*** EO 12866 Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***



### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. EO 12866_111(b) New
-Mods 2060
-AQ91 Final_2015050 7 6560
- 50 **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 60, 70, 71, and 98**  **[EPA -** **HQ -** **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **0495; EPA -** **HQ -** **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **0603; FRL -** **XXXX -** **XX -** **OAR] RIN 2060**  **- AQ91**  **Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New ,**  **Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility**  **Generating Units AGENCY:**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION:** Final rule. **SUMMARY:** The Environmental P rotection Agency ( EPA ) is finalizing new source performance standards (NSPS) under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b) that , for the first time , will establish standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil fuel
fired electric utility generating units. This action establishes separate standards of performance for fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and fossil fuel
- fired s tationary combustion turbines. This action also addresses related permitting and reporting issues. In a separate action, under CAA***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **2** of **684** section 111(d), the EPA is issuing final emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to limit CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. **DATES:** This final rule is effective on [ **insert date 60 days after date of publication in the federal register**  ]. **ADDRESSES:** The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495 ( Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units) and Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0603 ( Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units). All documents in the dockets are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Cent er (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **3** of **684** (202 ) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566
- 1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Dr. Nick Hutson, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243
- 01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number (919) 541
- 2968, facsimile number (919) 541
- 5450; email address: hutson.nick@epa.gov or Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243
- 01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541
- 4003, facsimile number (919) 541
- 5450; email address: fellner.christian@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** Acronyms . A number of acronyms and chemical symbols are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined as follows: AB Assembly Bill AEO Annual Energy Outlook AEP American Electric Power ANSI American National Standards Institute ASME American Society of Mechanic al Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing of Materials BACT Best Available Control Technology BDT Best Demonstrated Technology BSER Best System of Emission Reduction Btu/kWh British Thermal Units per Kilowatt
- hour Btu/lb British Thermal Unit s per Pound CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CBI Confidential Business Information CCS Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **4** of **684** CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System CFB C irculating Fluidized Bed CH 4 Methane CHP Combined Heat and Power CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CSAPR Cross - State Air Pollution Rule DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation ECMPS Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System EERS Energy Efficiency Resource Standards EGU Electric Generating Unit EIA Energy Information Administration EO Executive Order EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery EPA Environmental Protection Agency FB Fluidized Bed FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization FOAK First
- of - a - kind FR Federal Register GHG Greenhouse Gas GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program GPM Gallons per Minute GS Geologic Sequestration GW Gigawatts H2 Hydrogen Gas HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HFC Hydrofluo rocarbon HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPM Integrated Planning Model IRPs Integrated Resource Plans kg/MWh Kilogram per Megawatt
- hour kJ/kg Kilojoules per Kilogram kWh Kilowatt
- hour lb CO 2 /MMBtu Pounds of CO 2 per Million British Thermal Unit lb CO 2 /MWh Pounds of CO 2 per Megawatt - hour lb CO 2 /yr Pounds of CO 2 per Year lb/lb
-mole Pounds per Pound-Mole LCOE Levelized Cost of Electricity MATS Mercury and Air Toxic Standards MMBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units per Hour MRV Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification MW Megawatt***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **5** of **684** MWe Megawatt Electrical MWh Megawatt - hour MWh - g Megawatt - hour gross MWh - n Megawatt - hour net N2 O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle NOAK n th

- of - a - kind NRC National Research Council NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act O 2 Oxygen Gas OMB Office of Management and Budget PC Pulverized Coal PFC Perfluorocarbon PM Particulate Matte r PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PUC Public Utilities Commission RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Ini tiative RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RTC Response to Comments RTP Response to Petitions SBA Small Business Administration SCC Social Cost of Carbon SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SCPC Supercritical Pulverized Coal SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SF 6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SNCR Selective Non
- Catalytic Reduction SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Tg Teragram (one trillion (10 12 ) grams) Tpy Tons per Year TSD Technical Support Document TTN Technology Transfer Network UIC Underground Injection Control***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **6** of **684** UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 U.S. United States USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program VCS Voluntary Consensus Standard WGS Water Gas Shift WWW World Wide Web Organization of This Document . The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: **I. General Information** A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document? D. Judicial Review E. How is this preamble organized ? **II. Background** A. Climate Change Impacts from GHG Emissions B. GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs C. The Utility Power Sector D. Statutory Background E. Regulatory Background F. Development of Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel
Fired Electric Utility Generating Units G. Stakeholder Engagement and Public Comments on the Proposals **III. Regulatory Authority, Affected Sources and Their Standards,**  **and Legal Requirements** A. Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs B. Treatment of Categories and Codification in the Code of Federal Regulations C. Affected Units D. Units Not Covered by This Final Rule E. Coal Refuse F. Format of the Output - Based Standard G. CO 2 Emissions Only H. Legal Requirements for Establishing Emission Standards I. Severability J. Certain Projects under Development **IV. Summary of Final**  **Standards for Newly Constructed, Modified,**  **and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel -**  **fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  A. Applicability Requirements and Rationale B. Best System of Emission Reduction C. Final Standards of Performance***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **7** of **684 V.**  **Rationale for Final Standards for Newly Constructed Fossil**  **Fuel -**  **fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units** A. Factors Considered in Determining the BSER B. Highly Efficient SCPC EGU Implementing Partial CCS a s the BSER for Newly Constructed Steam Generating Units C. Rationale for the Final Emission Standards D. Post - Combustion CCS E. Pre - Combustion CCS F. Vendor Guarantees, Industry Statements, Academic Literature , and Commercial Availability G. Response to Key Comments on the Adequacy of the Technical Feasibility Demonstration H. Consideration of Costs I. Key Comments Regarding EPA’s Consideration of Costs J. Achievability of the Final Standards K. Emission Reductions Utilizing Partial CCS L. Further Development and Deployment of CCS Technology M. Technical and Geographic Aspects of Disposition of Captured CO 2 N. Final Requirements for Disposition of Captured CO 2 O. Nonair Quality Impacts and Energy Requirements P. Options That Were Considered by EPA but Were Ultimately Not Determined to Be the BSER **VI. Rationale**  **for Final Standards for Modified Fossil Fuel -**  **fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  A. Rationale for Final Applicability Criteria for Modified Steam Generating Units B. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction C. BSER Criteria **VII. Rationale**  **for Final Standards for Reconstructed Fossil Fuel**  **- fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  A. Rationale for Final Applicability Criteria for Reconstructed Sources B. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction **VIII. Summary of Final Standards**  **for Newly Constructed, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Turbines**  A. Applicability Requirements B. Best System of Emission Reduction C. Final Emission Standards **IX. Rationale**  **for Final Standards for Newly Constructed, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Turbines**  A. Applicability B. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction C. Achievability of the Final Standards **X. Summary of Other Final Requirements for New ly Constructed,**  **Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel -**  **fired Steam Generating Units and Stationary Combustion Turbines** ***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **8** of **684** A. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements B. Continuous Monitoring Requirements C. Emissions Performance Testing Requirements D. Continuous Compliance Requirements E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements **XI. Consistency b** **etween BSER Deter minations for This Rule and**  **the Rule for Existing EGUs** A. Newly Constructed Steam Generating Units B. New Combustion Turbines C. Modified and Reconstructed Steam and NGCC Units **X I**  **I .**  **Interactions with**  **Other EPA Programs and Rules** A. Overview B. Applicability of Tailoring Rule Thresholds under the PSD Program C. Implications for BACT Determinations under PSD D . Implications for Title V Program E. Implications for Title V Fee Requirements for GHGs F . Interactions with Other EPA Rules **XI I**  **I . Impacts**  **of this Action** A. What are the air impacts? B. Endangered Species Act C. What are the energy impacts? D. What are the water and solid waste impacts? E. What are the compliance costs? F. What are the economic and employment impacts? G. What are the benefits of the final standards? **XIV . Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Ac tions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
- Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) **X V**  **. Statutory Authority*****EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **9** of **684 I. General Information**  A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action This action finalizes regulatory requirements to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and stationary combustion turbines , following the issuance of proposals for such standards and an accompanying Notice of Data Availability. On June 25, 2013, in conjunction with the announcement of his Climate Action Plan (CAP), President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the EPA to issue a proposal to address carbon pollution from new power plants by September 30, 2013, and to issue “standards, regulations, or guidelines, as appropriate, which address carbon pollution from modified, reconstructed, and existing power plants.” Pursuant to authority in section 111(b) of the CAA, on September 20, 2013, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed proposed carbon pollution standards for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired power plants. The proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on January 8, 2014 ( 79 FR 1430 ; “January 2014 proposal”). 1 In that proposal ,

1 The EPA previously proposed performance standards for newly reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs in April 2 012 (77 FR 22392). In that action, the EPA proposed standards for steam***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **10** of **684** the EPA proposed to limit emissions of CO 2 from newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and newly constructed natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines. The EPA subsequently issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in which the EPA solicited comment on its initial interpretation of provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) and associated provisions in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and also solicited comment on a companion Technical Support Document (TSD) that addressed these provisions’
relationship to the factual record supporting the proposed rule. 79 FR 10750 (February 26, 2014). On June 2, 2014, Administrator McCarthy signed proposed standards of performance, also pursuant to CAA section 111(b), to limit emissions of CO 2 from modified and reconstructed fossil fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units and natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines. 79 FR 34959 (June 18, 2014) (“June 2014 proposal”). Specifically, the EPA proposed standards of performance for: (1) modified fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units, (2) modified natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines, (3) reconstructed fossil fuel
- generating units and natural gas
- fired combustion turbines based on a single Best System of Emission Reduction determination. On January 8 , 201 4 , the EPA withdrew that proposal (79 FR 1352).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **11** of **684** fired steam generating units, and (4) reconstructed natural gas
fired stationary combustion turbines. In this action, the EPA is issuing final standards of performance to limit emissions of GHG pollution manifested as CO 2 from newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units (i.e., utility boilers and integrated gasific ation combined cycle (IGCC) units) and from newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines. Consistent with the requirements of CAA section 111(b), these standards reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) that the EPA has determined has been adequately demonstrated for each type of unit. These final standards are codified in 40 CFR part 60 , subpart TTTT, a new subpart specifically created for CAA 111(b) standards of performance for GHG emissions from fossil fuel - fired EGUs . In a separate action that affects the same source category , the EPA is issuing final emission guidelines under CAA section 111(d) for states to use in developing plans to limit CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. With issuance of the final emission guidelines, s tates must then submit plans to the EPA following a schedule set by the guidelines.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **12** of **684** The EPA received numerous comments and conducted extensive outreach to stakeholders for this rulemaking. After careful consideration of public comments and input from a variety of stakeholders, the final standards of performance in this action reflect some changes from the proposals . Comments considered include written comments that were submitted during the public comment period and oral testimony provided during the public hearing for the proposed standards. 2. Summary of Major Provisions and Changes to the Proposed Standards The BSER determinations and final standards o f performance for affected newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs are summarized in Table 1 and discussed in more detail below . The final standards for new, modified, and reconstructed EGUs apply to sources that commenced construction

– or modification or reconstruction, as appropriate

– on or after the date of publication of corresponding proposed standards. 2 The final standards for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs apply to those sources that commenced construction on or after the date of publication of the proposed standards, January 8, 2014. The final standards for modified and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs apply to those sources that modify or reconstruct on or

2 See CAA 111(a)(2) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **13** of **684** after the date of publication of the proposed standards, June 18, 2014. **Table 1. Summary of BSER and Final Standards for Affected Sources**  **Affected Source** **s BSER**  **Final Standard** **s of Performance**

Newly Constructed Fossil Fuel
Fired Steam Generating Units Efficient new

supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) utility boiler implementing partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g .

Modified Fossil Fuel
Fired Steam Generating Units Most efficient

generation at the affected source achievable through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades Sources making modifications

resulting in an increase in CO 2 hourly emissions of more than 10 percent are required to meet a unit
- specific emission limit determined by the unit’s best historical annual CO 2 emission rate (from 2002 to the date of the modification); the emission limit will be no more stringent than: 1. 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for sources with heat input > 2,000 MMBtu/h. **OR** 2. 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for sources with heat input ≤ 2,000 MMBtu/h. Reconstructed Fossil Fuel
Fired Steam Generating Most efficient

generating technology at the 1. Sources with heat input > 2,000 MMBtu/h are required to meet an emission limit of 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **14** of **684** Units affected

source (supercritical steam conditions for the larger; and subcritical conditions for the smaller) 2. Sources with heat input ≤ 2,000 MMBtu/h are required to meet an emission limit of 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g .

Newly Cons tructed, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel
Fired Stationary Combustion Turbines Efficient NGCC

technology for natural gas fired nominal base load units and clean fuels for nominal peaking and multi
- fuel fired units 1. 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g or 1,03 0 lb CO 2 /MWh - n for nominal base load natural gas - fired units. 2. 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu for nominal peaking natural gas - fired units. 3. 120 to 160 lb CO 2 /MMBtu for multi
- fuel - fired units. 3

a. Fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units . This action finalizes standards of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units 4 based on the performance of a new highly efficient SCPC EGU implementing partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology , which the EPA determines to be the BSER for these sources. After
3 The emission standard for combustion turbines co
- firing natural gas with other fuels shall be determined at the end of each operating month based on the amount of co
- fired natural gas. 4 Also referred to as just “steam genera ting units” or as “utility boilers and IGCC units”. These are units that are covered under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da for criteria pollutants.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **15** of **684** consideration of a wide range of comments , technical input received on the availability, technical feasibility, and cost of CCS implementation, and publicly available information about projects that are implementing or planning to implement CCS, the EPA remains convinced that CCS technology is available and technically feasible to implement at fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units. However, the EPA’s final standard does recognize that the proposed standards should be adj usted to address legitimate concerns regarding the cost to implement available CCS technology on a new steam generating unit. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing an emission standard for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units at 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , a level that is less stringent than the proposed limitation of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . This final standard reflects our identification of the BSER for such units to be a lower level of partial CCS than we identified as the basis of the proposed standards

– one that we conclude better represents the requirement that the BSER be implementable at reasonable costs. The EPA proposed that the BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs was highly efficient new generating technology (i.e., a supercritical utility boiler or IGCC unit) implementing partial CCS technology to achieve CO2 emission reductions***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **16** of **684** (approximately 40 percent and 25 percent, respectively) resulting in an emission limit of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh
- g. The BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs in the final rule is very similar to that in the January 2014 proposal

– with one slight change . In this final act ion, the EPA finds that a highly efficient new supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) utility boiler EGU implementing partial CCS to the degree necessary to achieve an emission of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g is the BSER. Contrary to the January 2014 proposal, the EPA finds that IGCC technology

– either alone or implementing partial CCS

– is not part of the BSER, but rather is an alternative compliance option. The EPA finds that this system is the BSER because CCS technology has been demonstrated to be technically fea sible and is in use or under construction in various industrial sectors , including the power generation sector . For example, the Boundary Dam Unit #3 CCS project in Saskatchewan, Canada is a full
- scale, fully integrated CCS project that is currently operating and is designed to capture more than 90 percent of the CO 2 from the lignite
- fired boiler. In addition, an emission standard that is based on a new highly efficient SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS will promote implementation and further development of CCS technologies. A newly constructed , highly efficient SCPC utility boiler burning bituminous coal will be able to meet this final***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **17** of **684** standard of performance by capturing and storing approximately 16 percent of the CO 2 produced from the facility. A newly constructed, highly efficient SCPC utility boiler burning subbituminous coal or dried lignite will be able to meet this final standard of performance by capturing and storing approximately 23 percent of the CO 2 produced from the facility. As an alternative compliance option, utilities and project developers will also be able to construct new steam generating units ( both utility boilers and IGCC units) that meet the final standard of performance by co - firing with natural gas. This final standard of per formance for newly constructed fossil fuel
fired steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the construction of such sources while address ing GHG emissions and supporting technological innovation. The standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g is achievable by fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units for all fuel types, under a wide range of conditions, and throughout the United States. We note that identifying a highly efficient new SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS as the BSER provide s a path forward for
new fossil fuel - fired steam generation in the current market context . Numerous studies have predicted that few new fossil fuel - fired steam generating units will be constructed in the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **18** of **684** future for multiple reasons, including low electricity demand growth, highly competitive natural gas prices, and increases in the supply of renewable energy. The EPA recognizes that , in certain circumstances , there may be interest in building fossil fuel - f ired steam generating units despite these market conditions . In particular, utilities and project developers may build new fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGUs in order to achieve or maintain fuel diversity within generating fleets , as
a hedge against the possibility of natural gas prices far exceeding projections , or to co -produce both power and chemicals , including capturing CO 2 for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects . 5 As regulatory history has shown, identifying a new highly efficient S CPC EGU implementing partial

5 As the EIA has stated: Policy
- related factors, such as environmental regulations and investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification . While EIA considers many of these factors in its analysis of technology choice in the electricity sector, these concepts are not included in LCOE or LACE calculations. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **19** of **684** CCS as the BSER in this rule is likely to further boost research and development in the technologies , making the implementation even more efficacious and cost
- effective , while providing a competitive, low emission future for fossil steam generation . The EPA is also issuing final standards for steam generating units that implement “ large modifications , ” ( i.e. , modifications resulting in an increase in hourly CO 2 emissions of more than 10 percent when compared to the source’s highest hourly emissions in the previous 5 years). The EPA is not issuing final standards, at this time, for steam generating units that implement “ small modifications ” ( i.e. , modifications resulting in an increase in hourly CO 2 emission s of less than or equal to 10 percent when compared to the source’s highest hourly emissions in the previous 5 years) . The standards of performance for modified steam generating units that make large modifications are based on each affected unit’s own best potential per formance as the BSER. Specifically, such a modified steam generating unit will be required to meet a unit
- specific CO 2 emission limit determined by that unit's best demonstrated historical performance (in the years from 2002 to the time of the modification ). 6 The EPA has determined that this

6 For the 2002 reporting year the EPA introduced new automated checks in the software that integrated automated quality***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **20** of **684** standard based on each unit’s own best potential performance can be met through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades and that these steps can be implemented cost
effectively at the time when a source is undertaking a large modification . To account for facilities that have already implemented best practices and equipment upgrades, the final rule also specifies that modified facilities will not have to meet an emission standard more stringent than the corresponding standard for reconstructed steam generating units (i.e., 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for units with heat input greater than 2,000 MMBtu/h and 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for units with heat input less than or equal to 2,000 MMBtu/h) . The final standards for steam generating units implementing large modifications are similar to the proposed standards for such units. In the proposal, we suggested that the standard should be based on when the modification is undertaken (i.e., before being subject to requirements under a CAA section 111(d) state plan or after being subject to such a plan). We also suggested that for units that undertake modifications prior to becoming subject to an approved CAA section 111(d) state plan, the standard should be its best historical performance plus an
assurance (QA) checks on the hourly data. Thus, the EPA believes that the data from 2002 and forward are of higher quality.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **21** of **684** additional two percent reduction. In response to commen ts on the proposal, we are not finalizing separate standards that are dependent upon when the modification takes place, nor are we finalizing the proposed additional two percentage reduction. The EPA is not promulgating final standards of performance for , and is withdrawing the proposed standards for, modified steam generating sources that make modifications resulting in an increase of hourly CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent. As we indicated in the proposal, the EPA has been notified of very few modifications for criteria pollutant emissions from the power sector to which NSPS requirements have applied. As such, we expect that there will be few NSPS modifications for GHG emissions as well . Even so, we also recognize (and we discuss in this preamble) that the power sector is undergoing significant change and realignment in response to a variety of influences and incentives in the industry. We do not have sufficient information at this time, however, to anticipate the types of modifications , if any, that may result from these changes. In particular, we do not have sufficient information about the types of modifications , if any, that would result in increases in CO 2 emissions of 10 percent or less, and what the appropriate standard for such sou rces would be. Therefore, we conclude that it is prudent to delay issuing***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **22** of **684** standards for sources that undertake small modifications (i.e., those resulting in an increase in CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent). For reconstructed steam generat ing units, the EPA is finalizing standards based on the performance of the most efficient generating technology for these types of units as the BSER (i.e., reconstructing the boiler if necessary to use steam with higher temperature and pressure, even if the boiler was not originally designed to do so ) . 7 The emission standard for these sources is 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for large sources , ( i.e. those with a heat input rating of greater than 2,000 MMBtu/h ) or 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for small sources ( i.e. , those with a heat input rating of 2,000 MMBtu/h or less ) . The difference in the standards for larger and smaller units is based on greater availability of higher pressure/temperature steam turbines (e.g., supercritical steam turbines) for larger units. The standards can also be met through other non - BSER options , such as natural gas co - firing. b. S tationary combustion turbines . This action also finalizes standards of performance for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines . In the January

7 Steam with higher temperature and pressure has more thermal energy that can be more efficiently converted to electrical energy .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **23** of **684** 2014 proposal for newly constructed EGUs , the EPA proposed that natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbine s (i.e., turbines combusting over 90 percent natural gas) would be subject to a standard of performance for CO 2 emissions if they are constructed for the purpose of supplying and actually annually supply to the grid ( 1) one - third or more of their potential electric output 8 and ( 2) more than 219,000 MWh , 9 based on a three - year rolling average . We refer to units that operat e above the electric sales thresholds as " nominal base l oad units " or simply “base load units , ” and we refer to units that operate below these thresholds as "nominal peaking units" or simply “peaking units.” In the January 2014 proposal for newly constructed combustion turbines, the EPA propose d standards for two subcategories of nominal base load natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbine s . The proposed standard for small combustion turbines (units with base load ratings less than or equal to 850 MMBtu/h) was 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . The proposed standard for large combustion turbines (units with base load ratings greater than 850 MMBtu/h) was 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . The EPA did not propose standards for nominal peaking units . 8 We refer to thresholds related to an EGU's actual annual electrical sales (as a fraction of potential annual output) as "percentage electric sales criteria." 9 We refer to thresholds related to an EGU's actual annual electrical sales in megawatt
- hours as "total electric sales criteria."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **24** of **684** I n the June 2014 proposal for modified and reconstructed combustion turbines , the EPA solicited comment on alternative approaches for establishing applicability and subcategorization criteria , including (1) eliminating the “constructed for the purpose of supplying” qualif ier proposed for the total electric sales and percentage electric sales criteri a , (2 ) eliminating the 219,000 MWh total electric s ales criterion altogether , ( 3) replacing the fixed percentage electric sales criterion 10 with a variable percentage electric sales criterion (i.e., the sliding
scale approach 11 ) , and ( 4) eliminating the proposed small and large subcategories for nominal base load natural gas - fired combustion turbines . These proposed applicability requirements were intended to exclude combustion turbines that are used for the purpose of me eting peak power demand (i.e., nominal peaking units) , as opposed to those that are used to meet base load power demand (i.e., nominal base load units) . In both proposal s , the EPA also solicited comment on a broad applicability approach that would include natural gas fired peaking units (primarily simple cycle combustion turbines) and multi
- fuel - fired units (primarily distillate oil
- fired

10 In the proposal we referred to the percentage electric sales criterion as the one
- third capacity factor criterion. 11 The sliding
- scale approach determines a unit
- specific percentage electric sales threshold equivalent to a unit’s net design efficiency (the maximum value is capped at 50 percent).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **25** of **684** combustion turbines) in the general applicability of subpart TTTT . As part of the broad applicability approach, the EPA solicited comment on imposing “no emission standard” or establishing separate numerical limits for these two subcategories. In this action, the EPA is finalizing a variation of the approaches put forward in the proposal s . Based on our review of public comments related to the proposed subcategories for small and large combustion turbines and our additional data analyses , we have determined that there is no need to set two separate standards for different size combustion turbines for base load natural gas - fired combustion turbines . The EPA has determined that all sizes of affected newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines can achieve the final standards . For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed nominal base load natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines , the EPA is finalizing a standard of 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g based on efficient natural gas combined cycled (NGCC ) technology as the BSER. Alternatively, owners and operators of nominal base load natural gas - fired combustion turbines may elect to comply with a standard based on net output ( 1,030 lb CO 2 /MWh - n ) . The EPA is eliminating the 219,000 MWh total annual electric sales criterion. In addition, the EPA is finalizing the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **26** of **684** sliding
- scale approach for deriving the unit
- specific, percentage electric sales threshold above which a combustion turbine transitions from the subcategory for nominal peaking units to the subcategory for nominal base load units. For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas - fired nominal peaking stationary combustion turbines, the EPA is finalizing the BSER as combustion of clean fuels (natural gas with a small allowance for distillate oil) and a corresponding heat input
-based standard of 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu . This standard of performance will apply to the vast majority of simple cycle combustion turbines. The EPA is finalizing a heat input
-based clean fuels standard because we have insufficient information at this time to set a uniform output
-based standard that can be achieved by all new nominal peaking units. In addition , for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed multi
- fuel - fired 12 stationary combustion turbines, the EPA is finalizing an input
-based standard of 120 to 160 lb

12 The term "multi
- fuel - fired" refers to a s tationary combustion turbine that is physically connected to a natural gas pipeline but that burns a fuel other than natural gas for 10 percent or more of the unit's heat input capacity during the 12
- operating month compliance period. Combustion turbines incapable of combusting natural gas, such as turbines in certain non
continental locations or in remote locations that lack access to a natural gas pipeline, are not subject to any requirements.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **27** of **684** CO 2 /MMBtu based on the combustion of clean fuels as the BSER. 13 The EPA has similarly determined that it has insufficient information at this time to set a uniform output -based standard for stationary combustion turbines that operate with significant quantities of a fuel other than natural gas. As with our final action on fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units, we are not promulgating final standards of performance for stationary combustion turbines that make modifications resulting in an increase of hourly CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent. We are simultaneously withdrawing the proposed standards for these modifications. As we indicated in the proposal, sources from the power sector have notified the EPA of very few NSPS modifications, and we expect that there will be few NSPS modifications for CO 2 emissions as well. Even so, we also recognize (as discussed elsewhere in th is preamble) that reliance on combustion turbines is increasing as the power sector realigns and responds to a variety of environmental and utility regulations and market forces that continue to affect the least
- cost options for meeting consumer demand for electricity. At this time, we do not have sufficient

13 Combustion turbines co
- firing natural gas with other fuels shall determine fuel
-based site
- specific standards at the end of each operating month. The site
- specific standards depend on the amount of co - fired natural gas .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **28** of **684** information to anticipate the types of modifications that operators may undertake as they adapt to these changes. In particular, we do not have sufficient information about the types of efficiency improvement and uprate projects that operators may seek in response to state regulations under section 111(d) and the various renewable portfolio standards being implemented by states . The Administrator has determined that the 10 percent threshold for modifications is necessary to allow more flexibility for utility and air program planners who must consider the interaction of 111(b) and 111(d) regulations and state - specific, utility commission mandates when determining balanced approaches for achieving Clean Air Act objectives. Therefore, we conclude that it is prudent to delay issuing standards for sources that undertake small modifications (i.e., those resulting in an increase in CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent). A more detailed discussion of the final standards of performance, the applicability criteria, and the comments that influenced the final standards is provided in Sections VIII and IX of this preamble . 3. Costs and Benefits As explained in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this final rule, available data

– including utility announcements and Energy Information Administration ( EIA )***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **29** of **684** modeling
- indicate that, even in the absence of this rule, (i) existing and anticipated economic conditions are such that few, if any, fossil fuel
- fired steam- generating EGUs will be built in the foreseeable future, and (ii) utilities and project developers are expected to choose new generation technologies (primarily NGCC) that would meet the f inal standards and renewable generating sources that are not affected by these final standards . These projections are consistent with utility announcements and EIA modeling that indicate that new units are likely to be NGCC and that any coal - fired steam generating units built between now and 2030 would have CCS, even in the absence of this rule. 14 Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 4 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this final rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022 as a result of the performance standards for newly constructed EGUs. 15 However, for a variety of reasons , some companies may consider coal
- fired steam generating units that the modeling does not anticipate. Thus, in Chapter 5 of the RIA, we also present an analysis of the project
- level costs of a

14 The EPA’s Integrated Planning Model ( IPM ) projects no new non
compliant coal throughout the model horizon of 2030 (there is a small amount of new coal with CCS that is hardwired into the modelling , con sistent with EIA assumptions to represent units already under construction or under development. 15 Conditions in the analysis year of 2022 are rep resented by a model year of 2020.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **30** of **684** newly constructed coal - fired steam generating unit with partial CCS that meets the requirements of this final rule alongside the project
- level costs of a newly constructed coal - fired unit without CCS. As explained in the RIA for this final rule and further below, the EPA has been notified of few power sector NSPS modifications or reconstructions . Based on that experience , the EPA expects that few EGUs will trigger either the modification or the reconstruction provisions that we are finalizing in this action. In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discuss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. B. Does this action apply to me? The entities potentially affected by the standards are shown in Table 2 below.

