA itself perform a de novo reliability 

review or perform a critical analysis of the State Plan reliability assessment. Rather, the 

commenters suggested the State Plan review and approval process should evaluate State Plans to 

ensure that they describe the reliability assessment performed, the results of such assessment, 

and how the state considered and/or addressed any potential impacts to state, multi-state, and/or 

regional grid reliability in the final development of its State Plan. 

The commenters submitted that applying explicit criteria when reviewing State Plans will allow 

EPA to discern whether the State Plan evaluated, identified, and considered/addressed potential 

impacts to state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability and, where a State Plan submittal 

does not address the required elements of the above-described component, deem such State Plan 

inadequate in this respect. The commenters stated that inclusion of these "approvability" criteria 

will facilitate a Final Rule and related State Plans that are consistent with grid reliability by 

providing states and EPA with the opportunity to mitigate potential grid reliability impacts prior 

to implementation of State Plans. The commenters provided recommended language for the 

criteria in Attachment B to their comments (summarized below). The commenters stated that the 

Final Rule should make clear that, if plans are submitted that do not meet these criteria, the plans 

will be sent back for further consultation and work with the reliability authorities so that state, 

regional, and inter-regional impacts can be adequately addressed.

In Attachment B to their comment, commenters recommended criteria entitled "Demonstration 

of Grid Reliability" to be utilized as general "approvability" criteria, requiring that: 

"In developing its State Plan, a state must describe: (1) the assessment to identify 

the potential impacts of the proposed State Plan to state, multi-state, and regional 

grid reliability performed by ISOs/RTOs in market areas and the NERCregistered entities responsible for reliability in the state and/or region, e.g., 

reliability coordinator, planning coordinator, etc. with independent review by the 

NERC or the Regional Entity in non-market areas prior to submission of the State 

Plan for review; (2) the results of such assessment including identification of any 

state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability issues; and (3) how the state 

considered and/or addressed these issues in its State Plan submittal. To be 

approvable, in the component entitled "Evaluation and Consideration of Impacts 

to State, Multi-State, and/or Regional Grid Reliability," the State Plan shall 

address: 

1) Whether the reliability assessment meets the criteria set forth above; 

2) Whether the results of the reliability assessment indicated near- or long-term 

state, multi-state, and/or regional grid reliability impacts; 

3) Whether, where multi-state or regional impacts were identified, those impacts 

were coordinated with the impacted region or state(s); and
347

4) Whether the State Plan was revised to address identified state, multi-state, 

and/or regional impacts to reliability and, if not, how such impacts to reliability 

were addressed, e.g., revision of impacted state's or region's State Plan."

Commenters strongly supported the recommendations of commenters calling for a review of 

state plans by the relevant ISO/RTO or another independent reliability planning organization and 

outlining criteria for ensuring the adequacy of these reliability reviews. The commenters stated 

that together these reviews would ensure that potential reliability issues arising in connection 

with the Clean Power Plan or from individual state implementation plans are identified and 

addressed early.

6.5 ADDITIONAL FACTORS

This chapter discusses biogenic CO2 accounting, biomass combustion as a CO2 mitigation, and 

expanding RE and EE, while encouraging creation of sustainable jobs. 

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: Comments on the Framework for Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for 

Stationary Sources

Response 1: Many comments inquired about the status of the framework, and several stated that

the EPA should finish the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary 

Sources to clarify how biomass is treated for compliance in state plans. Many comments 

provided specific recommendations for how the Framework could, and should, be applied to 

determine the use of biomass in this rule. Examples of recommendations include choice of 

baseline approach, timescale, spatial scale, leakage, and other variables. 

EPA developed the revised draft report, Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from 

Stationary Sources, to continue advancing our understanding of the role the use of biomass can 

play in strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the Framework was 

developed as a policy-neutral framework for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary 

sources—it was not developed as technical guidance in conjunction with any specific policy or 

program. The EPA is engaging in a second round of targeted peer review of the revised draft 

Framework with the SAB in 2015.

A discussion regarding the current status of the development of the revised Framework and how 

information from the revised Framework and the related peer review processes could be used to 

inform how states and EPA assess biogenic CO2 can be found in Section VIII.I.2.c and Section 

VIII.K.1 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For more information regarding the Framework, 

see: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html
348

Many commenters stated that the memorandum from Assistant Administrator McCabe on 

November 14, 2014 did not provide adequate information to allow for biomass in state plans, and 

that EPA must define the “sustainable land management” and “sustainably-derived feedstocks” 

terms mentioned in the memo. A discussion regarding sustainably-derived biomass feedstocks 

can be found in section VIII.I.2.c of the final rule preamble.

Commenters stated that the memo and Framework provided differing results on waste and forest 

derived industrial byproduct feedstocks, which should be resolved before they can be regulated 

and put into state plans. Some commenters asserted that there is no explicit authority under 

section 111(d) to treat delayed emission reductions as equivalent to real-time reductions, and

other commenters stated that the use of biomass will increase in emissions during the year of 

actual use.

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the final rule preamble.

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

Commenters asked where to find the draft biomass accounting framework in responses to EPA"s 

statement, "EPA is assessing the use of biomass feedstocks for energy recovery by stationary 

sources and has developed a draft accounting framework that the EPA's Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) has reviewed."

Commenters agreed with earlier commenters that the EPA should finalize and publish this 

biogenic CO2 framework as soon as possible to provide clarity and assurance for how biomass 

can be used for compliance with the Proposal and to aid in early design of state compliance 

plans.

Commenters described deficiencies in the Framework including a failure to rank preferences 

among options and the fact it is unclear how or if the revised Framework will be of relevance to 

the ESPS, given that the EPA "has not yet determined how the framework might be applied in 

any particular regulatory or policy contexts." Commenters provided several specific 

recommendations for developing biogenic accounting factors (BAFs) that: 

• Rely on an anticipated future baseline to model changes in stored carbon. Regulators 

must compare emissions from increased biomass harvesting added to a "business as 

usual" baseline to a scenario absent increased biomass demand for bioenergy. This 

approach will help ensure biomass carbon accounting results reflect what the atmosphere 

"sees" in terms of emissions from increased biomass harvesting.

• Utilize compact timeframes when analyzing the net emissions associated with the use of 

biomass. An analytic horizon of 10-20 years would align biogenic emissions accounting 

under the ESPS with other regulatory efforts designed to avoid the worst consequences of 

climate change; it would reduce modeling uncertainty, which can increase dramatically 

over longer time horizons; and it would model BAFs on approximately the same 

timeframe as industry planning horizons for long-term contracts and operations. 
349

• Calculate biogenic emissions and reductions consistently, regardless of the spatial scale 

or region in which they occur. BAFs should be modeled in a way that is independent of 

the physical fuel shed area. Instead, data to inform BAFs - on fuel type, size class for 

woody biomass feedstocks, land use history, current harvest regime and alternate biomass 

uses in existing wood products markets - should be collected at the appropriate scale for 

each class of data. 

• Address leakage by incorporating the following counterbalancing assumptions into the 

BAF analysis: first, that new biomass harvest displaces demand associated with other 

industries on a full 1 to1 basis to a new, similar forest stand; second, that leakage is 

additive and "new" standing trees are cut in forests that are biologically and climatically 

identical to the original wood source to meet the original non-biomass needs. 

• Categorize biomass feedstocks according to key physical and methodological 

characteristics. This process includes differentiating between different fuel types (e.g., 

boles versus branches/limbs), different size classes (e.g., large diameter versus small 

diameter), different land use histories (e.g., planted versus naturally regenerating); 

different harvest regimes (e.g., complete removal versus partial cuts); and different 

alternative fates (e.g., short-term uses versus long-term structural objects for 

merchantable and in situ burning versus decay for harvest residues). 

• Use simple, precautionary assumptions that reduce the risk of undercounting emissions 

and ensure modeling uncertainties are resolved conservatively. Commenters concluded 

that the Agency must place the burden of proof on the states and the regulated entities to 

demonstrate that their claims and assumptions underlying the model are in fact true and 

accurate. 

Given the host of uncertainties underlying the modeling and the undue discretion afforded to the 

states in the revised Framework, commenters said that the Agency must set strict standards for 

documentation and verification of feedstock use, land use practices, regional scales, markets, and 

"leakage." 

Commenters agreed with the statement in the revised Framework that the selection of the 

temporal framework "should align with the specific goals of the policy or program that the 

framework is applied to." In the Clean Power Plan, commenters said that this policy timeline 

would be impacts achieved by 2030, and it is clearer that short rotation crops will align with this 

timeline than it is for longer rotation crops. Commenters stated that scientists have documented 

that it is quite likely that longer rotation feedstocks will produce carbon deficits during this 

timeline Commenters said that it would be appropriate for the EPA to differentiate between 

biomass that is climate beneficial and biomass that increases atmospheric carbon. As EPA 

clarifies its treatment of biogenic energy under the Clean Power Plan, commenters 

recommended that: 

• Crediting bioenergy resources with carbon reductions must be grounded in science 

• The terms "sustainable land management" and "sustainably-derived feedstocks" must be 

clearly defined. 
350

• Because of the wide variations in carbon cycling dynamics across bioenergy feedstocks, 

the EPA's regulations must differentiate among feedstocks, providing guidelines on 

differentiating between biomass that lowers and biomass that increases atmospheric 

carbon. 

The EPA must provide clear guidance to states for how to appropriately include bioenergy 

resources in their compliance plans. 

Commenters agreed that the EPA should complete and make available for public comment the 

revised accounting framework to give biomass energy adequate recognition for its emission 

reduction benefits and provide adequate opportunity to comment on the 111(d) proposed rule. 

Commenters stated that the EPA's accounting framework should be simple and based on the best 

available data; it should reflect data that shows the use of manufacturing residuals for energy 

generates greenhouse gas reduction benefits. Commenters were encouraged by the EPA's 

positive signal regarding their intent to recognize the carbon benefits of biomass, but stressed 

that the biogenic accounting framework should be finalized in a way to be binding and not 

merely serve as a guidance document as currently proposed. Commenters stated that a binding 

framework is important to provide the necessary certainty to potentially affected parties under 

the framework as well as to states which use the framework, as the EPA rightly suggests, as a 

clearly defined path to include biomass-derived fuels in energy production as a way to help them 

meet the emission reduction requirements of the rule. 

Commenters added that the recently revised framework for accounting for carbon from biopower 

and a guidance memorandum from Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe that accompanied 

the revised Framework (the "McCabe Memo") do not offer a legally or scientifically valid way to 

assess the technical and economic potential of low carbon biomass and thus leave the EPA 

without a way to accurately include biomass in setting state targets. Commenters stated that 

neither document rectifies the Proposed Rule's arbitrary and capricious approach to biomass 

generation; indeed, the McCabe Memo in many ways exacerbates the problems identified above.

Commenters said that if the EPA requires states to account for biogenic emissions using 

anticipated future baselines, a compact (and policy-relevant) timescale for analysis, spatial scales 

that facilitate meaningful distinctions between biomass types, and mechanisms that address 

leakage-the resulting emissions modeling could reasonably simulate the effect that biogenic 

emissions will have on the atmosphere during the policy-relevant timeframe. Commenters stated 

that this would make it useful for compliance, but it still would not be useful in setting targets. 

However, commenters said, if the EPA adopts other criteria, such as allowing states to analyze 

biogenic emissions over a protracted timeframe (e.g., 50 years), which the Agency contemplates 

in Appendix 6B to the revised Framework, affected sources would be free to burn biomass 

feedstocks that will produce significantly higher GHG emissions over the next several decades, 

including the time period covered by the ESPS. 

Commenters added that, although the Proposed Rule repeatedly suggests that revisions to the 

EPA's biomass accounting framework will provide important guidance to the states, the Revised 

Draft Framework states that it is not a final product and that the EPA has not yet determined how 

it might be applied in any given regulatory context. Nor does it appear to provide much in the 

way of prescriptive guidance; rather, commenters stated, it seems to leave unanswered a number 
351

of critical questions identified by the Science Advisory Board panel, including the proper 

"baseline" and time scale for assessing net atmospheric impact. Commenters concluded that the 

Framework is more like a list of options, choices among which could produce radically different 

results, than guidance for states on the proper methodology for assessing biomass emissions in 

their compliance plans. Again, inviting states to pick and choose among contradictory options in 

order to satisfy their own policy goals may produce arbitrary results. 

Commenters said that the EPA's proposed intent to use the Revised Draft Framework in 

evaluating biomass CO2 emissions under the Proposed Rule and in other regulatory contexts and 

to move ahead with regulatory proposals in "in parallel" with ongoing Science Advisory Board 

panel review and "further work" on the Revised Draft Framework is a complete about-face from 

the EPA's prior reasoning in this context. For example, commenters said, when the EPA 

proposed a 3-year exemption for biogenic CO2 under the PSD and Title V programs, it did so 

out of purported reluctance to regulate in the absence of scientific input (particularly input from 

the Science Advisory Board panel specially convened for this purpose). Now, commenters

stated, the EPA apparently intends to start making regulatory decisions under both the Proposed 

Rule and the PSD program without waiting for further scientific input on the Revised Draft 

Framework, and without even articulating what role, if any, scientific input will play in its 

regulatory decisions. 

Commenters described other deficiencies in the McCabe memo and concluded that it would be 

arbitrary and illegal to designate classes of biomass fuel as "approvable" simply based on a claim 

of sustainability. Commenters added that "sustainably-derived" is an ambiguous standard: it has 

not been defined in the agency's November 19 memorandum and has not been identified as a 

means of carbon accounting in the accompanying revised Framework. Commenters described 

other concerns with this approach and concluded that the EPA's plan to effectively exempt from 

ESPS scrutiny those emissions that occur when EGUs combust "sustainably-derived feedstocks" 

could result in a net increase of CO2 emissions for decades. Consequently, commenters said, the 

EPA cannot meet its obligations under CAA section 111(d) by solely requiring affected sources 

to show that they rely on "sustainably-derived feedstocks," and must not use this standard when 

setting state targets.

Commenters argued that the EPA is relying on out-of sector carbon sequestration on agricultural 

or forest lands to offset emissions from covered sources, which is impermissible under the 

statute. Even where the McCabe Memo appears to rely on the Revised Draft Framework, 

commenters said that it does so in an incomplete fashion. According to commenters, the McCabe 

Memo recognizes the biogenic CO2 emissions and climate policy benefits of only two of the 

potential sources of biomass feedstocks discussed in the Revised Draft Framework: "wastederived and certain forest-derived industrial byproduct feedstocks." Commenters noted that the 

Revised Draft Framework does not unequivocally conclude that these feedstocks have clear 

"benefits" when used for bioenergy, but rather, particularly in the case of forest-derived 

industrial byproducts, the Revised Draft Framework recognizes that net CO2 emissions depend 

largely on what would have happened to the material if it were not used for bioenergy (for 

example, whether it would have been used for wood products manufacturing, and thus might 

sequester carbon for a longer period, as opposed to being disposed in a way that could generate 

shorter-term emissions from decomposition). Commenters stated that the Revised Draft 

Framework also recognizes the potential for "leakage"; using materials that otherwise might have 
352

gone toward wood products manufacturing for bioenergy may create new demand elsewhere for 

wood products feedstocks, causing additional emissions. Commenters stated that the process 

described in the McCabe Memo for evaluating state compliance plans is arbitrary because it 

states only that "EPA will evaluate the biogenic feedstock components of proposed state plans . . 

. as part of the compliance plan review and approval process and will provide clarification as 

needed on the basis on which it will make such biomass-related evaluations." According to 

commenters, there is no discernible standard for evaluation of state plans in this statement. 

Similarly, in light of the lack of definitions of key terms in the McCabe Memo and the Revised 

Draft Framework, commenters said that there is also no discernible standard for compliance or 

enforcement. Commenters concluded that the EPA must explain the rationale and provide a 

reasoned evidentiary basis for its decisions. 

Commenters stated that the second draft Biogenic Assessment Framework (BAF) is greatly 

improved over the first but it was released with insufficient time for complete review and 

analysis before the 111(d) comments were due (e.g., seven business days). The commenters

noted it was released informally, with no notice in the Federal Register, which does not bode 

well for giving industry and other stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking for more than 

3.5 years. The commenters stated that it is clear that EPA, by addressing the second draft to the 

attention of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), views this as a preliminary guidance document, 

not even ready for the early stages of promulgation. The commenters stated that the BAF 

equation is complex, incorporating multiple and massive variables and much more time for 

analysis will be needed to begin to form opinions as to its usefulness in development of State 

Implementation Plans for 111(d).

The commenters noted that EPA discusses its in-progress efforts to develop an "Accounting 

Framework for Biogenic Emissions" in the preamble to the proposed guidelines, and notes that a 

draft has been reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The commenters stated that in 

the draft framework, EPA concluded that "biomass had the potential to reduce the overall level 

of CO2 emissions" in electricity generation but that the type of biomass used and it’s upstream 

"life-cycle assessment" were important considerations. See 79 FR 34924. A revised framework 

was released on November 19, 2014, but the SAB has yet to review or comment on it. 

Commenters stated the EPA has not provided States with a legally- and scientifically-valid 

framework for analyzing the use of biomass as a CPP compliance measure. The commenters

noted that EPA's 2014 "Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary 

Sources" leaves key issues unresolved. The commenters stated that EPA's "Framework for 

Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources" (November 2014) ("revised 

Framework"), is a substantial revision of the Agency's flawed 2011 draft framework. The 

commenters stated however the revised Framework still leaves some significant issues 

unresolved. The commenters stated for example, it does not compel the use of anticipated 

baselines, compact timeframes, small spatial scales, or leakage determinations. The commenters

noted that instead, it merely lists them among the analytic criteria that regulators might apply. 

The commenters stated that under the revised Framework, the biogenic accounting factor 

("BAF") may be calculated by comparing the projected emissions in a biomass scenario against 

an anticipated future baseline over the course of an analytic horizon that is compact enough to 

significantly reduce uncertainty (e.g., 10-20 years). The commenters stated that likewise, a BAF 

calculation under the new Framework can feature spatial scales small enough to be directly 
353

affected by a regulated facility's biomass consumption, and it "can accommodate calculations of 

leakage effects," which EPA recognizes "may be a significant factor in determining net biogenic 

CO2 fluxes." The commenters stated that none of these approaches are required by the revised 

Framework, however. The commenters stated that consequently, the revised Framework 

provides little insight into whether and how EPA will account for biogenic CO2 in the context of 

the CPP.

Commenters stated that the revised framework does not adequately prevent States from relying 

on biomass-based energy systems that will increase net CO2 emissions. The commenters stated 

that the Revised Framework does not adequately prevent States from relying on biomass-based 

energy systems that will increase net CO2 emissions. The commenters stated that it is unclear 

how or even if the revised Framework will relate to the CPP. The commenters noted that EPA 

states at the outset that it "has not yet determined how the framework might be applied in any 

particular regulatory or policy contexts". The commenters stated that in most instances, the 

revised Framework catalogs the various options for analyzing biogenic emissions according to 

the relevant criteria but fails to signal a preference for one approach or another. Commenters

stated that EPA's revised Framework "examines two baseline approaches"-the reference point 

baseline and the anticipated baseline-"although other baselines could be used when applying the 

framework." The commenters noted that EPA writes, "There is no single correct answer for 

which baseline to choose, because different baselines help answer different questions," thereby 

avoiding its obligation to explain how reliance on different kinds of baselines comports with the 

requirements of CAA Section 111(d) or how different baseline options might affect states' 

emissions targets and/or compliance determinations. 

Commenters noted that EPA lists a set of factors "that should be taken into account to help 

determine the most appropriate temporal scale," including feedstock choice, region, data 

availability, and policy or program application. The commenters stated that the timeframe for 

conducting a net emissions analysis "should align with the specific goals of the policy or 

program that the framework is applied to (e.g., baseline time frames for initial assessment or 

renewal of requirements under existing programs)" The commenters stated that although there 

are key considerations that apply to any regulatory effort designed to reduce GHG emissions in a 

policy-relevant timeframe (such as the need to limit the uncertainty associated with long-delayed 

emission reductions), the revised Framework does not express even a general preference between 

short or long timeframes. The commenters noted that as a result, it provides no indication as to 

which analytic timeframe EPA thinks would best "align with the specific goals of the" CPP. The 

commenters stated that given that there is no explicit authority under Section 111(d) to treat 

delayed emission reductions as the equivalent of real-time reductions, EPA's failure to require 

the use of a shorter timeframe particularly problematic with respect to its CPP proposal.

Commenters stated that similarly, EPA highlights the revised Framework's flexibility with 

respect to spatial scales ("The framework is scalable and can be applied at various spatial scales, 

from a small scale (plot/entity-level) to global"), but it fails to explain how the use of a particular 

spatial scale is (or is not) consistent with the requirements of CAA [Section] 111(d) or the 

objectives of its CPP proposal. The commenters stated that the revised Framework "can 

accommodate calculations of leakage effects," but it "does not choose or develop a specific 

methodology for identifying and evaluating these effects," either in general or with respect to a 

particular regulatory program -- even though EPA has stated elsewhere that it expects states and 
354

stakeholders "will look to the second draft of the Framework for indications of how the Agency 

will treat biogenic CO2 emissions under both the CPP and the PSD program going forward" The 

commenters stated that until EPA explains if it will require the consideration of leakage effects 

in the context of the CPP (as it must do), and how it will do so, the Agency has not provided 

adequate opportunity for stakeholders to analyze and comment on the potential role of biomass 

in CPP compliance. 