**Table 2. Potentially Affected Entities a**  **Category NAICS** 

**Code Examples of Potentially Affected**  **Entities** Industry 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generating units. Federal Government 221112 b Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by the federal government. State/Local Government 221112 b Fossil fuel electric power generating units owned by municipalities.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **31** of **684** Tribal Government 921150 Fossil fuel electric power generating units in Indian Country.

a Includes NAICS categories for source categories that own and operate electric power generating units (including boilers and stationary combined cycle combustion turbines). b Federal, state, or local government - owned and operated establishments are classif ied according to the activity in which they are engaged. This table is not intended to be exhaustive , but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this action, refer to Section III of this preamble for more information and examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.1 (General Provisions) and 40 CFR 60.5508 40 of subpart TTTT (Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric Utility Generating Units) . If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions). C. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW). Following signature, a copy of this final***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **32** of **684** action will be posted at the following address: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon
-pollution
-standards. D. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a pe tition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [ **insert date 60**  **days after publication in federal register** ]. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the E PA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **33** of **684** EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, Washington, DC 20460. E. How is th is preamble organiz ed ? This action presents the EPA’s final standards of performance for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and stationary combust ion turbines. Section II provides background information on climate change impacts from GHG emissions, GHG emissions from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, the utility power sector, the statutory and regulatory background relating to CAA section 111(b), EPA actions prior to this final action, and public comments regarding the proposed actions. Section III explains the EPA ’s authority to regulate CO 2 and EGUs, identifies affected sources, and describes the source categories. Section IV provides a summary of the final standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units. Sections V through VII present the rationale for the final standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed steam generating units, respectively. Sections VIII and IX provide a summary of the final standards for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **34** of **684** stationary combustion turbines and present the rationale for the final standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed combustion turbines , respectively . Section X provides a summary of other final requirements for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units and s tationary combustion turbines. Interactions with other EPA programs and rules are described in Section XI. Projected impacts of the final action are then described in Section XII, followed by a discussion of statutory and executive order reviews in Section XIII and the statutory authority for this action in Section XIV. We address major comments throughout this preamble and in greater detail in an accompanying response - to - comments document located in the docket . **II. Background**  In this section , we discuss climate change impacts from GHG emissions, both on public health and public welfare. We also present information about GHG emissions from fossil fuel - fired EGUs and describe the utility power sector and its changing structure . We then summarize the statutory and regulatory background relevant to this final rulemaking. In addition, we provide background information on the EPA’s January 8, 2014 proposed carbon pollution standards for newly constructed fossil fuel - fired EGUs, the June 18, 2014 proposed carbon pollution***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **35** of **684** standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs, and other actions associated with this final rulemaking. We close this section with a general discussion of comments and stakeholder input that the EPA received prior to issuing this fina l rulemaking. A. Climate Change Impacts from GHG Emissions According to the National Research Council, “Emissions of CO 2 from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth’s climate. Because CO 2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Therefore, emission reduction choices made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.” 16 In 2009, based on a large body of robust and compelling scientific evidence, the EPA Administrator issued the Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1). 17 In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the current, elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere

— already at levels unprecedented in human history

— may reasonably be

16 National Research Council, Climate Stabilization Targets, p.3. 17 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (“Endangerment Finding”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **36** of **684** anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of current and future generations in the United States. We summarize these adverse effects on public health and welfare briefly here. 1. Publi c Health Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens the health of Americans in multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold
- related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of mo rbidity and mortality. Climate change is also expected to cause more intense hurricanes and more frequent and intense storms and heavy precipitation, with impacts on other areas of public health, such as the potential for increased deaths, injuries, infect ious and waterborne diseases, and stress - related disorders. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate
- related health effects.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **37** of **6 84**  2. Public Welfare Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding Climate change impact s touch nearly every aspect of public welfare. Among the multiple threats caused by human emissions of GHGs, climate changes are expected to place large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water pollution, and increase d occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face a multitude of increased risks, particularly from rising sea level and increases in the severity of storms. These communities face storm and flooding damage to p roperty , or even loss of land due to inundation , erosion , wetland submergence and habitat loss. Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include threats to social and ecosystem services. Climate change is expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand. Extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may also exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous
communities, and is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21 st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **38** of **684** agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the U.S. 3. New Scientific Assessments and Observations Since the administrative record concerning the Endangerment Finding closed following the EPA’s 2010 Reconsideration Denial, the climate has continued to change, with new records being set for a number of climate indicators such as global average surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice retreat, CO 2 concentrations, and sea level rise. Additionally, a number of major scientific assessments have been released that improve understanding of the climate system and strengthen the case that GHGs endanger public health and welfare both for current and future generations. These assessments, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the National Research Coun cil (NRC), include: IPCC’s 2012 Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) and the 2013
- 2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the USGCRP’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the United States (NCA3), and the NRC’s 2010 Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean (Ocean Acidification),***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **39** of **684** 2011 Report on Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia (Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 National Security Implications for U.S. Naval Forces (National Security Implications), 2011 Understanding Earth’s Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future (Understanding Earth’s Deep Past), 2012 Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future , 2012 Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (Climate and Social Stress), and 2013 Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change (Abrupt Impacts) assessments. The EPA has carefully reviewed these recent assessments in keeping with the same approach outlined in Section VIII.A of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which was to rely primarily upon the major assessments by the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC of the National Academies to provide the technical and scientific information to inform the Administrator’s judgment regarding the question of whether GHGs endanger public health and welfare. These assessments addressed the scientific issues that the EPA was requi red to examine, were comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review. The findings of the recent scientific assessments confirm and strengthen the conclusion that GHGs endanger public health,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **40** of **684** now and in the future. The NCA3 indicates that human health in the United States will be impacted by “increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, th reats to mental health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease
carriers such as mosquitoes and ticks.” The most recent assessments now have greater confidence that climate change will influence production of pollen that exacerbates asthma and other allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis, as well as effects on conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 found that increasing temperature has lengthened the allergenic pollen season for ragweed, and that increas ed CO 2 by itself can elevate production of plant
-based allergens. The NCA3 also finds that climate change, in addition to chronic stresses such as extreme poverty, is negatively affecting indigenous peoples’ health in the United States through impacts su ch as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. The IPCC AR5 finds that climate change
- induced warming in the Arctic and resultant changes in environment (e.g., permafrost thaw, effe cts on traditional food sources) have significant impacts, observed now and projected, on the health and well -being of Arctic residents, especially indigenous peoples. Small, remote, predominantly
- indigenous communities are especially vulnerable given thei r “strong dependence on the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **41** of **684** environment for food, culture, and way of life; their political and economic marginalization; existing social, health, and poverty disparities; as well as their frequent close proximity to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or river shorelines.” 18 In addition, increasing temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice increases the risk of drowning for those engaged in traditional hunting and fishing. The NCA3 concludes that children’s unique physiology and developing bodies contribut e to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change . Impacts on children are expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather events. The IPCC AR5 indicates that children are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. The IPCC finds that additional health concerns may arise in low income households, especially those with chi ldren, if climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within households.
18 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B : Regional Aspects . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C . Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1581.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **42** of **684** Both the NCA3 and IPCC AR5 conclude that climate change will increase health risks facing the elderly. Older people are at much higher ri sk of mortality during extreme heat events. Pre - existing health conditions also make older adults susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of air pollution and to more severe consequences from infectious and waterborne diseases. Limited mobility among older adults can also increase health risks associated with extreme weather and floods. The new assessments also confirm and strengthen the conclusion that GHGs endanger public welfare, and emphasize the urgency of reducing GHG emissions due to their projections that show GHG concentrations climbing to ever
- increasing levels in the absence of mitigation. The NRC assessment Understanding Earth’s Deep Past projected that, without a reduction in emissions, CO 2 concentrations by the end of the century would increase to levels that the Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years. 19 In fact, that assessment stated that “the magnitude and rate of the present greenhouse gas increase place the climate system in what could be one of the most severe increases in radiative forcing of the global climate system in Earth history.” 20 Because of these unprecedented changes, several

19 National Research Council, Understanding Earth’s Deep Past , p. 1. 20 Id . , p.138.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **43** of **684** assessments state that we may be approaching critical, poorly understood thresholds: as stated in the NRC assessment Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, “As Earth continues to warm, it may be approaching a critical climat e threshold beyond which rapid and potentially permanent

— at least on a human timescale

— changes not anticipated by climate models tuned to modern conditions may occur.” The NRC Abrupt Impacts report analyzed abrupt climate change in the physical climate system and abrupt impacts of ongoing changes that, when thresholds are crossed, can cause abrupt impacts for society and ecosystems. The report considered destabilization of the West Antactic Ice Sheet (which could cause 3
- 4 m of potential sea level rise) as an abrupt climate impact with unknown but probably low probability of occurring this century. The report categorized a decrease in oxygen ocean (with attendant threats to aerobic marine life); increase in intensity, frequency, and duration of heat waves; and increase in frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events (droughts, floods, hurricanes, and major storms) as abrupt climate change impacts of moderate risks within this century. The NRC Abrupt Impacts report also analyzed the threat of rapid s tate changes in ecosystems and species extinction s as example s of an irreversible impact that is expected to be exacerbated by climate change. Species at most risk include those whose migration potential is limited, whether because they***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **44** of **684** live on mountaintops or fragmented habitats with barriers to movement, or because climatic conditions are changing more rapidly than the species can move or adapt. While the NRC determined that it is not presently possible to place exact probabilities on the added contribution of climate change to extinction, they did find that there was substantial risk that impacts from climate change could, within a few decades, drop the populations in many species below sustainable levels thereby committing the species to extinction. Moreover, due to the time lags inherent in the Earth’s climate, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment notes that the full warming from any given concentration of CO 2 reached will not be fully realized for several centuries, underscoring that emission activities today carry with them climate commitments far into the future. Future temperature changes will depend on what emission path the world follows. In its high emis sion scenario, the IPCC AR5 projects that average global temperatures by the end of the century will likely be 2.6 degrees Cel s ius ( °C ) to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F) ) warmer than today. Temperatures on land and in northern latitudes will li kely warm even faster than the global average. However, according to the NCA3, significant reductions in emissions would lead to noticeably***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **45** of **684** less future warming beyond mid
- century, and therefore less impact to public health and welfare. While rainfall may only see small globally and annually averaged changes, there are expected to be substantial shifts in where and when that precipitation falls. According to the NCA3, regions closer to the poles will see more precipitation, while the dry subtropics are expe cted to expand (colloquially, this has been summarized as wet areas getting wetter and dry regions getting drier). In particular, the NCA3 notes that the western U.S., and especially the Southwest, is expected to become drier. This projection is consistent with the recent observed drought trend in the West. At the time of publication of the NCA, even before the last 2 years of extreme drought in California, tree ring data was already indicating that the region might be experiencing its driest period in 800 years. Similarly, the NCA3 projects that heavy downpours are expected to increase in many regions, with precipitation events in general becoming less frequent but more intense. This trend has already been observed in regions such as the Midwest, Northeast, and upper Great Plains. Meanwhile, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment found that the area burned by wildfire is expected to grow by 2 to 4 times for 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For 3 °C of warming, the assessment found that 9 out of 10 summers would be warmer than all but the 5 percent of warmest summers today,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **46** of **684** leading to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of heat waves. Extrapolations by the NCA also indicate that Arctic sea ice in summer may essentially disappear by mid
- century. Ret reating snow and ice, and emissions of CO 2 and methane released from thawing permafrost, will also amplify future warming. Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the USGCRP NCA3, and multiple NRC assessments have projected future rates of sea level rise that are 40 percent larger to more than twice as large as the previous estimates from the 2007 IPCC 4 th Assessment Report due in part to improved understanding of the future rate of melt of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice sheets. The NRC Sea Level Rise assessment projects a global sea level rise of 0.5 to 1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) by 2100, the NRC National Security Implications assessment suggests that “the Department of the Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters [1.3 to 6.6 feet] global average sea - level rise by 2100,” 21 and the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment states that an increase of 3 °C will lead to a sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 3.3 feet) by 2100. These assessments continue to recognize that there is uncertainty inherent in accounting for ice sheet processes. Additionally, local sea level rise can differ from

21 NRC, 2011: National Sec urity Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces . The National Academies Press, p. 28.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **47** of **684** the global total depending on various factors: the east coast of the U.S. in particular is expected to see higher rates of sea level rise than the global average. For comparison, the NCA3 states that “five million Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars of property are located in areas that are less than four feet above the local high
- tide level,” and the NCA3 finds that “[c]oastal infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and military bases, are increasingly at risk from sea level rise and damaging storm surges.” 22 Also, because of the inertia of the oceans, sea level rise will continue for centuries after GHG concentrations have stabilized (though more slowly than it would have otherwise). Additionally, there is a threshold temperature above which the Greenland ice sheet will be committed to inevitable melting: according to the NCA, some recent research has suggested that even present day CO 2 levels could be sufficient to exceed that threshold. In general, climate change impacts are expected to be unevenly distributed across different regions of the United States and have a greater impact on certain populations, such as indigenous peoples and the poor. The NCA3 finds climate change

22 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 9.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **48** of **684** impacts such as the rapid pace of temperature rise, coastal erosion and inundation related to sea level rise and storms, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting indigenous people in the United States. Particularly in Alaska, critical i nfrastructure and traditional livelihoods are threatened by climate change and, “[i]n parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied.” 23 The IPCC AR5 notes, “Climate
- related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people livi ng in poverty (high confidence). Climate
- related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity. ” 24

23 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 17. 24 IPCC, 2 014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **49** of **684** CO 2 in particular has unique impacts on ocean ecosystems. The NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment found that coral bleaching will increase due both to warming and ocean acidification. Ocean surface waters have already become 30 percent more ac idic over the past 250 years due to absorption of CO 2 from the atmosphere. According to the NCA3, this acidification will reduce the ability of organisms such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs to survive, grow, and reproduce. The NRC Understanding Earth's Deep Past assessment notes four of the five major coral reef crises of the past 500 million years were caused by acidification and warming that followed GHG increases of similar magnitude to the emissions increases expected over the next hundred years. Similarly, the NRC Ocean Acidification assessment finds that “[t]he chemistry of the ocean is changing at an unprecedented rate and magnitude due to anthropogenic CO 2 emissions; the rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred for at least the past hundreds of thousands of years.” 25 The assessment notes that the full range of consequences is still unknown, but the risks “threaten coral

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 796. 25 NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean . The National Academies Press, p. 5.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **50** of **684** reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society.” 26 Events outside the United States, as also pointed out in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, will also have relevant consequences. The NRC Climate and Social Stress assessment concluded that it is prudent to expect that some climate events “will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the affected societies or global systems to manage and that have global security implications serious enough to compel international response.” The NRC National Security Implications assessment recommends preparing for increased needs for humanitarian aid; responding to the effects of climate change in geopolitical hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and addressing changing security needs in the Arctic as sea ice retreats. In addition to future impacts, the NCA3 emphasizes that climate change driven by human emissions of GHGs is already happening now and it is happening in the United States. According to the IPCC AR5 and the NCA3, there are a number of climate
- related changes that have been observed recently, and these changes are projected to accelerate in the future. The planet warmed about 0.85 °C (1.5 °F) from 1880 to 2012. It is

26 Ibid.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **51** of **684** extremely likely (>95 percent probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid
- 20 th century, and likely (>6 6 percent probability) that human influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the last 30 years were likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 1400 years. U.S. average tempe ratures have similarly increased by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees F since 1895, with most of that increase occurring since 1970. Global sea levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) from 1901 to 2010. Contributing to this rise was the warming of the oceans and melting of land ice. It is likely that 275 gigatons per year of ice melted from land glaciers (not including ice sheets) since 1993, and that the rate of loss of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets increased substantially in recent years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147 gigatons per year respectively since 2002. For context, 360 gigatons of ice melt is sufficient to cause global sea levels to rise 1 mm. Annual mean Arctic sea ice has been declining at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent has decreased at about 1.6 percent per decade for March and 11.7 percent per decade for June. Permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the 1980s, by up to 3 °C (5.4 °F) in parts of Northern Alaska. Winter storm frequency and intensity have both increased in the Northern Hemisphere. The***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **52** of **684** NCA3 states that the increases in the severity or frequency of some types of extreme weather and climate events in recent decades can affect energy production and delivery, causing supply dis ruptions, and compromise other essential infrastructure such as water and transportation systems. In addition to the changes documented in the assessment literature, there have been other climate milestones of note. In 2009, the year of the Endangerment Finding, the average concentration of CO 2 as measured on top of Mauna Loa was 387 parts per million, far above preindustrial concentrations of about 280 parts per million. 27 The average concentration in 2013, the last full year before this rule was proposed , was 396 parts per million. The average concentration in 2014 was 399 parts per million. And the monthly concentration in April of 2014 was 401 parts per million, the first time a monthly average has exceeded 400 parts per million since record keeping began at Mauna Loa in 1958, and for at least the past 800,000 years. 28 Arctic sea ice has continued to decline, with September of 2012 marking a new record low in terms of Arctic sea ice extent, 40 percent below the 1979
- 2000 median. Sea level has continued to rise at a rate of 3.2 mm per year (1.3 inches/decade) since satellite

27 ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt 28 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **53** of **684** observations started in 1993, more than twice the average rate of rise in the 20 th century prior to 1993. 29 And 2014 was the warmest year globally in the modern global surface temperature record, going back to 1880; this now means 19 of the 20 warmest years have occurred in the past 20 years, and except for 1998, the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2002. 30 The first months of 2015 have also been some of the warmest on record. These assessments and observed changes make it clear that reducing emissions of GHGs across the globe is necessary in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now. The NRC Committee on America’s Climate Choices listed a number of reasons “why it is imprudent to delay actions that at least begin the process of substantially reducing emissions.” 31 For example:

 The faster emission s are reduced, the lower the risks posed by climate change. Delays in reducing emissions could commit the planet to a wide range of adverse impacts, especially if the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases is on the higher end of the estimated range.

29 Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2014: State of the Climate in 2013. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S1
- S238. 30 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 31 NRC, 2011: America’s Climate Choices , The National Academies Press.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **54** of **684**

 Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before taking action is imprudent because the effects of greenhouse gas emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades and, once manifest, many of these changes will persist for hundreds or even thousands of years.

 In the committee’s judgment, the risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater concern than the risks associated with engaging in strong response efforts.
4. Observed and Projected U.S. Regional Changes The NCA3 assessed the climate impacts in 8 regions of the United States, noting that changes in physical climate parameters such as temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice retreat were already having impacts on forests, water supplies, ecosystems, flooding, heat waves, and air quality. Moreover, the NCA3 found that future warming is projected to be much larger than recent observed variations in temperature, with precipitation likely to increase in the northern states, decrease in the southern states, and with the heaviest precipitation events projected to increase everywhere. In the Northeast, temperatures increased almost 2 °F from 1895 to 2011, precipitation increased by about 5 inches (10 percent ), and sea level rise of about a foot has led to an increase in coastal flooding. The 70 percent increase in the amount of rainfall falling in the 1 percent of the most intense***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **55** of **684** events is a larger increase in extreme precipitation than experienced in any other U . S . region. In the future, if emissions continue increasing, the Northeast is expected to experience 4.5 to 10 °F of warming by the 2080s. This will lead to more heat waves, coastal and river flooding, and intense precipitation events. The southern portion of the regi on is projected to see 60 additional days per year above 90 °F by mid

- century. Sea levels in the Northeast are expected to increase faster than the global average because of subsidence, and changing ocean currents may further increase the rate of sea level rise. Specific vulnerabilities highlighted by the NCA include large urban populations particularly vulnerable to climate
- related heat waves and poor air quality episodes, prevalence of climate sensitive vector
-borne diseases like Lyme and West Nile Virus, usage of combined sewer systems that may lead to untreated water being released into local water bodies after climate
- related heavy precipitation events, and 1.6 million people living within the 100
- year coastal flood zone who are expected to experience more frequent floods due to sea level rise and tropical
- storm induced storm
- surge. The NCA also highlighted infrastructure vulnerable to inundation in coastal metropolitan areas, potential agricultural impacts from increased rain in the spring delaying plan ting or damaging crops or increased heat in the summer leading to decreased yields and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **56** of **684** increased water demand, and shifts in ecosystems leading to declines in iconic species in some regions, such as cod and lobster south of Cape Cod. In the Southeast, average annual temperature during the last century cycled between warm and cool periods. A warm peak occurred during the 1930s and 1940s followed by a cool period and temperatures then increased again from 1970 to the present by an average of 2 °F. There have been increasing numbers of days above 95 °F and nights above 75 °F, and decreasing numbers of extremely cold days since 1970. Daily and five
- day rainfall intensities have also increased, and summers have been either increasingly dry or extremely wet. Lou isiana has already lost 1,880 square miles of land in the last 80 years due to sea level rise and other contributing factors. The Southeast is exceptionally vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme heat events, hurricanes, and decreased water availability. Major consequences of further warming include significant increases in the number of hot days (95 °F or above) and decreases in freezing events, as well as exacerbated ground
level ozone in urban areas. Although projected warming for some parts of the regi on by the year 2100 are generally smaller than for other regions of the United States, projected warming for interior states of the region are larger than coastal regions by 1 °F to 2 °F. Projections further suggest that globally there***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **57** of **684** will be fewer tropic al storms, but that they will be more intense, with more Category 4 and 5 storms. The NCA identified New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Charleston, and Virginia Beach as being specific cities that are at risk due to sea level rise, with homes and infrastructure in creasingly prone to flooding. Additional impacts of sea level rise are expected for coastal highways, wetlands, fresh water supplies , and energy infrastructure . In the Northwest, temperatures increased by about 1.3 oF between 1895 and 2011. A small average increase in precipitation was observed over this time period. However, warming temperatures have caused increased rainfall relative to snowfall, which has altered water availability from snowpack across parts of the region. Snowpack in the Northwest is an important freshwater source for the region. More precipitation falling as rain instead of snow has reduced the snowpack, and warmer springs have corresponded to earlier snowpack melting and reduced streamflows during summer months. Drier conditions have i ncreased the extent of wildfires in the region. Average annual temperatures are projected to increase by 3.3 oF to 9.7 oF by the end of the century (depending on future global GHG emissions), with the greatest warming is expected during the summer. Continued increases in global GHG emissions are projected to result in up to a 30 percent decrease in summer***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **58** of **684** precipitation. Earlier snowpack melt and lower summer stream flows are expected by the end of the century and will affect drinking water supplies, agricul ture, ecosystems, and hydropower production. Warmer waters are expected to increase disease and mortality in important fish species, including Chinook and sockeye salmon. Ocean acidification also threatens species such as oysters, with the Northwest coasta l waters already being some of the most acidified worldwide due to coastal upwelling and other local factors. Forest pests are expected to spread and wildfires burn larger areas. Other high
- elevation ecosystems are projected to be lost because they can no longer survive the climatic conditions. Low lying coastal areas, including the cities of Seattle and Olympia, will experience heightened risks of sea level rise, erosion, seawater inundation and damage to infrastructure and coastal ecosystems. In Alaska, t emperatures have changed faster than anywhere else in the United States. Annual temperatures increased by about 3 °F in the past 60 years. Warming in the winter has been even greater, rising by an average of 6 °F. Arctic sea ice is thinning and shrinking in area, with the summer minimum ice extent now covering only half the area it did when satellite records began in 1979. Glaciers in Alaska are melting at some of the fastest rates on Earth. Permafrost soils are also warming and beginning to thaw. Drier conditions have contributed to more***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **59** of **684** large wildfires in the last 10 years than in any previous decade since the 1940s, when recordkeeping began. Climate change impacts are harming the health, safety and livelihoods of Native Alaskan communities. By the end o f this century, continued increases in GHG emissions are expected to increase temperatures by 10 to 12 °F in the northernmost parts of Alaska, by 8 to 10 °F in the interior, and by 6 to 8 °F across the rest of the state. These increases will exacerbate ongoing a rctic sea ice loss, glacial melt, permafrost thaw and increased wildfire, and threaten humans, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Precipitation is expected to increase to varying degrees across the state, however warmer air temperatures and a longer growing season are expected to result in drier conditions. Native Alaskans are expected to experience declines in economically, nutritionally, and culturally important wildlife and plant specie s. Health threats will also increase, including loss of clean water, saltwater intrusion, sewage contamination from thawing permafrost, and northward exten sion of diseases. Wildfires will increasingly pose threats to human health as a result of smoke and direct contact. Areas underlain by ice
- rich permafrost across the state are likely to experience ground subsidence and extensive damage to infrastructure as the permafrost thaws. Important ecosystems will continue to be affected. Surface***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **60** of **684** waters and wetlands that are drying provide breeding habitat for millions of waterfowl and shorebirds that winter in the lower 48 states. Warmer ocean temperatures, acidification, and declining sea ice will contribute to changes in the location and availability o f commercia lly and culturally important marine fish. In the Southwest, temperatures are now about 2 °F higher than the past century, and are already the warmest that region has experienced in at least 600 years. The NCA notes that there is evidence that climate
- change induced warming on top of recent drought has influenced tree mortality, wildfire frequency and area, and forest insect outbreaks. Sea levels have risen about 7 or 8 inches in this region, contributing to inundation of Highway 101 and backup of seawater i nto sewage systems in the San Francisco area. Projections indicate that the Southwest will warm an additional 5.5 to 9.5 °F over the next century if emissions continue to increase. Winter snowpack in the Southwest is projected to decline (consistent with the record lows from this past winter), reducing the reliability of surface water supplies for cities, agriculture, cooling for power plants, and ecosystems. Sea level rise along the California coast will worsen coastal erosion, increase flooding risk for coastal highways, bridges, and low
- lying airports, pose a threat to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **61** of **684** groundwater supplies in coastal cities such as Los Angeles, and increase vulnerability to floods for hundreds of thousands of residents in coastal areas. Climate change will also have impa cts on the high
-value specialty crops grown in the region as a drier climate will increase demands for irrigation, more frequent heat waves will reduce yields, and decreased winter chills may impair fruit and nut production for trees in California. Increas ed drought, higher temperatures, and bark beetle outbreaks are likely to contribute to continued increases in wildfires. The highly urbanized population of the Southwest is vulnerable to heat waves and water supply disruptions, which can be exacerbated in cases where high use of air conditioning triggers energy system failures. The rate of warming in the Midwest has markedly accelerated over the past few decades. Temperatures rose by more than 1.5 °F from 1900 to 2010, but between 1980 and 2010 the rate of warming was three times faster than from 1900 through 2010. Precipitation generally increased over the last century, with much of the increase driven by intensification of the heaviest rainfalls. Several types of extreme weather events in the Midwest (e.g ., heat waves and flooding) have already increased in frequency and/or intensity due to climate change. In the future, if emissions continue increasing, the Midwest is expected to experience 5.6 to 8.5 °F of warming by***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **62** of **684** the 2080s, leading to more heat waves . Though projections of changes in total precipitation vary across the regions, more precipitation is expected to fall in the form of heavy downpours across the entire region, leading to an increase in flooding. Specific vulnerabilities highlighted by the NCA include long
term decreases in agricultural productivity, changes in the composition of the region’s forests, increased public health threats from heat waves and degraded air and water quality, negative impacts on transportation and other infrastructure associated with extreme rainfall events and flooding, and risks to the Great Lakes including shifts in invasive species, increases in harmful algal blooms, and declining beach health. High temperatures (more than 100 °F in the Southern Plain s and more than 95 °F in the Northern Plains) are projected to occur much more frequently by mid
- century. Increases in extreme heat will increase heat stress for residents, energy demand for air conditioning, and water losses. North Dakota’s increase in annual temperatures over the past 130 years is the fastest in the contiguous U.S., mainly driven by warming winters. Specific vulnerabilities highlighted by the NCA include increased demand for water and energy, changes to crop growth cycles and agricultural practices, and negative impacts on local plant and animal species from habitat fragmentation, wildfires, and changes in the timing of flowering or pest patterns. Communities***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **63** of **684** that are already the most vulnerable to weather and climate extremes will be stressed even further by more frequent extreme events occurring within an already highly variable climate system. In Hawaii, other Pacific islands, and the Caribbean, rising air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms and drought, decreasing baseflow in streams, rising sea levels, and changing ocean chemistry will affect ecosystems on land and in the oceans, as well as local communities, livelihoods, and cultures. Low islands are particularly at risk. Rising sea levels, coupled with high water levels caused by tropical and extra
- tropical storms, will incrementally increase coastal flooding and erosion, damaging coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture, and negatively affecting tourism. Ocean temperature s in the Pacific region exhibit strong year - to - year and decadal fluctuations, but since the 1950s, they have exhibited a warming trend, with temperatures from the surface to a depth of 660 feet rising by as much as 3.6 °F. As a result of current sea level rise, the coastline of Puerto Rico around Rincón is being eroded at a rate of 3.3 feet per year. Freshwater supplies are already constrained and will become more limited on many islands. Saltwater intrusion associated with sea level rise will reduce the quantity and quality of freshwater in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **64** of **684** coastal aquifers, especially on low islands. In areas where precipitation does not increase, freshwater supplies will be adversely affected as air temperature rises. Warmer oceans are leading to increased coral bleaching events and disease outbreaks in coral reefs, as well as changed distribution patterns of tuna fisheries. Ocean acidification will reduce coral growth and health. Warming and acidification, combined with existing stresses, will strongly affect coral reef f ish communities. For Hawaii and the Pacific islands, future sea surface temperatures are projected to increase 2.3 °F by 2055 and 4.7 °F by 2090 under a scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions. Ocean acidification is also taking place in the region, which adds to ecosystem stress from increasing temperatures. Ocean acidity has increased by about 30 percent since the pre
- industrial era and is projected to further increase by 37 percent to 50 percent from present levels by 2100.The NCA also discussed impacts that occur along the coasts and in the oceans adjacent to many regions, and noted that other impacts occur across regions and landscapes in ways that do not follow political boundaries. B. GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs Fossil fuel
- fired electric utility generating units (EGUs) are by far the largest emitters of GHGs among stationary sources***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **65** of **684** in the U.S., primarily in the form of CO 2
. Among fossil fuel
fired EGUs, coal
- fired units are by far the largest emitters. This sect ion describes the amounts of these emissions and places these amounts in the context of the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 32 (the U.S. GHG Inventory). The EPA implements a separate program under 40 CFR part 98 called the Greenhouse Ga s Reporting Program33 (GHGRP) that requires emitting facilities over threshold amounts of GHGs to report their emissions to the EPA annually. Using data from the GHGRP, this section also places emissions from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs in the context of the tot al emissions reported to the GHGRP from facilities in the other largest
- emitting industries. The EPA prepares the official U.S. GHG Inventory to comply with commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This invento ry, which includes recent trends, is organized by industrial sectors. It provides the information in Table 3 below, which presents total U.S.