Commenters stated that if EPA chooses correctly among the options it catalogs in the revised 

Framework (i.e., if the Agency requires states to account for biogenic emissions using 

anticipated future baselines, spatial scales that facilitate meaningful distinctions between biomass 

types, and mechanisms that address leakage) the resulting emissions modeling could reasonably 

simulate the effect that biogenic emissions will have on the atmosphere during the policyrelevant timeframe (that is, by 2030). The commenters stated however if EPA makes the wrong 

choices with respect to these analytic criteria, or allows states to make the wrong choices, the 

analyses that result will be highly misleading. Commenters added for example, if EPA allows 

states to analyze biogenic emissions over a protracted timeframe (e.g., 50 years, which the 

Agency contemplates in Appendix B to the revised Framework) affected sources would be free 

to burn biomass feedstocks that will produce significantly higher GHG emissions over the next 

several decades, including the time period covered by the ESPS.

The commenters stated that furthermore, regardless of the timeframe EPA uses to analyze 

biogenic emissions, any "netting" or "offsetting" of actual emissions resulting from combustion 

of biomass at affected sources is inconsistent with the proposed CPP under either an emission 

rate-based system or a mass allowance-based system. The commenters stated that in either case 

the standards are set on an annual basis, and, as previously discussed, CO2 emissions at the 

affected source (and the rate of emissions) will actually increase during the year of biomass 

combustion (the same will likely be true during the entire period leading to final compliance in 

2030). The commenters stated therefore, no credit may be given for biomass combustion under 

an emission rate-based approach to CPP compliance, and no allowances may be issued for such 

activities either.

Consistent with the recommendations that CATF and other environmental organizations have 

previously provided to EPA, commenters urged the Agency to clarify in its final CPP rule that 

any biogenic emission accounting determinations conducted within the context of CAA section 

111(d) regulations must include biogenic accounting factors (BAFs) that:

• Rely on an anticipated future baseline to model changes in stored carbon. Regulators 

must compare emissions from increased biomass harvesting under a "business as usual" 

baseline to a scenario absent increased biomass demand for bioenergy. This approach 

will help ensure biomass carbon accounting results reflect what the atmosphere "sees" in 

terms of emissions.

• Utilize compact timeframes when analyzing the net emissions associated with the use of 

biomass. A timeframe of 10-20 years would analyze the net emissions impact of biomass 

during a period in which we must avoid locking in long-lived emissions, as we try not to 

exceed the nation's total allowable emissions consistent with a 2 degree C threshold, 

while demand reduction and other mitigation measures have time to take hold more fully. 
355

It would also align biogenic emissions accounting under the ESPS with other regulatory 

efforts designed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change; it would reduce 

modeling uncertainty, which can increase dramatically over longer time horizons; and it 

would model BAFs on approximately the same timeframe as industry planning horizons 

for long term-contracts and operations.

• Make clear that no credit may be given for biomass combustion under an emission ratebased approach to CPP compliance, nor may mass-based allowances be issued for such 

activities.

• Calculate biogenic emissions and reductions consistently, regardless of the spatial scale 

or region in which they occur. BAFs should be modeled in a way that is independent of 

the physical fuel shed area. Instead, data to inform BAFs -- on fuel type, size class for 

woody biomass feedstocks, land use history, current harvest regime and alternate biomass 

uses in existing wood products markets -- should be collected at the appropriate scale for 

each class of data.

• Address leakage by incorporating the following counterbalancing assumptions into the 

BAF analysis: First, that new biomass harvest displaces demand associated with other 

industries on a full 1-to-1 basis to a new, similar forest stand. And second, that leakage is 

additive and "new" standing trees are cut in forests that are biologically and climatically 

identical to the original wood source to meet the original nonbiomass needs.

• Categorize biomass feedstocks according to key physical and methodological 

characteristics. This process includes differentiating between different fuel types (e.g., 

boles versus branches/limbs), different size classes (e.g., large diameter versus small 

diameter), different land use histories (e.g., planted versus naturally regenerating); 

different harvest regimes (e.g., complete removal versus partial cuts); and different 

alternative fates (e.g., short-term uses versus long-term structural objects for 

merchantable and in situ burning versus decay for harvest residues).

The commenters stated that EPA plans to submit the revised Framework to "a second round of 

targeted peer review through its SAB later this month." The commenters stated that while they 

will engage in that process to provide the Agency and the SAB panel with more detailed 

recommendations about biogenic emissions accounting, they stressed that EPA has a separate 

duty with respect to this rulemaking. The commenters stated that EPA must explain how 

biogenic emissions will be accounted for under the final CPP and provide the "critical factual 

material that is used to justify" that approach. The commenters stated that EPA has not yet 

fulfilled this responsibility.

Commenters commended the EPA for communicating how it intends to treat biogenic CO2 

emissions from waste and biogas renewable energy projects in the proposed EG and in the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. Commenters stated that the biogenic 

accounting framework is an essential document for enabling the development of biogas/biomass 

energy projects to support compliance under the Existing Source proposal. The commenters
356

noted that had EPA failed to clarify the scientific and policy issues in a revised accounting 

framework, states would have been reluctant to use bioenergy projects as a tool for emission 

reductions, and might treat low carbon fuels as equivalent to fossil fuels. The commenters

noted that in the New Source proposal, EPA said: The proposed CO2 emission standards do not 

apply a different accounting method for biogenic CO2 emissions for the purpose of determining 

compliance with the standards. 

Commenters stated that the effect of this statement is to count biogenic CO2 emissions co-fired

at an affected EGU under the New Source proposal in the same manner as fossil fuel-fired 

emissions. The commenters stated that this approach is not scientifically justified when applied 

to biogenic emissions associated with municipal solid waste. The commenters was pleased that 

EPA intends to adopt an approach to MSW-derived materials and biogas that is supported by the 

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The commenters noted that EPA proposed in the 2011 

version of the Framework that biogenic CO2 generated by the decomposition of municipal solid 

waste is essentially carbon neutral, and the SAB agreed. The commenters stated that EPA's 

revised framework finds that bioenergy projects that recover energy from MSW-derived 

materials and biogas are not only carbon neutral, but actually result in net CO2 emission 

reductions. The commenters agreed with this conclusion and commended the EPA for 

communicating its intended treatment of biogenic emissions from MSW. The commenters stated 

that the framework will be an important tool for the development of state plans under the 

proposed EG. 

Similarly, commenters noted that EPA has been working on the biogenic accounting framework 

since 2011, and stated that the framework is a critical technical document that will enable states 

to develop biogas/biomass/MSW energy projects to support compliance with CO2 reduction 

targets under the Existing Source proposal. The commenters noted that the Agency's 

accompanying memorandum also describes how bioenergy projects would be treated in planned 

revisions to the PSD program. The commenters stated that without a clear understanding of how 

CO2 emissions associated with bioenergy projects are to be accounted, it is possible that many 

states will hesitate to rely on these technologies.

Commenters supported EPA's adoption of an approach to waste-derived feedstocks and biogas 

that is anchored in science and the recommendations made by the EPA's Science Advisory Board 

(SAB). The commenters stated that, in the September 2011 draft framework (developed for SAB 

review), EPA proposed to assign different biomass feedstocks with a biogenic accounting factor 

(BAF) of zero to one, where a BAF of zero would indicate that the feedstock is essentially 

carbon neutral, and a BAF of one would indicate that the feedstock is essentially equivalent to 

combusting fossil fuels. The commenters stated that in its September 2012 report on the results 

of its review, the SAB concluded the following, with respect to feedstocks derived from 

municipal solid waste (MSW):

"For waste materials (municipal solid waste, manure, wastewater, construction 

debris, etc.), the Framework assigns a BAF equal to 0 for biogenic CO2 released 

from waste decay at waste management systems, waste combustion in 

incinerators or combustion of capture waste derived CH4. ...The SAB concurs 

with the Framework that the CO2 released from the decomposition of biogenic 
357

waste in landfills, compost facilities or anaerobic digesters could reasonably be 

assigned a BAF of 0."

Put simply, according to the commenters, EPA proposed in the 2011 version of the Framework 

that biogenic CO2 generated by the decomposition of MSW is essentially carbon neutral, and the 

SAB agreed. The commenters stated that the revised framework finds that bioenergy projects 

that recover energy from MSW-derived materials and biogas are not only carbon neutral, but 

actually result in net CO2 emission reductions. The commenters noted that had EPA failed to 

revise and issue the framework, all sources of biogenic CO2 would be lumped together and 

treated like fossil fuel CO2 emissions. The commenters stated that for biogenic CO2 emissions 

from MSW, such an approach would be scientifically incorrect, would stigmatize an 

environmentally beneficial energy source, and would make it harder to comply with the limits 

proposed for affected existing EGUs.

Commenters strongly supported EPA taking the following steps with respect to the treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions:

1. Finalize and release the updated Biogenic Accounting Framework as soon as possible, 

providing BAFs for all feedstocks or, if this is not possible, for the feedstocks that are 

more easily assessed. 

2. Ensure that the final Existing Source rule reflects the findings of the final Framework, 

and references the BAFs included therein. 

3. Ensure that final New Source rule reflects the conclusions of the Framework and 

references the BAFs included therein. Only feedstocks for which assessment is ongoing 

or are determined to have a BAF of 1 should be required to count their biogenic CO2 

emissions just like fossil fuel-derived CO2 emissions. 

4. Conduct outreach to states to ensure that the information in the Framework is available, 

clear, and readily implemented. 

5. Update the Clean Power Plan Toolbox to provide additional information on how to use 

the BAF for different feedstocks. 

Commenters also supported steps 1, 2, 4 and 5 above with respect to the existing source 

proposal. Commenters added that if EPA finalizes the suite of power plant rules currently out for 

proposal without addressing the accounting of biogenic CO2, it will be extremely difficult to 

develop even the most environmentally sound bioenergy projects. The commenters stated that 

such an outcome would have detrimental effects on their renewable energy business, and could 

cause a crisis of confidence at the state level regarding the development of bioenergy plants.

Commenters stated that the 2014 revised biogenic CO2 accounting framework that EPA issued 

on November 19, 2014 repeatedly treats as a scientifically sound working assumption that CO2 

emissions resulting combustion of annual herbaceous crop-derived biomass (e.g., corn stover) by 

existing EGUs are carbon neutral. is in balance ....); Appendix I: Illustrative Forestry and 

Agriculture Case Studies Using a Retrospective Reference Point Baseline, at I-14 ("GROW is set 
358

to 0 because the ratio of net growth to removals is 0."); and Appendix L: Illustrative Forestry and 

Agriculture Case Studies Using a Future Anticipated Baseline, at L-17 ("The GROW term 

defaults to 0 for agricultural biomass sources in this methodology. The assumption is that, with 

annual crops, biogenic CO2 'growth' in this context equals what is harvested (removed) from the 

system for energy generation."). See also 2014 Accounting Framework, at 6 n.18, 16 (Section 

2.4.1), and 43 (Section 4.4).] Second, the commenters noted that in the 2014 Accounting 

Framework, EPA gave hypothetical examples to illustrate how the Framework would operate in 

the case of corn stover combustion. The commenters agreed with the assumption in the 

framework examples that the demand from EGUs for corn stover would be insufficient to 

stimulate land-use change and that the Biogenic Accounting Factor (BAF) for combustion of 

corn stover sourced within the corn belt would be zero or tiny. 

Commenters stated the framework should avoid the use of an anticipated baseline based on 

modeling assumptions because it is inaccurate, unduly complicated, and costly to implement. 

The commenters said in contrast, a reference point baseline that uses historical and current data 

more accurately assesses if there are any atmospheric impacts from the use of biomass for 

energy. The commenters urged EPA to complete its accounting framework, acknowledge these 

carbon neutrality principles, apply them consistently to its regulations, and provide clear 

guidance on how the framework should be incorporated into state implementation plans.

The commenters also stated that the biogenic framework needs to be "regulation ready".

Comment 2: Comments on accounting biogenic CO2 emissions under the CPP and requests for 

clear accounting methods in the final CPP.

Response 2: Many commenters stated that, prior to states submitting compliance plans, EPA 

should clarify if and how biomass emissions are accounted for and clearly define which biomass 

fuel types are considered carbon neutral. Multiple commenters stated that EPA should clarify 

that all biomass, or at least certain types of biomass, can be considered to be carbon neutral. 

Commenters suggested that biomass harvested under state or federal sustainable forestry 

practices should be considered to be carbon neutral. 

A discussion of the use of biomass feedstocks and associated biogenic CO2 assessment can be 

found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the preamble.

Several commenters asserted that the revised Framework and the memorandum from Assistant 

Administrator McCabe on November 19, 2014 did not provide enough clarity for how to treat 

biomass emissions. Many commenters stated that biomass should have consistent treatment as 

other renewable resources and emissions should be distinguishable from fossil fuels while other 

commenters stated that biomass should be treated like a fossil fuel. Some commenters asserted 

that biomass provides environmental benefits when it replaces fossil fuel. Several commenters 

desired clarity on whether or not biomass can be used as an emission reduction measure, while 

some commenters asserted that biomass should indeed be able to be used as an emission 

reduction measure. Some commenters noted that any reduction measure must be accompanied by 

protocols to measure, verify and enforce the emission reductions from use of biomass. Several 
359

commenters believe that states should be able to determine how biomass is treated in their state 

plans. A few commenters commented that if state RPS programs already recognize biomass as 

renewable energy, then biomass should be treated the same for state plans. A few commenters 

mentioned that EPA needs to better define waste and forest-derived industrial byproducts and 

whether they are acceptable or not. Many commenters ask whether biomass should be calculated 

for state goals or if it is just used as a compliance measure. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be

found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the preamble.

Some commenters stated that EPA should not regulate biomass until the Framework is complete 

and available for public comment, while other commenters were concerned that the inclusion of 

roundwood as a hypothetical example in the revised Framework allows for the use of roundwood 

for energy production. 

EPA developed the revised draft report, Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from 

Stationary Sources, to continue advancing our understanding of the role the use of biomass can 

play in strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the Framework was 

developed as a policy-neutral framework for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary 

sources—it was not developed as technical guidance in conjunction with any specific policy or 

program. The EPA is engaging in a second round of targeted peer review of the revised draft 

Framework with the SAB in 2015.

A discussion regarding the current status of the development of the revised Framework and how 

information from the revised Framework and the related peer review processes could be used to 

inform how states and EPA assess biogenic CO2 can be found in Section VIII.I.2.c and Section 

VIII.K.1 of the final rule preamble. For more information regarding the Framework, see: 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html

Commenters inquired how non-affected EGUs can be used to affect the state rate for compliance 

purposes. This issue is discussed in sections VIII.K.1 and VIII.K.2 of the preamble.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should provide clarity regarding accounting for emissions from 

biomass before states are required to submit compliance plans. The commenters stated that 

EPA's treatment of biomass units was inconsistent when calculating the state baselines and in 

estimating the reductions that could be achieved through the increased deployment of renewable 

generation. The commenters stated that additionally, the proposed guidelines are not clear on the 

extent to which states and affected EGUs will be able to utilize the emission reduction benefits of 

biomass combustion for compliance. 

The commenters recommended that, in the final rule, EPA should ensure consistent treatment of 

biomass for compliance purposes. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with EPA's approach 

to how other renewable resources are used to set the state-specific emission rate goals, which 

determines their potential role as compliance options that could be included in state plans. The 

commenters stated that as EPA notes, "states likely will consider biomass-derived fuels in energy 

production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions attributed to the energy sector and include 
360

them as part of their plans...and...it is important to define a clear path for states to do so." Id. at 

34924. Before states are required to submit compliance plans, the commenters encouraged EPA 

to be clear as to how states and electric utilities should account for biomass emissions in order to 

enable states to properly utilize these resources as compliance tools.

The commenters noted that EPA's recent Biomass Memorandum begins to provide some clarity 

on the role of biomass in state compliance plans, but indicates that many feedstocks may not be 

deemed carbon neutral. The commenters stated that moreover, the Biomass Memorandum 

appears to indicate that EPA will address inclusion of biomass-based units in compliance plans 

on a state-by-state basis. To ensure that state can develop plans that EPA can approve, the 

commenters stated that EPA should provide additional clarity on which types of biomass will be 

deemed carbon neutral before states have to submit plans.

Commenters stated that if the proposal is finalized using Building Blocks 3 and 4, EPA should 

allow states to consider the use of biomass-derived fuel in affected units as an emission reduction 

measure. The commenters noted, however, that in order to do so, EPA must distinguish biogenic 

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel CO2 emissions and provide a clearer policy that recognizes the 

carbon neutrality and GHG reduction benefits from biomass energy. The commenters stated that 

the EPA has not provided the information needed to understand how bioenergy emissions will be 

counted toward reducing CO2 emissions under the rule.

Commenters encouraged the EPA to provide clarity to states and regulated entities that using 

biomass derived fuels at affected EGUs (or biomass co-firing) is an accepted mitigation option 

and can be included in state plans. 

Commenters sought clarification from EPA on how CO2 emissions from the co-firing of 

biomass at electric generating units should be calculated. The commenters was aware of the 

EPA Biogenic framework, but requested that the revisions to it should clearly explain how both 

the CO2 emissions and generation from the combustion of biomass should be calculated and 

credited in demonstrating compliance with state-specific emission goals. 

Commenters stated that EPA should provide states with the appropriate clarity to include 

biomass co-firing under 111(d).

Commenters stated that EPA's State goal calculations should not include biomass firing if the 

industry will not receive full credit for the generation in demonstrating compliance with its state 

goal. The commenters would like the EPA to clarify how much of biomass-fired emissions will 

be counted towards compliance, and then adjust the percentage of emissions counted into current 

state goals accordingly.

Commenters requested clarification as to whether or not biomass would be treated as a carbonneutral resource, with regards to compliance. Commenters believed that EPA implied that 

biomass would not be treated as a carbon-neutral resource due to references to the Biomass 

Accounting Framework for 111(d) plan development where the methodology describes adjusting 

top-of-stack biogenic CO2 emissions based on the particular feedstock and location. It appears 

that states are penalized in the goal setting formula for having biomass plants.
361

Commenters recommended that EPA, USDA, and other agencies work with industry, NGOs, and 

land management experts to develop a model "biomass sustainability and emissions accounting 

framework" that states can use as part of their 111(d) plans. This framework would also help 

ensure that the US builds a national biomass market, avoiding a state-by-state system that would 

create significant market barriers.

Commenters stressed that any reduction measures must be accompanied by protocols to measure, 

verify and enforce these additional compliance measures coupled with implementing appropriate 

accounting and tracking methodologies. Commenters added that this would provide potential 

"inside the fence line" CO2 emissions reduction by co-firing biomass with fossil fuel. 

Commenters suggested that the plans should include any measure that meets the EPA's criteria, 

i.e., any measure that is quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent and enforceable.

Commenters differentiated between beneficial use of certain fast growing biomass resources, or 

biomass that would otherwise rapidly decompose, or otherwise be burned without energy 

recovery, and the use of roundwood, pulpwood, or larger diameter trees is shown in scientific 

literature as being unhelpful for short term purposes of climate change mitigation. Commenters 

said that these long-lived forest resources take too long to re-grow and re-capture biogenic 

carbon. Commenters added that it is a great concern that roundwood is explicitly included in the 

second draft BAF as an allowed form of biomass feedstock. According to commenters, this is 

clearly bad for the climate and it could be severely disruptive to existing consumers of 

pulpwood, chip-and-saw, and even some sawtimber. 

Commenters urged the EPA to further define acceptable sources of biomass under the CPP. 

Commenters said that Arizona consumes more biomass to produce energy for electricity than 

renewable sources including solar and wind and that Arizona consumes far more fossil fuel for 

electricity production than all types of renewable energy. Commenters believed that this is an 

issue which needs further review by the EPA to ensure that elimination of the use of coal for 

energy production does not result in replacement by the burning of wood or vegetative products 

to produce energy. Commenters noted that this alternative would not effectively reduce health 

complications associated with the burning of fossil fuels. As the CPP recognizes that U.S. forests 

remove 12% of GHG, commenters believed that their suggestion is justified and reasonable.

Commenters noted that on November 19, the EPA released a revised Framework for Assessing 

Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources ("Framework") and a memorandum from 

Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe that accompanied the revised Framework (the 

"McCabe Memo"). Commenters said that these documents offer little specific direction and what 

direction they do provide is illegal and ill advised. According to commenters, two key features of 

the McCabe Memo are: 

• A finding that the "use of waste-derived feedstocks and certain forest-derived industrial 

byproducts are likely to have minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic 

CO2 emissions, or even reduce such impacts, when compared with an alternate fate of 

disposal." Based on this finding, the EPA "expects to recognize the biogenic CO2 

emissions and climate policy benefits of waste-derived and certain forest-derived 

industrial byproducts based on the conclusions supported by a variety of technical 
362

studies, including the revised Framework" when implementing the Clean Power Plan 

(CPP). 

• A statement that the EPA also "expects that states' reliance specifically on sustainablyderived agricultural- and forest-derived feedstocks may also be an approvable element of 

their [CPP] compliance plans." Commenters said that the EPA should clarify how it is 

defining "waste-derived and certain forest-derived industrial byproducts", which EPA 

appears to be indicating will be the only "categories" of feedstock considered to be lowor no-emissions. Commenters said that this clarity is critical for both state policy makers 

and industry. Commenters added that the EPA should clarify what framework it will use 

to "evaluate the biogenic feedstock components of proposed state plans ..."

Commenters added that the methodology does not have a concrete definition of what 

technologies are considered renewable energy sources for the purposes of the rule. Commenters

were concerned that because the EPA has deferred any decision about how biomass will count 

for compliance until completion of their draft Biomass Accounting Framework, this delay will 

create uncertainty that is problematic for the states with significant biomass resources in crafting 

their emission reduction plans. 

Commenters described Wisconsin's reliance on biomass in its strategy and stated that the states 

should be able to certify CO2 neutrality for biomass harvested under state or federal sustainable 

forestry practices, harvested as part of a fire hazard reduction activity or as pre-commercial 

thinning, slash or tree residue, collected during clean-up from natural storms or disasters, or 

obtained from the demolition of buildings and removal of invasive trees by municipalities.

If the EPA will not let states determine the carbon neutrality of biomass, commenters said, the 

EPA must complete its Biomass Accounting Framework without additional delay and prior to 

issuance of the final rule so that states know how their biomass power will qualify under the 

regulation.

Commenters were encouraged that the EPA's November 14, 2013 memorandum to its regions 

regarding biomass emissions appears to recognize that biomass is an important renewable energy 

pathway for states to reach their targets under 111 (d). Commenters added that, in terms of 

sustainably managed forests, carbon stocks are increasing both nationwide and in Maine. 

Commenters encouraged the EPA to treat biomass as simply and as geographically broadly as 

possible.

Commenters said, the EPA should clarify that states should give full compliance value for all 

electricity generated from renewable energy technologies when determining how to measure 

compliance with the Clean Power Plan's goals. For instance, commenters stated, all states that 

define WTE as renewable give full credit for each megawatt hour of electricity generated by 

WTE, as do federal standards. Commenters added that the EPA should make clear that states 

have the flexibility and discretion to value the full electrical generation from renewable sources 

(such as WTE) toward compliance with the Clean Power Plan.

Commenters noted that a number of existing electrical generators in Florida are not "affected 

EGUs" because of the type of fuel combusted (i.e., biomass, waste-to-energy, and landfill gas), 
363

but these units do sell power to the grid. Commenters asked if the EPA will provide clarification 

as to whether states have the discretion to determine whether to include CO2 emissions from 

these facilities in calculating the state rate for compliance purposes. Commenters asked if this 

could apply to the landfill gas component of affected co-fire EGUs as well. Commenters asked if 

biomass generation be treated like a zero-emitting energy source or will CO2 emissions from 

biomass generation need to be recorded and included in the compliance determination. 

Commenters asked if it depend on the type of biomass generation (i.e. landfill gas, waste to 

energy, woodchips/switch grass fuel), as to how the biomass generation and emissions data are 

treated for compliance purposes. Commenters also asked if whether the biomass will actually 

need to be burned/fired at an affected EGU or if all biomass generation be credited so long as it 

supplies generation to the grid. Commenters asked how a state might credit the cultivation of 

anaerobic digestion for purposes of methane recovery. According to commenters, existing 

examples of this approach are required to be net metered and sell their power to the grid, and 

later purchase their needed power back from the utility. Based on the 111(d) proposal, 

commenters said such a system seems similar to a wind turbine or solar array.

Commenters described how South Carolina makes use of many biomass resources with multiple 

landfill gas projects across the state, sawmills that burn wood residue, and biomass plants that 

utilize woody biomass to produce energy. Commenters said that the EPA should consider how to 

provide credits for biomass landfill operations that may not be utility owned. Commenters also 

cited a USDA report (Assessing the Potential for Biomass Energy Development in South 

Carolina, October, 2009) to document the huge potential for biomass energy in South Carolina. 

Commenters recommended that the EPA ensure that states have maximum flexibility in utilizing 

biomass as a renewable energy resource by simplifying the process for qualifying biomass and 

by defining "sustainable biomass" in order for South Carolina to be able to calculate easily the 

use of woody biomass towards carbon emission reductions and inclusion in a state 

implementation plan.

Commenters said that due to Wisconsin's recognized history and knowledge of using biomass for 

energy, the state could play a significant role in helping the EPA determine how to treat biomass 

in the rules. When properly conducted, commenters said that there is no doubt that replacing 

fossil fuels with biomass for electricity generation can have environmental benefits. In 

formulating comments to the EPA however, commenters said that it is important to note that the 

basis of the rules is the endangerment finding for carbon vis-a-vis public health and welfare. 

Commenters supported comments by the Biomass Power Association on CPP provisions that 

provide for the use and credit of biomass for energy production.

Commenters agreed with EPA that biomass energy is a necessary part of the solution to mitigate 

climate change and supported EPA's proposal to allow States to include biomass energy as a tool 

to reduce net CO2 emissions in their implementation plans and noted that is it critical that EPA's 

and states' evaluation of biomass energy in GHG regulations focus on the objective of reducing 

net CO2 emissions.

Commenters noted that under the their state's RPS, biomass facilities qualify as renewable and 

therefore the final rule should likewise provide the opportunity for biomass facilities to qualify as 

compliance measures in the state's plan. The commenters asked EPA to complete its accounting 
364

framework for biogenic emissions and recognize, as appropriate, the carbon benefits of biomass 

fueled generation. 

Commenters stated that EPA's TSDs indicate that biomass qualifies as RE for compliance 

purposes, but the Proposal does not provide further guidance on the issue. The commenters

agreed with EPA's statement that waste-derived and forest-derived industrial byproduct 

feedstocks provide climate benefits and urged EPA to explicitly state in the final rule that states 

may include the use of biogenic feedstocks as a compliance option in their state plans. The 

commenters noted that this approach will facilitate compliance in areas of the country, such as 

the southeast, that have few large-scale RE alternatives other than biomass generation. Biomass 

generation provides for reliable baseload CO2-neutral generation, which is not possible with 

wind and solar generation. The commenters additionally noted as an example that the Gainesville 

Renewable Energy Center uses waste wood known as "slash" from the forestry industry that 

otherwise would have been left to rot in the field, generating methane emissions, or pushed into 

piles and burned and that the use of this fuel eliminates these emissions and improves fuel 

diversity in a state very dependent on natural gas. The commenters stated that use of "slash" at 

this facility improves reliability due to its availability in close proximity to the generating facility 

and generates an economic benefit to the community, since the fuel is sourced locally.

Commenters noted that EPA's November 19th guidance memorandum on biogenic CO2 

emissions appeared to support the treatment of waste-derived feedstocks and certain forestderived feedstocks as "having minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 

emissions, or even reducing such impacts, when compared to the alternate fate of disposal." but 

stated that this implies the CO2 emissions may be assigned to biomass facilities using other 

feedstocks. The commenters noted that the Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions 

from Stationary Sources remains a draft document subject to revision and stated that the 

inconsistency between these documents creates a penalty for states with existing biomass plants, 

since their goal is more stringent because of these plants, but they may be required to assign CO2 

emissions to at least some types of biomass used for 111(d) compliance. The commenters stated 

that his will create a disincentive to biomass use due to uncertainty and complexity in the 

Accounting Framework and urged EPA to clarify that biomass power and biomass co-firing in 

fossil plants are considered carbon-neutral when used for goal achievement. The commenters

supported EPA's suggestion that sustainably-derived forest feedstocks may be considered 

carbon-neutral, but note that in defining what constitutes sustainably-derived forest feedstocks, 

EPA should not substitute its judgment for that of the responsible state forestry agency charged 

with setting such standards. The commenters stated that EPA should also recognize the methane 

avoidance associated with waste-derived feedstocks, such as biogas and landfill gas, which can 

make such feedstocks better than carbon neutral in these guidelines.

Commenters also urged EPA to take into account the limited lifespan of certain biomass 

production when calculating state goals. The commenters noted that EPA included biomass 

when accounting for existing RE in its state goal calculations however, the commenters stated 

that existing biomass generation is not an accurate predictor of future RE growth because it 

includes generation that may be phased out over time and may ultimately overestimate state 

goals.
365

Commenters recommended that biomass be removed from inclusion in calculation of state goals, 

yet included as a compliance measure. The commenters stated that it is inappropriate for EPA to 

include existing biomass as RE for setting state goals, but provide little direction to states 

regarding when or how biomass power generation will be credited for compliance purposes. The 

commenters recommended that EPA treat biomass generation consistently as utilized for goal 

calculation as well as compliance purposes in the final rule. The commenters noted that this is 

significant for Tennessee as the majority of Tennessee's RE generation in 2012 is generated from 

biomass.

Commenters additionally noted that EPA postponed a decision on whether to consider biomass 

as carbon neutral in a state's compliance plan until the Accounting Framework for Biogenic 

Emissions is completed, but stated that EPA must provide guidance to the states on the treatment 

of biomass well before states are required to submit their compliance plans for approval by EPA.

Commenters urged EPA to maintain consistency with state RPS rules and enable all RPS-eligible 

generation to count towards a state's compliance determination. The commenters noted that all 

states with an RPS include biomass as part of tier 1 renewable resources, and for many states, 

especially those in the Southeast region, biomass constitutes a significant portion of RE 

generation (EIA, "Electricity Data Browser, Net Generation for All Sources" (2013)). The 

commenters also noted that the proposed RE approach and the Alternate RE Approach(es) also 

incorporate(s) biomass as a zero-carbon source and while evaluated slightly differently than 

other resources, constitutes a significant portion of the RE MWh that would be incorporated in 

state goals through Building Block 3. However, the commenters pointed out that the proposed 

guidelines are not clear on the extent to which states and affected EGUs will be able to utilize the 

emission reduction benefits of biomass combustion for compliance. The commenters urged EPA 

to ensure that in any final rule, any biomass included as part of BSER Building Block 3 is 

accounted for in the calculation of state goals consistently with how the Agency ultimately 

allows states to account for that generation as part of compliance.

Commenters stated that biomass energy is recognized in nearly every state that has a Renewable 

Portfolio Standard (RPS), and failure to adequately credit the carbon mitigation attributes of lowcarbon sustainable biomass in the final rule could result in state compliance plans that exclude 

this clean energy technology, cause the potential closure of these facilities and lose an 

opportunity for greater GHG reductions. Commenters said that the EPA should clarify that states 

should be given full compliance value for all electricity generated from renewable energy 

technologies units, including the biomass portion of fossil fuel-fired units that co-fire with 

biomass, when determining how to measure compliance with the CPP's goals. Commenters 

noted that all states that define waste-to-energy (WTE) as renewable give full credit for each 

megawatt hour of electricity generated by WTE, as do federal standards. Commenters added that 

waste wood and forest residuals should be considered carbon neutral for purposes of setting the 

state goals and compliance with the state goals of this rule, as well as for any future accounting 

framework. Commenters noted that in anticipation of this rule, MPU re-permitted their CFB 

units (at a significant cost) to burn up to 100% biomass based on an understanding that the EPA 

wanted EGUs to move away from fossil fuels. Commenters were concerned that the EPA is back 

peddling and is not supporting biomass as a viable alternative. Commenters recommended that 

EPA support the program they were suggesting and give credit to biomass generation and to the 

utilities who have taken action to burn non-fossil fuels.
366

Commenters did not take a position on the use of biomass-derived fuels as a number of Indian 

Tribes use such fuels, but recommended that a cap be placed on the allowable amount of biomass 

burning allow in a state's plan, at least until the EPA updates its draft accounting framework 

regarding biomass-derived fuels that should help determine the net atmospheric contribution of 

CO2 related to the growth, harvest and use of these fuels.

Commenters requested that when the EPA issues its Final Rule, it explicitly recognize for 

compliance purposes the environmental value of biomass fueled generating facilities by 

requiring inclusion of energy from such facilities in the same manner as renewables are treated 

under the Plan.

Commenters described state reforestation programs and the potential for significant amounts of 

CO2 to be sequestered (up to 200 million pounds of CO2 equivalent across southern states at a 

price of $30 per metric ton10, with another study showing a potential of 500 million metric tons 

for the U.S. for $30 - $90 per ton11). Commenters noted that the DOT and FHA have expended 

significant resources providing states with the tools to estimate their carbon sequestration 

potential. Commenters recommended that the EPA allow these tools to be used as part of a 

carbon offset compliance option. Also, commenters recommended that out-of-sector offsets be 

allowed where the designated pollutant, CO2, is directly mitigated. Commenters said that their 

reforestation initiative is consistent with this premise and should be allowed as a compliance 

option.

While commenters disagreed that CAA Section 111 allows consideration of outside-the-fence 

control measures as part of a BSER analysis, if the final rule includes outside-the-fence 

measures, commenters said that the credits available to states for GHG reductions should be 

expanded to include CO2 sequestration through planting, maintenance, and management of state 

forests. According to commenters’ analyses on CO2 sequestration through Afforestation and 

Improved Forest Management (two types of offset methodology) in Indiana indicate this would 

be an achievable emission-reduction strategy. Commenters said that afforestation of 1.2 million 

non-prime, agricultural crop acres could yield 113 MMt CO2e by 2020, and an additional 4.8 

million acres of non-federal timberland in Indiana could be tapped for improved CO2 storage 

projects to further avoid 38.4 MMt CO2e by 2020. Commenters said that the final rule should 

also restrict the use of an "alternative energy source" referred to as a bio-fuel (the burning of 

forest residue.) Commenters stated that the issues surrounding this "alternative energy source" 

are applicable to other forest residue, bio-fuel plants nation-wide.

Commenters stated that the EPA must not deplete forced carbon storage or rely on tree growth 

and carbon sequestration that would not occur until 2030 or later if they aim to achieve actual 

emission reductions. Commenters also stated that biomass harvesting must not degrade 

biodiversity and other environmental resources. 

Commenters stated that EPA suggests that the biomass energy industry can still be developed by 

the states as they seek to meet emissions reduction goals but does not specify how states will 

account for emissions. The commenters stated that even if EPA had written a permit that actually 

restricted the facility to use of true waste wood, matters of practical implementation would still 

remain; existing and proposed biomass plants currently do not just burn waste wood and 

residues, and there is a real danger that if wood waste is treated as having zero or negligible 
367

emissions, then everything will be defined as waste. The commenters stated that even if a facility 

does truly only burn forestry residues generated during sawlog harvesting, modeling shows that 

net CO2 emissions from residues can still be significant. The commenters stated that EPA has 

still not stated what timeframe is relevant for biogenic carbon accounting and what timeframe is 

important for reducing net emissions from the power sector; if it is anything less than one to two 

decades, forestry residues do not qualify as a low carbon fuel.

Commenters stated that the EPA must distinguish biogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel CO2 

emissions. The commenters noted that, in the proposed rule, the EPA recognized that "biomassderived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission reduction strategies," and anticipates 

that states will include biomass energy in their implementation plans. 79 FR 34924. The 

commenters noted that in the November 19, 2014 memorandum to the EPA Regional Air 

Division Directors regarding approvable state plan elements, the EPA stated that the information 

considered in preparing the revised second draft of the Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

"supports the finding that the use of waste-derived feedstocks and certain forestderived industrial byproducts feedstocks are likely to have minimal or no net 

atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 emissions, or even reduce such 

impacts, when compared to the alternative fate of disposal." The commenters

noted that the EPA also states that other "sustainably-derived and agriculturaland forest-derived feedstocks may also be an approvable element" of state 

compliance plans."

The commenters stated that although this recognition of the climate benefits of certain biomass 

energy is a step in the right direction, EPA needs to ensure that the states have maximum 

flexibility in utilizing biomass as a source of renewable energy to meet their targets.

Commenters stated that the proposal fails to distinguish biogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel 

emissions for compliance purposes. The stated that EPA must clearly distinguish biogenic CO2 

emissions from fossil fuel emissions to allow states to use biomass energy as an emissions 

reductions compliance option. The commenters stated that it would be arbitrary and capricious 

for EPA to regulate and treat biogenic CO2 emissions in the same manner as fossil fuel 

emissions before EPA has made a final scientific determination on whether biogenic CO2 

emissions should be regulated as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), the 

Supreme Court held that an agency must satisfy two basic requirements to avoid violating the 

arbitrary and capricious standard. First, the agency must engage in "reasoned decision making." 

Second, "the agency must . . . articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." 

The commenters stated that the EPA fails to provide adequate justification for treating biogenic 

CO2 emissions the same as fossil fuel emissions in the Proposal despite EPA's recognition that 

biomass energy is renewable, "carbon neutral", and can result in "climate benefits" when 

compared to fossil fuels. 79 FR at 34924-25. In the Proposal, EPA acknowledges that 

"broadly speaking, burning biomass-derived fuels for energy recovery can yield 

climate benefits as compared to burning conventional fossil fuels" and that 
368

"[b]ecause of the positive attributes of certain biomass-derived fuels, the EPA 

recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission 

reduction strategies."

Commenters stated that although EPA recognition of the climate benefits of certain biomass 

energy in the November 19, 2014 McCabe memo to EPA Regional Air Division Directors is a 

step in the right direction, the EPA needs to ensure that the states have complete certainty 

regarding using biomass as a source of renewable energy to meet their targets. The commenters

stated that EPA also needs to ensure that it does not introduce new roadblocks by shrouding the 

evaluation of which feedstocks qualify in complexity and case-by-case state plan approval by the 

Agency.

The commenters argued that if EPA does not approve the use of biomass energy as carbon 

neutral in state plans, EPA penalizes the states that use biomass energy to meet their emission 

reduction targets. The commenters noted that those states' emission rate targets become more 

stringent because the biomass energy was included in the total potential renewable energy 

generation (in the denominator) while biogenic CO2 emissions are not included in the total CO2 

emissions (in the numerator) when the EPA set the reduction targets. The commenters stated that 

if the biogenic CO2 emissions are not considered carbon neutral, those emissions are counted in 

the state's total CO2 emissions during the compliance phase. The commenters stated that all 

emission reduction measures considered carbon neutral in the target-setting analysis, such as 

biomass energy, should be included as carbon neutral compliance options for states to include in 

their implementation plans.

Commenters stated that the lack of a clear EPA statement on the GHG mitigation benefits of 

biomass energy makes it impossible for South Carolina to consider how it will comply with its 

emission reduction targets in the CPP. The commenters stated that the EPA should not regulate 

biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources until EPA issues a clear and final policy 

regarding regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions or completes a final rulemaking that establishes 

an accounting approach. 

The commenters noted that EPA anticipates that "states likely will consider biomass-derived 

fuels in energy production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions attributed to the energy sector 

and include them as part of their plans to meet the emission reduction requirements of this rule."

Consistent with EPA's supposition, the commenters noted that biomass represents one of the 

most abundant and easily accessible renewable resources that can be relied upon for energy 

production in Louisiana. The commenters provided for example, that approximately 96% of the 

electrical demand of Louisiana's sugarcane mills is met by combusting bagasse, the fibrous 

residue remaining after sugarcane stalks are crushed to extract their juice. 

The commenters stated that although some EPA resources suggest fuels derived from organic 

matter "are subject to the natural carbon cycle and, therefore, do not contribute to global 

warming,'' others indicate that "it is not safe to assume biomass power plants are carbon 

neutral." In fact, the commenters noted that EPA's so-called Deferral Rule acknowledged that 

the agency "received information supporting the position that ... the use of certain types of 

biomass as fuel could increase atmospheric CO2 levels." The commenters stated that the EPA 
369

also conceded that "the possibility...remains that more detailed examination of the science of 

biogenic CO2 will demonstrate that the utilization of some biomass feedstocks for bioenergy 

production will have a significant impact on the net carbon cycle." 

The commenters noted that the Deferral Rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit on July 12, 2013. The commenters stated that in reaching its decision, the court 

found that the "atmosphere makes no distinction between carbon dioxide emitted by biogenic and 

fossil-fuel sources." 

The commenters noted that EPA addresses the present circumstances in the proposed rule as 

follows:

"To better understand the impacts of using different types of biomass-derived fuels, the 

EPA is assessing the use of biomass feedstocks for energy recovery by stationary sources

and has developed a draft accounting framework that the EPA's Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) has reviewed. The draft framework concluded that while biomass and other 

biogenic feedstocks have the potential to reduce the overall level of CO2 emissions 

resulting from electricity generation, the contribution of biomass derived fuels to 

atmospheric CO2 is sensitive to the type of biomass feedstock used, and the way in which 

the feedstock is grown, processed, and ultimately combusted as a fuel for energy 

production. The SAB in its review similarly found that there are circumstances in which 

biomass is grown, harvested and combusted in a carbon neutral fashion but commented 

that additional considerations are warranted."

"The EPA is in the process of revising the draft framework and considering next 

steps, taking into account both the comments provided by the SAB and feedback 

from stakeholders. The EPA's biogenic CO2 accounting framework is expected to 

provide important information regarding the scientific basis for assessing these 

biomass-derived fuels and their net atmospheric contribution of CO2 related to 

the growth, harvest and use of these fuels. This information should assist both 

states and the EPA in assessing the impact of the use of biomass fuels in reaching 

emission reduction goals in the energy sector under state plans to comply with the 

requirements in the emission guidelines".

Given the uncertainty as to how EPA will ultimately view the combustion of biomass with 

respect to the carbon cycle, the commenters stated that they are not able to meaningfully consider 

whether the proposed renewable generation targets are even achievable. Unfortunately, the 

commenters stated that, at present, the possibility remains that EPA will determine that certain 

RE sources actually increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, until such time as 

EPA's "draft accounting framework" has been properly vetted and an opportunity for public 

comment has been provided, the commenters stated that the renewable component of building 

block 3 is premature.

Second, the commenters asserted that the Proposed Rule's attempt to accommodate different 

states' policy goals by allowing states to determine whether and how biomass energy emissions 

will be counted invites arbitrary results. The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule 
370

acknowledges that states have developed "a variety of different sustainable forestry policies, 

renewable energy incentives and standards and greenhouse gas accounting procedures." For 

example, the commenters noted that the State of Massachusetts has adopted regulations that 

explicitly consider biomass CO2 emissions in determining renewable portfolio standard 

eligibility. The commenters noted that the State of California, in contrast, does not consider CO2 

emissions in determining the eligibility of biomass generation under the state's Renewables 

Portfolio Standard; rather, any facility using biomass fuels, as very broadly defined, can qualify. 

The commenters stated that California's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions 

similarly imposes no compliance obligations for CO2 emissions from biomass combustion -

effectively treating those emissions as if they do not count toward the state's mandatory 

emissions reduction goals. 