32 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

– 2013”, Report EPA 430
- R- 15
- 004, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 33 U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporti ng Program Dataset, see http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reportingdatasets.html .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **66** of **684** anthropogenic emissions and sinks 34 of GHGs, including CO 2 emissions, for the years 1990, 2005 and 2013. **Table 3. U .S. GHG Emissions and Sinks by Sector (million metric**  **tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO 2**  **Eq.)) 35** 
**SECTOR 1990**  **2005 2013**  Energy 36 5,290.5 6,273.6 5,636.6 Industrial Processes and Product Use 342.1 367.4 359.1 Agriculture 448.7 494.5 515.7 Land Use, Land- Use Change and Forestry 13.8 25.5 23.3 Waste 206.0 189.2 138.3 Total Emissions 6,301.1 7,350.2 6,673.0 Land Use, Land- Use Change and Forestry (Sinks) (775.8) (911.9) (881.7) Net Emissions (Sources and Sinks) 5,525.2 6,438.3 5,791.2 Total fossil energy
- related CO 2 emissions (including both stationary and mobile sources) are the largest contributor to

34 Sinks are a physical unit or process that stores GHGs, such as forests or underground or deep sea reservoirs of CO 2 . 35 From Table ES - 4 of “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

– 2013”, Report EPA 430
- R- 15
- 004 , United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 36 The energy sector includes all greenhouse gases resulting from stationary and mobile energy activities including fuel combustion and fugitive fuel emissions.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **67** of **684** total U.S. GHG emissions, representing 77.3 percent of total 2013 GHG emissions. 37 In 2013, fossil fuel combustion by the utility power sector

– entities that burn fossil fuel and whose primary business is the generation of electricity

– accounted for 38.3 percent of all energy
- related CO 2 emissions. 38 Table 4 below presents total CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, for years 1990, 2005 and 2013. **Table 4. U.S. GHG Emissions from Generation of Electricity from Combustion of Fossil Fuels (MMT CO** **2 )**  **39**

37 From Table ES - 2 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

– 201 3 ”, Report EPA 430
- R- 15
- 00 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015 . http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

. 38 From Table 3
- 1 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

– 201 3 ”, Report EPA 430
- R- 15
- 004, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2015 . http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 39 From Table 3
- 5 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

– 201 3 ”, Report EPA 430
- R- 15
- 004, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15 2015 . http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

. **GHG EMISSIONS 1990**  **2005 2013**  Total CO 2 from fossil fuel - fired EGUs 1,820.8 2,400.9 2,039.8

- from coal 1,547.6 1,983.8 1,575.0

- from natural gas 175.3 318.8 441.9

- from petroleum 97.5 97.9 22.4***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **68** of **684**
In addition to preparing the official U.S. GHG Inventory to present comprehensive total U.S. GHG emissions and comply with commitments under the UNFCCC, the EPA collects detailed GHG emissions data from the largest emitting facilities in the U.S. through i ts GHGRP. Data collected by the GHGRP from large stationary sources in the industrial sector show that the utility power sector emits far greater CO 2 emissions than any other industrial sector. Table 5 below presents total GHG emissions in 2013 for the largest emitting industrial sectors as reported to the GHGRP. As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs are nearly three times as large as the total reported GHG emissions from the next ten largest emi tting industrial sectors in the GHGRP database combined . **Table 5. Direct GHG Emissions Reported to GHGRP by Largest Emitting Industrial Sectors (MMT CO** **2 e)**  **40**

40 U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Dataset as of August 18, 2014 . http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do . **Industrial Sector 2013**  Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs 2,039.8 Petroleum Refineries Onshore Oil & Gas Production 176.7 94.8 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 93.0 Iron & Steel Production 84.2 Cement Production 62.8 Natural Gas Processing Plants 59.0***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **69** of **684**

It should be noted that the discussion above concerned all fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. Steam generators emitted 1,627 MMT CO 2 e and combustion turbines emitted 401 MMT CO 2 e in 2013. 41 C. The Utility Power Sector 1. Modern Electric System Trends The EPA includes a background discussion of the electricity system in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rulemaking, which is the companion rulemaking to this rule that promulgates emission guidelines for states to use in regulating emissions of CO 2 from existing fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. Readers are referred to that rulemaking. The following discussion of electricity sector trends is of particular relevance for this rulemaking. The electricity sector is undergoing a period of intense change. Fossil fuels

– such as coal, natural gas, and oil

– have historically provided a large percentage of electricity in the U.S., with smaller amounts provided by other types of generation including nuclear, and renewables such as wind, solar, and

41 These figures are based on data for EGUs in the Acid Rain Program plus additional ones that report to the EPA under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Petrochemical Production 52.7 Hydrogen Production 41.9 Underground Coal Mines 39.8 Food Processing Facilities 30.8***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **70** of **684** hydroelectric power. Coal has historically provided the largest percentage of the fossil fuel generation. 42 In recent years, the nation has seen a sizeable increase in renewable generation such as wind and solar, as well as a shift from coal to natural gas. 43 In 2013, fossil fue ls supplied 67 percent of U.S. electricity, but renewables made up 38 percent of the new generation capacity (over 5 GW out of 13.5 GW). 44 From 2007 to 2014, use of lower
and zero - carbon energy sources has grown, while other major energy sources such as co al and oil have experienced declines. Renewable electricity generation, including from large hydro
electric projects, grew from 8 percent to 13 percent over that time period. 45 Between 2000 and 2013, approximately 90 percent of

42 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from April 2014 Monthly Energy Review, release data April 25, 2014, available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf. 43 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Table 7.2b Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector” data from April 2014 Monthly Energy Review, release data April 25, 2014, available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_6.pdf. 44 Based on Table 6.3 (New Utility Scale Generating Units by Operating Company, Plant, Month, and Year) of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Electric Power Monthly, data for December 2013, for the following renewable energy sources: solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, landfill gas, and biomass. Available at: http:// www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm

_table

_grapher.cfm?t=epmt

_ 6

_0 3. 45 Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy , 2015 Factbook: Sustainable Energy in America , at 16 (2015), available at***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **71** of **684** new power generation capacity built in the U.S. has come in the form of natural gas or renewable energy facilities. 46 In 2015, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected the need for 28.4 GW of additional base load or intermediate load generation capacity through 2020, with approximately 0.7 GW of new coal - fired capacity, 5.5 GW of new nuclear capacity, and 14.2 GW of new NGCC capacity already in development. 47 The change in the resource mix has accelerated in recent years, but wind, solar, other renewables, and energy efficiency resources have been reliably participating in the electric sector for a number of years. This rapid development of non
fossil fuel resources is occurring as much of the existing power generation fleet in the U.S. is aging and in need of
modernization and replacement. 48 For example, the average age of U.S. coal steam units in 2015 is 45 years . 49 In its 2013 Report
http://www.bcse.org/ images/2015%20Sustainable%20Energy%20in%20Am erica%20Factbook.pdf. 46 Energy Information Administration, Electricity: Form EIA
- 860 detailed data (Feb. 17, 2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/dat a/eia860/. 47 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook for 2015 with Projections to 2040 , Final Release, available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/pdf/0383(2015). The AEO numbers include projects that are under development and model -projected nuclear, coal, and NGCC projects. 48 Quadrennial Energy Review, http://energy.gov/epsa/quadrennial
energy- review
- qer 49 We calculated the average age of coal steam units based on the NEEDS inventory, and included units with planned retirements in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **72** of **684** Card for America’s Infrastructure , the American Society for Civil Engineers noted that “America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s. ” 50 While there has been an increased investment in electric transmission infrastructure since 2005, the report also found that “ongoing permitting issues, weather events, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions.” 51 However, innovative technologies have increasingly entered the electric energy space, helping to provide new answers to how to meet the electricity needs of the na tion. These new technologies can enable the nation to answer not just questions as to how to reliably meet electricity demand, but also how to meet electricity demand reliably and cost
- effectively 52 with the lowest possible emissions and the greatest effici ency. Natural gas has a long history of meeting electricity demand in the U.S. with a rapidly growing role as domestic

2015
- 2016. See http://www.epa.gov/a irmarkets/documents/ipm/needs_v514.xlsx. 50 American Society for Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (2013), available at http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/energy/. 51 American Society for Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (2013), available at http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/energy/. 52 Business Council for Sustainable Energy Comments in Docket Id. No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0602 at 2 (Nov. 19 , 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **73** of **684** supplies of natural gas have dramatically increased. Natural gas net generation increased by approximately 36 percent between 2004 and 2014. 53 In 2014, natural gas accounted for approximately 27 percent of net generation. 54 The EIA projects that this demand growth will continue with its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (AEO 2015) reference case forecasting that natural gas will produce 31 percent of U.S. electric generation in 2040. 55 Renewable sources of electric generation also have a history of meeting electricity demand in the U.S. and are expected to have an increasing role going forward. A series of energy crises provided the impetus for renewable energy development in the early 1970s. The OPEC oil embargo in 1973 and oil crisis of 1979 caused oil price spikes, more frequent energy shortages, and significantly affected the national and global economy. In 1978, partly in response to fuel secu rity concerns, Congress passed the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
53 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Monthly: Table 1.1 Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2004
-December 2014 (2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=e pmt_1_1. 54 Id. 55 The AEO2015 Reference case projection is a bu siness
- as - usual trend estimate, given known technology and technological and demographic trends. EIA explores the impacts of a lternative assumptions in other cases with different macroeconomic growth rates, world oil prices, and resource assumptions. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040 , at 24
- 25 (2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **74** of **684** (PURPA) which required local electric utilities to buy power from qualifying facilities (QFs). 56 QFs were either cogeneration facilities 57 or small generation resources that use renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, or hydroelectric power as their primary fuels. 58 Through PURPA, Congress supported the development of more renewable energy generation in the U.S. States have taken a significant lead in requiring the development of renewable resources. In particular, a number of states have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS). As of 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia have enforceable RPS or similar laws. 59 In its AEO 2015 Reference case, the EIA found that renewable energy will account for 38 percent of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2013 to 2040. 60 The AEO 2015 Reference case forecasts that the renewables share of

56 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power Systems , IEEE Press, at 220
- 221 (2d ed. 2010). 57 Cogeneration facilities utilize a single source of fuel to produce both electricity and another form of energy such as heat or steam. Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding El ectric Power Systems , IEEE Press, at 220
- 221 (2d ed. 2010). 58 Casazza, J. and Delea, F., Understanding Electric Power Systems , IEEE Press, at 220
- 221 (2d ed. 2010). 59 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040 , at LR- 5 (2014). 60 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040 , at E - 12(2015).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **75** of **684** U.S. electricity generation will grow from 13 percent in 2013 to 18 percent i n 2040. 61 Price pressures caused by oil embargoes in the 1970s also brought the issues of conservation and energy efficiency to the forefront of U.S. energy policy. 62 This trend continued in the early 1990s. Some state regulatory commissions and utilities supported energy efficiency through least
- cost planning, with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) “adopting a resolution that called for the utility’s least cost plan to be the utility’s most profitable plan.” 63 Energy efficiency has been utilized to meet energy demand to

61 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040 , at 24
- 25(201 5). 62 Edison Electric Institute, Making a Business of Energy Efficiency: Sustainable Business Models for Utilities , at 1 (2007). Congress passed legislation in the 1970s that jumpstarted energy efficiency in the U.S. For example, President Ford signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975

– the first law on the issue. EPCA authorized the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) to “develop energy conservation contingency plans, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and authorized the creation of efficiency standards for major household appliances.” Alliance to Save Energy, History of Energy Efficiency, at 6 (2013) (citing Anders, “The Federal Energy Administration,” 5; Energy Policy and Conservation Act, S. 622, 94th Cong. (1975
- 1976)), available at https://www.ase.org/sites/ase.org/files/resources/Media%20browse r/ee_commission_history_report_2
- 1
- 13.pdf. 63 Edison Electric Institute, Making a Business of Energy Efficiency: Sustainable Business Models for Utilities , at 1 (2007), available at http://www.eei.org/whatwedo/PublicPolicyAdvocacy/StateRegulation /Documents/Making_Business_Energy_Efficiency.pdf .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **76** of **684** varying levels since that time. As of April 2014, 25 states 64 have “enacted long- term (3+ years), binding energy savi ngs targets, or energy efficiency resource standards (EERS).” 65 Funding for energy efficiency programs has grown rapidly in recent years, with budgets for electric efficiency programs totaling $5.9 billion in 2012. 66 Advancements and innovation in power se ctor technologies provide the opportunity to address CO 2 emission levels at affected power plants while at the same time improving the overall power system in the U.S. by lowering the carbon intensity of power generation, and ensuring a reliable supply of power at a reasonable cost. 2. Fossil Fuel
- F ired EGUs Regulated by This Action, Generally Natural gas - fired EGUs typically use one of two technologies: NGCC or simple cycle combustion turbines. NGCC
64 American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy, State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) (2014), available at http://aceee.org/files/pdf/policy
-brief/eers
- 04
- 2014.pdf. ACEEE did not include Indiana (EERS eliminated), Delaware (EERS pending), Florida (programs funded at levels far below what is necessary to meet targets), Utah, or Virginia (voluntary standards) in its calculation. 65 American Council for an Energy
- Efficient Economy, State Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) (2014), available at http://aceee.o rg/files/pdf/policy
-brief/eers
- 04
- 2014.pdf. 66 American Council for an Energy
- Efficient Economy, The 2013 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, at 17 (Nov. 2013), available at http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreport s/e13k.pdf.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **77** of **684** units first generate power from a combustion turbine (the combustion cycle). The unused heat from the combustion turbine is then routed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that generates steam which is used to produce power using a steam turbine (the steam cycle). Combining these generation cycles increase s the overall efficiency of the system. Simple cycle combustion turbines use a single combustion turbine to produce electricity (i.e., there is no heat recovery). The power output from these simple cycle combustion turbines can be easily ramped up and down making them ideal for “peaking” operations. Coal - fired utility boilers are primarily either pulverized coal (PC) boilers or fluidized bed (FB) boilers. At a PC boiler, the coal is crushed (pulverized) into a powder in order to increase its surface area. The coal powder is then blown into a boiler and burned. In a coal
- fired boiler using FB combustion, the coal is burned in a layer of heated particles suspended in flowing air. Power can also be generated using gasification technology. An IGCC unit gasifies coal or petroleum coke to form a synthetic gas or syngas composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which can be combusted in a combined cycle system to generate power . 3 . Technological Developments and Costs Natural gas prices have decreased dramatically and generally stabilized in recent years as new drilling techniques***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **78** of **684** have brought additional supply to the marketplace and greatly increased the domestic resource base. As a result, natural gas prices are expected to be competitive for the foreseeable future and EIA modeling and utility announcements confirm that utilities are likely to rely heavily on natural gas to meet new demand for electricity generation. On average, as discussed below, the cost of generation from a new natural
- gas fired power plant (a NGCC unit) is expected to be significantly lower than the cost of generation from a new coal
- fired power plant. 67 Other drivers that may influence decisions to build new power plants are increases in renewable energy supplies, often due to state and federa l energy policies. As previously discussed, many states have adopted RPS, which require a certain portion of electricity to come from renewable energy sources such as solar or wind. The federal government has also offered incentives to encourage further deployment of other forms of electric generation including renewable energy sources and new nuclear power plants. Reflecting these factors, the EIA projections from the last several years show that natural gas is likely to be the most widely
- used fossil fuel for new construction of electric

67 Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 201 5 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.html.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **79** of **684** generating capacity through 2020, along with renewable energy, nuclear power, and a limi ted amount of coal with CCS. 68 While EIA data shows that natural gas is likely to be the most widely
- used fossil fuel for new construction of electric generating capacity through 2030 , a few coal - fired units still remain as viable projects at various advanced stages of construction and development. One new coal facility that has essentially completed construction, Southern Company's Kemper County Energy Facility, deploys IGCC with partial CCS . Additionally, another project, Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) , which will deploy IGCC with CCS , continue s as a viable project . 69 The EIA modeling projects that coal
- fired power generation will remain the single largest portion of the electricity sector beyond 2030. The EIA modeling also projects that few, if any, new coal
- fired EGUs would be built in this decade and that those that are built would have CCS. 70 Continued

68 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf ; http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf ; http://prod
- http - 80
- 800498448.us
- east 1.elb.amazonaws.com/w/images/6/6d/0383%282011%29.pdf . 69 “Odessa coal - to - gas power plant to break ground this year”, Houston Chronicle (April 1, 2015). 70 This projection is for business as usual and does not account for the proposed or final CO 2 emission standard. Even in its sensitivity analysis that assumes higher natural gas prices and electricity demand , EIA does not project any additional coal
fired power plants beyond its reference case until 20 23, in a case where power companies assume no GHGs emission limitations ,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **80** of **684** progress on these projects is consistent with the EIA modeling that suggests that a small number of coal - fired power plants may be constructed. The primary reasons for this rate of current and projected future development of new coal projects include highly competitive natural gas prices, lower electricity demand growth , and increases in the supply of renewable energy. We recognize, however, that a variety of factors may come into play in a decision to build new power generation and we want to ensure there are standards in place to make sure that whatever fuel is utilized is done so in a way that minimizes CO 2 emissions and continues to encourage the development of innovative technologies into the future, as Congress int ended with CAA section 111. 71 4 . Energy Sector Modeling Various energy sector modeling efforts, including projections from the EIA and the EPA, forecast trends in new power plant construction and utilization of existing power plants that are consistent with the above - described technological developments and costs. The EIA’s annual report,
and until 2024 in a case where power companies do assume GHGs emission limitations . 71 These sources received federal assistance under EPAct 2005. [cross reference to later discussion needed here.....] However, none of the constraints in that Act affect the discussion in the text above, since that discussion does not relate to technology use or emissions reduction by these sources.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **81** of **684** the AEO, forecasts the structure and developments in the power sector. These reports are based on economic modeling that reflects existing policy and regulations, such as s tate RPS programs and federal tax credits for renewables. 72 The current report, AEO 2015 73 , (i) shows that a modest amount of coal
- fired power plants that are currently under construction are expected to begin operation in the next several years (referred to as “planned”); and (ii) projects in the reference case 74 , that a very small amount of new (“unplanned”) conventional coal
- fired capacity, with CCS, will come online after 2012, and through 2037 in response to Federal and State incentives. According to the AEO 2015, the vast majority of new generating capacity during this period will be either natural gas
- fired or renewable
sources . Similarly, the EIA projections from the last several years show that natural gas is likely to be the most widely
- used fossil fuel for new construction of electric generating capacity through 2030 . 75 Specifically, the AEO2015 projects 30.3 GW of additional base load or intermediate load generation capacity through 2020
72 http://www .eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/chapter_legs_regs.cfm. 73 Energy Information Admin i stration’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2015 , Final Release available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm . 74 EIA’s reference case projections are the result of its baseline assumptions for economic growth, fuel supply, technology, and other key inputs. 75 Annual Energy Outlook 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 , 2014 and 2015 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **82** of **684** (this includes projects that are under development

– i.e., being constructed or in advance planning
- and model -projected nuclear, coal, and NGCC projects). The vast majority of this new electric capacity (20.4 GW) is already under development (under construction or in advanced planning); it includes about 0.7 GW of new coal - fired capacity, 5.5 GW of new nuclear capacity, and 14.2 GW of new NGCC capacity. The EPA believes that most current fossil fuel
- fired projects are already designed to meet limits consistent with this rule (or they have already commenced construction and are thus not subject to these final standards ). The AEO2015 also projects an additional 9.9 GW of new base load capacity additions, which are model
-projected (unplanned). This consists of 7.7 GW of new NGCC capacity, 1.2 GW of new geothermal capacity , 0.7 GW of new hydroelectric capacity, and 0.3 GW of new coal equipped with CCS (incentivized with some government funding). Therefore, the AEO 2015 projection suggests that this final rule would only impact small amounts of new power generating capacity through 2020, all of which is expected to already meet the emissions standards without incurring further control costs. In AEO 2015, this is also true during the period from 2020 through 2030, where new model
-projected (unplanned) intermediate and base load capacity is expected to be compliant with the standard without incurring further control costs (i.e., an additional 31.3 GW of NGCC and no additional***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **83** of **684** coal, for a total, from 2015 through 2030, of 39 GW of NGCC and 0.3 GW of coal with CCS). Under the EIA projections, existing coal
- fired generation will remain an important part of the mix for power generation. Modeling from both the EIA and the EPA project that coal - fired generation will remain the largest single source of electricity in the U.S. through 20 40. Specifically, in the EIA’s AEO 2015, coal will supply approximately 40 percent of all electricity in the electric power sector in both 2020 and 2025. The EPA modeling using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), a detailed power sector model that the EPA uses to support power sector regulations, also shows limited future construction of new coal - fired power plants under the base case. 76 The EPA’s projections from IPM can be found in the RIA. 5 . Integrated Resource Plans The trends in the power sector described above are also apparent in publicly available long
- term resource plans, known as integrated resource plans (IRPs). The EPA has reviewed publicly available IRPs from a range of companies (e.g., varying in size, location, current fuel mix), and the se plans are generally consistent with both EIA and EPA modeling projections. These IRPs indicate that companies are
76 http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa
ipm/BaseCasev410.html#documentation .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **84** of **684** focused on demand- side management programs to lower future electricity demand and are mostly reliant on a mix of new natural gas - fired gene ration and renewable energy to meet increased load demand and to replace retired generation capacity. Notwithstanding this clear trend towards natural gas
- fired generation and renewables, many of the IRPs highlight the value of fuel diversity and include options to diversify new generation capacity beyond natural gas and renewable energy. Several IRPs indicate that companies are considering new nuclear generation, including either traditional nuclear power plants or small modular reactors, and a smaller number are considering new coal - fired generation capacity with and without CCS technology. Based on these IRPs, the EPA acknowledges that a small number of new coal - fired power plants may be built in the near future. While this outcome would be contrary to the economic modeling predictions, the agency understands that economic modeling may not fully reflect the range of factors that a particular company may consider when evaluating new generation options, such as fuel diversification. Further it is possible that some of this potential new coal
- fired construction may occur because developers are able to design projects with specific business plans , such as the cogeneration of chemicals, which allow the source to provide competitively priced electricity in specific***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **85** of **684** geographic region s . D. Statutory Background The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that GHGs 77 meet the definition of “air pollutant” in the CAA, 78 and premised its decision in AEP v. Connecticut 79 that the CAA displaced any federal common law right to compel reductions in CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel
- fired power plants on its view that CAA section 111 applies to GHG emissions. CAA section 111 authorizes and directs the EPA to prescribe new source performance standards (NSPS) applic able to certain new stationary sources (including newly constructed, modified and reconstructed sources). 80 As a preliminary step to regulation, the EPA must list categories of stationary sources that the Administrator, in his or her judgment, finds “cause[], or contribute[] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA has listed and regulated more than 60 stationary source categories under CAA section 111. 81 The EPA listed the two s ource