The commenters noted, according to the Proposed Rule, EPA wishes to provide a "clear path" 

for states to use biomass energy generation as a compliance measure in preparing their plans. 

The commenters stated that the path outlined in the Proposed Rule, however, is anything but 

clear; rather, the rule strongly suggests that states may use whatever accounting methods best

serve their own policy goals, regardless of the actual atmospheric consequences. The 

commenters stated that the memorandum released on November 19, 2014 along with EPA's 

revised biomass CO2 accounting "framework" seems to suggest that this may be the "clear path" 

EPA envisions, although the memorandum fails to provide any reasoned explanation or 

evidentiary basis for choosing it.

The commenters stated that whether or not particular biomass feedstocks and facilities increase 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a matter of physics, not state policy. The commenters stated 

that rather than allowing individual states to make these determinations based on potentially 

arbitrary and inconsistent policy considerations, the EPA must provide clear instruction, 

supported by sound science and an adequate explanation, to states as to how CO2 emissions from 

biomass generation must be counted in state plans. The commenters stated that the EPA has 

failed to do so, either in the Proposed Rule or in its last-minute release of an updated draft 

accounting framework and the accompanying memorandum.

The commenters suggested that the most legally and scientifically defensible approach at this 

point would be for EPA simply to count CO2 from biomass combustion at the stack in setting 

state targets and in evaluating compliance plans. The commenters stated that this could require 

some adjustments to state targets to reflect that biomass energy generation is not "zero-carbon." 

The commenters noted that emissions must be counted in the numerator of the target-setting 

equation, just as generation is counted in the denominator. The commenters stated that in 

addition, EPA could incorporate all CO2 emissions from biomass generation into a mass-based 

standard to ensure that states do not exceed their emissions targets by displacing fossil-fired 

generation emissions to biomass facilities.

Alternatively, the commenters suggested that the EPA could count all stack CO2 emissions from 

biomass energy generation on an interim basis until a final, scientifically defensible accounting 

framework is proposed, circulated for comment, and adopted. (The commenters cautioned that, 

in the absence of any final, concrete proposal for an accounting framework, this comment should 

not and cannot be taken as an endorsement of any particular approach EPA might adopt.) To 
371

ensure consistent application among states, the commenters stated that the EPA should adopt 

regulations requiring use of this final framework in preparation of compliance plans. The 

commenters noted that the Revised Draft Framework released on November 19, 2014 is not 

final, has not yet been reviewed by scientists or the public, and does not provide adequate 

guidance. The commenters asserted that the facially arbitrary state plan approval process 

envisioned in the McCabe Memo, moreover, lacks any reasoned explanation or justification.

The commenters noted that these options might or might not result in a legally and scientifically 

defensible rule. But absent further explanation and justification, the commenters stated that the 

Proposed Rule's approach to emissions from biomass energy generation is arbitrary, capricious, 

and without any reasoned basis.

Commenters stated that EPA must count and regulate biomass CO2 emissions from electric 

generation. 

The commenters noted that biomass produces approximately four times more CO2 per unit of 

energy than coal and said this is a very serious issue for some states and their CO2 emissions. 

The commenters stated that biomass emissions should have been further evaluated as 

unsustainable production can release more CO2 than is been sequestered in forests. According to 

the commenters, the IPCC has said that biomass emissions should be counted for electric 

generation. Yet, the commenters noted that biomass has been considered a renewable source of 

energy in many states and therefore these CO2 emissions are not counted. The commenters

stated that EPA has been engaged in evaluating the issue of biogenic emissions for many years. 

The commenters stated that, unfortunately, the EPA framework for biomass still needs to 

incorporate the recommendations of the Science Advisory Board and remains incomplete at this 

time. The commenters stated that all CO2 emissions from biomass electric generators should be 

included in state electric generation baselines and should be part of the total universe of 

emissions regulated under this Carbon rule. 

Commenters expressed concern about the absence of both a carbon accounting framework and 

enforceable language in the GHG rule that would enable states to use it.

The commenters attached a 2014 technical memorandum titled "Role of Biomass Energy in 

EPA's Greenhouse Gas Rule," to address the question of whether the GHG rule could increase 

forest harvesting for biomass energy. In this memorandum, the commenters stated that the EPA 

has left the door open for states to propose bioenergy as a means to increase renewable energy 

capacity. The commenters stated that the Agency is soliciting comment on deployment of 

bioenergy at the state level: 

"Beyond the types of state plan measures already discussed in this section of the 

preamble, the agency has identified a number of other measures that could also 

lead to CO2 emission reductions from EGUs. These include, for example, 

electricity transmission and distribution efficiency improvements, retrofitting 

affected EGUs with partial CCS, the use of biomass-derived fuels at affected 

EGUs, and use of new NGCC units. Although the emission reduction methods 

discussed in this section are not proposed to be part of BSER, the agency 

anticipates that some states may be interested using these approaches in their 
372

state plans. The agency solicits comment on whether these measures are 

appropriate to include in a state plan to achieve CO2 emission reductions from 

affected EGUs." 

The commenters asserted, given that the EPA itself is supposed to be coming up with a 

framework for carbon accounting, and given that EPA solicited, and received, abundant 

comments on greenhouse gas emissions from bioenergy when it issued the biogenic C deferral, 

to say nothing of the extensive input during the US Court of Appeals case on the deferral and the 

expert input provided by the Science Advisory Board, for EPA to be soliciting additional 

comment on whether burning biomass can "reduce" greenhouse gas emissions seems somewhat 

superfluous. The commenters stated that the Agency should have more than enough information 

now to produce a science-based carbon accounting framework.

Further, that commenters stated that the lack of enforceable language in the GHG rule suggests 

that even if EPA does develop a carbon accounting framework for bioenergy, it could be difficult 

to get states to use it. The commenters noted that the ESPS suggests it's likely that the states will 

deploy bioenergy: 

"Because of the positive attributes of certain biomass-derived fuels, the EPA also 

recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission 

reduction strategies. We anticipate that states likely will consider biomassderived fuels in energy production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions 

attributed to the energy sector and include them as part of their plans to meet the 

emission reduction requirements of this rule and we think it is important to define 

a clear path for states to do so." 

The commenters stated that if EPA came out with a strong and decisive carbon accounting 

framework that acknowledged the true emissions from burning different types of biomass, but 

especially wood, states that were serious about reducing emissions would likely eliminate largescale bioenergy from their list of options, as Massachusetts has done and as Vermont is starting 

to do. However, the commenters stated that there is little indication in the rule that EPA has a 

means of enforcing a science-based carbon accounting framework at the state level. Indeed, the 

commenters stated that the language around deployment of the carbon accounting framework is 

notably weak: 

"The EPA expects that the framework, when finalized, will be a resource that 

could help inform states in the development of their CAA section 111(d) plans." 

The commenters stated that, unfortunately, some of the states that are now experiencing the 

highest bioenergy development are also those states that are targeted by the rule to show the 

greatest reductions in power sector emissions rates. The commenters stated that, ranked in 

descending order of the percent reduction required, Washington, South Carolina, Oregon, New 

Hampshire, and Georgia are all states that have entertained proposals or actually built large, lowefficiency, wood-burning power plants. The commenters noted that these states, and the 

bioenergy developers therein, will no doubt pressure EPA to allow bioenergy as a means of 

"mitigating" power sector carbon emissions. The commenters explained that there is a real 
373

possibility that the GHG rule could actually increase forest harvesting for bioenergy, and 

commensurately, greenhouse gas emissions, unless there is strong implementation of a carbon 

accounting framework, and rigorous oversight to ensure that only fuels with very low lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions are burned (thereby severely limiting development of the biomass 

industry). The commenters stated that this is especially true if states displace actual no-emissions 

renewable energy that would be built with biomass power. Meanwhile, the commenters stated 

that the treatment of bioenergy as having zero carbon emissions in the GHG rule goal rate

equation continues to promote the erroneous concept that burning biomass has no greenhouse 

gas impacts.

Commenters stated that EPA could improve the GHG rule and responsibly account for net 

bioenergy emissions. The commenters stated that with regard to states using bioenergy to meet 

the GHG rule's goals, the McCabe memo states that the Agency will "evaluate the biogenic 

feedstock components of proposed state plans - along with all other aspects of each plan - as part 

of the compliance plan review and approval process and will provide clarification as needed on 

the basis on which it will make such biomass-related evaluations." 

However, the commenters noted that the GHG rule still doesn't provide a means of calculating 

net emissions over time, which is what biogenic carbon accounting requires. According to the 

commenters, there is a mismatch between the Framework - which acknowledges that net 

emissions change over time - and the GHG rule equation, which simply counts stack emissions at 

time zero and expresses those as a ratio against electricity generation. The commenters stated 

that nothing in the GHG rule at present permits estimating "net" emissions and how they change 

over time. 

Regarding to climate warming effects over the timeframe of the GHG rule, the commenters

stated that the atmosphere cares about how much CO2 is emitted, not the rate at which it is 

emitted. The commenters stated that a rate is open-ended and does not constrain total emissions. 

In contrast, the commenters stated that a cumulative approach where total emissions (as tons 

CO2) are capped over a certain period would be more amenable to counting bioenergy net 

emissions, because net emissions can be calculated as of the target date for the cap. Instead of 

using the current rate-based approach, the commenters suggested that setting a cap for the 

maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted by 2020 and 2030 would do more to force states to 

live within their carbon budgets, and it would permit net carbon accounting for bioenergy. The 

commenters stated that it would better allow states to evaluate the relative impact of various 

power generation choices, and permit net carbon accounting so that the "value" of one ton of 

biogenic CO2 emitted now could be calculated for various points in the future. 

The commenters asserted that it is absurd to "reduce" greenhouse gas emissions by increasing 

them with the use of bioenergy, especially when the total amount of CO2 is unlimited by any 

cap, and the endorsement of "sustainably harvested" fuel opens the door to forest harvesting. The 

commenters stated that counting biogenic emissions as zero in state-level emissions rate 

calculations, then selecting fuels where sloppy or non- existent carbon accounting supports the 

conclusion of "zero" emissions, encourage more subsidies and incentives for bioenergy, leading 

to unconstrained development. The commenters stated that the GHG rule will be difficult to 

implement, and it may impose significant costs. The commenters argued that uncapped and 

uncounted bioenergy emissions raises the possibility that the rule, despite expense and effort, 
374

will "reduce" emissions on paper only. The commenters asserted that the EPA must require 

rigorous and protective science-based carbon accounting for all bioenergy proposed by states as 

they seek to meet EPA's targets under the GHG rule.

Relevant to cutting slow growth biomass, commenters asked if carbon credit standards will 

include the time dependence of feedstock replenishment and carbon capture/fixation capacity 

lost even during the time it takes to regain purported (lost biomass) neutrality. The commenters

contended that carbon credits take no account of temporal effects in carbon fixation recovery, 

and that time-neutral models of carbon neutrality have no connection to actual GHG atmospheric 

concentration reductions. The commenters asserted that burning slow growth biomass (trees) as 

pellets or biofuels is likely to increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, faster than burning non 

renewables, simply due to rate effects of carbon capture lost from missing tree carbon fixation 

capacity over the time of regrowth. The commenters questioned if burning slow growth biomass 

is entirely insane and counterproductive to reduction of atmospheric GHG concentrations now 

and going forward. The commenters questioned if all tree biomass burning should be stopped 

immediately for actual gains in GHG fixation capacity instead.

Commenters requested that EPA withdraw the memorandum issued by Acting Assistant 

Administrator Janet McCabe titled "Addressing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions from

Stationary Sources" ("McCabe Memo"), which outlines EPA's "thinking with respect to [the 

Clean Power Plan and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and their treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions." The commenters stated that the two key assertions in the McCabe 

Memo are: 

1. That the "use of waste-derived feedstocks and certain forest-derived industrial byproducts 

are likely to have minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 

emissions, or even reduce such impacts, when compared with an alternate fate of 

disposal." Based on this finding, EPA "expects to recognize the biogenic CO2 emissions 

and climate policy benefits of waste-derived and certain forest-derived industrial 

byproducts" when implementing the CPP. 

2. That EPA also "expects that states' reliance specifically on sustainably-derived 

agricultural- and forest-derived feedstocks may also be an approval element of their 

[CPP] compliance plans." 

The commenters stated that the McCabe Memo unlawfully exempts certain facilities and/or their 

emissions from regulation under the CPP. The commenters stated that EPA must withdraw the 

memo, and any future decision to regulate certain type of biomass feedstocks differently from 

other feedstocks must be accompanied by a full explanation of the legal and scientific bases for 

doing so. 

The commenters argued that if the EPA formalizes this new biogenic emissions framework, and 

allows all biogenic emissions to be counted as zero in emissions rate calculations, the door will 

be opened wide for states to encourage the co-firing of biomass and waste in power plants 

through various subsidies and incentives that states will implement under the Clean Power Plan. 
375

According to the commenters, this will lead to a severe increase in both greenhouse gas and toxic 

emissions.

The commenters stated that by allowing exemptions for pollution control requirements for power 

plants using waste derived fuels and so-called "sustainable" forestry and agricultural feedstocks, 

the EPA is sending a clear signal to a range of combustion energy companies that they can 

access a free pass for increases in their climate and toxic pollution loads, by burning biomass 

fuels and substituting a portion of their fossil fuels with such feedstocks. The commenters

asserted that such exemptions would fly in the face of recommendations made by over 90 

scientists earlier this year in a July 14th letter, which stated "only when bioenergy results in 

additional carbon being sequestered above and beyond the anticipated baseline can there be a 

justification for concluding that such energy use results in little or no increase in carbon 

emissions." 

The commenters suggested that EPA should adhere to the Precautionary Principle in ensuring the 

protection of community health, while applying rigorous science in assessing real greenhouse 

gas emissions reductions. The commented stated that the implementation of the Clean Power 

Plan should in no way incentivize the combustion of waste, biomass, or any other fuels for 

energy generation. The commenters stated that trees are part of an ongoing natural process that 

recycles atmospheric carbon because trees can remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. 

The commenters stated that use of trees for energy operates within the carbon cycle in a way 

that, unlike fossil fuels, does not add new sources of carbon to the atmosphere. The commenters

stated that biomass is an essential part of New Hampshire's energy strategy. The commenters

stated that in the November 19, 2014 McCabe memo, EPA affirmed the carbon benefits of 

biomass energy, and EPA released a revised carbon accounting framework for biomass energy. 

The commenters stated that they intend to include the use of biogenic feedstocks in New 

Hampshire's compliance plan and look forward to working with EPA toward successful 

implementation of this aspect of the CPP.

The commenters noted that in the proposed rule EPA acknowledges that "broadly speaking, 

burning biomass-derived fuels for energy recovery can yield climate benefits as compared to 

burning conventional fossil fuels" and that "[b]ecause of the positive attributes of certain 

biomass-derived fuels, the EPA recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role

in CO2 emission reduction strategies." 79 FR 34924. The commenters noted that EPA offers that 

states can include biomass energy in their implementation plans, yet despite this 

acknowledgement and offer, EPA's draft rule language fails to exempt biogenic CO2 emissions 

where boiler fossil fuel use is minimal (less than 10% of heat input). The commenters argued 

that state section 111(d) plans should not be required to address CO2 emissions from any type of 

EGU that gets 10% or less of its heat input from fossil fuel.

Commenters recommended that EPA should allow states to consider the use of biomass-derived 

fuel in affected units as an emission reduction measure. In order to do so, the commenters stated 

that EPA must distinguish biogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel CO2 emissions and provide a 

clearer policy that recognizes the carbon neutrality and GHG reduction benefits from biomass 

energy. The commenters stated that EPA's proposal does not give a clear indication how they 

will treat biomass emissions, leaving that decision upon review of state proposed implementation 

plans. The commenters stated that EPA does not provide the information needed to understand 
376

how much of a role biomass energy can provide in reducing fossil CO2 emissions under the rule 

to guide states' planning efforts. The commenters referred to the November 2014 McCabe memo 

and revised draft biogenic CO2 accounting framework and noted that EPA states that 

information considered in preparing the revised framework "supports the finding that the use of 

waste-derived feedstocks and certain forest-derived industrial byproducts feedstocks are likely to 

have minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 emissions, or even reduce 

such impacts, when compared to the alternative fate of disposal." The commenters noted that 

EPA also points to other "sustainably-derived agricultural- and forest-derived feedstocks [which] 

may also be an approvable element" of state compliance plans.

Comment 3: Comments on the role of biomass energy in mitigating carbon emissions from the 

electricity sector. 

Response 3: A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance 

purposes can be found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the preamble.

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

Commenters discussed the role of biomass energy in mitigating carbon emissions from the 

electricity sector.

Comment 4: Comments providing and incorporating by reference previous comments to EPA 

and to the SAB on the subject of biogenic CO2 emissions

Response 4: The EPA acknowledges receipt of these previously submitted comments.

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

Commenters attached and incorporated by reference previous comments to EPA and to the SAB 

on the subject of biogenic CO2 emissions

Comment 5: Comments requesting EPA finalize its position on the impact of biomass 

combustion on the carbon cycle before including RE goals in final rule.

Response 5: Biomass is not considered part of the best system of emission reduction in this rule 

and therefore it is not included in goal-setting 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. 

A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance purposes can be 

found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the preamble.
377

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

Commenters stated that the EPA must finalize its position on the combustion of biomass and its 

impact on the carbon cycle before including RE goals in the final rule. 

Comment 6: Comments on the importance of biomass in developing compliance plans under the 

CPP. 

Response 6: A discussion regarding the use of some biomass feedstocks for compliance 

purposes can be found in section VIII.I.2.c and section VIII.K.1 of the preamble.

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

Commenters noted the importance of biomass in developing compliance plans under the CPP.

Comment 7: Comments on expansion of RE and EE and creation of jobs.

Response 7: A discussion regarding employment and economic development can be found in 

section VIII.G.3 and in section XI.E of the preamble.

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

Commenters agreed that states must craft plans that make expanded use of renewable energy and 

energy efficiency, while prioritizing the creation of good clean energy jobs. 

The commenters noted that renewable energy and energy efficiency resources are making up an 

increasing percentage of America's energy mix. The commenters stated that in the past few 

years, renewable energy has experienced great growth and has become cost-competitive with 

fossil fuels, with wind prices decreasing overall on average by 58 percent and solar photovoltaics 

by 78 percent over the last five years, primarily due to technological improvements that have 

enabled projects to operate at higher capacity factors, as well as due to a decline in the prices of 

inputs in the manufacturing supply chain. The commenters stated that wind turbine costs, for 

example, have decreased 30 percent since 2008. The commenters stated that these trends will 

continue and renewables will increasingly become more cost-competitive than fossil fuels. In 

addition, energy efficiency programs have grown at an accelerated rate since the 2000s, from 

total spending was $1.6 billion in 2006 to $6.3 billion in 2013. The commenters stated that these 

expenditures are yielding significant energy savings and funding for customer energy efficiency 

programs is expected to continue rising in the future. As a result of this expansion, the 

commenters noted that jobs in these industries are experiencing and will continue to experience 

great growth. 

The commenters stated that numerous sources have noted clean energy's potential for job 

creation. The commenters stated that a report by the Worldwatch Institute and the Center for 

American Progress noted that renewable energy creates more jobs per unit of energy produced 

and per dollar spent than fossil fuel technologies do. The commenters stated that the 
378

Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings has also found that, as far back as 2010, 2.7 million 

people were employed in the clean energy sector whereas only 2.4 million people were 

employed in the fossil fuel sector. In addition, the commenters noted that AWEA reported that 

in 2012 more than 80,000 Americans were already employed full-time in the wind industry 

sector. Finally, the commenters stated that analysis by the Center for American Progress has 

concluded that twice as any medium and high credentialed jobs are being created in the clean 

energy industry in comparison to the fossil fuels' industry, and clean energy investments generate 

about 3.2 times the number of jobs as does investing the same amount of money in the fossil fuel 

sector. Thus, the commenters concluded that clean energy jobs pay more overall and those jobs 

are of better quality. 

The commenters stated that carbon standards for existing power plants that include significant 

investments in both renewables and demand-side energy efficiency also have the potential for 

robust job growth. The commenters stated that NRDC's proposal for how the EPA could shape 

these standards, which includes a significant expansion of energy efficiency, concludes that 

limits on carbon pollution from power plants have the potential to save Americans $37.4 billion 

on their electric bills by 2020 while creating more than 274,000 jobs. The commenters stated 

that because clean energy investments require more employment per unit of activity, others have 

noted that investments in clean energy will result in a net increase of 2.7 million jobs. The 

commenters stated that in order achieve this goal Pollin and Boyce have called for reducing 

energy consumption 30 percent by 2030 through efficiency improvements as well as renewable 

resources. The commenters stated that other academics have also concluded that hundreds of 

thousands of jobs can be created by California further expanding energy efficiency programs. 

The commenters concluded that renewable energy and energy efficiency contribute to create 

safer, long-term jobs while providing power at a lower cost. 

The commenters stated that the Clean Power Plan can help accelerate the clean energy economy 

and create good jobs by allowing states to achieve their targets through the implementation of 

renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. The commenters stated that the proposal 

would result in increased clean energy sector jobs and an estimated decrease of about nine 

percent in electricity bills by 2030. The commenters stated that the flexibility granted to states to 

achieve their targets with more renewable energy and energy efficiency than EPA has estimated 

for purposes of its state goals' calculation means a higher potential for new jobs in solar 

installation, wind infrastructure development, and construction of homes and businesses that are 

more energy-efficient, among other job options. The commenters stated that median wages are 

13 percent higher in clean energy jobs than the median United States wages. 

Comment 8: Comments supporting expansion of RE and EE and local economic development.