77 The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding defines the air pollution which may endanger public health and welfare as the well
-mixed aggregate group of the following gases: CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 78 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007). 79 131 S.Ct. 2527, 2537
- 38 (2011). 80 CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). 81 See generally 40 CFR part 60, subparts D -MMMM.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **86** of **684** categor ies at issue here in the 1970s
- listing fossil fuel
fired electric steam generating units in 1971 82 and listing combustion turbines in 197 7 . 83 Once the EPA has listed a source category, the EPA proposes and then promulgates “standards of performance” for “new sources” in the category . 84 A “new source” is “any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after,” in general, final standards applicable to that source are promulgated or, if earlier, proposed. 85 A modification is “any physical change ... or change in the method of operation ... which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.” 86 The EPA, through regulations, has determined that certain types of changes are exempt from consideration as a modification. 87 The NSPS general provisions (40 CFR part 60 , s ubpart A) provide that an existing source is considered t o be a new source if it undertakes a “reconstruction,” which is the replacement of components of an existing facility to an extent that (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of
82 36 FR 5931 (March 31, 1971). 83 42 FR 53657 (October 3, 1977). 84 CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). 85 CAA section 111(a)(2). 86 CAA section 111(a)(4). 87 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14(e).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **87** of **684** the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility, and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards. 88 CAA section 111(a)(1) defines a “standard of performance” as “a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflect s the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” This definition makes clear that the standard of performance must be based on “the best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” (BSER). The standard that the EPA develops, refl ecting the performance of the BSER, is commonly a numeric emission limit, expressed as a numeric performance level which can either be normalized to a rate of output or input (e.g. tons of pollution per amount of product produced

– a so - called rate -based
s tandard), or expressed as a numeric limit on mass of pollutant that may be emitted (e.g. , 100 ug/m3

– parts per billion). Generally, the EPA does not prescribe a particular technological system that must be used to comply with a standard of

88 40 CFR 60.15.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **88** of **684** performance. 89 Rather, sources generally may select any measure or combination of measures that will achieve the emissions level of the standard. 90 In establishing standards of performance, the EPA has significant discretion to create subcategories based on source type, class or size. 91 The text and legislative history of CAA section 111, as well as relevant court decisions , identify the factors that the EPA is to consider in making a BSER determination. The system of emission reduction must be technically feasible, the c osts of the system must be reasonable, and the emission standard that the EPA promulgates based on the system of emission reduction must be achievable. In addition, in identifying a BSER, the EPA must consider the amount of emissions reductions attributabl e to the system, and must also consider nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements . The case law addressing CAA section 111 makes it clear that the EPA has discretion in weighing costs, amount of emission reductions, energy requirements, and impacts of non
- air quality pollutants , and may weigh them differently for different types of sources or air pollutants. We note that under the case law of the D.C. Circuit, another factor is relevant for the BSER determination:
89 CAA sections 111 (b)(5) and (h). 90 CAA section 111(b)(5) . 91 CAA section 111(b)(2); see also Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F. 3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **89** of **684** whether the standard would effectively promote further deployment or development of advanced technologies. Within the constraints just described, the EPA has discretion in identifying the BSER and the resulting emission standard. For more than four decades, the EPA has used its authority under CAA section 111 to set cost
- effective emission standards which ensure that newly constructed, reconstructed , and modified stationary sources use the best performing technologies to limit emissions of harmful air pollutants. In this final action, the EPA is following the same well
- established interpretation and application of the law under CAA section 111 to address GHG emissions from newly constructed, reconstructed , and modified fossil fuel
- fired power plants. For each of the standards in this final action, the EPA considered a number of alternatives and evaluated them against the statutory factors. The BSER for each category of affected sources and the standards of performance based on these BSER are based on that evaluation . E. Regulatory Background In 1971, the EPA initially included fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (which includes natural gas, petroleum and coal) that use steamgenerating boilers in a category that it listed under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), 92 and promulgated the first set of

92 36 FR 5931 (March 31, 1971)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **90** of **684** standards of performance for sources in that category, which it codified in subpart D. 93 In 1977, the EPA initially included fossil fuel - fired combustion turbines in a category that the EPA listed under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), 94 and the EPA promulgated standards of performance for that source category in 1979, which the EPA codified in subpart GG. 95 The EPA has revised those regulations, and in some instances, has revised the codifications (that is, the 40 CFR part 60 subparts), several times over the ensuing decades. In 1979, the EPA divided subpart D into 3 subparts

– Da (“Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Which Construction is Commenced After September 18, 1978”), Db (“Standards of Performance for Industrial
- Commercial
Instituti onal Steam Generating Units”) and Dc (“Standards of Performance for Small Industrial
- Commercial
- Institutional Steam Generating Units”)

– in order to codify separate requirements that it established for these subcategories. 96 In 2006, the EPA created subpart KKKK, ”Standards of Performance for Stationary

93 “Standards of Performance for Fossil
- Fuel - Fired Steam Generators for Which Construction Is Commenced After August 17, 1971,” 36 FR 24875 (December 23, 1971) codified at 40 CFR 60.40
- 46. 94 42 FR 53657 (October 3, 1977). 95 “Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Which Construction is Commenced After September 18, 1978,” 44 FR 33580 (June 11, 1979). 96 44 FR 33580 (June 11, 1979)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **91** of **684** Combustion Turbines,” which applied to certain sources previously regulated in subparts Da and GG . 97 None of these subsequent rulemakings, including the revised codifications, however, constituted a new listing under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). The EPA promulgated amendments to subpart Da in 2006, which included new standards of performance for criteria pollutants for EGUs, but did not include specific standards of performance for CO 2 emissions. 98 Petitioners sought judicial review of the rule, contending, among other issues , that the rule was required to include standards of performance for GHG emissions from EGUs. 99 The January 8, 2014 preamble to the proposed CO 2 standards for new EGUs 100 includes a discussion of the GHGrelated litigation of the 2006 Final Rule as well as other GHG
associated litigation. F. Development of Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel
Fired Electric Utility Generating Units

97 71 FR 38497 (July 6, 2006), as amended at 74 FR 11861 (March 20, 2009). 98 ”Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, Industrial
- Commercial
- Institutional Steam Generating Units, and Small Industrial
- Commercial
- Institutional Steam Generating Units, Final Rule. ” 71 FR 9866 (Feb ruary 27, 2006). 99 State of New York, et al. v. EPA, No. 06

– 1322 **.** 100 79 FR 1430 , 1444.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **92** of **684** On April 13, 2012, the EPA initially proposed standards under CAA section 111 for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units. 77 FR 22392 (“April 2012 proposal”). The EPA withdrew that proposal (79 FR 1352 (January 8, 2014) ), and, on the same day, proposed the standards addressed in this final rule. 79 FR 1430 (“January 2014 proposal”). Specifically, the EPA proposed standards under CAA section 111 to limit emissions of CO 2 from newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and newly constructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines. In support of the January 2014 proposal, on February 26, 2014, the EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) (79 FR 10750). Through the NODA and an associated technical support document, Effect of EPAct05 on Best System of Emission Reduction for New Power Plants , the EPA solicited comment on its interpretation of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) 101 , including how the provisions may affect the

101 See section III.H.3 (g) below. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005 . EPAct05 was intended to address energy production in the United States, including: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Tribal energy; (6) nuclear matter s and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **93** of **684** rationale for the EPA’s proposed determination that partial CCS is the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated for fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units. On June 18, 2014, the EPA proposed standards of performance to limit emissions of CO 2 from modified and reconstructed fossil fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units and natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines (79 FR 34959; June 2014 proposal). Specifically, the EPA proposed standards of performance for: (1) modified fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units, (2) modified natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines, (3) reconstructed fossil fuel
fired electric utility steam generating units, and (4) reconstructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines. G. Stakeholder Engagement and Public Comments on the Proposals 1. Stakeholder Engagement The EPA has engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders and the general public regarding climate change, carbon pollution from power plants, and carbon pollution reduction opportunities. These stakeholders included industry and electric utility representatives, state and local officials, tribal officials, labor unions, non
- governmental organi zations and many others. geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology. www2.epa.gov/laws
- regulations/summary
- energy-policy
- act***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **94** of **684** In February and March 2011, early in the process of developing carbon pollution standards for new power plants, the EPA held five listening sessions to obtain information and input from key stakeholders and the public. Each of the five sessions had a particular target audience: the electric power industry, environmental and environmental justice organizations, states and tribes, coalition groups, and the petroleum refinery industry. The EPA conducted subsequent outreach prior to the June 2014 proposals of standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs and emission guidelines for existing EGUs, as well as during the public comment periods for the proposals. Although this stakeholder outreach was primarily framed around the GHG emission guidelines for existing EGUs, the outreach encompassed issues relevant to this rulemaking and provided an opportunity for the EPA to better understand previous state and stakeholder experience with reducing CO 2 emissions in the power sector. In addition t o 11 public listening sessions, the EPA held hundreds of meetings with individual stakeholder groups, and meetings that brought together a variety of stakeholders to discuss a wide range of issues related to the electricity sector and regulation of GHGs under the CAA. The agency met with electric utility associations and electricity grid operators. Agency officials engaged with labor unions and with leaders***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **95** of **684** representing large and small industries, many of which have been utilities and industry representatives directly related to the electricity sector. The agency also met with energy industries such as coal and natural gas interests, as well as with representatives of energy intensive industries, such as the iron and steel and aluminum industries, to help understand the potential concerns of large industrial purchasers of electricity. In addition, the agency met with companies that offer new technology to prevent or reduce carbon pollution. The agency provided and encouraged multiple opportunities for engagement with state, local, tribal, and regional environmental and energy agencies. The EPA also met with representatives of environmental justice organizations, environmental groups, and religious organizations. The EPA received more than 2.5 million comments submitted in response to the original April 2012 proposal for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. Because the original proposal was withdrawn, the EPA instructed commenters that wanted their comments on the April 2012 proposal to be considered in connection with the January 2014 proposal to submit new comments to the EPA or to re
- submit their previous comments. We received more comments in response to the January 2014 proposal, as discussed in the section below.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **96** of **684** The EPA has given stakeholder input provided prior to the proposals, as well as during the public comment periods for each proposal, careful consideration during the development of this rulemaking and, as a result, it includes elements that are responsive to many stakeholder concerns and that e nhance the rule. This preamble and the Response - to - Comments (RTC) document summarize and provide the agency’s responses to the comments received. 2. Comments on the January 2014 Proposal for Newly Constructed Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs Upon publication of the January 8, 2014 proposal for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, the EPA offered a 60
- day public comment period. On March 6, 2014, in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and supporting information, the EPA extended the comment period by 60 days, to May 9, 2014, giving stakeholders over 120 days to review, and comment upon, the January 2014 proposal, as well as the NODA. A public hearing was held on February 6, 2014, with 159 speakers presenting testimony. The EPA received more than 2 million comments on the proposed standards for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs from a range of stakeholders that included industry and electric utility representatives, trade groups, equipment manufacturers, state and local government officials, academia, environmental***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **97** of **684** organizations, and various interest groups. The agency received comments on a range of topics, including the determination that a new highly efficient steam generating EGU implementing partial CCS wa s the BSER for such sources , the level of the CO 2 standard based on implementation of partial CCS, the criteria that defines which newly constructed natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines will be subject to standards, the establishment of subcate gories based on combustion turbine size, and the rule’s potential effects on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit program and title V operating permit program. 3. Comments on the June 2014 Proposal for Modified and Recon structed Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs Upon publication of the June 18, 2014 proposal for modified and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, the EPA offered a 120
- day public comment period
- through October 16, 2014. The EPA held public hearings in four locations during the week of July 28, 2014. These hearings also addressed EPA’s June 18, 2014 proposed emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (reflecting the connections between the proposed standards for modified and reconstructed sources and the proposed emission guidelines). A total of 1,322 speakers testified, and a further 1,450 attended but did not speak. The speakers were provided the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **98** of **684** opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning one or both proposed actions **.** The EPA received over 200 comments on the proposed standards for modified and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs from a range of stakeholders similar to those that submitted comments on the January 2014 proposal for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (i.e., industry and electric utility representatives, trade groups, equipment manufacturers, state and local government officials, academia, environmental organizations, and various interest groups). The agency received comments on a range of topics, including the methodology for determining unit
- specific CO 2 standards for modified steam generating units and the use of supercritical boiler conditions as the basis for the CO 2 standards for certain reconstructed steam generating units. Many of the comments regarding modified and reconstructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines are similar to the comments regarding newly constructed combustion turbines described above (e.g., applicability criteria and subcategories based on turbine size). **III. Regulato ry Authority**  **, Affected Sources and Their Standards, and Legal Requirements**  In this section, we describe our authority to regulate CO 2 from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. We also describe our decision to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **99** of **684** combine the two existing categories of affected EGUs

– steam generators and combustion turbines
- into a single category of fossil fuel
- fired EGUs for purposes of promulgating standards of performance for CO 2 emissions . We also explain that we are codifying all of the requirements in this rule for new , modified , and reconstructed affected EGUs in new subpart TTTT of part 60 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations . In addition, we explain which sources are and are not affected by this rule, and the format of these standards. Finally, we describe the legal requirements for establishing these emission standards. A. Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel
- fired EGUs The EPA’s authority for this rule is CAA section 111(b)(1). CAA section 111 (b)(1) (A ) requires the Administrator to establish a list of source categories to be regulated under section 111. A category of sources is to be included on the list “if in [the Administrator’s] judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipate d to endanger public health and welfare .” This determination is commonly referred to as an “endangerment finding” and that phrase encompasses both the “causes or contributes significantly” component and the “endanger public health and welfare” component of the determination. Then, for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **100** of **684** the source categories listed under section 111(b)(1)(A), the Administrator promulgates, under section 111(b)(1)(B), “standards of performance for new sources within such category.” In this rule, the EPA is establishing standards under section 111(b)(1)(B) for source categories that were previously listed and regulated for other pollutants and now are being regulated for an additional pollutant. Because of this, there are two aspects of section 111(b)(1) that warrant particular discussion. First, because the EPA is not listing a new source category in this rule, the EPA is not required to make a new endangerment finding with regard to affected EGUs in order to establish standards of performance for the CO 2 emissions from those
sources . Under the plain language of CAA section 111 (b)(1)(A) , an endangerment finding is required only to list a source category . Further, though the endangerment finding is based on determinations as to the health or welfare impacts of the pollution to which the source category’s pollutants contribute, and as to the significance of the amount of such contribution , the statute is clear that the endangerment finding is made with respect to the source category; section 111(b)(1)(A) does not provide that an endangerment finding is made as to specific pollutants. This contrasts with other CAA provisions that do require the EPA to make endangerment findings for each***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **101** of **684** particular pollutant that the EPA regulates under those provisions. E.g., CAA sections 202(a)(1) , 211(c)(1), 231(a)(2)(A). See American Electric Power v. Connecticut , 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2539 (2011) (“the Clean Air Act directs EPA to establish emissions standards for categories of stationary sources that, ‘in [the Administrator's] judgment,’ ‘caus[e], o r contribut[e] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’ § 7411(b)(1)(A) .”) (emphasis added). Second, once a source category is listed, the CAA does not specify what pollutants should be the subject of standards from that source category. The statute, in section 111(b)(1)(B ), simply directs the EPA to propose and then promulgate regulations “establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such category.” In the absence of specific direction or enumerated criteria in the statute concerning what pollutants from a given source category should be the subject of standards , it is appropriate for EPA to exercise its authority to adopt a reasonable interpretation of this provision. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843
- 44 (1984). The EPA has previously interpreted this provision as granting it the discretion to determine which pollutants should be regulated. See Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, 73 Fed. Reg. 35838, 35858 (col. 3)(June 24,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **102** of **684** 2008)(concluding the statute provides “the Administrator with significant flexibility in determining which pollutants are appropriate for regulation under section 111(b)(1)(B)” and citing cases). Further, in directing the Administrator to propose and promulgate regulations under se ction 111(b)(1)(B), Congress provided that the Administrator should take comment and then finalize the standards with such modifications “as he deems appropriate.” The D.C. Circuit has considered similar statutory phrasing from CAA section 231(a)(3) and concluded that “[t]his delegation of authority is both explicit and extraordinarily broad.” National Assoc. of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In exercising its discretion with respect to which pollutants are appropriate for regulation under section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA has in the past provided a rational basis for its decisions. See National Lime Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 426 & n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1980)(court discussed, but did not review, the EPA’s reasons for not promulgati ng standards for NOX , SO 2 and CO from lime plants”); Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, 73 Fed. Reg. at 35859
- 60 (June 24, 2008)(providing reasons why the EPA was not promulgating GHG standards for petroleum refineries as part of that rule) . Though these previous examples involved the EPA providing a rational basis for not setting standards for a given pollutant, a similar***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **103** of **684** approach is appropriate where the EPA determines that it should set a standard for an additional pollutant for a source category that was previously listed and regulated for other pollutants. In this rulemaking, the EPA has a rational basis for concluding that emissions of CO 2 from fossil fuel - fired power plants, which are the major U.S. source of GHG air pollution, merits regulation under CAA section 111. As noted, in 2009, the EPA made a finding that GHG air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and in 2010, the EPA denied petitions to reconsider that finding. The EPA extensively reviewed the available science concerning GHG pollution and its impacts in taking those actions. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the finding and denial of petitions to reconsider. 102 In addition, assessments from the NRC , the IPCC, and other organizations published after 2010 lend further credence to the validity of the Endangerment Finding. As discussed below, no information that commenters have presented or that the EPA has reviewed provides a basis for rescinding that finding. Indeed, current and evolving science discussed in detail in S ection II.A of this preamble is confirming and enhancing our understanding of the

102 Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d at 119
- 126.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **104** of **684**
near - and longer - term impacts emissions of CO 2 are having on Earth’s climate and the adverse public health, we lfare, and economic consequences that are occurring and are projected to occur as a result . Moreover, the high level of GHG emissions from fossil fuel fired EGUs makes clear that it is rational for the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from this sector. EGUs emit almost one
third of all U.S. GHGs and comprise by far the largest stationary source category of GHG emissions ; indeed, as noted above, the CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs are almost three times as much as the emissions from the next ten sour ce categories combined. Further, the CO 2 emissions from even a single new coal
- fired power plant may amount to millions of tons each year . These facts provide a rational basis for regulating CO 2 emissions from affected EGUs. Some commenters have argued that the EPA is required to make a new endangerment finding before it may regulate CO 2 from EGUs. We disagree, for the reasons discussed above. Moreover,
a s discussed in the January 2014 proposal, 103 even if CAA section 111 is interpreted to require that the EPA make endangerment and
cause - or - contribute significantly findings as prerequisites for this rulemaking, then , so far as an endangerment finding is
103 79 FR 1430, 1455
- 56 (January 8, 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **105** of **684** concerned, the fact that the EPA has recently made an endangerment finding for GHGs should suffice, and even if not, the information and conclusions described above should be considered to constitute the requisite endangerment finding. Similarly, so far as a cause
- or - contribute significantly finding i s concerned, the information and conclusions described above should be considered to constitute the requisite finding. The EPA’s rational basis for regulating GHGs under CAA section 111 is based primarily on the analysis and conclusions in the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding and 2010 denial of petitions to reconsider that Finding, coupled with the subsequent assessments from the IPCC and NRC that describe scientific developments since those EPA actions. In addition, we have reviewed comments presenting othe r scientific information to determine whether that information has any meaningful impact on our analysis and conclusions . More specifically, our approach here

– reflected in the information and conclusions described above

– is substantially similar to that reflected in the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the 2010 denial of petitions to reconsider. The D.C. Circuit upheld that approach in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 117
- 123 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, that approach would support an endangerment finding for this rulemaking.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **106** of **684** Likewise, if the EPA were required to make a cause
- or contribute
- significantly finding for CO 2 emissions from the fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, as a prerequisite to regulating such emissions under CAA section 111, the same facts that support our rational basis determination would support such a finding. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, fossil fuel
- fired EGUs are very large emitters of CO2. All told, these fossil fuel
- fired EGUs emit almost one - third of all U.S. GHG emissions, and are responsible for almost three times as much as the emissions from the next ten stationary source categories combined . The CO 2 emi ssions from even a single new coal
- fired power plant may amount to millions of tons each year , and the CO 2 emissions from even a single NGCC unit may amount to one million or more tons per year . It is not necessary in this rulemaking for the EPA to decide whether it must identify a specific threshold for the amount of emissions from a source category that constitutes a significant contribution ; under any reasonable threshold or definition, the emissions from combustion turbines and steam generators are a si gnificant contribution . B. Treatment of Categories and Codification in the Code of Federal Regulations As discussed in the January 2014 proposal of carbon pollution standards for newly constructed EGUs (79 FR 1430 ) and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **107** of **684** above, in 1971 the EPA listed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating boilers as a new category subject to CAA section 111 rulemaking, and in 1979 the EPA listed fossil fuel
- fired combustion turbines as a new category subject to the CAA section 111 rulemaking. In the ensuing years, the EPA has promulgated standards of performance for the two categories and codified those standards, at various times, in 40 CFR part 60 , subparts D, Da, GG, and KKKK. In the January 2014 proposal of carbon pollution standards for newly con structed EGUs (79 FR 1430) and the June 2014 proposal of carbon pollution standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs (79 FR 34960), the EPA proposed separate standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the two categories. The EPA took comment on combining the two categories into a single category solely for purposes of the CO 2 emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed affected EGUs. In addition, the EPA proposed codifying the standards of performance in the same Da and KKKK subparts that currently contain the standards of performance for other pollutants from those sources addressed in the NSPS program , but co -proposed codifying all the standards of performance for CO 2 emissions in a new 40 CFR part 60 subpart TTTT.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **108** of **684** In this rule, the EPA is combining the steam generator and combustion turbine categories into a single category of fossil fuel - fired electricity generating units for purposes of promulgating standards of performance for GHG emissions. Combin ing the two categories is reasonable because they both provide the same product : electricity services. Moreover, combining them in this rule is consistent with our decision to combine them in the CAA section 111(d) rule for existing sources that accompanie s this rule. In addition, many of the monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements are the same for both source categories, and, as discussed next, we are codifying all requirements in a single new subpart of the regulations; as a result, combining the two categories into a single category will reduce confusion. It should be noted that in this rule, we are not combining the two categories for purposes of standards of performance for other air pollutants . Because the se two source categories are pre - existing and the EPA will not be subjecting any additional sources in the categories to CAA regulation for the first time , the combination of these two categories is not considered a new source category subject to the listing requirements of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). As a result, this final rule does not list a new category under CAA section 111(a)(1)(A), nor does this final rule revise either of the two source categories. Thus , the EPA is not required to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **109** of **684** make a finding that the combination of the two c ategories causes or contributes significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As discussed above in the regulatory background of CAA section 111(b) actions on EGUs, there are several subparts in the code of federal regulations addressing EGUs (i.e., D, Da, GG, KKKK). This final action codifies all of the requirements promulgated in this final rule for the affected EGUs in a new subpart TTTT of 40 CFR part 60 and includes all CO 2 emission standards for the affected sources

– electric utility steam generating units, as well as fossil fuel
- fired stationary combustion turbines
- in that newly created subpart. C ombining the emission standards for affected sources into a new subpart TT TT is appropriate because many of the same requirements, including monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements, apply to all of the affected EGUs; and is consistent with the approach being taken for final existing source emission guidelines , in wh ich we codify all of the requirements for the affected EGUs in new subpart UUUU of 40 CFR part 60 . C. Affected Units We generally refer to fossil fuel
- fired electric generating units that would be subject to a CAA section 111 emission standard as “affecte d” or “covered” sources, units, facilities or simply as EGUs. An EGU is any boiler, integrated gasification***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **110** of **684** combined cycle (IGCC) unit, or combustion turbine (in either simple cycle or combined cycle configuration) that meets the applicability criteria. Af fected sources include EGUs that commenced construction after January 8, 2014 and meet the specified applicability criteria and, for modifications and reconstructions, EGUs that commenced those activities after June 18, 2014 and meet the specified applicab ility criteria. To be considered an EGU the unit must (1) be capable of combusting more than 250 MMBtu/h (260 GJ/h) heat input of fossil fuel 104 and (2) serve a generator capable of supplying more than 25 MW net to a utility distribution system (i.e., for sa le to the grid). 105 However, we are not finalizing CO 2 standards for certain EGUs. The EGUs that are not covered by the standards we are finalizing in this rule include : (1) non - fossil fuel units subject to a federally enforceable permit that limits the use of fossil fuels to 10 percent or less of the heat input capacity on an annual basis; (2) combined heat and power units that are subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting annual ne t electric sales to the unit design net efficiency times their potential electric output or limiting annual electric sales to

104 We refer to the capability to combust 250 MMBtu/h of fossil fuel as the "base load rating criterion." Note that 250 MMBtu/h is equivalent to 73 MW or 260 GJ/h heat input. 105 We refer to the capability to supply 25 MW net to the grid as the "total electric sales criterion."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **111** of **684** 219,000 MWh or less; (3) stationary combustion turbines that are not physically capable of combusting natural gas (e.g., not connected to a natural gas pipeline). ; ( 4 ) utility boilers and IGCC units that have always been subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting annual electric sales to one - third or less of their potential electric output (e.g., limiting hours of operat ion to les s than 2,920 hours annually) or limiting annual electric sales to 219,000 MWh or less; ( 5 ) municipal waste combustors that are subject to subpart Eb of this part; and ( 6 ) commercial or industrial solid waste incineration units subject to subpart CCCC of this part. D. Units Not Covered by This Final Rule As described in the previous section, the EPA is not issuing standards of performance for certain types of sources

– specifically dedicated non - fossil fuel - fired (e.g., biomass) units and industrial combined heat and power (CHP) units. This section discusses the se sources and our rationale for not issuing standards for them. Since the rationale applies to both steam generating units and combustion turbines we are describing it here rather than in the separate steam generating unit and combustion turbine discussions. We discuss the proposed applicability criteria , the topics where the agency solicited comment, a brief summary of the relevant comments, and the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **112** of **684** rationale for the final appl icability approach for these
sources . 1. Dedicated Non
- fossil Fuel Units The proposed applicability for newly constructed EGUs included those that primarily combust fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil , and natural gas). The proposed applicability criteria were that affected units must burn fossil fuels for more than 10 percent of the unit’s total heat input , on average , over a 3
- year period . 106 With the proposed approach, applicability under the final NSPS for CO 2 emissions could change on an annual basis depending on the composition of fuel burned. We solicited comments on several aspects of proposed applicability criteria for non - fossil fuel units. Specifically, we solicited comment on a broad applicability approach that would include non
- fossil fuel - fired units as affected units but that would impose an alternate standard when the unit fires fossil fuels for 10 percent or less of the heat input during the 3
- year, applicab ility
- determination period. We solicited comment on whether, if such a subcategory is warranted, the applicability
determination period for the subcategory should be 1
- year or a 3
- year rolling period. We also solicited comment on whether the

106 We refer to the fraction of heat input derived from fossil fuels as the "fossil fuel - use criterion."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **113** of **684** standard for such a subcategory should be an alternate numerical limit or "no emission standard." While the proposed exemption applied to all non
- fossil fuels, commenters focused on biomass
- specific issues. Some commenters stated that the standard was not developed to include biomass
- fired units, and none of the analyses supporting the standard includes biomass
- fired units. Commenters also stated that the proposed standard has not been adequately demonstrated as achievable by these units, and the rule offered no basis for regulating sources that combust insignificant amounts of fossil fuels. These commenters suggested that if biomass units must be included under these CAA section 111 standards for fossil fuel units, they should be included in a separate subcategory after a subsequent proposal and comment period based on relevant data from biomass
- fired units. Many commenters supported an exclusion for biomass
- fired units based on firing no more than 10 percent fossil fuels. Some commenters suggested that exclusion for biomass
- fired units should be ra ised to a 25 percent fossil fuel - use threshold. Conversely, some commenters supported standards for biomass units because they are typically operated with higher heat rates than coal units and model results conducted by the EPA using IPM show that biomass generation is expected to quadruple over the next 10 years. These commenters said biomass units should be regulated consistently with coal***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **114** of **684** units. One commenter supported ensuring that the CO 2 standards issued pursuant to CAA section 111(d) continue to appl y to existing EGUs when those EGUs modify or reconstruct in ways that cause the units to derive 10 percent or less of their heat input from fossil fuel because the commenter stated that allowing modified and reconstructed EGUs to escape 111(d) standards would undermine the coherence of the proposed 111(d) regulatory system. Many commenters supported the proposed 3
- year basis for the fossil fuel
- use criterion because it provides greater flexibility for operators to use fossil fuels when supply chains for biogenic fuels are disrupted, during unexpected malfunctions of biomass handling systems, or when the unit’s maximum generating capacity is requi red by system operators for reliability reasons. Many commenters supported the EPA's proposed 3
- year criterion because it is consistent with the final requirements under the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards ( MATS ) and allows biomass
- fired units to us e some fossil fuels for flame stabilization without triggering applicability. Some commenters recommended also including a 15 percent fossil fuel
- use threshold on an annual basis. Some commenters had questions and concerns about the proposed criterion and requested that the EPA clarify the method an operator should use during the first 3 years of operations to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **115** of **684** determine if a particular unit will meet the 10 percent fossil fuel - use criterion prior to the end of the first 3 years of operations. Others asked whether or not an affected facility has a compliance obligation during the first 3
- year period , and if an affected facility does not meet the 10 percent fossil fuel
use criterion during several 12
-month periods during the first 3 years, would compliance cal culations be required for such 12
- month periods? Other commenters had concerns with the 3
- year basis stating that a source would no longer be subject to the NSPS if it fell below the threshold for any of the applicability metrics that are calculated on a 3
- year (or, in some cases, annual) basis, creating a situation in which no one would know whether a particular plant will be subject to the standards at all until years after the emissions had already occurred. Some commenters were concerned that plants ope rating near the threshold could move in and out of the regulatory system, which would provide complications for compliance, enforcement, and permitting. Many commenters wanted CO 2 emissions from biomass (when co
fired with fossil fuels) to be excluded from applicability and compliance determinations. These commenters stated that the final national standard for CO 2 emissions should encourage the use of biomass
- fired units because this will encourage***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **116** of **684** investments in forests which are natural sinks for atmosphe ric carbon. These commenters said that the EPA should provide a holistic document analyzing all issues relevant to sound policy for treatment of biomass units under GHG regulations after the Revised Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO 2 Emissions from Stati onary Sources is released and provide stakeholders additional time to comment. Some commenters said that biogenic CO 2 from EGUs should be accounted for by adopting the current framework for biogenic emissions under 40 CFR part 98. Other commenters suggeste d that biomass
- fired units should receive credits toward compliance since their biogenic CO 2 can be considered sequestered within the forest product inventories and markets where they procure their fuels. The EPA has concluded that the proposed applicabili ty based on the actual amount of fossil fuel burned is not a practical approach to define units subject to the rule . As commenters pointed out, facilities , permitting authorities , and the public would not know , when construction is commenced , whether the f inal NSPS is applicable, and after operation has commenced a unit could move in and out of applicability each year. The intent of this rulemaking is to establish CO 2 standards for fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, not for non - fossil fuel - fired EGUs. Therefore, to clarify compliance and establish CO 2 standards for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **117** of **684** fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, we have determined this rule will not set CO 2 emission standards for non - fossil units (i.e., units that are capable of burning 50 percent or more non
- foss il fuel) subject to a federally enforceable permit that limits the use of fossil fuels to less than 10 percent of the heat input capacity on an annual basis . This approach establishes clear applicability criteria and avoids units switching applicability ba sed on actual fuel use. It exempts non - fossil units that are dedicated to limiting the use of fossil fuels (i.e., dedicated
non - fossil fuel units) . Consistent with the applicability approach in the steam generating unit criteria pollutant NSPS, subpart Da, the fossil fuel
- use applicability criteri on does not include ‘constructed for the purpose of’ like the total and percentage electric sales criteria. Therefore, units could change applicability in the future by changing the permit conditions of the unit. This approach allows existing fossil fuel - fired steam generating units to modify their operating permits to limit the use of fossil fuels (i.e., coal, oil, or natural gas) such that the unit would no longer be considered a fossil fuel
- fired EGU. The unit would not be subject to the 111(b) GHG requirements in this rulemaking and states would no longer be required to include them in their 111(d) plan. This is consistent with the intent to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuel - fired EGUs. We considered the foss il use restriction on***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **118** of **684** both an annual and 3
- year average. We have concluded that the single year average fossil fuel use based on the annual capacity factor, and not the actual percent of fossil fuels burned, provides sufficient flexibility for dedicated non - fossil fuel
fired units to combust fossil fuels for flame stabilization and other ancillary purposes. A 3
- year exemption based on capacity factor would exempt more than limited use fossil fuel EGUs, which is not the intent of the provision. 2. Industri al Combined Heat and Power Another approach to generating electricity is the use of combined heat and power (CHP) units . A CHP unit can use a boiler, combustion turbine, reciprocating engine, and various generating technologies to generate electricity and useful thermal energy in a single, integrated system. CHP units are generally more efficient than conventional power plants because the heat that is normally wasted in conventional power generation is recovered as useful thermal output . While the EPA did propose applicability provisions specific to CHP units (e.g., subtract purchased power of adjacent facilities when determining total electric sales), in general the proposed applicability for electric
- only units and CHP units was similar. The intent of the proposed total and percentage electric sales criteria was to cover only utility, and not industrial, CHP. To the extent the proposal’s applicability provisions had the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **119** of **684** effect of including industrial CHP, we solicited comment on an applicability exemption, and the criteria for that exemption, for highly efficient CHP facilities. We also solicited comment on eliminating the 219,000 MWh total annual electric sales criterion for stationary combustion turbine
-based CHP. Many commenters supported exclusion of CHP units as a means of encouraging capital investments in highly efficient and reliable distributed generation technologies. Commenters recommended incorporation of an explicit exemption for CHP units at facilities that are classifi ed as industrial (e.g., gas
- fired CHPs within SIC codes 2911

– petroleum refining , 13

– oil and gas extraction , and other industrial SIC codes as appropriate). Commenters also stated that the EPA should exclude CHP units that have an energy savings of 10 percent or more compared to separate heat and power. A commenter stated that the final rule should restrict the definition of affected facility to include only industrial
- commercial
- institutional CHP units that supply, on a net basis, more than two
- thirds o f their potential combined thermal and electric energy output and more than 450,000 MWh net - electric output to a utility power distribution system on an annual basis for 5 consecutive calendar years and that CHP units which have total thermal energy produc tion that approaches or exceeds the unit's total electricity production should be exempted.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **120** of **684** Commenters offered a number of strategies for incorporating an exemption for CHP units including exempting CHP units by fuel type and exempting industrial CHP units based on the definition of potential electric output. It was suggested that the percent age electric sales threshold be based on the net system efficiency (that includes useful thermal output) rather than just the rated net
- electric
- output efficiency, or that the applicability criteria use a default efficiency of 50 percent for CHP units. Some commenters suggested an exclusion where CHP units would not be considered to be affected EGUs if 20 percent or more of their total gross or net energy output consists of useful thermal output on a 3
- year rolling average basis. Some commenters said that highly effici ent CHPs that achieve an overall efficiency level of 60 or 70 percent and higher should be excluded. Some commenters opposed removal of the total annual electric sales criterion (219,000 MWh) because it ensures that industrial CHP are not subject to the st andards, and the commenter s believe that these highly efficient operations should not be encumbered by the regulatory burdens of the proposed standard. In general, the inherent efficiency of CHP minimizes GHG emissions relative to separate generation of heat and power and since CHP would comply with the final CO 2 standards there is limited environmental benefit to including CHP with significant***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **121** of **684** environmental benefits in this GHG NSPS. In addition, the intent of this rulemaking is to cover utility CHP since it serves essentially the same purpose as an electric
- only EGU (i.e., the sale of electricity to the grid) , but not industrial CHP units since they serve a different primary purpose (i.e., providing useful thermal output with electric sales as a byproduc t) . The EPA has concluded that it is important to consider both purpose and efficiency when determining the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA , therefore, conclude s that it is appropriate to not include in the scope of this rulemaking CHP whose primary purpose is to provide useful thermal output and CHP with significant environmental benefit. The EPA also conclude s that SIC code classification is not a sufficient indicator of the operational purpose of the source since it is only randomly related to the electric sales of a particular CHP unit . For example, exemptions based on SIC codes could result in a new EGU locating near an industrial site and only providing a trivial amount of useful thermal output to the industrial site to avoid applicability with the requirements of this rulemaking. The EPA concludes that percent of electric sales relative to the potential electric output is an appropriate indicator of the operational purpose of the source since electric sales are inherent in the source category definition. The EPA considered multiple efficiency options to identify CHP with significant***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **122** of **684** environmental benefit. We have concluded that overall design efficiency is not an appropriate me thod to determine environmental benefit. Overall efficiency is a function of both efficient design and the power to heat ratio (the amount of electricity relative to the amount of useful thermal output). CHP units with large amounts of useful thermal outpu t relative to electric output tend to have higher efficiencies than CHP with lower amounts of relative useful thermal output. Therefore, an exemption based on overall efficiency without considering the relative amount of electricity to useful thermal outpu t does not identify the relative GHG reductions of a CHP unit. Based on public comments and a fter further analysis, the EPA makes two adjustments to the definition of applicability of this rule to CHP. The first is to base the definition of potential elect ric output on overall net efficiency, instead of electric
- only efficiency. Second, the CO 2 standard applicability

will be based on the overall design efficiency on a net basis multiplied by the potential electric output instead of one - third of the potential electric output as proposed. We are defining utility CHP as a CHP unit that is not subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting annual total electric sales to less than the design efficiency multiplied by potential electric output o r 219,000 MWh , whichever is greater. The net impact of these changes is to only cover CHP units that condense a large***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **123** of **684** portion of steam generated by the unit for the purpose of supplying electric power to the grid . CHP facilities that do not have a condensi ng steam turbine (e.g., simple cycle combustion turbines with a HRSG and boiler based systems with a backpressure steam turbine) would generally not be physically capable of selling enough electricity to meet the applicability criteria

– even if they sold 100 percent of the electricity generated and did not subtract out the electric used by the thermal host(s). The EPA has concluded that this is appropriate since these sources are industrial by design and provide mostly useful thermal output. CHP facilities with a steam extraction condensing steam turbine would determine their potential electric output based on their design efficiency on a net basis at the maximum useful thermal output at the base load heat input rating. The owner/operator would be able to determine during the permitting process if the EGU GHG NSPS was applicable. New EGUs with only limited useful thermal output would be subject to the final standards, but the vast majority of new CHP would be classified as industrial CHP and would not be subject to the final standards. The EPA has concluded this approach is similar to exempting CHP facilities that sell less than half of their total output (electricity plus thermal), but has the benefit of accounting for the overall design effi ciency. This approach both limits applicability to the intended CHP units and encourages***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **124** of **684** the installation of the most efficient CHP systems since more efficient designs would be able to have higher permitted electric sales while not being subject to the CO 2 standards included in this rulemaking. 3. Municipal Waste C ombustors and C ommercial and I ndustrial S olid Waste I ncinerators The purpose of th is rulemaking is to establish CO 2 standards for fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. Municipal waste combustors and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators have not been typically included in this source category. Therefore, even if one of these types of units meets the general heat input and electric sales criteria we are not finalizing CO 2 emission standards for municipal waste combustor s subject to subpart Eb of this part and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerat or s subject to subpart CCCC of this part. 4. Projects Under Development At proposal, the EPA indicated that projects under development

– planned sources with at least the potential design which would be incapable of meeting the standard of performance but which had not “commenced construction” at the time of the proposal and which therefore would be classified as new sour ces. See 79 FR 1461 and CAA section 111 (a)(2). The EPA proposed that these sources would not be subject to the generally
- applicable***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **125** of **684** standard of performance, but rather would be subject to a unit
specific permitting determination if and when construction actually commences. The EPA indicated that there could be three sources to which this approach could apply, and further indicated that the EPA could ultimately adopt the generally
applicable standard of performance for these sources (if actually constructed). 79 FR 1461. As explained at section III.J. below, the EPA is finalizing this approach in today’s action. We again note that these sources, if and when constructed, could be ultimately subjec t to the 1 , 400 lb CO2/MWh
- g standard, especially if there is no engineering basis, or demonstrated action in reliance, showing that the new source could not meet that standard. E. Coal Refuse In the April 2012 proposal, we solicited comment on subcategorizing and exempting EGUs that burn over 75 percent coal refuse on an annual basis. Multiple commenters supported the exemption, citing numerous environmental benefits of remediating coal refuse piles. Observing that coal refuse
- fired EGUs typically use fluidized bed technologies, other commenters disagreed with any exemption, specifically citing the N2 O emissions from fluidized bed boilers. In light of the environmental benefits of remediating coal refuse piles cited by commenters, the limited amount of coal refuse, and the fact that***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **126** of **684** a new coal refuse - fired EGU would be located in close proximity to the coal refuse pile, in the January 2014 proposal , we sought additional comments regarding a subcategory for coal refuse
fired EGUs. Specifically, we requested additional information on the net environmental benefits of coal refuse
- fired EGUs and information to support an appropriate emissions standard for coal refuse - fired EGUs. One commenter on the April 2012 proposal stated that existing coal refuse piles are naturally combusting at a rate of 0.3 percent annually, and we requested comment on this rate and the proper approach to account for naturally occurring emissions from coal refuse piles in the January 2014 proposal . Commenters said that a performance standard is not feasible for coal refuse CFBs since there is no economically feasible way to capture CO 2 through a conveyance designed and constructed to capture CO 2 . Commenters suggested that the EPA establish BSER for GHGs at modified coal refuse CFBs as a boiler tune
- up that must be performed at least every 24 months. Commenters stated that the EPA shoul d exempt coal refuse CFB units relative to their CO 2 emissions to the extent that these units offset the uncontrolled ground level emissions from spontaneous combustion of legacy coal refuse stockpiles and noted that the mining of coal waste not only produ ces less emissions in the long term,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **127** of **684** but also helps to reclaim land that is currently used to store coal waste. In contrast, one commenter saw no legitimate basis for coal refuse to be subcategorized and they should be treated in the same manner as all other coal
- fired EGUs . The EPA has concluded that an explicit exemption or subcategory specifically for coal refuse
- fired EGUs i s not appropriate . The costs faced by coal refuse facilities to install CCS are similar to coal
- fired EGUs burning any of the primary coals, and the final applicable requirements and standards in the rule do not preclude the development of new coal refuse - fired units without CCS . Specifically, we are not finalizing CO 2 standards for industrial CHP units. Many existing coal refuse - fired units are relatively small and designed as CHP units. Due to the expense of transporting coal refuse long distances, we ant icipate any new coal refuse - fired would be relatively small in size and sites with sufficient thermal demand exist that the unit could be designed as an industrial CHP facility and the requirements of this rule would not apply. F. Format of the Output -Bas ed Standard 1. Net and gross output based standards For all newly constructed units, the EPA proposed standards as gross output emission rates consistent with current***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **128** of **684** monitoring and reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 75. 107 For a non - CHP EGU, gross output is the electricity generation measured at the generator terminals. However, we solicited comment on finalizing equivalent net
- output -based standards either as a compliance alternative or in lieu of the proposed gross - output -based standards. Net output is the gross electrical output less the unit’s total parasitic (i.e., auxiliary) power requirements. A parasitic load for an EGU is a load or device powered by electricity, steam, hot water, or directly by the gross output of the EGU that does not contr ibute electrical, mechanical, or useful thermal output. In general, parasitic energy demands include less than 7.5 percent of non
- IGCC and
non - CCS coal - fired station power output, approximately 15 percent of non - CCS IGCC -based coal - fired station power output, and about 2.5 percent of non
- CCS combined cycle station power output. The use of CCS increases both the electric and steam parasitic loads used internal to the unit, and these outputs are not considered when determining the emission rate. Net output is used to recognize the environmental benefits of (1) EGU designs and control equipment that use less auxiliary power, (2) fuels that require less emissions control equipment and (3) higher efficiency motors, pumps, and fans. For modified and

107 79 FR 1447
- 48.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **129** of **684** reconstructed combustion turbines, the EPA also proposed standards as gross output emission rates, but solicited comment on finalizing net output standards. The rationale was that due to the low auxiliary loads in non
- CCS combined cycle designs, the difference between a gross - output standard and a net - output standard has a limited impact on environmental performance. Auxiliary loads are more significant for modified and reconstructed boilers and IGCC units, and the EPA proposed standards on a net output basis for these units . The rationale included that this would enable owners/operators of these types of units to pursue projects that reduce auxiliary loads for compliance purposes. However, the EPA solicited comment on finalizing the standards on a gross
- output basis. We also proposed to use either gross
- output or net - output bases for each respective subcategory of EGUs (i.e., utility boilers, IGCC units, and combustion turbines) consistently across all CAA section 111(b) standards for new, modified, and reconstructed EGUs .Many commenters support ed gross - output -based standards maintaining that a net output standard penalizes the operation of air pollution control equipment. Several commenters disagreed with the agency's proposed rationale that a net output standard would provide incentive to minimize auxiliary loads. The commenters believe utility commissions and existing economic***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **130** of **684** forces already provide utilities appropriate incentives to properly manage all of these factors. Some commenters supported a gross - output based standard because variations in site conditions (e.g., available natural gas pressure, available cooling water sources, and elevation) will likely penalize some owners and benefit others simply through variations i n their particular plant site conditions if a net basis is used. Several commenters stated that if the final rule includes a net
- output based standard, it should be included as an option in conjunction with a gross
- output -based option. Several commenters opposed net - output -based standards because they believe it is difficult to accurately determine the net output of an EGU. They pointed out that many facilities have transformers that support multiple units at the facility, making unit
- level reporting difficult. These commenters also stated that station electric services may come from outside sources to supply certain ancillary loads. One commenter stated that the benefit of switching to net
- output -based standards would be small and would not justify the subs tantial complexities in both defining and implementing such a standard. Conversely, other commenters stated that net -metering is a well
- established technology that should be required, particularly for newly constructed units.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **131** of **684** Other commenters , however, ma intained that the final rule should strictly require compliance on a net output
-basis. They believe this is the only way for the standards to minimize the carbon footprint of the electricity delivered to consumers and are the only standards that are truly “technology forcing.” These commenters believe that, at a minimum, net
- output -based standards should be included as an option in the final rule. The EPA recognizes that evaluating compliance on a net
output basis more closely evaluates the environmental pe rformance of the sector. However, the agency also recognizes that the majority of EGU owners/operators currently use the data acquisition and handling technologies that have been developed and validated for Part 75 compliance. Currently, Part 75 only allows the reporting of gross energy output. In addition, many IGCC facilities have been proposed or envisioned as co production facilities (i.e., to produce useful by-products and chemicals along with electricity). As noted in the proposal, we have concluded that measuring the net electricity at these co production facilities would be more challenging to implement. We are only finalizing gross
- output -based standards for utility boilers and IGCC units. Providing an alternate net
output -based standard that is based on gross
- output -based emissions data and an assumed auxiliary load is most appropriate when the auxiliary lo ad can be reasonably estimated and the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **132** of **684** choice between the net and gross
- output -based standard will not impact the identified BSER. For example, the auxiliary load for combustion turbines is relatively fixed and small, approximately 2.5 percent, so the choi ce between the gross and net - output based standard will not substantially impact technology choices. However, in the case of utility boilers, we have concluded that we do not have sufficient information to establish an appropriate net
- output -based standard that would not impact the identified BSER for these types of units. The BSER for newly constructed steam generating units is based on the use of partial CCS. However, unlike the case for combustion turbines, owners/operators of utility boilers have multip le technology pathways available to comply with the actual emission standard. The choice of both control technologies and fuel impact the overall auxiliary load. For example, a coal
- fired hybrid EGU (e.g., one that includes integrated solar thermal equipme nt for feedwater heating or steam augmentation) or a coal
- fired EGU co
firing natural gas would have lower non
- CCS related auxiliary loads and, since the amount of CCS needed to comply with the standard would also be smaller, the CCS auxiliary loads would also be reduced. Therefore, we cannot identify an appropriate assumed auxiliary load to establish an equivalent net
- output based standard.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **133** of **684** In contrast, based on further evaluation and review of issues raised by commenters, the EPA is finalizing the CO 2 standard for combustion turbine EGUs in a format that is similar to the current NSPS format for criteria pollutants. The default final standards establish a gross
- output -based standard. This allows owners/operators of new combustion turbines to comply with the CO 2 emissions standard under Part 60 using the same data currently collected under Part 75. However, many permitting authorities commented persuasively that the environmental benefits of using net
- output -based standards can outweigh any additional complexities for particular units , and have indeed adopted net - output standards in recent GHG operating permits for combustion turbines . We expect this trend to continue and have concluded it is appropriate to support the expanded use of net
output -based standards , and therefore are allowing certain sources to elect between gross output -based and net output -based standards . Only combustion turbines are eligible to make this election. The rule specifies an alternative net output
-based standard of 1,030 lb CO2/MWh
- n for combustion turbines. This standard is equivalent to the otherwise
- applicable gross output
-based standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **134** of **684** The procedures for requesting this alternative net output
based standard are set forth at [CITE RULE], and basically require that [SUMMARIZE RULE PROVISIONS]. This election would be binding and, once granted, would be the source’s sole means of demonstrating compliance. Additionally, having an NSPS standard that is measured using the same monitoring equipment as required under the operating permit minimizes compliance burden. If a combustion turbine were subject to both a gross and net emission limit, more expensive higher accuracy monitoring c ould be required for both measurements. Finally, this approach accommodates potential future reporting of net output under part 75. 2. Useful Thermal Output For combined heat and power units, useful thermal output is also used when determining the emission rate. Previous rulemakings issued by the EPA have prescribed various ‘discount factors’ of the measured useful thermal output to be used when determining the emission rate. We proposed that 75 percent credit is the appropriate discount factor for useful thermal output, and we solicited comment on a range from two
- thirds to three - fourths credit for useful thermal output in the proposal for newly constructed units and two
- thirds to one hundred percent credit in the proposal for modified and reconstructed
un its. The 75 percent credit was based on matching the emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **135** of **684** rate , but not the overall emissions, of a hypothetical CHP unit to the proposed emission rate. Many commenters said in order to fully account for the environmental benefits of CHP and to reflect the environmental benefits of CHP, the EPA should allow 100 percent of the useful thermal output from CHP units. Commenters noted that providing 100 percent credit for useful thermal output is consistent with the past practice of the EPA in the stationary combustion turbine criteria pollutant NSPS and state approaches for determining emission rates for CHP units. Based on further consideration and review of the comments submitted, we are finalizing 100 percent credit for useful thermal output for all newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed CHP sources . We have concluded this is appropriate because at the same reported emission rate a hypothetical CHP unit would have the same overall GHG emissions as the combined emission rate of separate heat and power facilities. Any discounting of useful thermal output could distort the market and discourage the development of new CHP units. Full credit for useful thermal output appropriately recognizes the environmental benefit of CHP. G. CO2 Emissions Only***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **136** of **684** This final action regulates only emissions of CO 2 , and not the other constituent gases of the air pollutant GHGs. 108 We are not establishing separate emission limits for other GHGs (such as methane (CH 4 ) or nitrous oxide (N2 O)) as they represent less than 1 percent of total estimated GHG emissions (as CO 2 e) from fossil fuel - fired electric power generating units. 109 H. Legal Requirements for Establishing Emission Standards 1. Introduction In the January 2014 proposal, we described the principal legal requirement for standards of performance under CAA section 111(b), which is that the standards of performance must consist of standards for emissions that reflect the degree of emission limitat ion achievable though the application of the “best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated,” taking into account cost and any nonair quality health and environment impact and energy requirements (BSER). We noted that the D.C. Circuit has handed down numerous decisions that interpret this CAA provision, including its component elements, and we reviewed

108 In the Endangerment Finding, the EPA defined the relevant “air pollution” as the atmospheric mix of six long
- lived and directly
- emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 74 FR 66497. 109 EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program; www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **137** of **684** that case law in detail. 110 We received comments on our proposed interpretation, and in light of those comments, in this rule, we are clarifyi ng our interpretation in certain respects. We discuss our interpretation below. 111 2. CAA requirements and Court Interpretation As noted above , the CAA section 111 requirements that govern this rule are as follows: As the first step towards establishing standards of performance, the EPA “shall publish ... a list of categories of stationary sources ... [that] cause[], or contribute[] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” CAA Section 111(b)(1)(A) . Following that listing, the EPA “shall publish proposed regulations, establishing federal standards of performance for new sources within such category” and then “promulgate ... such standards” within a year after proposal.

110 79 FR 1430, 1462 (January 8, 2014). 111 We also discuss our interpretation of the requirements for standards of performance and the BSER under section 111(d), for existing sources, in the section 111(d) rulemaking that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule. Our interpretations and applications of these requirements in the two rulemakings are generally consistent with each other except to the extent that they reflect distinctions between new and existing sources. For example , the BSER for new industrial facilities, which are expected to have lengthy useful lives, should include, at a minimum, the most advanced pollution controls available, but for existing sources, the additional costs of retrofit may render those controls too expensive .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **138** of **684** Section 111(b)(1)(B). The EPA “may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such standards.” Section 111(b)(2). The term “standard of performance” is defined to “mean[] a standard for emissions of air pollutants which re flects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requireme nts) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” Section 111(a)(1). As noted in the January 2014 proposal, Congress first included the definition of “standard of performance” when enacting CAA section 111 in the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), amended it in the 1977 CAAA, and then amended it again in the 1990 CAAA to largely restore the definition as it read in the 1970 CAAA . It is in the legislative history for the 1970 and 1977 CAAAs that Congress primarily addresse d the definition as it read at those times and that legislative history provides guidance in interpreting this provision. 112 In addition, the D.C.