Response 8: A discussion regarding employment and economic development can be found in 

section VIII.G.3 and in section XI.E of the preamble.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
379

Commenters contended that states must take the driver's seat in crafting compliance plans that 

expand renewable energy and energy efficiency, while also prioritizing the creation of good, 

clean energy jobs to promote state and local economic development and improve community and 

workers' livelihoods. 

Referring to a November 2014 report from U.C. Berkeley, commenters stated that strong federal 

and state clean energy policies in California have resulted not only in substantial carbon 

emissions reductions but in stable, family-sustaining careers. The commenters stated that as a 

result of these policies, California's use of electricity from renewable sources increased from 11 

percent in 2008 to nearly 20 percent in 2013. During the same time period, the commenters

stated that the report finds that more than 15,000 new jobs have been created by California's 

solar construction boom, with workers building solar arrays earning on average $78,000 a year 

plus health and other benefits. 

The commenters stated that California's experience supplies a road map for states seeking to 

develop state plans that combine carbon emissions reductions with the creation of good jobs and 

economic development. The commenters stated that the report lists three key ingredients for 

success: (1) strong federal action, included the Obama Administration's American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which reserved more funds for clean energy than had been 

done at any time in our nation's history, loan guarantees that helped solar energy to take off in 

the depths of the Great Recession, and the Federal Business Energy Investment Tax Credit, 

which provides a 30 percent credit to residential, commercial, and utility scale solar systems; (2) 

California's aggressive climate change policies, includes AB 32, which requires a steep reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions, and SB X1-2, which expanded California's RPS to an ambitious 33 

percent target by 2020; and (3) "high road" job creation and construction policies: utility-scale 

solar projects that receive federal subsidies fall under the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that 

prevailing wages and benefits be paid. The commenters stated that California is not a right-towork state and as a result prevailing wages in construction tend to be the collectively bargained 

rate that includes good wages with decent benefits and contributions to apprenticeship training. 

The commenters noted the report contrasts California's "high road" employment practices with 

work on some federally-subsidized solar projects in right-to-work states, where nonunion rates 

prevail.

Comment 9: Comments suggesting that sources develop comprehensive workers' transition 

policies.

Response 9: A discussion regarding employment and economic development can be found in 

section VIII.G.3 and in section XI.E of the preamble.

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

Commenters argued that states should require affected sources to put in place comprehensive 

workers' transition policies. 
380

The commenters stated that for a number of years, the electric sector has been moving away 

from coal towards natural gas and renewable energy (i.e., in comments to EPA's 111(b) proposal, 

the commenters documented that coal generation fell from over 2 billion MWh in 2007 to 1.58 

billion MWh in 2013). The commenters noted that older and less-efficient power plants continue 

to retire due to competition with other generation resources and environmental requirements, 

with approximately 20 GW of coal retired between 2008 and 2013. The commenters noted that 

the EIA estimates that, regardless of any impending environmental regulations, there will 

continue to be a shift away from fossil-fuel-fired generation towards a renewable energy 

economy and that by 2040, renewables will account for almost one third of the growth of 

generation resources. 

The commenters suggested that in the course of developing their plans to achieve the state goals 

under the Clean Power Plan, states should continue to move away from coal, which is no longer 

economical and results in major environmental harms. The commenters stated that in 

incorporating policies to continue to move away from coal, states must also establish measures to 

ensure that owners and operators of coal-fired power plants that will reduce or terminate their 

operations protect their workforce and guarantee that their workers can transition smoothly to the 

coming clean energy economy. In other words, the commenters suggested that state plans must 

require owners and operators of coal-fired power plants to put in place comprehensive transition 

policies to minimize the impacts of potential job losses and incentivize their participation in the 

growing renewable energy economy. To this end, the commenters stated that owners of power 

plants that will have to reduce their utilization or close should have policies in place specifically 

geared to workforce development, family-sustaining employment, and livelihood guarantees (for 

example, health care, pensions during some period after job loss, and severance packages). The 

commenters stated that this may require government financial assistance. 

Comment 10: Comments addressing support to workers during the implementation of the CPP.

Response 10: A discussion regarding employment and economic development can be found in 

section VIII.G.3 and in section XI.E of the preamble.

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

Commenters argued that States must continue to turn away from fossil fuels by taking advantage 

of economic forces and actively engaging in specific areas experiencing job losses. The 

commenters argued that states should support the development of plans to help workers and 

communities in transition, which should include financial assistance. The commenters provided 

for example, one of the objectives in Washington State's SB 5769, along with requiring 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions from large coal-fired electric power generation facilities, is

to provide financial assistance to communities who are affected by the transition away from coal. 

The commenters stated that the bill fulfils this purpose by mandating that the Community 

Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and the Public Works Board each find new projects for 

redevelopment in the region, and requires qualifying facilities to offer financial aid to the 
381

affected community that is "equivalent to the amount of tax benefits received from the sales and 

use tax exemptions on coal." 

The commenters suggested that states should also engage the private sector and civil society to 

fund initiatives to support workers and their communities. The commenters noted the Solar 

Community Initiative, administered by the World Wildlife Fund and executed by the solar firm 

Geostellar, provides useful lessons for the design of such programs. Under that program, the 

commenters noted that employees can install rooftop solar on their homes at discounted prices -

35 percent below the national average for solar - and pay 50 percent less than the average griddelivered electricity in their bills. The commenters stated that this is an example of how 

renewable energy companies are beginning to offer solar energy as a workers' benefit. The 

commenters argued that states must work with renewable energy industry stakeholders to expand 

the availability of these programs to workers in affected communities. The commenters stated 

that solar panels not only reduce consumers' electricity bills; workers whose job is to install solar 

panels are also increasingly becoming aware of how cleaner technologies are replacing dirtier 

forms of electricity, with environmental benefits. The commenters noted that this type of 

incentive offers a way to attract and retain workers to clean energy jobs, and also helps prequalify people in those jobs for the said benefits. 

The commenters noted that energy efficiency can also be channeled towards benefiting affected 

communities, and states should encourage affected sources to invest in these measures. For 

example, the commenters noted that weatherization assistance programs can be utilized in lowincome and minority areas to help shrink the energy affordability gap. The commenters noted, 

according to the DOE, investments in weatherization generate $2.51 in energy savings while 

reducing energy bills by $1.80. The commenters also noted that assessment of Ohio's Home 

Weatherization Assistance Program concluded that it has generated jobs, reduced pollution, and 

lowered consumers' energy bills by more than 20 percent which will not only create jobs in areas 

burdened by the costs of electric bills (e.g., more than 300,000 Ohio households with incomes at 

or below the 50 percent federal poverty level pay over 30 percent of their annual income to 

energy bills), but it will further promote investment in local economies. 

6.6 RESOURCES

This section discusses various resources available to states and requested by commenters, 

including those available in the Decision Support Toolbox and other resources such as funding 

and external tools.

6.6.1 Decision Support Toolbox - The agency requested comment on the types of tools and 

information that would be helpful for states as they develop their compliance plans.

This section discusses the Decision Support Toolbox and addresses comments and suggestions 

on what types of information and guidance should be provided by EPA to states to aid in the 

development of state plans.
382

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

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

Comment 1: Commenters stated that EPA should provide guidance to states to enable them to 

most effectively incorporate CHP and/or WHP into their compliance plans. 

Response 1: The EPA believes that information on how to account for CHP and WHP in state 

plans is clearly spelled out in the final rule (see sections V.A.6 and VIII.G of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP), and that no additional guidance is required. The EPA has also provided 

information on CHP and WHP on the Clean Power Plan Toolbox.

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

Commenters stated that while EPA has said that states can go beyond the building blocks to 

achieve their targets, it does not explain how CHP and WHP at unaffected units might fit into a 

state plan. The commenters recommended that EPA ensure that states are aware that CHP and 

WHP are valuable compliance tools and provide appropriate guidance for states to include 

policies that support their deployment in their compliance plans. The commenters stated that in 

particular, states will need model rules detailing the best way to include CHP and WHP in 

renewable portfolio and energy efficiency standards and guidance on how to appropriately credit 

CHP output and emissions impacts. The commenters stated that these written materials can be 

supplemented with a CHP and WHP conference for states and other stakeholders involved in 

developing compliance plans.

Commenters stated that it is critically important that the EPA provides guidance to states that 

explicitly addresses methodologies for incorporating CHP in their compliance strategies. The 

commenters suggested that EPA provide model rules addressing how CHP can be credited in 

portfolio standards and through other mechanisms. According to the commenters, one of the 

most critical findings from a recent study for the State of Minnesota is that the economic 

potential for implementation of CHP is significantly larger than prior studies have concluded if 

the model shifts from CHP plants owned by customers who have very high Weighted Average 

Cost of Capital (WACC), i.e., very short simple payback thresholds, to electric utilities which 

have significantly lower WACC, as illustrated in Figure 7 of the commenters’ submittal. The 

commenters suggested that states should be encouraged to change laws, policies and programs to 

facilitate access to low-cost capital for CHP implementation by allowing and encouraging 

electric utilities to build CHP plants as rate-base investments and/or through low-interest loan 

programs.

Commenters suggested the EPA address state regulations and policies, including utility tariffs

that act as barriers for the deployment of CHP systems. As an example, the commenters noted 

that some Midwestern states' "unwarranted demand or standby power charges make CHP 

systems financially unviable." The commenters noted that low avoided cost rates discourage 

CHP system projects that could be sized to the full thermal load, if they could profitably sell 

power back to the grid. The commenters believed that complex, opaque interconnection 

requirements and discriminatory net-metering policies were another impediment to CHP and 
383

recommended the EPA provide guidance on state financing mechanisms and options for utility 

investments in and/or financing of CHP system projects. The high cost of capital for private 

investors is a significant market barrier to CHP system projects, the commenters noted and 

suggested that state funds, utility financing, and tax credit programs may affective means of 

promoting CHP. The commenters suggested the EPA guidance also provide examples of how 

emission reduction credits trading systems can be structured to create value for private sector 

CHP system developers. 

Comment 2: Commenters suggested that EPA include information on WHP resources in the 

CPP toolbox for states and clearly identify WHP as a zero-emitting power source.

Response 2: In the final rule, the EPA has clearly identified the role of WHP as either a loweremitting GHG reduction measure or a zero-emitting measure, depending on the type of WHP 

system. For WHP systems commonly referred to as bottoming cycle CHP, EPA recognizes their 

role as a lower-emitting measure. For other WHP, EPA recognizes the original power generating 

unit’s GHG emissions will depend on the type of fuel that is used. However, the incremental 

power generated through the WHP process will have no associated GHG emissions, as no 

additional fuel is used.

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

Commenters suggested that EPA include information on WHP resources in an appropriate 

section of the Clean Power Plan toolbox for states. The commenters suggested that EPA clearly 

identify WHP as a zero-emitting power source in EPA resources. The commenters stated that 

renewable and nuclear energy are the only zero-emitting power sources mentioned in the 

proposed rule, preamble and the EPA Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan. 

The commenters suggested that EPA make WHP information available in a section of the 

toolbox dedicated to zero-emitting power resources. The commenters stated that currently, 

someone searching the toolkit for zero-emitting power resources would not find WHP. The 

commenters stated that instead, very basic information on WHP can be found under the 

"Combined Heat and Power Technology Options" which are under the "Technical Resources for 

Reducing CO2 from Power Plants" in the "Clean Power Plan Toolbox for States", not a place 

people searching for info on WHP and other zero-emitting power sources would look. 

The commenters suggested that WHP information in the toolkit should include: available 

resources that describe the technologies employed to capture waste heat and convert it to 

electricity, the availability of waste heat resources, fact sheets, project profiles that describe 

successful projects, guidance, templates, the DOE market assessment report to be released later 

this year, and other tools that will help states develop their plans. The commenters stated that in 

addition, the document: "Catalog of States that Include WHP in their Renewable Energy and 

Energy Efficiency Policies and Programs" (attached to comment letter) provides information on 

states that already include WHP in their state programs, and may be of value to other states 

pursuing similar inclusion of WHP.
384

Comment 3: Commenters requested guidance from EPA to provide clarity on a number of 

issues, including state plan development. 

Response 3: The EPA believes that state plan requirements are clearly spelled out in the final 

rule. This includes how to treat EGU retirements and new Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

(NGCC) units; interactions with section 111(b); enforceability considerations related to 

requirements in a state plan for entities other than affected EGUs; tools and methods for 

projecting emission performance in state plans; how to treat renewable energy; corrective 

measures; multi-state plan development and the inclusion of non-BSER emission reduction

methods in state plans. 

The EPA plans to take comment on EM&V approaches as part of the Federal Plan proposal and 

then to provide guidance on EM&V approaches and how to consider community impacts. The

In the event that states continue to have questions about state plan requirements, the EPA will 

work closely with them to provide necessary information well before final plans are due.

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

Commenters stated that EPA must provide guidance on plan development at the time the rule is 

promulgated. The commenters noted that the planning window for this complex rule is very short 

and states need to be able to make maximum use of the time available. 

Commenters stated that available options must be clarified. The commenters stated that it is 

critical that EPA issue guidance documents or promulgate appropriate regulatory text to provide 

states with certainty in establishing and implementing applicable requirements under a Section 

111(d) plan given that state plans are due June 2016. The commenters stated that neither the 

proposed regulatory text nor the preamble address key issues that are crucial for developing a 

plan for compliance. For example, the commenters stated that how the retirement of existing 

EGUs will be treated is a fundamental issue that needs to be answered before a state can even 

begin to develop a plan, dialogue with stakeholders, or collaborate with other states. 

The commenters stated that the issues most in need of clarification include the following: (1) 

EPA should recognize and allow any coal-fired EGU retirements after the 2012 base year to 

count toward compliance to meet a state's goal; (2) The use of new Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

(NGCC), with or without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), should be allowed by a state to 

achieve its goal; (3) Section 111(d) should not be applicable to an existing source that has been 

modified and/or reconstructed, thereby being subject to Section 111(b) and Subpart TTTT; (4) 

While the Cabinet disagrees with an interim goal, EPA should promulgate the alternate goals as 

an available regulatory option to allow maximum flexibility in adopting either goal and its 

associated timeline; and (5) The Cabinet recommends that out-of-sector offsets be allowed where 

the designated pollutant, CO2, is directly mitigated. Kentucky's reforestation initiative is 

consistent with this premise and should be allowed as a compliance option.

Commenters also called for EPA to issue clear rule and concurrent guidance developed with 

states. The commenters stated that any final rule should be clear and comprehensive enough that 

the need for implementation guidance is minimized. If such guidance is needed, the commenters
385

stated that EPA should develop any guidance with state involvement and publish it concurrently 

with any final rule, especially given the very short timelines proposed for states to submit plans 

and begin implementation.

To maintain a level playing field while achieving meaningful reductions, the commenters stated 

that the rule should be written to encourage accountability. The commenters stated that 

monitoring, verification, and backstop provisions should be reasonable and clear, developed in 

consultation with states. The commenters recommended that EPA work with states to ensure that 

contingency measures are available, recognizing the importance of states maintaining control 

over their programs and advancing a system of flexible and iterative implementation.

Commenters noted that EPA requests comment on whether to develop guidance for a number of 

topics: enforceability considerations related to requirements in a state plan for entities other than 

affected EGUs; evaluation, monitoring, and verification of renewable energy and demand-side 

energy efficiency programs and measures incorporated in state plan; tools and methods for 

projecting emission performance in state plans; and the inclusion of non-BSER emission 

reduction methods (such as electricity transmission efficiency improvements or the use of new 

NGCC units) in state plans. The commenters requested that EPA develop guidance for all topics 

identified, and requested that the guidance be timely, and made available for states as they begin 

to develop their state plans. The commenters noted that EPA has often delayed guidance related 

to State Implementation Plan development to shortly before, or even after, the required submittal 

deadline, leaving States in a position of having to decide between developing and submitting 

plans that may be inconsistent with pending EPA guidance (and risk disapproval of said plans), 

or delaying plan development and submittal and risking a finding of failure to submit by EPA.

Commenters recommended balancing state policy-making autonomy with the need for 

accountability by providing clear tools for states to use in assessing programmatic level 

compliance using existing monitoring, verification, and reporting system requirements when 

possible.

Commenters welcomed additional guidance in areas EPA deems appropriate. The commenters

stated however, any such guidance should be advisory in nature and not mandatory. The 

commenters stated that EPA should also provide to the States guidance on multi-state plan 

development.

Commenters requested that EPA issue clear guidelines on the state plans in or with the final rule. 

The commenters stated that these guidelines would form the basis for states to develop plans and 

for EPA regions to review and approve them. The commenters stated that any additional 

guidance issued by EPA should be discretionary and available as soon as possible in advance of 

the deadline for initial plan submittal.

Commenters recommended that EPA provide assistance to states to reduce the amount of time it 

takes for states to develop and submit their state plans, including:

• Detailed examples of elements of compliance pathways, such as trading programs, 

EM&V protocols and program, REC trading, corrective measures, and other items 

identified above in these comments.
386

• Modeling support for converting rate-based goals into mass emissions budgets for those 

states that want to pursue a mass-based approach. 

In light of state's established statutory and regulatory timeframes, the commenters recommended 

that EPA should clarify what states need to include in a submittal to be in compliance with the

rule's deadlines for submitting a plan.

Comment 4: Commenters state there is a need to provide states with guidance to help them 

through the planning process and to include minimum criteria for state plans. Commenters 

offered a list of minimum criteria to include.

Response 4: The EPA believes that state plan requirements are clearly spelled out in the final 

rule, and that minimal guidance is required. This includes a flexible emission standards 

approach, mass-based approach and a flexible state measures approach. Should a state choose, it 

could apply a fee or tax for CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, or related excise taxes that 

directly or indirectly address CO2 emissions from affected EGUs, as a state measure under a 

state measures type plan. Where a state applies a fee for CO2 emissions from an affected EGU, 

and the fee paid is for an emission allowance that allows an affected EGU to emit a ton of CO2, 

such a mechanism would meet the definition of an emission standard in the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 60.21. The EPA does not have a position on the design elements of a 

carbon fee or tax, including the entity to which a fee or tax is applied, the entity administering 

the fee (the state directly or an agent of the state, such as an ISO or RTO), or any legal issues that 

might arise, based on how a state chooses to apply a fee or tax, with respect to state or federal 

statutes outside the scope of the CAA.

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

While commenters supported EPA providing states with significant flexibility in the 

development of state plans, the commenters indicated there is a clear need to provide guidance to 

states to help them through the planning process and also to describe minimum criteria for state 

plans to ensure environmental integrity and achievement of the state standards of performance. 

The commenters suggested four categories of policies that EPA should consider providing 

guidance on and must develop minimum criteria: 

1. Flexible intensity-based standards

2. Mass-based standards

3. Carbon fees

4. Resource standards or portfolio approaches 

The commenters noted that EPA, the states, and other jurisdictions have experience with all of 

these policy approaches, and recommended that EPA look to those existing programs as 

guidance and minimum criteria are developed. The commenters provided Table 9.1 
387

that describes the four policy approaches, provides ideas on how EPA could establish minimum 

criteria, and provides background on how they impact different resource types and stakeholders.

The commenters provided the following minimum criteria for the policy types they indicated 

EPA should refine and include as further guidance on state plans and emphasized that these 

suggestions are additional criteria beyond EPA's proposed CPP state plan components.

Flexible intensity-based standards:

a. Requirement on the regulated fossil generator to meet the emissions standard on an 

annual or multi-year basis, with the opportunity to offset emissions with credits from 

non- and low-emitting sources;

b. Standard reporting, compliance, and enforcement provisions;

c. Energy efficiency evaluation, monitoring, and verification requirements in order to 

certify units of energy savings that can be converted to credits;

d. Renewable energy certificate (REC) tracking system to avoid double-counting and to 

allow tracking of units of energy that can be converted to credits;

e. System and methodology to convert efficiency and renewable MWhs to emissions 

credits and a platform to track and trade those credits;

f. Requirement to address emissions leakage or increased emissions associated with 

expanded fossil generation and exports;

g. Prohibition on conversion of RECs and efficiency savings to emissions credits from 

mass-based states (the mass based state is already accounting for the emissions reduction; 

however, RECs from that state could still be used for RPS compliance).

Mass-based Standards:

a. Requirement on the regulated fossil generator to meet the emissions standard by 

holding emissions allowances equal to their emissions;

b. Standard reporting, compliance, and enforcement provisions;

c. Note: we do not think a leakage requirement is needed in mass-based or carbon fee 

states, as the potential for leakage and increased generation exists primarily in the states 

that adopt a rate-based approach that allows generation and total emissions to increase.

Carbon Fees:

a. Requirement on the regulated fossil generator to pay a fee based on their emissions 

over a given period of time;
388

b. Normal reporting, compliance, and enforcement provisions;

c. Backstop requirement to track and regularly adjust fees (with adjustment periods not to 

exceed annually) if emissions rise above levels allowed by the state standard of 

performance and have an adjustment made to ensure the standard is being met if 

emissions rise above allowed levels (this requirement must include an enforcement 

mechanism on the fossil generators regulated under Sec. 111(d), as previously discussed).

Resource Standards or Portfolio Approaches:

a. Requirement on the regulated load serving entity (LSE) or distribution company 

providing services to consumers to procure a set amount of efficiency or renewables 

based on percentages of sales or what is cost-effective (note: there could be other state 

policy approaches that regulate other entities beyond fossil generators or the LSE);

b. Standard reporting, compliance, and enforcement provisions;

c. Energy efficiency evaluation, monitoring, and verification requirements;

d. Renewable energy certificate (REC) tracking system to avoid double counting;

e. Requirement to address emissions leakage or increased emissions associated with 

expanded fossil generation and exports;

f. Prohibition on claiming an emissions benefit from RECs generated in mass-based 

states (the mass based state is already accounting for the emissions reduction; however, 

RECs from that state could still be used for RPS compliance); and

g. Backstop requirement to track emissions in relation to the state standard of 

performance and have an immediate adjustment made to ensure the standard is being met 

if emissions rise above allowed levels (this requirement must include an enforcement 

mechanism on the fossil generators regulated under section 111(d)), as previously 

discussed.