112 In the 1970 CAAA, Congress defined “standard of performance,” under §111(a)(1), as

— a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **139** of **684** Circuit has reviewed rulemakings under CAA section 111 on numerous occasions during the past 40 years, handing down decisions dated from 1973 to 2011, 113 through which the Court has developed a body of case law that interprets the term “standard of performance.” through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of ach ieving such reduction) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. In the 1977 CAAA, Congress revised the definition to distinguish among different types of sources, and to require that for fossil fuel
- fired sources, the standard (i) be based on, in lieu of the “best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated,” the “best technological system of continuous emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated;” and (ii) require a percentage reduction in emissions. In addition, in the 1 977 CAAA, Congress expanded the parenthetical requirement that the Administrator consider the cost of achieving the reduction to also require the Administrator to consider “any nonair quality health and environment impact and energy requirements.” In the 1 990 CAAA, Congress again revised the definition, this time repealing the requirements that the standard of performance be based on the best technological system and achieve a percentage reduction in emissions, and replacing those provisions with the terms used in the 1970 CAAA version of §111(a)(1) that the standard of performance be based on the “best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” This 1990 CAAA version is the current definition . . Even so, because parts of the definition as it read under the 1977 CAAA were retained in the 1990 CAAA, the explanation in the 1977 CAAA legislative history, and the interpretation in the case law, of those parts of the definition in the case law remain relevant to the definition as it reads today. 113 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, (D.C. Cir. 1973); Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). See also Delaware v. EPA, No. 13
- 1093 (D.C. Cir. May 1, 2015).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **140** of **684** 3. Key Elements of Interpretation By its terms, the definition of “standard of performance” under CAA se ction 111(a)(1) provides that the emission limits that the EPA promulgates must be “achievable” by application of
a “ system of emission reduction ” that the EPA determines to be the “best” that is “adequately demonstrated,” “taking into account ... cost ... nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.” The D.C. Circuit has stated that in determining the “best” system, the EPA must also take into account “the amount of air pollution” 114 reduced and the role of “technological innovation.” 115 The Court has emphasized that the EPA has discretion in weighing those various factors. 116 , 117 Our overall approach to determining the BSER, which incorporates the various elements, is as follows: First, the EPA identif ies the “system[s] of emission reduction” that have been “adequately demonstrated” for a particular source category.
114 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 115 See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 347. 116 See Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999) . 117 Although the section 111(a)(1) may be read to state that the factors enumerated in the parenthetical are part of the “adequately demonstrated” determination, the D.C. Circuit’s case law appears to treat them as part of the “best” determination. See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at [Cite] . It does not appear that those two approaches would lead to different outcomes. In this rule, the EPA is following the D.C. Circuit case law and treating the factors as part of the “best” determination.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **141** of **684** Second, the EPA determine s the “best” of these systems after evaluating costs, any nonair health and environmental impacts, energy requirements, the amount of reductions, and, in the alternative, the advancement of systems of emission reduction . And third, the EPA select s an achievable standard for emissions

- here, the emission rate
- based on the performance of the BSER. The remainder of this subsection discusses the various elements in that analytical approach.
a. “System[s] of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” . The EPA’s first step is to identify “system[s] of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.” For the reasons discussed below, for the various types of new construction, modified, and reconstructed sources in this rulemaking, the EPA focused on effic ient generation, add- on controls , and efficiency improvements as the systems of emission reduction. An “adequately demonstrated” system, according to the D.C. Circuit, is “one which has been shown to be reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient, and which can reasonably be expected to serve the interests of pollution control without becoming exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way.” 118 It does not mean that the system “must be in actual routine use

118 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **142** of **684** somewhere.” 119 Rather, the Court has said, “[t ]he Administrator may make a projection based on existing technology, though that projection is subject to the restraints of reasonableness and cannot be based on ‘crystal ball’ inquiry.” 120 Similarly, the EPA may “hold the industry to a standard of improved design and operational advances, so long as there is substantial evidence that such improvements are feasible.” 121 Ultimately, the analysis “is partially dependent on ‘lead time,’” that is, “the time in which the technology will have to be available.” 122 Standards of performance under CAA section 111(b) are applicable immediately after the effective date of their promulgation, under CAA section 111(e). (1) Technical feasibility of the best system of emission reduction . As the January 2014 proposal indicates, the requirement that the standard for emissions be “achievable” based on the “best system of emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated” indicates that one of the requirements for the technology or other measures that the EPA identifies as the BSER

119 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (citations omitted) (discussing the Senate and House bills and reports from which the language in CAA section 111 grew). 120 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (citations omitted). 121 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 364 (1981). 122 Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ( citations omitted).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **143** of **684** is that the measure must be technically feasible. See 79 FR 1430, 1463 (January 8, 2014). At least in some cases, in determining whether the emission limitation is achievable, it is useful to analyze the technical feasibility of the system of emission reducti on and we do so in this rulemaking. b. “Best” . In determining which adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction is the “best,” the EPA considers the following factors: (1) Costs . Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take into account “the cost of achieving” the required emission reductions. As described in the January 2014 proposal, 123 in several cases the D.C. Circuit has elaborated on th is cost factor and formulated the cost s tandard in various ways , stating that EPA may not adopt a standard the cost of which would be “exorbitant,” 124 “greater than the industry could bear and survive,” 125 “excessive,” 126 or “unreasonable.” 127 For convenience, in this rulemaking, we use ‘ reasonableness ’ to describe costs well within the bounds established by this jurisprudence . 128

123 79 FR 1430, 1464 (January 8, 2014). 124 Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 125 Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 513 F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975) . 126 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 127 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 128 These cost formulations are consistent with the legislative history of section 111. The 1977 House Committee Report noted:***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **144** of **684** The D.C. Circuit has never invalidated a standard of performance on grounds that it was too costly. In several cases, the Court upheld standards that entailed significant costs , consistent with Congress’s view that “the costs of applying best practicable control technology be considered by the owner of a large new source of pollution as a normal and proper expense of doing business . ” 129 See Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 440 (D.C. Cir. 1973); 130 Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375, 387
- 88 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ; Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (upholding

In the [1970] Congress [ sic : Congress’s] view, it was only right that the costs of applying best practicable control technology be considered by the owner of a large new source of pollution as a normal and proper expense of doing business. 1977 House Committee Report at 184. Similarly, the 1970 Senate Committee Report stated:

The implicit consideration of economic factors in determining whether technology is “available” should not affect the usefulness of this section . The overriding purpose of this section would be to prevent new air pollution problems, and toward tha t end, maximum feasible control of new sources at the time of their construction is seen by the committee as the most effective and, in the long run, the least expensive approach. S. Comm. Rep. No. 91
- 1196 at 16. 129 1977 House Committee Report at 184. 130 The costs for these standards were described in the rulemakings. See 36 FR 24876 (December 23, 1971), 37 FR 5767, 5769 (March 21, 1972) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **145** of **684** standard imposing controls on SO 2 emissions from coal
- fired power plants when the ”cost of the new controls ... is substantial ”) . 131 As discussed below, the EPA may consider costs on both a
source - specific basis and a sector
-wide , regional, or nationwide basis. (2) Non - air health and environmental impacts . Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take into account “any nonair quality health and environmental impact” in determin ing the BSER. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, this requirement makes explicit that a system cannot be “best” if it does more harm than good due to cross -media environmental impacts. 132 The EPA has carefully considered such cross
-media impacts here, in particular potential impacts to underground sources of drinking water posed by CO 2 sequestration, and water use necessary to operate carbon capture systems . See sections V. L and M below.

131 Indeed, in upholding the EPA’s consideration of costs under other provisions requiring consideration of cost, courts have also noted the substantial discretion delegated to the EPA to weigh cost considerations with other factors. Chemical Mfr’s Ass’n v. EP

A, 870 F. 2d 177, 251 (5th Cir. 1989); Association of Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027, 1054 (3d Cir. 1975); Ass’n of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F. 2d 794, 808 (9th Cir. 1980). 132 Portland Cement v . EPA, 486 F. 2d at 384; Sierra Club v. Costl e , 657 F. 2d at 331; see also Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F. 2d at 439 (remanding standard to consider solid waste disposal implications of the BSER determination).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **146** of **684** (3) Energy considerations . Under CAA section 111(a)(1), the EPA is required to take into account “energy requirements.” As discussed below, the EPA may consider energy requirements on both a source - specific basis and a sector
-wide , region
-wide, or nationwide basis. Considered on a source
- specific basis, “energy requirements” entails , for example, the impact, if any, of the system of emission reduction on the source’s own energy needs . In this rulemaking, as discussed below, the EPA considered the parasitic load requirements of partial CCS. (4) Amount of emissions reductions . At proposal , we noted that although the definition of “standard of performance” does not by its terms identify the amount of emissions from the category of sources or the amount of emission reductions achieved as factors the EPA must consider in determining the “best system of emission reduction,” the D. C. Circuit has stated that the EPA must in fact do so. See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“we can think of no sensible interpretation of the statutory words “best ... system” which would not incorporate the amount of air pollution as a relevant factor to be weighed when determining the optimal standard for con trolling ... emissions”). 133 The fact that the purpose of a “system of

133 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981) was governed by the 1977 CAAA version of the definition of “standard of performance,” which revised the phrase “best system” to read,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **147** of **684** emission reduction” is to reduce emissions, and that the term itself explicitly incorporates the concept of reducing emissions, supports the Court’s view that in determining whether a “syst em of emission reduction” is the “best,” the EPA must consider the amount of emission reductions that the system would yield. Even if the EPA were not required to consider the amount of emission reductions, the EPA has the discretion to do so, on grounds that either the term “system of emission reduction” or the term “best” may reasonably be read to allow that discretion. ( 4 ) . Sector - or nationwide component of factors in determining the BSER . As discussed in the January 2014 proposal, another component of the D.C. Circuit’s interpretations of CAA section 111 is that the EPA may consider the various factors it is required to consider on a national or regional level and over time, and not only on a plant - specific level at the time of the rulemaking. 134 The D.C. Circuit based this conclusion on a review of the legislative history, stating,

The Conferees defined the best technology in terms of “long- term growth,” “long- term cost savings,” effects on the “coal market,” including prices and “best technological system.” As noted above, the 1990 CAAA deleted “technological,” and the reby returned the phrase to how it read under the 1970 CAAA. The court’s interpretation of this phrase in Sierra Club v. Costle to require consideration of the amount of air emissions remains valid for the phrase “best system.” 134 79 FR 1430, 1465 January 8 , 2014) (citing Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 351 ) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **148** of **684** utilization of coal reserves, and “incentives for improved technology.” Indeed, the Reports from both Houses on the Senate and House bills illustrate very clearly that Congress itself was using a long
- term lens with a broad focus on future costs, environmental and energy effects of different technological systems when it discussed section 111. 135 The Court has upheld rules that the EPA “justified ... in terms of the policies of the Act,” including balancing long
- term national and regional impacts:

The standard reflects a balance in environmental, economic, and energy consideration by being sufficiently stringent to bring about substantial reductions in SO 2 emissions (3 million tons in 1995) yet does so at reasonable costs without significant energy penalties.... By achieving a balanced coal demand within the utility sector and by promoting the development of less expensive SO 2 control technology, the final standard will expand environmentally acceptable energy supplies to existing power plants and industrial sources. By substantially reducing SO 2 emissions, the standard will enhance the potential for long term economic growth at both the national and regiona l levels. 136 Some commenters objected that this case law did not allow EPA to ignore source specific impacts (particularly cost impacts) by basing determinations solely on impacts at

135 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 331 (citations omitted) (citing legislative history). 136 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 327
- 28 (quoting 44 Fed. Reg. at 33,583/3
- 33,584/1). In the January 2014 proposal, we explained that although the D.C. Circuit decided Sierra Club v. Costle before the Chevron case was decided in 1984, the D.C. Circuit’s decision could be justified under either Chevron step 1 or 2. 79 FR 1430, 1466 (January 8, 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **149** of **684** a regional or national level. In fact, the EPA’s consideration of cost, nonair quality impacts and energy requirements reflect source
- specific impacts, as well as (for some considerations) impacts that are sector -wide, regional , or national . See section V.H.6 below.
c. Achievability of the standard for emissions . In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA recognized that the first element of the definition of “standard of performance” is that “the emission limit [ i.e ., the ‘standard for emissions’] that the EPA promulgates must be ‘achievable’” based on performance of the BSER. 79 FR 1430, 1463 (January 8, 2014). According to the D.C. Circuit, a standard for emissions is “achievable” if a technology can reasonably be projected to be available to new sources at the time they are constructed that will allow them to meet the standard. 137 Mo reover, according to the Court, ”[a]n achievable standard is one which is within the realm of the adequately demonstrated system’s efficiency and which, while not at a level that is purely theoretical or experimental, need not necessarily be routinely achi eved within the industry prior to

137 Cite. Some commenters stated that the EPA’s analysis of the requirements fo r “standard of performance,” including the BSER, attempted to eliminate the requirement that the standard for emissions must be “achievable.” We disagree with this comment. As just quoted, the EPA’s analysis recognizes that the standard for emissions must be achievable through the application of the BSER.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **150** of **684** its adoption.” 138 To be achievable, a standard “must be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur and which are not or cannot be taken into account in determining the ‘cost of compliance.’” 139 To show a standard is achievable, the EPA must “(1) identify variable conditions that might contribute to the amount of expected emissions, and (2) establish that the test data relied on by the agency are representative of potential indus try-wide performance, given the range of variables that affect the achievability of the standard.” 140 In section V. J below, we show both that the BSER for new steam generating units is technically feasible and adequately demonstrated, and that the standard of 1 , 400 lb CO2/MWh
- g is achievable. d . Expanded use and development of technology . In the January 2014 proposal, we noted that the D.C. Circuit has made clear
138 Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 433
- 34 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969 (1974). 139 Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433, n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 140 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 377 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citing Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980) . In considering the representativeness of the source tested, the EPA may consider such variables as the “‘feedstock, operation, size and age’ of the source.” Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Moreover, i t may be sufficient to “generalize from a sample of one when one is the only available sample, or when that one is shown to be representative of the regulated industry along relevant parameters.” Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 434, n.52 (D.C. Cir. 1980).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **151** of **684** that Congress intended for CAA section 111 to create incentives for new technology and therefore that the EPA is required to consider technological innovation as one of the factors in determining the “best system of emission reduction.” 141 The Court grounded its reading in the statutory text. 142 In addition, in the January 2014 proposal, we noted that the Court’s interpretation finds firm support as well in the legislative history . 143 We also explained that the legislative history identifies three different ways that Congress designed CAA section 111 to authorize standards of performance that promote technological improvement: (i) the development of technology that may be treated as the “best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated;” under section

141 See 7 9 FR 1430, 1465 (January 8, 201 4 ) , Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 34 6
- 4 7. 142 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F. 2d at 346 (“ Our interpretation of section 111(a) is that the mandated balancing of cost, energy, and nonair quality health and environmental factors embraces consideration of technological innovation as part of that balance. The statutory factors which EPA must weigh are broadly defined and include within their ambit subfactors such as technological innovation. ”). 143 See 79 FR 1430, 1465 (January 8, 2014) (citing S.Rep. 91
- 1196 at 16 (1970) ) (“Standards of performance should provide an incentive for industries to work toward constant improvement in techniques for preventing and controlling emissions from stationary sources”); S. Rep. 95
- 127 at 17 ( 1977) (cited in Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 346 n. 174) (“The section 111 Standards of Performance ... sought to assure the use of available technology and to stimulate the development of new technology”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **152** of **684** 111(a)(1); (ii) the expanded use of the best demonstrated technology; and (iii) the development of emerging technology. 144 Even if the EPA were not required to consider technological innovation as part of its determination of the BSER, it would be reasonable for the EPA to consider it, either because technological innovation may be considered an element of the term “best,” or because the term “best system of emission reduction” is ambiguous as to whether technological innovation may be considered . The interpretation is likewise cons istent with the evident purpose of section 111 (b) to require new sources to maximize emission reductions using state
- of - the - art means of control. Commenters state d that the requirement to consider technological innovation does not authorize the EPA to identify as the BSER a technology that is not adequately demonstrated. The proposal did not, and we do not in this final rule, claim to the contrary. In any event, as discussed below, the EPA may justify the control technologies identified in this rule as the BSER even without considering the factor of incentivizing technological innovation or development.
e . Agency discretion . As discussed in the January 2014 proposal, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that the EPA has broad

144 79 FR at 1465 (citing case law and legislative history).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **153** of **684** discretion in determining the appropriate standard of performance under the definition in CAA section 111(a)(1), quoted above. Specifically, in Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the Court explained that “section 111(a) explicitly instructs the EPA to balance multiple concerns when promulgating a NSPS,” 145 and emphasized that “[t]he text gives the EPA broad discretion to weigh different factors in setting the standard.” 146 In Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the Court reiterated:

Because section 111 does not set forth the weight that should be assigned to each of these factors, we have granted the agency a great degree of discretion in balancing them.... EPA's choice [of the ‘best system’] will be sustained unless the environmental or economic cost s of using the technology are exorbitant.... EPA [has] considerable discretion under section 111. 147 f . Lack of requirement that standard be able to be met by all

145 Sierra Club v. Costle , 65 7 F.2d at 319. 146 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 321 ; see also New York v. Reilly, 969 F. 2d at 1150 (because Congress did not assign the specific weight the Administrator should assign to the statutory elements, “the Administrator is free to exercise [her] discretion” in promulgating an NSPS). 147 Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (paragraphing revised for convenience). S ee also NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (EPA did not err in its final balanci ng because “neither RCRA nor EPA’s regulations purports to assign any particular weight to the factors listed in subsection (a)(3). That being the case, the Administrator was free to emphasize or deemphasize particular factors, constrained only by the requirements of reasoned agency decision making.”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **154** of **6 84** 
sources . In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that under CAA section 111, an emissions standard may meet the requirements of a “standard of performance” even if it cannot be met by every new source in the source category that would have constructed in the absence of that standard. As described in the January 2014 proposal, the EPA based this view on (i) the legislative history of CAA section 111, read in conjunction with the legislative history of the CAA as a whole; (ii) case law under analogous CAA provisions; and (iii) long
- standing precedent in the EPA rulemakings under CAA sect ion 111. 148 Commenters contested this assertion, arguing that a 111(b) standard must be achievable by all new sources. We continue to take the same position as at proposal for the reasons described there. We note that as a practical matter, in this rulemaking, the issue of whether all new steam- generating sources can implement partial
- capture CCS is largely dependent on the geographic scope of geologic sequestration sites. As discussed below, geologic sequestration sites are widely available, and a steam- generating plant with partial CCS that is sited near an
area that is suitable for geologic sequestration can serve demand in a large area that may not have sequestration sit es available. In any event, the standard of 1 , 400 lb CO 2 /MW
- gross

148 79 FR 1430, 1466 (January 8, 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **155** of **684** that we promulgate in this final rule can be achieved by new steam generating EGUs

– including new utility boilers and IGCC units
- through co - firing with natural gas in lieu of installing partial
- capture CCS, which moots the issue of the geographic availability of geologic sequestration . g. EPAct05. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPAct05”) authorizes assistance in the form of grants, loan guarantees, as well as Federal tax credits for investment in “clean coal technology.” Sections 402(i), 421(a), and 1307(b) (adding section 48A(g) to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”)) address the extent to which information from clean coal projects receiving assistance under the EPAct05 may be considered by the EPA in determining what is the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated. Section 402(i) of the EPAct05 limits the use of information from facilities that receive assistance under EPAct05 in CAA section 111 rulemakings: “No technology, or level of emission reduction, solely by reason of the use of the technology, or the achievement of the emission reduction, by 1 or more facilities receiving assistance under this Act, shall be considered to be adequately demonstrated [] for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act ....” 149

149 Codified at 42 U.S.C. 15962(a). EPAct05 section 421(a) similarly states: “No technology, or level of emission reduction, shall be treated as adequately demonstrated for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **156** of **684** IRC section 48A(g) contains a similar constraint concerning the use of technology or level of emission reduction from EGU facilities for which a tax credit is allowed: “No use of technology (or level o f emission reduction solely by reason of the use of the technology), and no achievement of any emission reduction by the demonstration of any technology or performance level, by or at one or more facilities with respect to which a credit is allowed under this section, shall be considered to indicate that the technology or performance level is adequately demonstrated [] for purposes of section 111 of the Clean Air Act ....” The EPA specifically solicited comment on its interpretation of these provisions. 79 FR 10750 (Feb. 26, 2014)(Notice of Data Availability). With respect to EPAct05 sections 402(i) and 421(a), the EPA proposed that these provisions barred consideration where EPAct05
- assisted facilities were the sole support for the BSER determination, but E PAct05 sources could support a BSER determination so long as there is additional evidence supporting the determination. 150 In addition, the EPA viewed the two prohibitions as relating only to the technology or emissions reduction for which assistance was given. 151 The EPA likewise interpreted IRC section 48A(g)

– purpose [sic] of section 7411 of this title, ... solely by reason of the use of such technology, or the achievement of such emission reduction, by one or more facilities receiving assistance under section 13572(a)(1) of this title”. 150 Technical Support Document p. 6. 151 Id.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **157** of **684** based on the plain language and the context provided by sections 402(i) and 421(a)

– to mean that use of technology, or emission performance, from a facility for which the credit is allowed cannot, by itself, support a finding that the technology or performance level is adequately demonstrated, but the information can c orroborate an otherwise supported determination or otherwise provide part of the basis for such a determination. 152 The EPA also proposed to interpret the phrase “with respect to which a credit is allowed under this section” as referring to the entire phrase “use of technology (or level of emission reduction...) and [] achievement of any emission reduction..., by or at one or more facilities.” Thus, if technology A received a tax credit, but technology B at the same facility did not, the constraint would not appl y to technology B. 153 Some commenters supported the EPA’s proposed interpretation. Others contended that the EPA’s interpretation would allow it to support a BSER determination even where EPAct05 facility information comprised 99 percent of the supporting in formation for a BSER determination, because that determination would not be based “solely” on EPAct05 sources. These commenters urged EPA to conclude that a determination
152 Id. p. 13. 153 Id. p. 14.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **158** of **684** “solely” on the basis of information from EPAct05
- assisted facilities is any determination where “but for” that information, the EPA could not justify its chosen standard as the BSER. 154 Other commenters argued that the provisions bar the EPA from all consideration of EPAct05 facilities when determining that a technology or level of performance is adequately demonstrated. In this final rule, the EPA is adopting the interpretations of all three provisions that it proposed, largely for the reasons previously advanced. The EPA thus interprets these provisions to preclude the EPA from relying so lely on the experience of facilities that received DOE assistance, but not to preclude the EPA from relying on the experience of such facilities in conjunction with other information. This reading of sections 402(i) and 421(a) is consistent with the views of the only court to date to consider the matter. 155 The EPA notes that the extreme hypothetical posed in the comments (where EPA might avoid a limitation on its

154 Comments of AFPM/API p. 46. 155 State of Nebraska v. EPA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141898 at n. 1 (D. Nebr. 2014). (“But the Court notes that § 402(i) only forbids the EPA from considering a given technology or level of emission reduction to be adequately demonstrated solely on the basis of federally
- funded facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 15962(i) . In other words, such technol ogy might be adequately demonstrated if that determination is based at least in part on non
- federallyfunded facilities”)(emphasis original).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **159** of **684** consideration of EPAct05
- assisted facilities by including a mere scintilla of evidence from non
- EPAct05 facilities) is unavailing. If the EPA were, in fact, to rely “solely” on information from EPAct05 facilities, while appending a mere scintilla of evidence from other facilities to satisfy the Act’s text, that determination would not withstand judi cial scrutiny. However, that situation is not presented here, where the principal evidence that partial CCS is a demonstrated and feasible technology comes from sources which received no assistance of any type under EPAct05. The EPA also concludes that the “but for” test urged by these commenters is an inapt reading of the term “solely” in sections 402(i) and 421(a), as any piece of evidence may be a necessary, or “but for,” cause without being a sufficient, or “sole,” cause. 156 Nonetheless, if the “but for” test were applicable here, the available evidence would satisfy it. Other commenters took the extreme position that the EPAct05 provisions bar all consideration of a facility’s existence if

156 For example, any vote of a Justice on the Supreme Court may be a necessary but not sufficient cause. In a 5
- 4 de cision, the decision of the Court would have been different “but for” the assent of Justice A or Justice B, who were in the majority. But it would be incorrect to say that the assent of Justice A was the “sole” reason for the outcome, when the decision als o required the assent of Justice B.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **160** of **684** the facility received EPAct05 assistance. 157 The EPA does not accept this argument because it is contrary to both the plain statutory language 158 and to Congress’s intent that the EPAct05 programs advance the commercialization of clean coal technology. For the same reason, the EPA does not accept some commenters’ suggestion that sections 402(i), 421(a), and 48A(g) preclude the EPA from considering NETL’s cost projections for CCS, which base future costs on the existence of present
- day CCS facilities. Commenters suggest that the EPAct05 requires that the EPA treat future plants as “first of a kind” when projecting costs, as if EPAct05 facilities simply did not exist. This reading is contrary to the text of the provisions and their purpose, which relate specifically to a source’s performance and operation (whether a technology is demonstrated, and the level of performance achieved by use of technology). NETL’s cost projections, on the other hand, do not depend on whether the technology is adequately demonstrated, they merely acknowledge the evident fact that the technology exist s, and reasonably
157 Supplemental Comments of Murray Energy (comment 9498) p. 11. 158 With respect to sections 402(i) and 421(a), commenters fail to reconcile their reading of the statute with the Act’s grammatical structure, as explained i n detail in chapter 2 of the Response - to - Comment document. One commenter supported its reading by adding suggested text to the statutory language, a highly disfavored form of statutory construction. Comments of UARG, p.124 n.38. With respect to section 48A (g), commenters misread the phrase “considered to indicate,” and do not explain how their reading of all three provisions together is tenable.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **161** of **684** expect that it will continue to develop. Moreover, these same commenters referred to these same plants in their other comments as examples of high costs of CCS technology. If the EPA is barred from considering information from EPAct05 fac ilities when determining the BSER, then this information is barred from its consideration as well. In any case, as shown in Section V below, the EPA finds that a new highly efficient SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS is the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated and is doing so based in greater part on performance of facilities receiving no assistance under EPAct05, and on other information likewise not having any connection to EPAct05 assistance. The corroborative information from EPAct0 5 facilities, though supportive, is not necessary to the EPA’s findings. I. Severability This rule has numerous components and the EPA intends that they be severable from each other to the extent that they function separately. For example, the EPA intends that each set of BSER determination and standard of performance in this rulemaking be severable from each other set. That is , the BSER determination and standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units are severable from all the other BSER determinations and standards***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **162** of **684** of performance, and the same is true for the BSER determi nation and standard of performance for modified fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units, and so on. It is reasonable to consider each set of BSER determination and standard of performance to be severable from each other set of BSER determination and standard of performance because each set is independently justifiable and does not depend on any other set. Thus, in the event that a court should strike down any set of BSER determination and standard of performance, the remaining BSER determi nations and standards of performance should not be affected. J. Certain Projects under Development In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA indicated that the proposed Wolverine EGU project (Rogers City, Michigan) appeared to be the only fossil fuel
- fired ste am generating unit that was currently under development and that may be capable of “commencing construction” for NSPS purposes at the time of the proposal. See 79 FR 1461. The EPA also acknowledged that the Wolverine EGU, as designed, would not meet the proposed standard of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh for new utility steam generating EGUs. The EPA ultimately concluded that, at the time of finalization of the proposed standards, if the Wolverine project remains under development and has not either commenced construction or been canceled, we anticipate proposing a standard of performance***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **163** of **684** specifically for that facility. Additional discussion of the approach can be found in the proposal or in the technical support document in the docket entitled “Fossil Fuel
- Fired Boiler and IGCC EGU Projects under Development: Status and Approach.” In December 2013

– after the proposed action was signed, but before it was published

– Wolverine Power Cooperative announced that it was cancelling construction of the proposed coal - fired power plant in Rogers City, MI. 159 Therefore, we are not finalizing the proposed exclusion for that project. In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA also identified two other fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGU projects that, as currently designed, would not meet the proposed 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh emissions standard

— the Plant Washington project in Georgia and the Holcomb 2 project in Kansas. We indicated that, at the time of the proposal, those projects appeared to remain under development but that the project developers had represented that the projects have commenced construction for NSPS purposes and, thus, would not be subject to the proposed or final NSPS. Based solely on the developers’ representations, the EPA indicated that those projects, if ultimately fully constructed, would be 159 “Wolverine ends plant speculation in Rogers City”, The Alpena News, December 17, 2013. http://www.thealpenanews .com/page/content.detail/id/527862/Wolve rine
- ends -plant - speculation
- in
- Rogers - City.html?nav=5004***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **164** of **684** existing sources, and would thus not be subject to the standards of performance in this final action. T o date, neither developer has sought a formal EPA determination of NSPS applicability. As we specified in the January 2014 proposa l

– and we reiterate here
- if such an applicability determination concludes that either the Plant Washington (GA) project or the Holcomb 2 (KS) project did not commence construction prior to January 8, 2014 (the publication of the January 2014 proposal), then the project should be situated similarly to the disposition the EPA proposed for the Wolverine project. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing in this action that if it is determined that either of these projects has not commenced construction as January 8, 2014, then that project will be addressed in the same manner as was proposed for the Wolverine project. In public comments submitted in response to the January 2014, Power4Georgians (P4G), the Plant Washington developer, reiterated that they had execute d binding contracts for the purchase and erection of the facility boiler prior to publication of the January 2014 proposal and believe that the binding contracts are sufficient to constitute commencement of construction for purposes of the NSPS program , so that they are***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **165** of **684** existing rather than new sources for purposes of this rule . 160 In public comments submitted by Tri
- State Generation and Transmission Association and Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the developers of the Holcomb 2 project, discussed the c ost incurred in the development of the project . They also indicated they had awarded contract for the turbine/generator purchase has been awarded and had negotiated a rail
- supply agreement that provides for the delivery of fuel to the proposed Holcomb 2 site . The developers did not, however, explicitly characterize the construction status of the project. 161 Other groups submitted comments contending that neither project has actually commenced construction. In October 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court invalidat ed the 2010 air pollution permit granted to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). In May 2014, the KDHE issued an air quality permit addendum for the proposed Holcomb 2 coal plant. The addendum addressed federal regulations that the Kansas Supreme Court held had been overlooked in the initial permitting determination . In June 2014, the Sierra Club filed an appeal with the Kansas Appellate Court challenging the legality of the May 2014 permit. Since the publication of the January 2014 proposal, the EPA is
160 Docket entry: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495
- 9403 161 Docket entry: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495
- 9 599***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **166** of **684** unaware of any physical construction activity at the proposed Holcomb 2 site. In October 2014, the Plant Washington project was given an 18
-month air permit extension by the Georgia Environmental Pro tection Division (EPD). However, as with the Holcomb expansion project, the EPA is unaware of any physical construction that has taken place at the proposed Plant Washington site and a recent audit of the project described it as “dormant”. 162 Based on this i nformation, it appears that these sources have not commenced construction for purposes of s ection 111 (b) and therefore would be new sources should they actually be constructed. The EPA propose d that, if these projects are determined to not have commenced c onstruction for NSPS purposes prior to the publication of the proposed rule, they will be addressed in the same manner proposed for the Wolverine project. 79 FR 1461. We are finalizing that proposal here. However, because these units may never actually be fully built and operated, we are not promulgating a standard of performance at this time, since such action may prove to be unnecessary. 163

162 http://www.macon.com/2015/06/23/3811798/audit
- sandersville
coal -plant.html 163 In the proposed emission guidelines for existing EGUs, the EPA did not include estimates of emissions for either Plant Washington or the Holcomb 2 unit in baseline data used to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **167** of **684** There is one possible additional new EGU , the Two Elk project in Wyoming. In the January 2014 proposal we relied on developer statements and state acquiescence that the unit had commenced construction for NSPS purposes before January 8, 2014. [CITE] We did not, therefore, propose any special section 111(b) standard for the project. Some commenters maintained that a cont inuous program of construction at the facility has not been maintained and that if the plant i s ultimately constructed, it should be classified as a new source under CAA section 111(b). These comments were not specific enough to change EPA’s view of the project fo r purposes of this rulemaking. We accordingly continue to rely on developer statements that this facility has commenced construction and would not be a new source for purposes of this proceeding. **IV. Summary of Final Standards for Newly Constructed, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel**  **- fired**  **Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  calculate proposed state goals for Georgia and Kansas. It appears that the possibility of these plants actually being built and operating is too remote. If either unit eventually seeks an applicability determination and that unit is determined to be an existing source, and there is reliable evidence that the source will operate, then the source will be subject to the final 111(d) rule and the EPA will allow the state to adjust its state goal to reflect adjustment of the state’s baseline data so as to include the unit. Guidance for adjustment of state goals is provided in the record for the EPA’s final CAA section 111(d) rulemaking.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **168** of **684** This section sets forth the standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed steam generating units (i.e ., utility boilers and IGCCs). We explain the rationale for the final standards in Sections V (newly constructed steam generating unit), VI (modified steam generating units), and VII (reconstructed steam generating units). A. Applicability Requirements and Rationale We generally refer to fossil fuel
- fired electric utility generating units that would be subject to an emission standard in this rulemaking as “affected” or “covered” sources, units, facilities or simply as EGUs. These units meet both the defi nition of “affected” and “covered” EGUs subject to an emission standard as provided by this rule, and the criteria for being considered “new,” “modified” or “reconstructed” sources as defined under the provisions of CAA section 111 and the EPA’s regulation s. This section discusses applicability for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed steam generating units. 1. General Applicability C riteria The EPA is finalizing applicability criteria for new, modified, and reconstructed electric utility steam generating units (i.e., utility boilers and IGCC units) in 40 CFR part 60 subpart TTTT that are similar to the applicability criteria for those units i n 40 CFR part 60 , subpart Da (utility boiler and IGCC performance standards for criteria pollutants), but with***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **169** of **684** some differences. The proposed applicability criteria, relevant comments and final applicability criteria specific to newly constructed, modified , and reconstructed steam generating units
are discussed below. The applicability requirements in the proposal for newly constructed EGUs included that a utility boiler or IGCC unit must: (1) be capable of combusting more than 250 MMBtu/h heat input of fossil fuel; (2) be constructed for the purpose of supplying, and actually supply, more than one
- third of its potential net
- electric output capacity to any utility power distribution system (that is, to the grid) for sale on an annual basis ; (3) be constructed for the purpose of supplying, and actually supply, more than 219,000 MWh net
- electric output to the grid on an annual basis; and (4) combust over 10 percent fossil fuel on a heat input basis over a 3
- year average. At proposal , applicabil ity was determined based on a combination of design and actual operating conditions that could change annually depending on the proportion and the amount of electricity actually sold and on the proportion of fossil fuel s combusted by the unit. In the propo sal for modified and reconstructed EGUs, we proposed a broader applicability approach such that applicability would be based solely on design criteria and would be identical to the applicability requirements in subpart Da.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **170** of **684** First, we proposed electric sales criteria that the source be constructed for the purpose of selling more than one
- third of their potential electric output and more than 219,000 MWh to the grid on an annual basis, regardless of the actual amount of electricity sold (i.e., we did not include the applicability criterion that the unit actually sell the specified amount of electricity on an annual basis). In addition, we proposed a base load rating criterion that the source be capable of combusting more than 250 MMBtu/h of fossil fuel , regardless of the actual amount of fossil fuel burned (i.e., we did not include the fossil
- fuel use criterion that an EGU actually combust more than 10 percent fossil fuel on a heat input basis on a 3
- year average). Under this approach, applicability wou ld be known prior to the unit actually commencing operation and would not change on an annual basis. We also proposed that the final applicability criteria would be consistent for newly constructed, reconstructed, and modified units. The proposed broad app licability criteria would still not have included boilers and IGCC units that were constructed for the purpose of selling one
- third or less of their potential output or 219,000 MWh or less to the grid on an annual basis. These units are not covered under s ubpart Da (the utility boiler and IGCC EGU criteria pollutant NSPS) but are instead covered as industrial boilers under subpart Db (industrial, institutional, and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **171** of **684** commercial boilers NSPS) or subpart KKKK (the combustion turbine criteria pollutant NSPS). We solicited comment on whether, to avoid implementation issues related with different interpretations of “ constructed for the purpose, ” the total and percentage electric sales criteria should be recast to be based on the permit conditions. The “constructed for the purpose” language was included in the original subpart Da rulemaking. At that time, the vast majority of new steam generating units were clearly base load units. The “constructed for the purpose” applicability was intended to exempt industrial CHP units. These units tend to be relatively small and were not the focus of the rulemaking. In addition, units not meeting the electric sales applicability criteria in subpart Da would be covered by other NSPS so there is limited regulatory i ncentive, or impact to the environment, for owners/operators to avoid applicability with the utility NSPS. However, for new units there is no corresponding industrial unit CO 2 NSPS and existing units could debate the ir original intent (i.e., the purpose for which they were constructed) in an attempt to avoid applicability under 111(d) requirements. Consequently , there could be a regulatory incentive for owners/operators to circumvent the CO 2 NSPS applicability. For units that avoid cove rage, there would also be a corresponding environmental impact. For example, an owner/operator of a new***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **172** of **684** unit could initially request a permit restriction to limit electric sales to less than one - third of potential annual electric output, but amend the operating permit shortly after operation has commenced to circumvent the intended applicability. Many existing units were initially built with excess capacity to account for projected load growth and were intended to sell more than one
- third of their potential electric output. However, due to various factors (lower than expected load growth, availability of other lower cost units, etc.) certain units might have sold less than one
- third of their potential electric output, at least during their initial period of operation . Therefore, the EPA has concluded that determining applicability based on whether a unit is “ constructed for the purpose of supplying one
- third or more of its potential electric output and more than 219,000 MWh as net
- electric sales” (emphasis added) c ould create applicabilit y uncertainty for both the regulated community and regulators. In addition, we have concluded that applicability based on actual operating conditions (i.e., actual electric sales) is not ideal since applicability would not be known prior to determining compliance and could change annually. This action finalizes applicability criteria based on design characteristics and federally enforceable permit restrictions included in each individual permit. Based on***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **173** of **684** restrictions, if any, on annual total electric sales in the operating permit , it will be clear from the time of construction whether or not a new unit is subject to this rule . The applicability includes all utility boilers and IGCC units unless the electric sales restriction was in the original and remains in the current operating permit without any lapses (this is to be consistent with the ‘constructed for the purpose of’ criteria in subpart Da) . We have concluded that this approach is equivalent to , but clearer than , the existing language us ed in subpart Da. In addition, we have concluded that it is important for both the 111(b) and 111(d) requirements that for electric only steam generating units that the permit restriction limiting annual electric sales be included in both the original and current operating permit. Without the restriction, existing units could avoid obligations under state plans developed as part of the 111(d) program by amending their operating permit to limit total annual electric sales to one - third of potential electric output. These units would not be subject to any GHG NSPS requirements since they would not meet the 111(b) or 111(d) applicability criteria and , at this time, there is no NSPS that would cover these units. As described in S ection III, industrial combined he at and power and dedicated non
- fossil fuel units also are not included in the scope of this action.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **174** of **684** In this rule , we are finalizing the definition of a steam generating EGU as a utility boiler or IGCC unit that: (1) has a base load rating greater than 260 GJ/h ( 250 MMBtu/h ) of fossil fuel (either alone or in combination with any other fuel) and (2) serve s a generator capable of supplying more than 25 MW
- net to a utility distribution system (i.e., for sale to the grid). However, we are not establishing fina l CO 2 standards for certain EGUs. These include: (1) steam generating units and IGCC units that are currently subject to
- and have been continuously subject to
- a federally enforceable permit limiting annual electric sales to one - third or less of their potential electric output (e.g., limiting hours of operation to less than 2,920 hours annually) or limiting annual electric sales to 219,000 MWh or less; (2) units subject to a federally enforceable permit that limits the use of fossil fuels to 10 percent o r less of the unit’s heat input capacity on an annual basis ; and (3) CHP units that are subject to a federally enforceable permit condition limiting annual total electric sales to no more than the design efficiency times potential electric output or to no more than 219 ,000 MWh, whichever is greater. 2. Applicability Specific to Newly C onstructed S team Generating Units In CAA section 111(a)(2) a “new source” is defined as any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **175** of **684** commenced after the publication of regulations (or if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source. Accordingly, for purposes of this rule, a newly constructed steam generating EGU is a unit that fits the definition and applicability criteria of a fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGU and commences construction on or after January 8, 2014, which is the date that the proposed standards were published for those sources (see 79 FR 1430). 3. Applicability Specific to Modified S team Generating Units In CAA section 111(a)(4) a “modification” is defined as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.” The EPA, through regulati ons, has determined that certain types of changes are exempt from consideration as a modification. 164 For purposes of this rule, a modified steam generating EGU is a unit that fits the definition and applicability criteria of a fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGU and that modifies on or after June 18, 2014, which is the date that the proposed standards were published for those sources (see 79 FR 34960).

164 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14(e)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **176** of **684** 4. Applicability Specific to Reconstructed S team Generating Units The NSPS general provisions (40 CFR part 60 , s ubpart A) provide that an existing source is considered a new source if it undertakes a “reconstruction,” which is the replacement of components of an existing facility to an extent that : (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility, and (2) it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards. 165 For purposes of this rule, a reconstructed steam generating EGU is a unit that fits the definition and applicability criteria of a fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGU and that reconstructs on or after June 18, 2014, which is the date that the propose d standards were published for those sources (see 79 FR 34960). B. Best System of Emission Reduction 1. BSER for Newly C onstructed S team Generating Units In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed that highly efficient new generation technology implementing partial CCS is the BSER for GHG emission reductions from new steam generating EGUs . (See generally 79 FR 1468
- 1469 . ) In this final action, the

165 40 CFR 60.15.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **177** of **684** EPA has determined that the BSER for newly constructed steam generating units is a new highly effici ent supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) boiler implementing partial CCS technology to the extent of removal efficiency that meets a final emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . The final standard of performance is less stringent than the proposed emission limitation of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . This change, as will be discussed in greater detail later in this preamble, is in response to public comments and reflects both a re - examination of the potential BSER technologies and the most recent, reliable information regarding technology costs . A newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired supercritical utility boiler will be able to meet the final standard by implementing post - combustion carbon capture treating a slip
- stream of the combustion flue gas. Alternative potential compliance paths are to build a new IGCC unit and co
- fire with natural gas (or use pre
- combustion carbon capture on a slip
- stream), or for a supercritical utility boiler to co - fire with natural gas. The EPA of course realizes that the final standard of performance (1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g) differs from the proposed standard (1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g). The EPA notes further , however, that the methodology for determining the final standard of performance is identical to that at proposal

– determining that***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **178** of **684** a new highly efficient generating technology implementing some degree of partial CCS is the BSER, with that degree of implementation being determined based on the reasonableness of costs. A key means of assessi ng the reasonableness of cost at proposal was comparison of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) with that of other dispatchable, base load generating options . We have maintained that approach in identifying BSER for the final standard. Applying this methodology to the most recent cost information has led the EPA to adopt the final standard of performance of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g. This final standard reflects the level of emission reduction achievable by a highly efficient SCPC implementing the degree of partial CCS that remains cost comparable to the other dispatchable base load generating options. This is essentially the same BSER as proposed: highly efficient new generating technology (including supercritical utility boiler and IGCC) implementing partial CCS technology. The BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs in the final rule is very similar

– with one slight change . In this final action, the EPA finds that a highly efficient new SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS to the degree necessary to achieve an emission of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g is the BSER. Contrary to the January 2014 proposal, the EPA finds that IGCC technology

– either alone or implementing partial CCS

– is not part of the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **179** of **684** BSER, but rather is a viable alternative compliance option. The EPA notes that most IGCC designs will a llow a new IGCC EGU to meet the final standard by co
- firing with a small amount (less than 10 percent) of natural gas. Similarly, project developers may also

– as an alternative to utilizing partial CCS technology

– meet the final standard by co
- firing app roximately 40 percent natural gas in a new highly efficient SCPC EGU. The EPA does not find IGCC to be part of the BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs. As noted at proposal, a BSER typically advances performance of a technology beyond current levels of performance. 79 FR at 1465, 1471. Similarly, promotion of technology innovation can be a relevant factor in BSER determinations. Id. For these reasons, the EPA at proposal voiced concerns about adopting standards that would allow an IGCC to compl y without utilizing CCS for slip
- stream control. Id. at 1471. The final standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g, adopted as a means of assuring reasonableness of costs (as explained below), allows IGCC units to comply without using partial CCS. Thus, although the standard can be met by a highly efficient new IGCC unit using approximately 3 percent partial CCS (see section V. E. and V. H. 7 below), the EPA does not believe that implementation of partial CCS at such a low level, while technically feasible, is the opt ion that utilities and project developers will choose. The EPA believes that IGCC project***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **180** of **684** developers will either choose to meet the final standard by co
firing with natural gas
- which would be a less costly and very straightforward process for a new IGCC unit
- or they will choose to install CCS equipment that will allow the facility to achieve much deeper CO 2 reductions than required by this rule

– likely to co
-produce chemicals and/or to capture large volumes of CO 2 for use in EOR operations. While the EPA does not find that IGCC technology

– either alone or with implementation of partial CCS
- is part of the BSER for new steam generating EGUs, we remain convinced that it is technically feasible (see V.E. below) and believe that it represents a viable al ternative compliance option that some project developers will consider to meet the final standard issued in this action. As just noted, most designs will allow a new IGCC EGU to meet the final standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g by
co - firing with a small amount of natural gas (less than 10 percent) and some developers may be able to construct a new IGCC unit with deeper reductions of CO2 than required by this rule because the specific business plan and associated non
-power
revenues (e.g., chemicals, fertilizer, CO2 for EOR, etc.) make the costs reasonable to do so. In reaching the final standard of performance, the EPA is aware that at proposal the agency stated that it was not “currently considering” a standard of performance as high as***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **181** of **684** 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g. 79 FR at 1471. However, in that same discussion the EPA noted the reasons for its reservations (chiefly reservations about the extent of emission reductions, promotion of advanced CO2 control technologies, and whether the standard could be met by either utilit y boilers or IGCC units
co - firing with natural gas , or otherwise complying without utilizing partial CCS ), and we specifically solicited comment on the issue: “We request that commenters who suggest emission rates above 1,200 lb CO2/MWh address potential c oncerns about providing adequate reductions and technology devel opment to be considered BSER.” Id. The proposal thus both solicited comment on higher emission standards (including 1 , 400 lb CO2/MWh
- g based on a less aggressive rate of partial CCS , and provided ample notice of the methodology the EPA would use to determine the final BSER and the corresponding final standard . 166 For these reasons, the EPA believes that it provided adequate notice of this potential outcome at proposal, that the final standard of performance was reasonably foreseeable, and that the final
166 Although co - firing with natural gas is not part of BSER, EPA notes that it could be part of a compliance pathway for either SCPC or IGCC units. In this regard, a number of commenters addressed the issue of natural gas c o - firing, indicating that there were circumstances where it could be part of BSER. See e.g. Comments of Exelon Corp . p. ; Comments of the Sierra Club p. . See Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, 358 F. 3d 936, 952 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 135 F. 3d 791, 816 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (commenters understood a matter was under consideration when they addressed it in comments).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **182** of **684** standard is a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. Allina Health Services v. Sebel ius , 746 F. 3d 1102, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2014). A more detailed discussion of the rationale for the final BSER determination and of other systems that were also considered is provided in S ection V of this preamble . 167 2. BSER for Modified S team Generating Units The EPA has determined that, as proposed, the BSER for steam generating units that trigger the modification provisions is the modified unit’s own best potential performance. However,
as explained below, the final BSER determination and the scope of modifications to which the final standards apply differ in
some important respects from what the EPA proposed. The EPA proposed that the modified unit’s best potential performance would be det ermined depending upon when the unit

167 Certain commenters maintained that the BSER determination does not comply with (purportedly) binding legal requ irements created by regulations implementing the Information Quality Act. These comments are mistaken as a matter of both law and fact. The Information Quality Act does not create legal rights in third parties (see, e.g. Mississippi Comm’n on Environment al Quality v. EPA, no. 12
- 1309 at 84 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2015)), and there are significant factual omissions and mischaracterizations in these comments regarding peer review of the proposed standard and underlying record information. The complete response to these comments is in chapter 2 of the RTC. See also below describing findings of the SAB panel that materials of the National Energy Technology Laboratory had been fully and adequately peer reviewed, and that findings related to sequestration refl ected best available science.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **183** of **684** implemented the modification ( i.e., before or after being subject to an approved CAA section 111(d) state plan). For units that commenced modification prior to becoming subject to an approved CAA section 111(d) state pl an, the EPA proposed unit
specific standards consistent with each modified unit’s best
one - year historical performance (during the years from 2002 to the time of the modification) plus an additional two percent reduction. For sources that commenced modific ation after becoming subject to an approved CAA section 111(d) plan, the EPA proposed that the unit’s best potential performance would be determined from the results of an efficiency audit. The final standards in this action do not depend upon when the mo dification commences , as long as it commences after June 18, 2014. We are establishing emission standards for large modifications in this rule and deferring at this time the setting of standards for small modifications. In this final action, the EPA is issuing final emission standards for affected steam generating units that implement large r modifications that are consistent with the proposed BSER determination for those units. The final standard for that those
sources that implement large r modifications is a unit
- specific emission limitation consistent with each modified unit’s best
one - year historical performance (during the years from 2002 to the time of the modification)

– but does not include the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **184** of **684** additional two percent reduction that was proposed in the January 2014 proposal. In this action, the EPA is not finalizing standards for those sources that conduct small er modifications and is withdrawing the proposed standards for those sources. A more detailed discussion of the rationale for the BSER determination and final standards is provided in Section VI of this preamble. 3. BSER for Reconstructed Steam Generating Units Consistent with our proposal, the EPA has determined that the BSER for reconstructed steam generating units is the most efficient demonstrated generating technology for these types of units (i.e., meeting a standard of performance consistent with a reconstructed boiler using most the efficient steam conditions available, even if the boiler was not original ly designed to do
so ). A more detailed discussion of the rationale for the BSER determination and the final standards is provided in S ection VII of this preamble . C. Final Standards of Performance The EPA is issuing final standards of performance for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected steam generating units based on the degree of emission reduction achievable by application of the best system of emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **185** of **684** reduction for those cate gories, as described above. The final standards are presented below in Table 6 . **Table 6**  **. Final Standards of Performance for New, Modified, and**  **Reconstructed Steam Generating Units Source**  **Description Final Standard** * **lb CO 2**  **/ MWh** **- g**  New Sources All newly constructed steam generating EGUs 1,400

Modified Sources Sources that implement large r modifications

– those result ing in an increase in hourly CO 2 emissions (lb CO 2 /hr) of more than 10 percent Best annual performance (lb CO 2 /MWh - g ) during the time period from 2002 to the time of the modification
Reconstructed Sources Large** 1,800 Reconstructed Sources Small** 2,000 * Standards are to be met over a 12
- operating
-month compliance period. **Large units are those with heat input capacity of > 2,000 mmBtu/hr; small units are those with heat input capacity of ≤ 2,000 mmBtu/hr. For newly constructed and reconstructed steam generating units and for modified steam generating sources that result in larger hourly increases of CO 2 emissions, the EPA is finalizing standards in the form of a gross energy output
-based CO 2 emission limit expressed in units of mass per useful energy output , specifically, in pounds of CO 2 per megawatt - hour (lb***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **186** of **684** CO 2 /MWh - g ). 168 The standard of performance will apply to affected sources upon the effective date of the final action. Compliance with the final standard will be demonstrated by
summing the emissions (in pounds of CO 2 ) for all operating hours in the 12
- operating
-month compliance period and then dividing that value by the sum of the useful energy output (on a gross basis , i.e., gross megawatt
- hours ) over the rolling 12
- operating
-month compliance period. The final rule requires rounding of emission rates with numerical values greater than or equal to 1,000 to three significant figures and rounding of rates with numerical values less than 1,000 to two significant figures. For newly constructed steam generating units, we proposed two options for the compliance period. We proposed that a newly constructed source could choose to comply with a 12
- operating
month standard or with a more stringent standard over an 84
- operating
-month compliance period and we solicited comment on including an interim 12
- operating
-month standard (based on use of supercritical boiler technology, see 79 FR at 1448). We are

168 Note that the standards for sources that conduct larger modifications is a unit
- specific numerical standard based on the unit’s best one
- year historical performance during the period from 2002 to the time of the modification . The unit
- specific standard will also be in the form of a gross energy output
-based CO 2 emission limit expressed in pounds of CO 2 per megawatt - hour (lb CO 2 /MWh - g ) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **187** of **684** not finalizing the proposed 84
- operating
-month compliance period option because the final standard of performance for newly constructed sources is less stringent than the proposed standard and because, as discussed in S ection V below, we are identifying alternative compliance pathways for new steam generating EGUs . Specifically, we have concluded that there are unlikely to be significant issues with short
- term variability during initial operation, in view of both the reduced numerical stringency of the standard, and the availability of compliance alternatives . The EPA notes that co - fi ring of natural gas can also serve as an interim means to reduce emissions if a new source operator believes additional time is needed to phase
- in the operation of a CCS system. Therefore, the applicable final standards of performance for all newly constru cted, modified, and reconstructed steam generating units must be met over a rolling 12
- operating
-month compliance period. In the Clean Power Plan, which is a separate rulemaking under CAA section 111(d) published at the same time as the present rulemaking under CAA section 111(b) , the EPA is promulgating emission guidelines for states to develop state plans regulating CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. Existing sources that are subject to state plans under CAA section 111(d) may undertake modifications or reconstructions and thereby become subject to the requirements under section***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **188** of **684** 111(b) in the present rulemaking. In the section 111(d) Clean Power Plan rulemaking, the EPA discusses how undertaking a modification or reconstruction affects an existing source’s section 111(d) requirements. **V. Rationale for Final Standards for Newly Constructed Fossil Fuel**  **- fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  In the discussion below, the EPA describes the rationale and justification of the BSER determi nation and the resulting final standards of performance for newly constructed steam generating units. We also explain why this determination is consistent with the constraints imposed by the EPAct05. A. Factors Considered in Determining the BSER In evaluating the final determination of the BSER for newly constructed steam generating units, the EPA considered the factors for the BSER described above, looked widely at all relevant information and considered all the data, information, and comments that were submitted during the public comment period. We re - examined and updated the information that was available to us and concluded , as described below, that the final standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , is consistent with the degree of emission reduction achievable through the implementation of the BSER. This final standard of performance for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units provides a clear and achievable path forward for the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **189** of **684** construction of new coal
- fired generating sources that addresses GHG emissions . B. Highly Efficient SCPC EGU Implementing Partial CCS a s the BSER for Newly Constructed Steam Generating Units In the January 2014 proposal, we proposed that highly efficient new generating technology implementing partial CCS technology at a percentage capture that would result in an emission limitation of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g is the BSER for new fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units
- that is, for both utility boilers and IGCC units. In order to meet the proposed standard of 1,100 lb CO2
- g/MWh, a new utility boiler firing bituminous coal would have needed to capture and store approximately 40 percent of the CO 2 from the source . A new IGCC unit would have needed to capture approximately 25 percent of the CO2 from the source. The BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs in this final rule is a highly efficient new SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS to the degree necessary to achieve an emission of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g is the BSER. As noted above, this determination has similarities with the proposed standard

– highly efficient SCPC implementing slip
- stream control of CO2 (i.e. , via partial CCS)

– but differs in the amount of projected partial CCS utilized, and so has a different numerical limit***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **190** of **684** than proposed. A second difference, again as described above, is that IGCC technology

– either alone or implementing partial CCS

– is not part of the BSER, but rather is an alternative compliance option . The change from the proposed emission limitation to the final emis sion limitation is responsive to public comments , particularly those related to cost of partial CCS. In the sections that follow, we explain the technical configurations that may be used to implement BSER to meet the final standard, describe the operationa l flexibilities that partial CCS offers, and then provide the rationale for the final standard of performance. After that, we discuss, in greater detail, consideration of the criteria for the determination of the BSER . We describe why a highly efficient new SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS in the amount that results in an emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g best meets those criteria , including, among others, that such a system is technically feasible, provides meaningful emission reductions, can be implemented at a reasonable cost , does not pose nonair quality health and
environmental concerns or impair energy reliability, and consequently is adequately demonstrated . We also explain why the emission standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g is achievable, incl uding under all circumstances reasonably likely to occur when the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **191** of **684** system is properly designed and operated. We also discuss alternative compliance options that new source project developers can elect to use , instead of SCPC with partial CCS, to meet the fi nal standard of performance. C. Rationale for the Final Emission Standards 1. The Proposed Standards In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed an emission limitation of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , which a new highly efficient utility boiler burning bituminous coal could have met by capturing roughly 40 percent of its CO 2 emissions and a new highly efficient IGCC unit could have me t by capturing and storing roughly 25 percent of its CO 2 emissions . The captured CO2 would then be securely stored in sequestration repositories subject to either Class II or Class VI standards under the Underground Injection Control program. The EPA arrived at the proposed standard by examining the available CCS implement ation configurations and concluding that the proposed standard at the corresponding level s of partial CCS best balanced the BSER criteria and resulted in an achievable emission level . The EPA also considered but did not propose to find highly efficient new generation implementing “full CCS” (i.e. , more than 90 percent capture and storage) to be the BSER because the costs of that configuration