Comment 5: Commenters suggested that EPA develop guidance and provide assistance to states 

seeking to create mass-based plans.

Response 5: The EPA developed mass-based CO2 goals to help address this concern. (Please 

see Section VII.C of the final rule preamble of the CPP). In addition, the agency is providing 

comprehensive information on how to develop mass-based plans in Section VIII.C of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
389

Commenters supported the currently proposed interim compliance period. The commenters

stated that EPA offers the opportunity for states to adopt mass based plans and multi-state plans 

as compliance vehicles. The commenters stated that single and multi-state mass based plans, like 

RGGI, can provide a means to mitigate the impacts of the perceived "cliff" in the Interim 

Compliance Period. The commenters suggested that EPA develop guidance and provide 

assistance to states seeking to create mass based plans with a particular focus on preserving the 

stringency of Interim Targets and ensuring compliance with them.

Comment 6: Commenters stated that EPA should provide guidance and protocols that establish 

nationally consistent EM&V standards for emissions, allowances, credits, offsets, and other 

parameters.

Response 6: The EPA plans to request feedback on EM&V approaches as part of the Federal 

Plan proposal, and then will issue guidance. In addition, in the final rule the EPA provides clear 

information on crediting for EE and RE, and how to track those credits in Section VIII of the 

final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should provide guidance, infrastructure, tracking mechanisms, and 

protocols that establish nationally consistent evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) 

standards for emissions, allowances, credits (e.g., EE and RE), offsets, generation, and other 

parameters that are used in goal setting and compliance determinations. For example, the 

commenters stated that EPA could host or sponsor a registry for EE measures. The commenters

noted that this could ensure greater compliance, as well as provide a mechanism for states, 

utilities, and EE practitioners that could potentially serve as the foundation for an EE trading 

platform.

Comment 7: Commenters suggested that EPA provide states with systems and example 

protocols to facilitate implementation of state plans and multistate approaches, including 

guidelines for recognition of existing tracking and accounting systems to facilitate state 

compliance.

Response 7: The EPA believes that state plan requirements are clearly spelled out in the final 

rule, and that minimal additional guidance is required. This includes credit tracking and 

pathways for compliance. The EPA plans to request feedback on EM&V approaches as part of 

the Federal Plan proposal, and then will issue guidance.

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

Commenters suggested that to facilitate development of the architecture for effective 

implementation of state plans and multistate approaches, EPA should provide states with 

optional: 
390

• System(s) for tracking emissions, allowances, reduction credits, and/or generation 

attributes that states may choose to use in their plans;

• Examples of protocols that provide a minimum acceptable level of EM&V, issued 

concurrent with the Final Rule, that can be used in connection with crediting of emission 

reduction measures, such as energy efficiency and/or renewable energy; and

• Detailed examples of elements of compliance pathways, such as trading programs, 

corrective measures, crediting mechanisms and other similar items.

The commenters stated that EPA should also provide guidelines for the recognition of existing 

state or regional tracking and accounting systems to facilitate state compliance.

Comment 8: Commenters argued that EPA should give more guidance on treatment of Energy 

Services Companies (ESCOs) delivering EE through performance contracting and guidance to 

states in developing state plans.

Response 8: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the EPA should provide guidance and 

support to states in developing their state plans, so as to minimize delays and maximize efficacy 

of compliance. See section VIII.H of the final rule preamble of the CPP for resources that states 

can use in developing their plans. The EPA has provided information on accounting for energy 

efficiency in state plans, including what measures can be used, how to account for them, and 

how to measure them. Please refer to Section VIII.K.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. For 

details of the requirements for multi-state plans, see Section VIII.C.5 of the final rule preamble. 

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

Commenters argued that the EPA should give more guidance in the final rule on the treatment of 

entities such as ESCOs that will be delivering EE achievement through performance contracting 

directly with large commercial and industrial customers. The commenters asserted that the EPA 

can and should provide guidance and support to states in developing their state plans, so as to 

minimize delays and maximize efficacy of compliance. The commenters stated that the EPA can 

serve an important role in facilitating multi-state compliance by providing detailed examples of 

elements of compliance pathways, such as trading programs, EM&V protocols and program, 

REC trading, corrective measures, and other items.

Comment 9: Commenters suggested that EPA provide clarity as to the technologies that can be 

used as compliance options, provide guidance on incorporating them into state plans, and factor 

them into the BSER.

Response 9: The final guidelines include details on the measures that can be relied on in state 

plans. Please see Sections V.A.6, VIII.C, VIII.J, and VIII.K of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP. We are also finalizing the option of a state measures plan type, which would allow states to 

rely on measures besides those on affected EGUs. (State-only measures would, however, need to 
391

be enforceable as a practical matter as defined in the emissions guidelines, and states using the 

state measures plan would need to include a backstop of federally-enforceable measures on 

affected EGUs.) See sections VIII.C.3 and VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble. See section 

VIII.K.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a discussion of emission trading programs 

using credits generated through EE and RE.

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

Commenters supported the Clean Power Plan's inclusion of greater detail on approvability 

criteria, requirements for state plan components, the process and timing for state plan submittal, 

and the process and timing for demonstrating achievement of the carbon emission performance 

level in the state plan. The commenters also supported that the proposal provides for more 

guidance to states on options for meeting the state-specific goals established by EPA in a flexible 

manner that accommodates a diverse range of state approaches. 

The commenters suggested that EPA provide clarity as to the technologies that can be used as 

compliance options, provide guidance on incorporating them into state plans, and factor them 

into the BSER. While EPA should provide as much specific guidance as possible on approvable 

measures and policies, the commenters suggested EPA should also reiterate and make clear that 

additional measures and policies can be approved even if not specifically named in the Clean 

Power Plan. The commenters recommended that this guidance contain as many default 

approvable policies as possible and criteria on which additional state policies will be evaluated.

The commenters acknowledged that the Clean Power Plan notes that there is a broad range of 

compliance options available to states as they develop their implementation plans (e.g., natural 

gas, renewable energy, nuclear, energy efficiency, transmission and distribution improvements, 

and energy storage are listed as options). The commenters noted that while EPA has indicated 

that states can propose options outside of that list, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what 

other options EPA might allow. In the final rule, the commenters recommended that EPA 

explicitly recognize the technologies that can serve as compliance options and provide guidance 

to states on the use of these technologies in compliance plans. The commenters stated that to the 

extent EPA expands the available compliance options, the emissions reductions that can be 

provided by those resources should also be factored into the BSER in order to ensure symmetry.

Comment 10: EPA should republish guidance concurrent with the Final Rule for incorporating 

emerging and voluntary measures into state plans, including, but not limited to, energy efficiency 

and renewable energy.

Response 10: We agree with commenters that the EPA’s prior guidance on enforceability of EE 

and RE measures can serve as the foundation for the types of measures that the EPA has found 

can be enforced as a practical matter, which is required for all federally- and state-enforceable 

measures under the CPP. See Section VIII.D.2 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The final 

guidelines detail how states can incorporate energy efficiency and renewable energy measures 

into a state plan, including accounting for emission reductions in state plans, and how to 

demonstrate that a measure is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable and 
392

enforceable. Please refer to Sections VIII.D, VIII.E, and VIII.F of the final rule preamble of the 

CPP.

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

Commenters stated that EPA should republish guidance concurrent with the Final Rule for 

incorporating emerging and voluntary measures into state plans, including, but not limited to, 

energy efficiency and renewable energy. The commenters stated that this guidance may be very 

similar to the 2004 guidance and the 2012 roadmap intended for SIPs, with minor adjustments 

for state 111(d) plans. According to the commenters, it is noteworthy that the guidance and 

roadmap for SIPs are focused on nonattainment areas, where the location of actual emissions 

reductions is important; however, this is less of a concern for CO2 which is mostly of concern 

due to climate change effects and is well-mixed in the atmosphere.

Comment 11: Commenters asked for complete and timely guidance on roles of the state and 

EPA region.

Response 11: The EPA, especially through our regional offices, will be available to work with 

states as they develop their plans, in order to make review of submitted plans more 

straightforward and to minimize the chances of unexpected issues that could slow down approval 

of state plans. Please also see section VIII.H of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a toolbox 

of resources that states can use in developing their plans. 

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

Commenters stated that at times the EPA has provided guidance to states after deadlines by 

which states were expected to submit material to the EPA. The commenters stated that it will be 

imperative to have the EPA's clearest guidance on how to implement the measures in an 

approvable State Plan in the short time available to comply with the rule. The commenters

strongly urged the EPA to ensure that any guidance on the final 111(d) rule be both complete and 

timely. The commenters noted that plan development and the need for guidance will begin 

before EPA issues the final rule. The commenters stated that using similar state-EPA region 

coordination processes for 111(d) as are used for air quality SIPs would be helpful. The 

commenters stated that the goal of guidance would be to clearly articulate roles and 

responsibilities in the short time available for Plan development and help facilitate a final State 

Plan that is both approvable and acceptable to all stakeholders.

Comment 12: Commenters recommended that the EPA provide clear guidance to states in 

developing their compliance plans and provided several types of suggested guidance.

Response 12: The final rule addresses how to treat new natural gas combined cycle plants, outof-state renewable energy generation, EM&V, enforceability, multi-state or regional compliance, 

market-based approaches, equivalence of state programs, rate-to-mass conversion, penalties for 
393

non-compliance, state compliance plan tracking, and plan review. See Section VIII of the final 

rule preamble of the CPP. 

The EPA added a requirement to the final rule that a state’s initial submittal must contain a 

description of the engagement with stakeholders, including vulnerable communities, that the 

state has undertaken already and that it plans for the period of final plan development. Further, 

states’ final plan submittals must contain similar descriptions. The EPA provides guidance to the 

states in the final rule on how to engage communities in a meaningful way. The EPA will 

continue to provide recommendations and tools to states and communities that will help enable 

meaningful conversations about the concerns of vulnerable communities. The EPA consulted its 

May 2015 Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of 

Regulatory Actions in the creation of this final rulemaking and encourages states to consult this 

document as they create their state plans. See sections VIII.D-E and IX.B of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP for more details on how EPA has addressed these comments in the rule.

The EPA, especially through our regional offices, will be available to work with states as they 

develop their plans, in order to make review of submitted plans more straightforward and to 

minimize the chances of unexpected issues that could slow down approval of state plans. Please 

also see section VIII.H of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a toolbox of resources that states 

can use in developing their plans. In addition, the agency is coordinating with other federal 

agencies to provide information and assistance in areas such as worker transition.

As noted in section VIII.F.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the agency is not finalizing a 

position to periodically review emission guidelines.

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

Commenters recommended that the EPA provide clear guidance to states in developing their 

compliance plans to ensure that states are able to develop and submit robust plans in a timely 

way, and that such guidance cover issues such as treatment of certain energy options, best 

practices, methodologies, non-compliance penalties, processes, and options for addressing 

worker transition and environmental justice concerns. 

The commenters asserted that clear guidance to states from the EPA will help ensure that 

compliance plans are robust and timely. The commenters noted that the Clean Power Plan's 

flexibility provides many cost-effective options for states to reduce emissions, but there are some 

complex issues raised by the interaction of these options and a need to ensure states are on track 

to achieve emissions reduction goals. The commenters suggested that the EPA should provide 

clarity on some key issues mentioned below, many of which were raised in stakeholder 

comments and the NODA.

The commenters recommended in particular that the EPA provide guidance on:

Treatment of new natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants. The commenters stated that in the 

final rule the EPA should provide clear guidance to states on how to treat new NGCC plants, 

both in the state emissions rate formula and for compliance purposes. The commenters

recommended that, if new NGCC plants are used for compliance, it will be important to ensure 

that the resulting emissions are appropriately accounted for.
394

Treatment of out-of-state renewable energy generation. The commenters stated that renewable 

energy will be a key component of state compliance plans and the EPA should provide clear 

guidance on how states should track and account for renewable energy that is traded across state 

boundaries. The commenters recommended that the EPA clarify for states how they should treat 

out-of-state renewable energy generation for compliance plan purposes to encourage 

development of cost-effective renewable energy resources nationwide, avoid double-counting, 

and ensure synchronization with existing energy trading and tracking systems.

Evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V). The commenters stated that robust 

protocols for EM&V for electricity generation, energy efficiency, and other components of state 

compliance plans must guard against double-counting to provide for robust emissions accounting 

across all building blocks. The commenters recommended that the EPA provide states "best

practices" and sample methodologies for conducting EM&V with regard to these issues, and 

provide certification protocols for methodologies developed by other parties. 

Criteria for enforceability. The commenters noted that state compliance plans that incorporate 

state programs must contain federally enforceable components to ensure that the emissions 

reduction goals are met. The commenters recommended that the EPA provide clear guidance to 

states on incorporation of such components for demonstrating compliance. 

Multi-state or regional compliance. The commenters noted that multi-state or regional strategies 

may be attractive to states as the least-cost compliance option. The commenters recommended 

that the EPA provide robust methodologies for demonstrating compliance under such multi-state 

approaches. 

Market-based approaches. The commenters noted that states may also choose market-based 

approaches as a least-cost compliance option. The commenters recommended that the EPA 

provide robust methodologies for demonstrating compliance under such market-based 

approaches. 

Equivalence of state/regional programs. The commenters noted that states may incorporate 

existing or new state or regional programs into their compliance plans. The commenters

recommended that the EPA provide states with clear methodologies for determining the 

equivalence of the emissions reductions achieved by such programs with the requirements of the 

CPP. 

Rate-to mass-based conversions. The commenters noted that in a November TSD, the EPA 

provided guidance for states on converting between emission rate- and mass-based goals. The 

commenters recommended that the EPA provide further clarification on key considerations for 

such conversions, especially if the EPA implements any changes to the formula for calculating 

state emissions rate goals in the draft CPP.

Penalties for non-compliance. The commenters noted that penalties for non-compliance will be 

an important component of a successful CPP. The commenters recommended that the EPA 

provide clear guidance to states about penalties. 
395

State compliance plan tracking. The commenters supported the EPA's proposal in the draft rule 

with regard to state plan compliance tracking, and recommended that the EPA require states to 

undertake annual tracking of actual plan performance during implementation, and that the EPA 

require state compliance plans to include true-up provisions to ensure that they are on track to 

meet the interim and final compliance goals. 

Review and updating process for the CPP. The commenters recommended that the EPA provide 

clear guidance to states about the timing of future updates to the CPP, and ensure that a review 

and update process takes place by 2025. 

Worker transition assistance. The commenters noted that compliance with the CPP may cause 

localized negative economic impacts. The commenters recommended that the EPA offer 

guidance to states on ways to address concerns about such impacts, require that states assess 

impacts of their compliance plans on workers and communities, and highlight for states a variety 

of policy mechanisms for worker retraining and economic diversification. 

Environmental justice (EJ). The commenters recommended that the EPA require states to 

conduct an EJ analysis of the state's proposed compliance plan, offer states data, methodology, 

and tools to conduct effective EJ analyses; and offer examples of how compliance plans could be 

used to support EJ communities.

Comment 13: Commenters stated that EPA should release model provisions to guide states.

Response 13: The agency is concurrently proposing Federal Plan and model rules for states to 

use in developing their state plans under the CPP. For the final guidelines’ requirements for 

EM&V, credit issuance and use, multi-state plans, and other topics related to state plans, see 

Section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA should release model provisions to guide states. The 

commenters explained that several states that have already been working to reduce GHG 

emissions in their power sectors are well positioned to leverage existing programs to implement 

the Clean Power Plan. However, the commenters noted that many other states do not have the 

administrative infrastructure or institutional knowledge to easily develop and implement a state 

plan. Because of this, the commenters suggested that additional assistance from EPA, either 

directly or by encouraging multi-state forums during the implementation process, would make it 

more likely for many states to establish a plan in the timeframe proposed. 

The commenters stated that they recognize that the EPA is not in a position to release a full 

model rule. The commenters noted that a one-size-fits-all model plan for states to adopt is 

precisely what the flexibility in the Proposal was designed to avoid, and the resources necessary 

for such an endeavor would likely be better put to use elsewhere. However, the commenters

encouraged the EPA to explore the development of certain "model provisions" in lieu of a model 
396

rule. The commenters stated that there are several critical issues that states are likely to struggle 

over, and model provisions targeting these issues could not only ease the burden on state 

regulators, but encourage consistency, or at least compatibility, across state lines, thereby 

enabling interstate credit trading and other forms of cooperation while building a network to 

more easily connect in future congressional action. The commenters stated that they expect such 

model provisions or recommendations from collaborative processes established or recognized by 

the EPA to be popular among states. The commenters stated that the EPA could conduct a faster 

plan review process when plans are built on these collaborative processes.

In deciding what issues to target through model provisions, the commenters suggested that the 

EPA should consider measures for which state models do not already exist, as well as programs 

that are inconsistent across state lines and can benefit from collaboration. The commenters noted 

for example, a model cap-and-trade program may not be helpful for states since models already 

exist in California and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). However, the 

commenters noted that states could also choose to use direct carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax, 

to implement the Clean Power Plan. According to the commenters, since there is no model of a 

carbon tax at the state level, it would be helpful for EPA to release a model provision to show 

how such a tax could be designed and implemented. The commenters suggested that the EPA 

may wish to consider working with states to establish a methodology any state could use to 

determine the specific carbon price that would be sufficient to achieve compliance. According to 

the commenters, this model provision could also show what steps states would need to take to 

demonstrate to EPA that the necessary cuts are being made.

Additionally, the commenters noted that states are likely to struggle in developing an accounting 

method to demonstrate when emission cuts are being made through energy efficiency programs, 

both on an intrastate and interstate basis. The commenters explained that States currently use 

varying MR&V protocols to assign emission cuts to energy efficiency, and consistency here 

would ease cooperation among states. The commenters stated that guidance on this point could 

also help ensure efficiency programs can only earn credit when they result in real emission 

reductions, and that such reductions are not double counted. Furthermore, the commenters noted 

that states could benefit from assistance in accounting for energy efficiency programs that lead to 

emission cuts in other states, discussed further below.

The commenters stated that renewable energy crediting is another area in which states could use 

assistance to foster interstate consistency because currently there are several Renewable Energy 

Credit (REC) markets across the country, with inconsistent rules and protocols. The commenters

acknowledged that EPA should not use the Clean Power Plan to force states into using a certain 

REC protocol. However, the commenters stated that suggesting best practices through a model 

provision would help improve interstate consistency and the ability to trade RECs across regions, 

thereby improving the cost effectiveness of the Clean Power Plan. The commenters stated that 

additional guidance on this topic could also help prevent the double counting of renewable 

generation.

The commenters stated that a patchwork of inconsistent measures designed to achieve the same 

goal (e.g., a carbon tax in two neighboring states that operate through different mechanisms) will 

impair state cooperation, will make it more difficult for power companies and other businesses to 

operate across state lines, and will make a nationally consistent GHG program more difficult to 
397

establish. The commenters concluded that the EPA could help prevent these problems by 

developing a set of model provisions or collaborative processes in the planning period that states 

are encouraged to use with the promise of faster plan review. In addition to model provisions, the 

commenters suggested that the EPA could help states develop their plans by holding a series of 

workshops or webinars on critical topics.

Comment 14: Commenters asked that EPA explore the issue of energy efficiency program costeffectiveness in depth, and develop guidance that helps utility commissions and other 

stakeholders develop and apply appropriate cost-effectiveness methodologies for 111(d) 

compliance.

Response 14: The EPA does not have authority over the way utility-funded energy efficiency 

programs are developed. That responsibility lies with state Public Utility Commissions, who 

have many tools at their disposal to consider the most cost-effective way to reduce CO2 

emissions.

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

Commenters discussed the role of cost-effectiveness testing in energy efficiency and carbon 

reductions and asked EPA to provide utility commissions and other stakeholders with guidance 

in this area. 

The commenters stated that the Proposed Rule notes with confidence that "The processes by 

which states develop funding for energy efficiency programs typically require the application of 

cost effectiveness tests to ensure that adopted program portfolios lead to lower costs than the use 

of generation sources that would otherwise be required to meet the associated electricity service 

demands." However, the commenters noted that the role of cost-effectiveness fundamentally 

shifts in a 111(d) compliance framework. The commenters stated that currently, ratepayerfunded programs are subjected to cost-effectiveness tests that assign benefits based on current 

avoided costs of capacity and energy, typically without externality costs or costs of 

environmental compliance included. The commenters noted that in many states, especially those 

with restructured retail electricity markets, utility commissions are unable to assign specific 

values to energy and capacity costs, because such factors are determined in unregulated 

wholesale markets (e.g., they typically apply generic wholesale price estimates or other 

indicators as proxies for the true avoided costs that a given state may incur for 111(d) 

compliance).

The commenters asked that EPA explore the issue of energy efficiency program costeffectiveness in depth, and develop guidance that helps utility commissions and other 

stakeholders develop and apply appropriate cost-effectiveness methodologies for 111(d) 

compliance. The commenters stated that such methodologies may not match current approaches, 

which are widely recognized as being in need of reform. The commenters provided for example, 

a state with restructured retail markets that has been using wholesale-market proxy values may 

need to develop specific avoided costs estimates based on the generation resources included in its 

compliance plan, plus any carbon prices that may be reflected in wholesale markets. The 
398

commenters stated that in this respect, the focus of cost-effectiveness shifts from current 

avoided-cost methods to a more forward-looking comparative cost of compliance approach, 

which is currently a "best practice" in cost-effectiveness screening, but is rarely applied in 

practice. The commenters stated that the EPA's cost-per-ton estimates developed in the 

regulatory impact analysis shows that efficiency costs less per ton of CO2 avoided than average 

costs for renewables, nuclear, and gas combined-cycle technologies. So the starting assumption 

should be that efficiency will generally be the least cost compliance resource, and EPA guidance 

for state cost-effectiveness methods should reflect this fundamental fact, while also detailing the 

differences between flawed test methods widely used at present, and the best practice approaches 

that would be appropriate for 111(d) compliance purposes.

Based on their experience, the commenters stated that residential retrofit projects are 

systematically undervalued in most current cost-effectiveness methods. The commenters stated 

that this bias inaccurately penalizes energy efficiency in residential settings, where benefits and 

costs should be viewed a broader basis that nominal energy and dollar savings. The commenters

stated that evaluation research shows that homeowners value non-energy benefits such as 

comfort, health, aesthetics, and resale value at or above the nominal monetized benefits that 

current cost-effectiveness tests typically measure. The commenters are working to evolve these 

methods to more appropriately reflect the ways that benefits and costs are treated in these 

markets, and asked that EPA consider this evolution in its guidance to states.

The commenters stated that today, ratepayer funded programs are usually required to pass a costeffectiveness test (as noted in the draft regulation). The commenters stated that these tests are 

based on five tests originally developed in the 1970s California Standards Practice Manual (for a 

determination if new generation assets are cost effective and in the public interest). According to 

the commenters, despite more recent updates, these tests are often implemented in ways that are 

biased against energy efficiency investments because they account for all the costs, but 

frequently ignore many of the benefits. The commenters agreed with the Proposed Rule's 

assertion that there is little consistency in the application of best practices as noted in Part VIII 

State Plans: "many states with energy efficiency program use different input values and 

assumptions in applying these practices (e.g. net versus gross savings, run-time of equipment, 

measure lifetime). This can result in significant differences in claimed energy savings values for 

similar energy efficiency measures between states and utilities, even when the same measure type 

is installed under otherwise identical circumstances.'' The commenters stated that these 

problems could be a serious concern to states that wish to move forward with energy efficiency 

projects, but have tests do not fully value energy efficiency.

The commenters stated that the evolving practice of cost-effectiveness testing in residential 

retrofit markets is reflected in the Resource Value Framework (RVF) developed by the Home 

Performance Coalition and numerous stakeholders, including Efficiency First, through the 

National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). The commenters stated that the RVF provides a 

powerful tool for public utility commissions to ensure that their cost effectiveness tests are 

balanced, transparent, and account for public policy goals.

The commenters recommended that each state use the RVF for developing and implementing 

efficiency screening tests. According to the commenters, the Framework is a framework of 

principles and recommendations to provide guidance for states to develop and implement tests 
399

that are consistent with sound principles and best practices. The commenters stated that it is 

intentionally designed to provide each state with the flexibility to ensure that the test they use 

meets their state's distinct needs and interests, as provided in relevant energy policies and 

regulatory orders.

Specifically, the commenters noted that in "The Resource Value Framework: Reforming Energy 

Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Screening" the NESP advocates that in designing an energy 

efficiency screening test, each state should adhere to the following principles:

• The Public Interest. The ultimate objective of efficiency screening is to determine 

whether a particular energy efficiency resource is in the public interest.

• Energy Policy Goals. Efficiency screening practices should account for the energy policy 

goals of each state, as articulated in legislation, commission orders, regulations, 

guidelines and other policy directives. These policy goals provide guidance with regard 

to which efficiency programs are in the public interest.

• Symmetry. Efficiency screening practices should ensure that tests are applied 

symmetrically, where both relevant costs and relevant benefits are included in the 

screening analysis. For example, a state that chooses to include participant costs in its 

screening test should also include participant benefits, including low-income and other 

participant non-energy benefits, otherwise the test will be skewed against energy 

efficiency resources.

• Hard-to-Quantify Benefits. Efficiency screening practices should not exclude relevant 

benefits on the grounds that they are difficult to quantify and monetize. Several methods 

are available to approximate the magnitude of relevant benefits, as described below.

• Transparency. Efficiency program administrators should use a standard template to 

explicitly identify their state's energy policy goals and to document their assumptions and 

methodologies.

• Applicability. In general, the Resource Value Framework can be used by regulators in 

any state to determine if customer-funded energy efficiency resources are cost-effective. 

The RVF may also be applicable for evaluating the costs and benefits of other demandside and supply-side resources, although application in this context has not yet been fully 

examined.

The commenters stated that the RVF has direct implications for the success of states using 

energy efficiency in their plans for 111(d) compliance, as these tests will help states to develop 

programs with the most cost-effective energy efficiency and best carbon reductions. However, to 

best utilize the RVF as a compliance tool, the commenters explained that states need a Standard 

Practice Manual (SPM) that incorporates 111(d) policy and carbon reductions in its

implementation. According to the commenters, the current SPMs across the country do not 

currently incorporate the RVF or the public policy elements that the RVF includes, thus this new 

policy tool needs to be developed. The commenters urged EPA to recommend the use of the 

RVF to states that wish to test their 111(d) compliance programs for cost-effectiveness in order 
400

to encourage deeper energy savings opportunities and carbon reductions, particularly in the 

residential sector. Furthermore, the commenters recommended that EPA support the 

development of a Standard Practice Manual that provides direct guidance to the states on using 

the RVF to enhance their testing procedures and ensure they are getting the most carbon and 

energy savings out of their energy efficiency programs.

Comment 15: Commenters suggested that EPA encourage states to take a multi-faceted 

approach in their state plans and to use best available tools and guidance in developing their 

plans.

Response 15: In line with the commenters’ request, the final guidelines require that state plans 

require monitoring and verification plans for demand-side EE that quantify and verify electricity 

savings on a retrospective (ex-post) basis using industry best-practice EM&V protocols and 

methods that yield accurate and reliable measurements of electricity savings. See Sections 

VIII.D.2 and VIII.K.3 of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters suggested that the EPA should encourage states to take a multi-faceted approach in 

their state plans and carefully evaluate the GHG effects of their approach ex-ante using 

appropriate tools and guidance. The commenters expressed concern that some states may rely on 

a single program, such as RGGI. The commenters noted that while RGGI provides an excellent 

model for a multi-state cap and trade program and it has been correlated with a significant 

reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity in its member states, its past efficacy in driving 

those reductions is inconclusive. As another example, the commenters stated that GHG 

reductions from demand-side energy efficiency programs can be diminished to some extent by 

the rebound effect. To evaluate their approaches, the commenters suggested that the EPA should 

encourage states to use best available tools and guidance, such as The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's 

Policy and Action Standard, which is the product of a multi-stakeholder process of businesses, 

NGOs, governments, academic institutions, and others convened by the World Resources 

Institute "WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The 

commenters stated that the use of such tools will help ensure that states perform realistic 

forecasts of GHG reductions achievable by their programs and will likely lead to a greater 

diversity of mechanisms employed, resulting in a greater chance of success.

6.6.2 Other Resources

This section includes requests for resources other than guidance and information, such as 

financial assistance and workshops.

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

topics (comments) below. Responses are also provided for these topics.
401

Comment 1: Several commenters asked for federal funding to aid in state plan development 

efforts. 

Response 1: The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes a $25 million increase to support states 

as they implement the requirements of the President’s Clean Power Plan. Of this increase, $17.5 

million will be provided to support states’ Clean Power Plan modeling, technical analysis, and 

training efforts under CAA Section 103 authority and $7.5 million will be allocated to states for 

Clean Power Plan activities under CAA Section 105 authority. 

The President’s FY 2016 Budget also includes a $4 billion Clean Power State Incentive Fund to 

support states that choose to go beyond the minimum requirements established in the Clean 

Power Plan for the pace and extent of carbon pollution reductions from the power sector.

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

Commenters stated that at a minimum, all state plans should be due no earlier than June 2018, 

with a mechanism for later submittal if warranted. The commenters requested that EPA continue 

to provide a high level of technical assistance through its regional offices and headquarters and 

work closely with states as they develop and analyze their state plan options. Similar to the 

process EPA utilizes to develop and analyze regulatory proposals, the commenters stated that 

they must first develop and then analyze the potential impacts of multiple compliance 

approaches on the State and its citizens. The commenters stated that this requires consultation 

with experts and use of environmental and economic modeling and takes considerable time, 

money and expenditure of resources. The commenters stated that consideration should be given 

to assisting states with funding for modeling and providing access to economic experts. 

Commenters stated that stakeholders have already expended a large amount of resources to date 

reviewing and understanding this complex rule. The commenters stated that this expenditure of 

staff time has primarily involved understanding the goal computation, the implications for the 

calculation, the interaction of the building blocks (in particular the regulatory aspects), and the 

science behind the proposal. The commenters recognized that a larger expenditure of resources 

will be required once the rule is finalized, a plan is developed, and implementation begins. The 

commenters expressed concern related to resources including: 1) adequate staff to implement this 

rule; 2) the limited knowledge of the integrated nature of the power grid; 3) the resources needed 

to effectively coordinate among other state regulatory agencies to develop new state legislation; 

4) the staff and tools to conduct future modeling to ensure compliance and determine consumer 

rate costs; and 5) resources to analyze and address EJ issues. The commenters noted that States 

have been given no indication that the EPA will assist or provide states with the necessary 

resources to address these issues.

The commenters stated that EPA should provide leadership in securing resources that would be 

available to the states to ensure adequate compliance measures are in place at least by the time 

this rule is finalized. The commenters stated that if additional resources are secured to support 

the implementation of this proposed rule, existing funding should not be reduced for 

implementing other mandatory core programs. In discussions with utility stakeholders pertaining 

to anticipated modeling needs, the commenters stated that millions of dollars are currently being 

spent for their respective model forecasting efforts, which includes costs for hardware, software, 
402

and staffing. The commenters stated that even contracting with modeling consultants for this 

service could require hundreds of thousands of dollars in contractual fees that states do not 

currently have.

Commenters stated that EPA must provide financial assistance to help states with the 

development of state or multi-state compliance plans. The commenters stated that to facilitate 

development of the architecture for effective implementation of state plans and multi-state 

approaches, EPA should also provide states with optional:

systems (or system) for tracking emissions, allowances, reduction credits, and/or generation 

attributes that states may choose to use in their 111(d) plans;

examples of evaluation, measurement and verification protocols that provide a minimum 

acceptable level of EM&V, issued concurrent with the final rule, that can be used in connection 

with crediting of emission reduction measures, such as energy efficiency and/or renewable 

energy; and detailed examples of elements of compliance pathways, such as trading programs, 

corrective measures, crediting mechanisms and other similar items.

Commenters also noted that development of state plans will require significant staffing and 

resources, and urged the federal government to provide additional funds to support state plan 

development. The commenters stated that in addition, that their states have extensive experience 

developing state and regional clean energy and carbon emission reduction programs and are 

willing to work with other states to share information, analysis, and lessons learned from our 

programs as all states begin to consider compliance options and develop state plans.

Commenters estimated that to create and enforce a State Plan with the certainty required by the 

EPA, their state will need to hire more Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) at an approximate cost of 

$100,000 per year per FTE plus operating expenses. The commenters stated that they do not 

presently know how many FTEs it will need to create and enforce a State Plan as this number 

will depend on the final rule and the flexibility provided. The commenters noted that relevant 

agencies must ask the Idaho Legislature for additional funding or spending authority for these 

positions. The commenters stated that the EPA should provide funding to the state in order to do 

the work that is required by this Proposed Rule.

Commenters recommended funding be available for research and development into the lightweighting of wind blades and turbines, and of new battery technologies, to increase the reliability 

of generation resources and increase storage ability.

Commenters stated that using Federal rule-making authority to leverage non-utility resources is 

essential for the success of the CPP, and the most likely way this will occur is through financial 

services. The commenters explained, based on a study by LBNL, for every dollar used by 

utilities as incentive for customer energy efficiency investments, another dollar came from other 

sources, such as from intergovernmental revenue and as importantly, from lending programs of 

various kinds of financial institutions. The commenters provided examples of potential financial 

services, including: a request by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for comments on 

explicitly granting credit to entities regulated under the Community Reinvestment Act for 

commitments they make to investing in energy efficiency in their primary service territories; the 
403

Federal Housing Finance Authority issued biennial proposals to increase the goals set for Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to meet the needs of underserved markets, and the discourse included 

discussions of how to reduce energy demand, and the need to reduce energy demand through 

location efficiency, the spatial targeting of credit authority to reduce spatial diffusion and thereby 

increase the efficiency of energy used for transportation and for buildings; and the release in 

2013 by HUD and USDOT of the Location Affordability Portal, which provides geocoded data 

and calculators to help planners and households estimate the combined costs of housing and 

transportation at any location in the US. The commenters explained that an early version of the 

information provided by the Location Affordability Portal was used successfully to help 

underwrite location-efficient mortgages, and similar tools can be used to boost the demand for 

and supply of energy-efficient mortgages too. Commenters added that evaluation of this type of 

tool has shown superior loan and energy performance, and such tools deserve attention and 

Federal support in helping to meet the nation's carbon pollution reduction goals.

Comment 2: Commenters stated that it is important that there are sufficient resources to carry 

out the Clean Power Plan. 

Response 2: The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes a $25 million increase to support states 

as they implement the requirements of the President’s Clean Power Plan. Of this increase, $17.5 

million will be provided to support states’ Clean Power Plan modeling, technical analysis, and 

training efforts under CAA Section 103 authority and $7.5 million will be allocated to states for 

Clean Power Plan activities under CAA Section 105 authority. 

The President’s FY 2016 Budget also includes a $4 billion Clean Power State Incentive Fund to 

support states that choose to go beyond the minimum requirements established in the Clean 

Power Plan for the pace and extent of carbon pollution reductions from the power sector.

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

Commenters stated that it is essential that adequate funds and staff are provided at the Federal 

and State levels to carry out the required processes in the Clean Power Plan: planning, 

permitting, inspection, verification, data systems and enforcement. In a similar comment, 

commenters stated that it is essential that EPA provide state and local agencies with the 

significant additional resources needed to make the Clean Power Plan a success.

Commenters stated that the planning and analysis necessary to meet EPA's targets are substantial 

and require additional support. The commenters stated that the President recognized this 

challenge in his proposed FY 2015 budget when he asked for a nearly $20-million increase to 

support Section 111(d) state plan development. The commenters reiterated their strong support 

for these additional resources but cautioned against this funding coming at the expense of state 

and local air agencies' core programs. Further, the commenters urged EPA to build upon its 

strong foundation of pre-proposal dialogue to develop resources to facilitate states' abilities to 

conduct their Section 111(d) planning. Commenters referred to two attachments to their 

comment: 
404

NACAA Principles Letter: In response to EPA's early outreach, the commenters developed a set 

of Section 111(d) Principles in August 2013 to help guide the development of the proposed rule. 

Though its proposal does not offer everything for everyone, the commenters expressed 

appreciation that EPA has included much of what NACAA recommended in its Principles.

NACAA Co-sponsored 111(d) Webinars. The commenters noted that one of the most universal 

reactions to the Clean Power Plan proposal by state and local agencies was a request for 

technical assistance to better understand the rule. To that end, earlier this fall, the commenters

partnered with two other state associations, the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies 

(AAPCA) and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), to host a series of Clean Power Plan 

webinars on discrete topics. The commenters stated that all three organizations collected 

questions from their members before submitting them to EPA for responses. The commenters

stated that the topics included building blocks two and three, crediting avoided or reduced 

emissions, multistate issues, enforceability of state plans and rate-to-mass conversion. The 

commenters expressed appreciation for EPA's commitment to staff the calls and provide 

responses to the questions submitted. The commenters stated that while many of the questions 

helped clarify what EPA included in the proposal, others also identified issues that EPA left 

unresolved. The commenters attached copies of the questions raised by state and local air 

pollution control officials and strongly urged that EPA resolve them, especially as they help to 

identify areas where EPA should provide agencies with more detailed implementation tools and 

guidance.

Commenters also asked what additional resources EPA is planning to provide when the final rule 

is finalized to ensure the integrity of EE accounting, and also ensure that states have what they 

need to move forward with creditable EE programs?

Comment 3: Commenters addressed staff resources for the 111(d) state plan process.

Response 3: This comment is an observation, rather than a request.

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

The commenters noted that they have expended significant resources to analyze and disseminate 

information in EPA's Clean Power Plan proposal. The commenters stated that this includes 

reading the proposed rule and all supporting documentation, holding meetings with power plant 

owner/operators, educating managers, and participating in legal work, all of which precedes 

actually drafting a state plan. The commenters stated that this staff effort represents over nine 

full-time equivalents (FTEs) since early 2012. The commenters stated that this coverage has been 

provided by existing staff with additional duties but with no additional resources, including labor 

or funds.

For state plan development, the commenters stated that Kansas may need both statutory and 

regulatory changes, which will require effort from senior managers and staff and will include 

legislative briefings. The commenters stated that the amount of staff effort in analyzing and 

commenting on the rule will be replaced by the staff time needed to educate and involve 

stakeholders and develop a plan. The commenters stated that they can expect to spend at least 
405

three FTE's amongst approximately six to eight staff and managers involved in implementing 

this regulation (including proposing a state plan) over the next several years. The commenters

stated that development of state plans will entail many hours of staff time to develop and 

coordinate programs for compliance with the rule, as well as time to work with state legislatures 

as appropriate and develop a plan submittal.

Comment 4: Commenters suggested that EPA sponsor technical workshops for states.

Response 4: The EPA plans to hold technical implementation workshops for states in the fall of 

2015, and will continue to provide assistance and work with states as they develop their plans. 

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

Commenters stated that there should be more time in the process for states to understand the 

complexities of an extremely technical rule that goes beyond traditional environmental

regulation and delves into the world of energy generation and distribution. The commenters

suggested that the EPA sponsor technical workshops for the states in order to address their 

questions about the realities of implementing the proposed rule. The commenters also 

recommended that states be given more time to develop and submit their state implementation 

plans. The commenters noted that, according to the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), 

states implement approximately 96 percent of all delegated federal environmental programs. The 

commenters noted that against this backdrop the amount of money awarded to states by the 

Federal Government has been reduced from $5 billion in fiscal year 2010, to $3.6 billion in fiscal 

year 2013. The commenters stated that this means that states are being asked to do more and 

more with fewer and fewer resources when it comes to federal environmental programs like the 

Clean Power Plan. The commenters stated that EPA should recognize that states are carrying a 

huge burden with shrinking resources and at least give states more time to work with key 

stakeholders like the business community and tribes to develop state implementation plans for 

this proposal.

Comment 5: Commenters urged EPA to expand educational and consulting efforts with state 

legislatures.

Response 5: The EPA will work with the National Conference of State Legislatures to ensure 

that state legislatures are informed of state plan requirements, and to determine if any additional 

consultations, tools or information materials would be helpful as states develop their plans.

Additionally, as outlined in sections VIII.E and IX.B of the final rule preamble of the CPP, the 

EPA is requiring that states engage with all members of the public including vulnerable

communities. Please see these sections for more information on the requirements and some 

suggestions that the agency provides for states to help them engage meaningfully with 

communities.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
406

Commenters urged the EPA to expand its educational and consulting efforts with state 

legislatures, both as the agency works to finalize its proposed rule by June 2015 and as states 

move forward with drafting their state implementation plans (SIPs) that would be due in June 

2016. The commenters encouraged the EPA to work with those state legislatures where new 

authorization or enabling legislation may be required in order to comply with the carbon 

emissions standards.

Comment 6: Commenters recommended that EPA assist states in developing public education 

programs aimed at the benefits of energy efficiency.

Response 6: The EPA has many sources of information on the benefits of energy efficiency, 

especially through ENERGY STAR and the State Climate and Energy program. The agency 

recognizes that states have better insights into the information needs of their constituents, and 

will work with states and their associations to ensure that they have the information they need to 

inform their public of the benefits of energy efficiency.

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

Commenters stated that an informed public will greatly increase the effectiveness of the aims of 

the Clean Power Plan. The commenters recommended that the EPA assist states in the 

development of public education programs aimed at the benefits of how and why energy 

efficiency will improve both health and wealth.

Comment 7: Commenters stated that technical assistance programs should be available to assist 

the water sector (and other sectors) in identifying potential EE/RE opportunities.

Response 7: The EPA’s ENERGY STAR and Water Sense programs both have information on 

energy efficiency potential for water utilities. In addition, ENERGY STAR holds regular 

trainings for water and wastewater utilities. The agency also has an Energy Management SelfAssessment Tool for Water and Wastewater Utilities, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/waterinfrastructure/howto.html and the Energy Use Assessment 

Tool, which was designed for small- and mid-sized water and wastewater plants.

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/energy_use.cfm.

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

Commenters stated that technical assistance programs should also be available to assist the water 

sector (and other sectors) in identifying potential EE/RE opportunities and making 

recommendations. The commenters stated that this is especially important for smaller water and 

wastewater utilities that may not have the resources or expertise to participate in incentive 

programs without assistance but may nevertheless have potential EE/RE projects. 
407

Comment 8: The commenters requested that the EPA assist Colorado in finding ways to 

simplify and expedite the federal permitting processes associated with Clean Power Plan 

compliance. 

Response 8: The federal permitting process for the construction of new generating facilities and

transmission lines is a process that involves the coordination and consultation with a number of 

federal agencies. The Clean Power Plan does not require the development of new generation or 

transmission facilities but it does provides states with considerable flexibility in developing their 

compliance plans and the EPA is looking forward to working with states to help them develop 

those plans. To the extent there is the need for federal permitting as a result of the Clean Power 

Plan, the EPA will work with its counterparts in other federal agencies to help make the process 

as efficient as possible.

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

The commenters stated that an important consideration for Colorado in complying with the 

Clean Power Plan is the fact that over 35 percent of the state is a patchwork of public lands. The 

commenters stated that any Colorado emission reduction plan will likely require interaction with 

these lands for the siting and construction of new generation and transmission facilities. The 

commenters stated that coordination with federal permitting agencies presents a very real 

challenge in terms of developing a statewide emission reduction plan within the timeframes set 

forth in the Clean Power Plan and asked EPA to acknowledge this challenge and assist Colorado 

in the federal permitting processes.

Comment 9: Commenters stated that EPA must provide tribes with financial assistance to 

encourage tribes to submit implementation plans.

Response 9: The EPA supports the development of tribal air programs to assess, understand and 

address problems affecting the health and environment of federally recognized Indian 

tribes. While all tribes are eligible for support, the agency’s priorities are to address areas with 

the highest risks and those where the greatest results are being realized, when funds are 

unavailable to meet every request. EPA is working closely with tribes with effected EGU’s on 

implementing the CAA. Navajo Nation currently has TAS for many provisions of the CAA, 

particularly for implementing Title V, among other provisions. The agency will work with 

Navajo Nation to determine the best approach for addressing the requirements for the CPP for 

their area of Indian country. However, the agency neither has the authority nor jurisdiction to 

encourage Navajo Nation to reconsider their lease agreements.

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

Commenters stated that the EPA must provide tribes with financial assistance to encourage tribes 

to submit implementation plans. The commenters stated that section 301(d) (1) (B) authorizes 

EPA to provide eligible Indian tribes "grant and contract assistance" to implement the statutory 

programs for which they seek treatment as state (TAS) approval. The commenters stated that 
408

under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), EPA has interpreted this provision as authorizing the 

agency to provide funding to tribes in accordance with sections 103 and 105 of the Act. The 

commenters stated that section 103 authorizes EPA to provide funding for research and 

development costs, and section 105 provides grants to air pollution control agencies. The 

commenters stated that the TAR sets forth a lower matching requirement for tribes applying for 

grant assistance under section 105. The commenters stated that a tribe is eligible for up to 95 

percent of the cost of implementation of air quality programs for the first 2 years of a grant 

award, and up to 90 percent thereafter. The commenters stated that the EPA Regional 

Administrator may increase the federal share to 100 percent if the tribe can demonstrate "that 

fiscal circumstances within the tribe are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match 

would impose undue hardship." 

The commenters stated that the affected sources under the supplemental proposal are located in 

land leased from Indian tribes. The commenters asked the EPA to encourage those tribes who 

elect to apply for TAS approval to develop their own plans to consider negotiating amendments 

to those leases in order to incorporate specific requirements on those affected sources under the 

plans.

Comment 10: Commenters noted that state energy and clean energy officials requested that EPA 

support state program competency in EE program design and delivery.

Response 10: The EPA recognizes states’ competency in EE program design and delivery, 

which is why it is one of the leading options for GHG compliance as part of this rule. Details on 

how to include EE in state plans are in Sections VIII.C, VIII.D.2, and VIII.K.3 of the final rule 

preamble of the CPP. For resources that states can use in developing their plans, including EE 

measures, see Section VIII.H of the final rule preamble.

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

In anticipation of EPA's 111(d) proposal, the commenters noted that state energy and clean air 

officials requested that EPA support state program competency in EE program design and 

delivery. The commenters acknowledged the quality of federal government resources supporting 

state clean energy programs through DOE, EPA and Regional Energy Efficiency Organizations. 

However, the commenters stated that federal agencies place too much faith in best practices 

taking root in the states. The commenters stated that there is a big gap between best practices in 

energy planning, which are more useful to states like California, and common practices in energy 

planning in most states. The commenters stated that communicating essential practices rather 

than an ideal set of best practices, which quickly become obsolete, could provide better support 

for some states. However, the commenters noted that states already feel burdened by EPA, so 

addressing that gap may be best a job best suited for foundations and other nonprofits. 

The commenters stated that it will be up to the private sector to address some carbon emissions 

planning needs and backsliding at the state level. The commenters stated that the EPA and 

federal agencies can only accomplish so much without more help from foundations and 
409

nonprofits, clean energy consultants and planners, and from greater civic engagement on global 

warming.

Comment 11: Commenters recommended EPA’s final rule should highlight different structures 

through which EE improvements can be achieved.

Response 11: The EPA highlights a variety of state plan options to incorporate EE into 

compliance plans, including both the emission standards approach and state measures approach, 

as well as the option to develop a rate-based or mass-based plan. Each pathway includes 

accounting criteria, eligibility requirements and credit tracking for each pathway. See section 

VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP.

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

Commenters recommended EPA's final rule should highlight different structures through which 

energy efficiency improvements can be achieved. Commenters stated EPA's Block 4 BSER can 

be delivered through state-run programs or by EGUs working with private energy efficiency 

services companies. Commenters indicated an EGU can contract with companies in the energy 

efficiency program industry, as well as with energy service performance contractors or with large 

energy users, to design and implement energy efficiency programs, and to estimate savings. 

Commenters stated many energy efficiency opportunities can be captured by targeting actors 

"upstream" of the customer, for example, providing incentives to retailers to stock and sell 

energy efficient products; or the EGU might collaborate with other EGUs in the state to fund and 

implement programs jointly. Commenters noted that EGUs have access to the capital needed to 

fund energy efficiency improvements.

Comment 12: Suggested EE tools

Response 12: The EPA appreciates the commenters’ suggested “EE Evaluation Tool.” The 

questions that the commenters suggest generally either have answers prescribed as part of the 

final guidelines (e.g., “Who validates program results?”) or are indeed required to be answered in 

state plans/plan submissions (e.g., “What assumptions are made in the energy savings and 

emission reduction calculations?”) See Section VIII of the final rule preamble of the CPP. 

The EPA, especially through our regional offices, will be available to work with states as they 

develop their plans, in order to make review of submitted plans more straightforward and to 

minimize the chances of unexpected issues that could slow down approval of state plans. Please 

also see section VIII.H of the final rule preamble of the CPP for a toolbox of resources that states 

can use in developing their plans.

The following are summaries of the specific public comments under this comment:
410

Commenters offered a detailed "EE Evaluation Tool" to EPA for consideration. Commenters

stated that States and stakeholders will be able to use the Evaluation Tool to evaluate EE 

programs for possible inclusion in a 111(d) plan, but that the tool is currently a working 

document. Commenters noted that the tool places components of the proposed Clean Power Plan 

in the context of related EPA guidance and actions on EE emission reduction credit. Commenters

believed that this document could assist EPA as it finalizes the Clean Power Plan, because it 

highlights where additional guidance from the Agency would clarify remaining ambiguities. 

Commenters noted that the tool is rooted in the Agency's past guidance and is organized around 

the four basic requirements for emission reduction credits: quantifiable, enforceable, permanent, 

and non-duplicative. Commenters detailed the questions which guide the evaluation of EE 

programs in the tool as follows:

Quantification Questions:

1. Does a State bundle small/short-term/emerging EE programs?

2. How does the program calculate energy savings?

1. How does the program convert energy savings to emission reductions?

2. How does the program validate results?

3. Who validates program results?

4. How often are progress and program results reported?

5. What assumptions are made in the energy savings and emission reduction calculations?

6. Does a State treat "emerging" program measurements differently?

Enforceable Questions:

7. Who is responsible for the emission reductions or other program outcomes?

8. Does the State have authority to assess penalties or seek relief if program terms are 

violated?

9. Does the State commit to make up shortfalls and if so, how should it do this?

10. Can private citizens enforce provisions of the program?

11. Is the program "practicably enforceable?"

Surplus/Non-Duplicative Questions:

12. Is the EE program mandated by or already used to comply with Federal law?

13. How does the program ensure it is taking credit only for in-State emission reductions (or 

otherwise fairly allocate emission reductions across states)?
411

14. Are the EE program energy savings included in the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 

Reference Case?

Permanent Questions:

15. How long do energy savings or emission reductions persist?

16. Does a State have adequate authority and funding for the program for the compliance 

period?

Comment 13: Commenters offered their company’s analytics platform to assist with 

compliance.

Response 13: EPA appreciates the information provided; however, the agency’s review of third 

party compliance tools is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

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

Commenters stated that the C3's smart grid analytics platform and applications offer an 

enterprise-wide capability that enables utilities to better plan for, more effectively comply with, 

and more accurately validate performance under EPA's proposed rule. The commenters also 

attached a copy of the company's technology overview.

6.7 OTHER

This section discusses a variety of other issues raised by commenters, including coordinating 

efforts with other agencies, support for the approach to state compliance, encouraging consumer 

voice and providing criteria for public participation, and a suggestion for states to adopt 

intervener funding through PUCs.

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: Commenters stated that EPA should coordinate efforts with other relevant federal 

and state agencies. 

Response 1: The EPA has worked closely with DOE, FERC and other federal agencies in the 

development of this rule. In addition, the EPA had several conversations with NARUC and 

individual state commissioners about issues of concern to them, and incorporated their feedback 

into the development of this action.
412

The EPA, DOE and FERC have also coordinated to provide education and outreach to states,

local governments, tribes and vulnerable communities through a series of webinars on the 

electric power system and energy markets. The agencies will continue to coordinate to provide 

information to these groups as they work to develop and implement their state plans.

The agency will also work through CEQ to coordinate with other federal agencies, including the 

Department of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development and others to coordinate policies 

and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See section II.K of the final rule preamble of 

the CPP for EPA’s response to this comment.

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

The commenters stated that implementing the guidelines will be a collaborative effort between 

and among numerous federal and regional entities, as well as with the states. The commenters

noted that they trust EPA will work particularly closely with federal and state energy regulators, 

including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of Energy 

(DOE), and through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), 

state utility regulators, as well as regional grid operators and reliability coordinators. The 

commenters stated that this work will be critical to developing durable system-level standards 

and accessing state plans employing a variety of policies that may affect the grid. The 

commenters stated that strong collaboration between EPA and the energy regulators will also be 

important to make sure that these entities provide maximum support to states investing in 

emissions controls, by ensuring that energy markets are designed and operated in a way that 

ensures that clean energy investments are fully valued and able to participate. 

Initially, the commenters urged EPA to work particularly closely with DOE in order to develop 

clear evaluation metrics and modeling tools that EPA and the states can use to assess their 

various grid-level programs against the level of the emission guidelines, and to assess 

compliance pathways. As these programs move forward, the commenters recommended that 

EPA also work with FERC and regional grid entities to ensure that reliability-related issues are 

addressed early in the process, without delaying Section 111(d)'s implementation, just as EPA 

has done during other Clean Air Act rulemakings.

The commenters stated that FERC's recent Order 1000, which is helping to integrate public 

policy mandates into grid planning, should help with this process by enabling measures that 

complement and support states' emission reduction strategies. The commenters stated that EPA 

should work with FERC, the grid operators, and the states to ensure that the effects of Section 

111(d) plans are accounted for in planning early and that any necessary costs are allocated 

equitably to the affected parties. The commenters stated that it will be important for the regional 

and inter-regional grid plans to be able to account for changes driven by Section 111, and to 

properly allocate any resulting costs. The commenters stated that FERC should also support 

transmission upgrades that facilitate increased reliance on renewable generation.

The commenters noted that states will also need help from federal energy regulators to properly 

deploy their plans. The commenters stated that they trust the energy regulators will help states 

assess the effects of their policy proposals, and to design effective grid-related programs, and 

asked that EPA help to coordinate efforts in this direction. The commenters stated that it is 
413

vitally important that federal programs not present unnecessary impediments to state efforts. The 

commenters stated that all members of the federal family should support ambitious carbon 

pollution reduction efforts. The commenters expressed concern, for instance, that the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency continues to complicate financing for the Property Assessed Clean 

Energy (PACE) program, which the commenters argued should be providing a ready funding 

stream to help further clean energy improvements.

The commenters stated that EPA, working with the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality and other federal coordinating bodies, should ensure that the states do not face 

conflicting federal messages as they work to reduce carbon pollution.

Comment 2: Commenters noted that states generally support EPA's proposed approach to state 

compliance, which allows states to use and build upon existing programs and successes, employ 

the most cost-effective strategies available under either rate-based or mass-based compliance 

frameworks, adapt approaches to their unique situations, and consider multi-state strategies. 

Response 2: The EPA agrees with the commenters, and is finalizing an approach that will allow 

states to build upon current programs while encouraging continued innovation through the state 

measures approach, as detailed in section VIII.C.4 of the final rule preamble of the CPP. The 

agency also agrees with the commenters and is extending the deadline to submit state plans, 

while ensuring that states make progress toward a complete plan. This is detailed in section 

VIII.E of the final rule preamble. The EPA plans to request feedback on EM&V approaches as 

part of the Federal Plan proposal, and then will issue guidance.

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

The commenters offered support for specific elements of EPA's proposal, as well as suggestions 

for refinements that could help ease state implementation of the rule. In particular, the 

commenters supported EPA's efforts to address the enforceability of measures included in state 

plans. As EPA continues to hone available compliance methods, the commenters urged the 

Agency to offer states strategies that appropriately balance accountability for significant 

emissions reductions with the ability to innovate to secure these reductions.

The commenters supported EPA's effort to allow states to extend the deadline to submit plans, 

but also ensure that they make progress toward a complete plan. Additionally, the commenters

noted that states appreciate EPA's efforts to provide the flexibility to build upon our existing, 

proven state programs for compliance. Finally, the commenters supported that EPA recognizes 

the importance of evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) for renewable energy and 

energy efficiency, and provided input on EPA's proposal to develop EM&V methodology 

guidance based on our states' extensive experience operating these programs and accounting for 

their electricity savings and emissions reductions.
414

Comment 3: Commenters stated that the agency should foster consumer voice in the 

development, implementation, and oversight of state plans. 

Response 3: The EPA established requirements in the final rule for states to engage with all 

stakeholders throughout the state plan development process. Please see sections VIII. D-E and 

IX.B of this final rule preamble for EPA’s for information on opportunities for consumer input in 

the development of state plans. In addition, state Public Utility Commissions have the 

jurisdiction and authority to address consumer considerations as states develop their plans.

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

The commenters stated that the EPA should foster consumer voice in the 111(d) process. The 

commenters stated that consumer voice is critical as a matter of fairness. The commenters stated 

that consumers will benefit immensely from sound climate policies, and they could be harmed by 

unsound policies. The commenters stated that a process without adequate consumer voice risks 

the possibility that states will develop implementation plans that pass the costs of reducing 

carbon emissions to consumers while leaving too much of the economic benefit in the hands of 

electricity generators and utilities. The commenters stated that consumers deserve a voice in the 

process of reshaping the electricity infrastructure on which they rely and for which they pay.

Second, the commenters stated that strong consumer participation and oversight is sound climate 

policy. The commenters stated that there is substantial overlap between the best carbon reducing 

policies and the most pro-consumer policies. The commenters stated that providing consumer 

representation in the process of crafting compliance plans makes it more likely that states will 

produce sound, reliable, and low-cost plans. The commenters stated that consumer oversight and 

participation will increase the likelihood that the plans are implemented.

The commenters recommended that the EPA should take two sets of actions to foster consumer 

voice. First, the commenters suggested that the agency should advise states that it will scrutinize 

implementation plans more closely if they were developed without adequate consumer 

participation or they lack adequate provisions for consumer participation and oversight in the 

implementation process. The commenters suggested that the EPA should review state plans not 

just for consumer voice in general, but also to ensure that low-income consumers and other 

disadvantaged groups have adequate representation. In addition to providing public notice and 

the opportunity to comment on their proposed plans, states should hold regional public hearings, 

convene consumer advisory panels, and conduct other outreach to consumer advocates at earlier 

stages in the process of crafting their plans. The commenters suggested that a state plan should 

contain provisions for continuing input and oversight by consumer representatives, likely in the 

form of consumer decision-making or advisory panels involved in or overseeing the 

implementation of the plan's key elements. The commenters suggested that the agency should 

also take in account whether states provide intervener funding in utility proceedings or other 

forms of funding for consumer representatives in relevant regulatory processes.

Finally, the commenters suggested that the EPA should directly foster consumer oversight by 

collecting and making available on its own website extensive information and data about state 

plans and ongoing state performance. The commenters suggested that this data should include 

costs and benefits of compliance, with a distributional analysis. The commenters suggested that 
415

the agency should make these data available in formats that are accessible both to sophisticated 

researchers and to ordinary members of the public. The commenters stated that consumers in a 

given state should be able to find out easily, for example, what goals their state has set regarding 

energy efficiency or renewables, at what cost and who pays the costs, as well as find information 

about their state's ongoing progress toward meeting its goals. The commenters suggested that 

they also should be able to compare their state's plans and performance to those of other states. 

To achieve these ends, the commenters suggested that the EPA should collect disparate 

information from various states and present it in a uniform manner to the extent possible.

Commenters stated that the EPA should strive to include consumer input development of state 

plans. The commenters stated that the EPA Plan should reflect consumer's input because 

consumers will benefit from properly implemented climate policies and shoulder the burden of 

poorly developed rules. Without consumer input, the commenters stated that the Plan may result 

in putting the costs of reducing carbon emissions on consumers while allowing generators and 

utilities to benefit unduly. The commenters stated that consumers deserve to influence any plan 

that reshapes their own electrical market. Further, the commenters stated that a strong consumer 

voice is needed to develop climate policy, because there is substantial overlap between the most 

cost-effective carbon-reducing policies and pro-consumer policies. As a result, the commenters

suggested that the EPA should implement strategies aimed at ensuring consumer participation in 

the process of developing the Plan. (The commenters noted that in Texas in the past, consumers 

and consumer-representative groups have come together to contribute to environmental rulemaking. For example, a consumer coalition helped develop Texas's CAIR Emissions Reduction 

and Banking program.)

To that end, the commenters suggested that the EPA should insure that there is adequate notice 

for public input and that low-income and other hard-to-reach citizens are represented in debate 

(e.g., through consumer advisory panels, regional public hearings and online provisions for 

consumer comment). In addition the commenters suggested that consumer input should be 

sought as the Plan is put into action, and periodic reviews should be required. Finally, the 

commenters recommended that the EPA should provide space on its website for information and 

data about states' ongoing performance, including costs and benefits of compliance. The 

commenters suggested that this data should be made available in a form useful to researchers as 

well as the general public. The commenters stated that it should be possible to compare different 

state plans and their effectiveness as well as states' goals and progress toward meeting them.

Comment 4: Commenters expressed concern that there are inadequate criteria for a 

participatory planning process.

Response 4: The EPA established requirements in the final rule for states to engage with all 

stakeholders throughout the state plan development process. Please see sections VIII.D-E and 

IX.C of this final rule preamble of the CPP. In addition, state Public Utility Commissions have 

the jurisdiction and authority to address consumer considerations, including for low-income 

customers, as states develop their plans. 
416

In section IX.C of the final rule preamble for this final rulemaking, the EPA outlines programs 

that RGGI and the State of Maryland have employed that assist low income communities in 

increasing their ability to access RE/EE and financial assistance programs. The EPA encourages 

that states in the writing on their state plans use these and other models. Additionally, as stated in 

the preamble, the EPA in the coming months, will continue to provide information resources for 

affected communities and states on existing federal, state, local, and other financial assistance 

programs to encourage EE/RE that are already available to communities. The EPA will also 

provide a catalog of current or recent state and local programs that have successfully helped 

communities adopt EE/RE measures. The goal of these resources is to help affected communities 

gain the benefits of this rulemaking by encouraging that states use these types of tools in their 

state plans.

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

Commenters expressed concern that there are inadequate criteria for a participatory planning 

process. 

Under the heading of public participation, the commenters noted that the EPA requires a public 

hearing in 2016 or before plan submission. The commenters stated that this is a certainly a 

necessary procedural step, and the EPA should commit to careful consideration of the public 

hearing record. However, the commenters stated that a public hearing is no substitute for 

continuous engagement of advocates for all key constituencies throughout the process. The 

commenters stated that few changes will be possible once the year-long planning process has 

produced a tidy submission. The commenters stated that strong consumer participation and 

oversight is both in the national interest and in the interest of sound climate policy. The 

commenters stated that providing low-income consumer representation in the state 

implementation process makes it more likely that states will produce sound, reliable and low-cost 

plans. However, the commenters stated that their experience advocating on low-income energy 

policy has proven that the groups and communities that should be protected by the 

Environmental Justice policy are least likely to afford the experts needed. 

Comment 5: Commenters stated that EPA could require states to adopt intervener funding 

programs at the Public Utility Commission.

Response 5: The EPA disagrees with commenters and does not believe the agency has the 

authority to require PUCs to fund intervener programs.

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

Commenters stated that EPA could require that states in their implementation plans adopt 

intervener funding programs at the Public Utility Commission, where the Public Utility 

Commission (PUCs) compensates public interest groups that have demonstrated that they are 

operating on behalf of consumers. The commenters noted that one such program exists in the 

State of California that compensates groups for attorney and expert witness fees.
417

The commenters supported requiring that there be a binding stakeholder process that includes 

consumer groups, utilities, state officials, and environmental groups. The commenters noted that 

these stakeholder programs collaborate on energy efficiency and renewable energy mandates, 

and ensure that all stakeholders have an equal seat at the table.

Comment 6: Commenters applauded EPA’s focus on state flexibility.

Response 6: EPA appreciates the support for state flexibility provided in the final rule. This 

comment is an observation, rather than a request.

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

Commenters applauded the EPA's focus on state flexibility, which will allow each state to tailor 

its compliance plan to optimize the development of clean energy resources available within the 

state and region.