– for both utility boilers and IGCC units
- are***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **192** of **684** projected to substantially exceed the projected costs of other
non -NGCC dispatchable technologies that utilities and project developers are considering (e.g., new nuclear and biomass). See generally 79 FR at 1477
- 78. Conversely, the EPA rejected highly efficient SCPC as BSER since it would not result in meaningful emission reductions from any newly constructed PC unit. Id. at 1470. The EPA also declined to base BSER on IGCC operating alone due to the same concern

– lack of emission reductions from a new IGCC unit otherwise planned. Id. 2. Basis for the F inal S tandards For this final action, the EPA reexamined the BSER options available at proposal. Those options are: (1) highly efficient generation without CCS, (2) highly efficient generation implementing partial CCS, and (3) highly efficient generation implementing full CCS . Consistent with our determination in the January 2014 proposal, we remain convinced that highly efficient generation (i.e., a new supercritical utility boiler or a new IGCC unit) without CCS does not represent the BSER because it does not achieve emission reductions beyond the sector’s business as usual , when options that do achieve more emission reductions are available . 79 FR 1470. We also do not find that a highly efficient new steam generating unit implementing full CCS is the BSER because, at this time, the costs are predicted to be significantly more than the costs for implementation of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **193** of **684** partial CCS and significantly more than the costs for competing base load, dispatchable technologies
- primarily new nuclear generation
- and are , therefore, potentially unreasonable . As with the proposal , the EPA has determined the final BSER and corresponding emission limitation by appropriately balancing the BSER criteria and determining that the emission limitation is achievable . The final standard of performance of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g is less stringent than at proposal and reflect s changes that are responsive to comments received on , and the EPA’s further evaluation of, the costs to implement partial CCS. The EPA has determined that a newly constructed highly efficient supercritical utility boiler burning bituminous coal can meet this final emission limitation by capturing 16 percent of the CO 2 produced from the facility (or 23 percent if burning subbituminous or dried lignite) , which would be either stored in
on - site or off
- site geologic sequestration repositories subject to control under either the Class II (for Enhanced Oil Recovery) and Class VI (for geologic sequestration) standards under the UIC program . Th is BSER is technically feasible , as shown by the fact that post - combustion CCS technology

– both the capture and storage components - is demonstrated in full
- scale operation within the electricity generating industry . There are also numerous operating results from smaller
- scale projects that are***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **194** of **684** reasonably predictive of operation at full
- scale. In addition, a new highly efficient SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS will result in substantial emissions reductions at reasonable cost , is consistent with the other BSER criteria, is adequately demonstrated, and is consistent with emission standards that are achievable not only through partial CCS but also through alternative compliance approaches. The proposed BSER wa s a highly efficient newly constructed steam generating EGU implementing partial CCS to an emission standard of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh
- g. The final BSER is a highly efficient SCPC EGU implementing partial CCS to achieve an emission standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g. In both cases , the EPA specified that the BSER includes a “highly efficient” new EGU implementing partial CCS. This assumes that a new project developer will construct the most efficient generating technology available

– i.e., a supercritical or ultra supercritical utility boiler

– that will inherently generate lower volumes of uncontrolled CO2 per MWh. A well performing and highly efficient new SCPC EGU will need to implement lower levels of partial CCS in order to meet the final standard of 1,4 00 lb CO2/MWh
- g than a less efficient new steam generating EGU. The construction of highly efficient steam generating EGUs

– as opposed to less efficient units such as a subcritical utility boiler

– will result in lower overall costs from***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **195** of **684** decreased fuel consumption and the need for lower levels of required partial CCS to the meet the final standard . 3. Consideration of P rojec ts Receiving Funding Under the EPAct05 As noted in section III.H.3.g above, the EPA’s determination of BSER here includes review of recently constructed facilities and those planned or under construction to evaluate the control technologies being used and considered. Some of the projects discussed in the January 2014 proposal, and di scussed here in this preamble, received or are receiving financial assistance under the EPAct05 (P.L. 109
- 58). This assistance may include financial assistance from the Department of Energy (DOE) , as well as receipt of the Federal tax credit for investment in clean coal technology under IRC section 48A. As noted above, the EPA interprets these provisions as allowing consideration of EPAct05 facilities provided that such information is not the sole basis for the BSER determination, and particularly so in ci rcumstances like those here, where the information is corroborative but the essential information justifying the determinations comes from facilities and other sources of information with no nexus with EPAct05 assistance. I n the discussion below, the EPA explains its reliance on other information in making the BSER determination for new fossil fuel - fired steam generating units. The EPA notes that information from facilities that did not receive any DOE***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **196** of **684** assistance , and did not receive the Federal tax credit, is sufficient to support its BSER determination. D. Post - Combustion Carbon Capture In this section , we describe a variety of facts that support our conclusion that the technical feasibility of post combustion carbon capture is adequately demonstrated. First, we describe the technology of post
- combustion capture. We then describe EGUs that have previously utilized or are currently utilizing post
- combustion carbon capture technology. This discussion is complemented by later sections that explain and justify our conclusions that the technical feasibility of other aspects of partial CCS are adequately demonstrated

– namely, the transportation and carbon storage (Sec. V.L. and M. ). Furthe r , the conclusions of this section are reinforced by the discussion in section V.F. below , in which we identify commercial vendors that offer carbon capture technology and offer performance guarantees , and discuss as well as i ndustry and technology developers ’ public pronouncements of their confidence in the feasibility and availability of CCS technologies. 1. Post - combustion Carbon Capture

– How it Works Post - combustion capture processes remove CO 2 from the exhaust gas of a combustion system

– such as a utility boiler. It is referred to as “post
- combustion capture” because the CO 2***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **197** of **684** is the product of the combustion of the primary fuel and the capture takes place after the combustion of that fuel. The exhaust gases from most combustion processes are at atmospheric pressure and are moved through the flue gas system by fans . The concentration of CO 2 in most combustion flue gas streams is somewhat dilute. 169 Most post - combustion capture systems utilize liquid solvents 170 that separate the CO 2 from the flue gas in CO2 scrubber systems . Because the flue gas is at atmospheric pressure and is somewhat dilute, the solvents used for post
combustion capture are ones that separate the CO 2 using chemical
absorption (or chemisorption). Amine
-based solvents 171 are the most commonly used in post
- combustion capture systems. In a chemisorption
-based separation process, the flue gas is processed through the CO 2 scrubber and the CO 2 is absorbed by the liquid solvent and then released by heating to form a high purity CO 2 stream. This heating step is referred to as “solvent regeneration” and is responsible for much of the “energy penalty” of the capture system. Steam from the boiler (or potentially from another externa l source) that would otherwise

169 The typical concentration of CO 2 in the flue gas of a coal
fired utility boiler is roughly around 15 volume percent. 170 A solvent is a substance (usually a liquid) that dissolves a solute (a chemically different liquid, solid or gas), resulting in a solution. 171 Amines are derivatives of ammonia (NH 3 ) where one or more hydrogen atoms have been replaced by hydrocarbon groups .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **198** of **684** be used to generate electricity is instead used in the solvent regeneration process. Development of advanced solvents

– those that are chemically stable, have high CO 2 absorption capacities, and have low regeneration energy requirements

– is an active area of research. Many post - combustion solvents will also selectively remove other acidic gases such as sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and hydrochloric acid (HCl), which can result in degradation of the solvent. For that reason, the CO2 sc rubber systems are normally installed downstream of other pollutant control devices (e.g., particulate matter and flue gas desulfurization controls) and in some cases, the acidic gases will need to be scrubbed to very low levels prior to the flue gas enter ing the CO 2 capture system. Additional information on post
- combustion carbon capture

– including process diagrams
- can be found in a summary technical support document. 172 2. Post - combustion Carbon Capture Projects That Have not Received DOE Assistance Through the EPAct05 or Tax Credits Under IRC s ection 48A
a. Boundary Dam Unit #3 . SaskPower’s Boundary Dam CCS Project in Estevan, a city in Saskatchewan, Canada, is the world’s first

172 Technical Support Document

– “Literature Survey of Carbon Capture Technology”, available in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **199** of **684** commercial
- scale fully integrated post
- combustion CCS project at a coal - fired powe r plant. The project fully integrates the rebuilt 110 MW coal
- fired Unit #3 with a CO 2 capture system using Shell Cansolv amine
-based solvent to capture 90 percent of its CO 2 emissions. The facility, which utilizes local Saskatchewan lignite, began operati ons in October 2014 and accounts of the system’s performance describe it as working even “better than expected.” 173 , 174 The plant started by capturing roughly 75 percent of CO 2 from the plant emissions and its operators plan to increase the capture percentage as they optimize the equipment to reach full capacity. Initial indications are that the facility is producing more power than predicted and that the energy penalty (parasitic load

– the energy needed to regenerate the CO2 capture solvent ) is much

173 “[W]e are achieving better than expected” operation out of the plant, SaskPower's Mike Marsh said April 8 , 2015 in Washington, DC, summarizing the status of the first
- of - a - kind plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, known as Boundary Dam Unit 3. Marsh spoke at a meeting of the National Coal Council, which advises the Energy Department on coal - related topics. From “Bolstering EPA’s NSPS, Canadian CCS Plant Working ‘Better Than Expected’”, Climate Daily News, Inside EPA/climate (April 08, 2015); www.insideepa.com (subscription required). 174 “ CCS performance data exceeding expectations at world
- first Boundary Dam Power Station Unit #3 ”, http://www.saskpowerccs.com/newsandmedia/latest
- news/ccs
performance - data - exceeding
- expectations/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **200** of **684** lower than initially predicted . 175 Water use at the facility is consistent with levels that were predicted. 176 The total project costs
– for the power plant and the carbon capture plant

– was $1.467B (CAD). 177 The CO 2 from the capture system is more than 99.999 percent pure with only trace levels of N2 in the product stream. 178 This purity is food
- grade quality CO 2 and is a clear indication that the system is working well. The captured CO 2 is transported by pipeline to nearby oil fields in southern Saskatchewan where it is being used for enhanced oil recovery ( EOR ) operations. Any captured CO 2 that is not used for EOR operations will be stored in nearby deep brine
- filled sandstone formations. Thus , the Boundary Dam Unit #3 project is demonstrating CO 2 post - combustion capture, CO 2 compression and transport, and CO 2 injection for both EOR and geologic storage . The CCS system is fully integrated with the electricity production of the plant.

175 Correspondence between Mike Monea (SaskPower) and Nick Hutson (EPA), February 20, 2015. 176 30 percent of the water used for cooling comes from the recycled or reclaimed water from the process itself ; namely , water in the coal is reclaimed. 177 About $1.2B USD; roughly $700M (USD) for the carbon capture system, which was on budget. 178 “Boundary Dam

– The Future is Here”, plenary presentation by Mike Monea at the 12 th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies (GHGT
- 12), Austin, TX (October 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **201** of **684** Some commenters noted that, at 110 MW, the Boundary Dam Unit #3 is a relatively small coal
- fired utility boiler and thus does not indicate that such a system could be utilized at a much larger utility coal
- fired boiler. However, there is nothing to indicate that the post - combustion system used at Boundary Dam could not be scaled- up for use at a larger utility boiler . In fact, the carbon capture system at Boundary Dam #3 is designed and constructed to implement “full CCS”

– that is to capture more than 90 percent of the CO 2 produced from the subcritical unit. A similarly
- sized capture system

– with no need for further scale - up - could be used to treat a slip
- stream of a much larger supercritical utility boiler ( a new unit of approximately 500 to 600 MW) in order to meet the final standard of performance of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , which would only require partial CCS on the order of approximately 16 to 23 percent (depending on the coal used) . A “ slip
- stream” is a portion of the flue gas stream that can be treated separately from the bulk exhaust gas. It is not an uncommon configuration for the flue gas from a coal
- fired boiler to be separated into two or more streams and treated separately in different control equipment before being***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **202** of **684** recombined to exit from a common stack. 179 A slip
- stream configuration is often used to treat a smaller portion of the bulk flue gas stream as a way of testing or demonstrating a control device or measurement technology. For impleme ntation of post - combustion partial carbon capture, a portion of the bulk flue gas stream would be treated separately to capture approximately 90 percent of the CO 2 from that smaller slip
stream of the flue gas. For example, in order to capture 20 percent o f the CO 2 produced by a coal - fired utility boiler, an operator would treat approximately 25 percent of the bulk flue gas stream (rather than treating the entire stream). Approximately 90 percent of the CO 2 would be captured from the slip
- stream gas – resul ting in an overall capture of about 20 percent. In its study on the cost and performance of a range of carbon capture, the DOE/NETL determined that the slip
- stream approach was the most economical for carbon capture of less than 90 percent of the total CO 2 . 180 The advantage of the slip
- stream

179 See Figure 1A from Atmospheric Environment , 43, 3974 (2009), for an example of this type of configuration. 180 “Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC for a Range of Carbon Capture”, Rev 1 (2013), DOE/NETL
- 2011/1498 p. 2 ( “A literature search was conducted to verify that <90 percent CO 2 capture is most e conomical using a ’ slip
- stream ’ (or bypass) approach. Indeed, the slip
- stream approach is more cost
- effective for <90 percent CO 2 capture than removing reduced CO 2 fractions from the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **203** of **684** approach is that the capture system will be sized to treat a lower volume of flue gas flow , which reduces the size of the CO 2 absorption columns, induced draft fans, and other equipment , leading to lower capital and operating costs. The carbon capture system at Boundary Dam does not utilize the slip
- stream configuration because it was designed to achieve more than 90 percent capture rates from the 110 MW facility. However, the same carbon capture equipment could be us ed to treat approximately 50 percent of the flue gas from a 220 MW facility

– or 20 percent of the flue gas from a 550 MW facility. Thus , the equipment that is currently working very well (in fact, “better than expected”) at the Boundary Dam plant can be
utilized for partial carbon capture at a much larger coal
- fired unit without the need for further scale
- up. The experience at Boundary Dam is directly transferrable to other types of post - combustion sources , including those using different boiler types and those burning different coal type s. There is nothing to suggest that the Shell CanSolv process would not work with other coal types . The EPA is unaware of any reasons why the Boundary Dam technology would not be
entire flue gas stream, according to multiple peer
- reviewed studies. ” See also id. at 19, 21, 77, and 478 (documenting further that treating a slip
- stream is the most economical approach).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **204** of **684** transferrable to another utility boiler at a different location at a different elevation or climate. Commenters also noted that the Boundary Dam Unit #3 project received financial assistance from both the Canadian federal government and from the Saskatchewan provincial government. But the availabil ity of

– or the lack of

– external financial assistance does not affect the technical feasibility of the technology. Commenters further characterized Boundary Dam as a “demonstration project”. These descriptors are beside the point. Regardless of what the project is called or how it was financed , the project clearly shows the technical feasibility of full
scale, fully integrated implementation of available post combustion CCS technology , which in this case also appears to be commercially viable . The EPA notes that, although there is ample additional information corroborating that post
- combustion CCS is technically feasible, which we describe below , the performance at Boundary Dam Unit #3 alone would be sufficient to support that conclusion. As mentioned above, the post - combustion capture technology used at Boundary Dam is transferrable to all other types of utility boilers. b. AES Warrior Run and Shady Point . AES’s coal - fired Warrior Run (Cumberland, MD) and Shady Point (Panama, OK) are both circulating flu idized bed (CFB) coal
- fired power plants with***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **205** of **684** carbon capture amine scrubbers developed by ABB/Lummus. The scrubbers were designed to process a slip
- stream of each plant’s flue gas. At the 180 MW Warrior Run plant, a plant that burns bituminous coal, approximately 10 percent of the plant’s CO 2 emissions (about 110,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year) has been captured since 2000 and sold to the food and beverage industry. At the 320 MW Shady Point Plant, a plant that burns a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coals, CO 2 from an approximate 5 percent slip
- stream (about 66,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year) has been captured since 2001. The captured CO 2 from the S hady Point Plant is also sold for use in the food processing industry. 181 While these projects do not demonstrate the CO2 storage component of CCS, they clearly demonstrate the technical viability of partial CO2 capture. The capture of CO2 from a slip
- stream of the bulk flue gas, as described earlier, is the most economical method for capturing less than 90 percent of the CO2. The amounts of partial capture that these sources have demonstrated

– up to 10 percent

– is reasonably similar to the level, at 16 to 23 percent, that the EPA predicts would be needed by a new highly efficient steam utility boiler to meet

181 Dooley, J. J., et al. (2009). An Assessment of the Commercial Availability of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies as of June 2009. U.S. DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, under Contract DE -AC05
- 76RL01830.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **206** of **684** the final standard of performance. These facilities, which have been operating for multiple years, clearly show the technical feasibility of post - combustion carbon capture.
c. Searles Valley Minerals . Since 1978, the Searles Valley Minerals soda ash plant in Trona, CA, has used post
- combustion amine scrubbing to capture approximately 270,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year from the flue gas of a coal - fired power plant that generates steam and power for on - site use. The captured CO 2 is used for the carbonation of brine in the process of producing soda ash. 182 Again, while the captured CO2 is not stored , this project clearly demonstrates the technical feas ibility of the amine scrubbing system for CO2 capture from a coal
- fired power plant. The fact that this system is an industrial coal
- fired power plant rather than a utility coal
- fired power plant is irrelevant as they both serve a similar purpose

– the pro duction of electricity. Each of these processes indicate a willingness of industry to utilize available post
- combustion technology for capture of CO 2 for commercial purposes. Not one of the CO2 capture systems at Warrior Run, Shady Point, or Searles Valley was installed for regulatory purposes or as government - funded demonstration projects. They were installed to capture CO2 for commercial use.

182 IEA (2009), World Energy Outlook 2009, OECD/IEA, Paris.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **207** of **684** The fact that the captured CO2 was utilized rather than being stored is of no consequence in the consideration of the technical feasibility of post
- combustion CO2 capture technology. These commercial operations have helped to improve the performance of scrubbing systems that are available today. For example the heat duty (i.e., the energy needed to remove the CO 2 ) has been reduced by about 5 times from the amine process originally used at the Searles Valley facility . The amine scrubbing process used at Boundary Dam is equally efficient, and the amine scrubbing system to be used at the Petra Nova WA Parish project ( Thompsons, TX) is projected to be as well . 183 3. Post - combustion Carbon Capture Projects that Received DOE Assistance through the EPAct05 but did not Receive Tax Credits under IRC s ection 48A The EPA considers the experiences from the CCS projects described above, coupled with facts that the design of CCS is well accepted (also described above) and the strong support that CCS has received from vendors and others (described below) to adequately demonstrate that post - combustion partial CCS is

183 The heat duty for the amine scrubbing process used at Searles Valley in the mid
- 70’s was about 12 MJ/mt CO 2 removed as compared to a heat duty of about 2.5 MJ/mt CO 2 removed for the amine processes used at Boundary Dam and to be used at WA Parish. “ From Lubbock, TX to Thompsons, TX - Amine Scrubbing for Commercial CO 2 Capture from Power Plants ”, plenary address by Prof. Gary Rochelle at the 12 th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technology (GHGT - 12), Austin, TX (October 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **208** of **684** technically feasible . The EPA finds that additional projects, described next, provide more support for that conclusion . These projects received funding under EPAct05 from the Department of Energy, but for the reasons discussed below, that does not disqualify them from being considered.
a. Petra Nova WA Parish Project . Petra Nova, a joint venture between NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration, is constructing a commercial
- scale post - combustion carbon capture project at Unit #8 of NRG's WA Parish generating station southwest of Houston, Texas. The project is designed to utilize partial CCS by capturing approximately 90 percent of the CO 2 from a 240 MW slip
- stream of the 610 MW WA Parish facility. The project is expected to be operational in 2016 and, thus does not yet directly demonstrate the technical feasibility or performance of the MHI amine scrubbing system. However, this project is a clear indication that the developers have confidence in the te chnical feasibility of the post - combustion carbon capture system . The project was originally envisioned as a 60 MW slip
stream demonstration and received DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative ( CCPI ) funding (as provided in EPAct05) on that basis. The developers later expanded the project to the larger 240 MW slip
- stream because of the need to capture greater volumes of CO 2 for EOR operations. No additional DOE or other***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **209** of **684** federal funding was obtained for the expansion from a 60 MW slip
- stream to a 240 MW slip
- stream . 184 At 240 MW, the Petra Nova project will be the largest post
combustion carbon capture system installed on an existing coal
fueled power plant. The project will use for EOR or will sequester 1.6 million tons of captured CO 2 each year. The project is expected to be operational in 2016. In 2014 project materials 185 , the project developer NRG recognized the importance of CCS technology by noting: “The technology has the potential to enhance the long
term viability and sustainability of coal
- fueled power plants across the U.S. and around the world. ... Post combustion carbon capture is essential so that we can use coal to sustain our energy ecosystem while we begin reducing our carbon footprint.” According to NRG, the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project will utilize “a proven carbon capture process”, jointly developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) and the Kansai Electric Power Co., that uses a high
-performance solvent

184 Thus, even if the fact that the project received DOE assistance for the initial, 60 MW design, the expansion of the project from 60 MW to 240 MW should not be considered a DOE
assisted project. In any case, as described above, even without consideration of this facility at all, other information adequately demonstrates the technical feasibility of post
combustion CCS. 185 WA Pari sh CO 2 Capture Project Fact Sheet; available at www.nrg.com/documents/business/pla
- 2014
-petranova -waparish
factsheet.pdf (2014)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **210** of **684** for CO 2 absorption and desorption. 186 In using the MHI high
performance solvent, the Petra Nova project will benefit from pilot
- scale testing of this solvent at Alabama Power’s Plant Barry and at other installations. WA Parish Unit #8 came on
- line in 1982 and is thus an existing source that will not be subject to final standards of performance issued in this action. However, since it will be capturing roughly 35 percent of the CO 2 generated by the facility, it s emissions will be below the final new source emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . 187 The captured CO 2 from the WA Parish CO 2 Capture Project will be used in EOR operations at mature oil fields in the Gulf Coast region. Using EOR at Hilcorp's West Ranch Oil Field, the production is expected to be boosted from around 500 barrels per day to approximately 15, 000 barrels per day. Thus the project will utilize all aspects of CCS by capturing CO 2 at the large coal - fired power plant, compressing the CO 2 , transporting it by pipeline to the EOR operations, and injecting it for EOR and eventual geologic storage.

186 The WA Parish project (described earlier) will utilize the KM- CDR Process®, which was jointly developed by MHI and the Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. and uses the proprietary KS
- 1TM high
-performance solvent for the CO 2 absorption and desorption. 187 Using emissions data reported to the Acid Rain Program, the EPA estimates that the CO2 emissions from the WA Parish Unit #8 will be 1,250

– 1,300 lb CO2/MWh
- g during operations with the post - combustion capture system.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **211** of **684** The carbon capture system at WA Parish will utilize a slip
stream configuration. However, as noted , the system is designed to capture roughly 35 percent of the CO 2 from the WA Parish (90 percent of the CO 2 from the 240 MW slip
- stream from the 610 MW unit). A carbon capture system of the same size as that used at WA Parish could be used to treat a 240 MW slip
- stream from a 1,000 MW unit in order to meet the final standard of performance of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . Again, the experience at the WA Parish Unit #8 project will be directly transferable to post
- combustion capture at a new utility boiler , even though WA Parish Unit #8 is an existing
source that has been in operation for over 30 years . In fact, retrofit of such technology at an exi sting unit can be more challenging than incorporating the technology into the design of a new facility. The experience will be directly transferrable to other types of post - combustion sources including those using different boiler types and those burning different coals. The EPA is unaware of any reasons that the technology utilized at the WA Parish plant would not be transferrable to another utility boiler at a different location at a different elevation or climate. b. AEP/Alstom Mountaineer Project . In September 2009, AEP began a pilot
- scale CCS demonstration at its Mountaineer Plant in New***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **212** of **684** Haven, WV. The Mountaineer Plant is a very large (1,300 MW) coal - fired unit that was retrofitted with Alstom’s patented chilled ammonia CO 2 capture technology on a 20 MWe slip
- stream of the plant’s exhaust flue gas. In May 2011, Alstom Power announced the successful operation of the chilled ammonia CCS validation project. The demonstration achieved capture rates from 75 percent (design value) to as high as 90 percent, and produced CO 2 at a purity of greater than 99 percent, with energy penalties within a few percent of predictions. The facility reported robust steady- state operation during all modes of power plant operation including load changes, and saw an availabilit y of the CCS system of greater than 90 percent. 188 AEP, with assistance from the DOE, had planned to expand the slip
- stream demonstration to a commercial scale, fully integrated demonstration at the Mountaineer facility. The commercial
- scale system was desi gned to capture at least 90 percent of the CO 2 from 235 MW of the plant's 1,300 MW total capacity. Plans were for the project to be completed in four phases, with the system to begin commercial operation in 2015. However, in July 2011, AEP announced that i t would terminate its cooperative agreement with the DOE and place its plans to

188 http://www.alstom.com/press
- centre/2011/5/alstom
- announces sucessful - results - of -mountaineer
- carbon - capture - andsequestration
- ccs -project/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **213** of **684** advance CO 2 capture and storage technology to commercial scale on hold . AEP cit ed the uncertain status of U.S. climate policy as a contributor to its decision , and did not express doubts about the feasibility of the technology . AEP also prepared a Front End Engineering & Design (FEED) Report 189 , explaining in detail how its pilot
- scale work could be scaled up to successful full - scale operation, and to accommodate the operating needs of a full - scale EGU, including reliable generating capacity capable of cycling up and down to accommodate consumer demand. Recommended design changes to accomplish the desired scaling included detailed flue gas specifications, ranges for temperature, moisture and SO 2 content; careful scrutiny of makeup water composition and temperature; quality and quantity of available steam to accommodate heat cycle based on unit load changes; and detailed scrutiny of material and energy balances. 190 See [ ] below , addressing in more detail the record support for how CCS

189 [ Insert reference for FEED study, pp 10
- 11] 190 [close up the footnote] Id. at 11. The EPA does not view this information as being affected by the constraints in EPAct05. The information does not relate to use of technology, level of emission reduction by reason of use of technology, achievement of emission reduction by demonstration of technology, or demonstration of a level of performance. The FEED study rather explains engineering challenges which would remain at full scale and how those challenges can be addressed.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **214** of **684** technology can be scaled up to commercial size in both pre
- and post - combustion applications.
c. Southern Company/MHI Plant Barry . In June 2011, Southern Company and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) launched operations at a 25 MW coal
- fired carbon capture facility at Alabama Power’s Plant Barry. The facility, which completed the initial demonstration phase, captured approximately 1 65,000 metric tons of CO 2 annually at a CO 2 capture rate of over 90 percent. The facility employed the KM CDR Process, which uses a proprietary high performing solvent 191 for CO 2 absorption and desorption that was jointly developed by MHI and Japanese utilit y Kansai Electric Power Co. The captured CO 2 from the Plant Barry demonstration project was stored underground in a nearby deep saline geologic formation . E. Pre - Combustion Carbon Capture As described earlier, the EPA does not find that IGCC technology

– e ither alone or implementing partial CCS

– is part of the BSER for newly constructed steam generating EGUs. However, as noted, there may be specific circumstances and business plans

– such as co -production of chemicals or fertilizers, or capture of CO2 for use in EOR operations
- that

191 This is the same carbon capture system that is being utilized at the Pet ra Nova project at the NRG WA Parish plant.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **215** of **684** encourage greater CO2 emission reductions than are required by this standard. In this section, we describe and justify our conclusion that the technical feasibility of pre
- combustion carbon capture is adequately demonstrated. First, we explain the technology of pre - combustion capture. We then describe EGUs that have previously utilized or are currently utilizing pre
combustion carbon capture technology. This discussion is complemented by other sections that conclude the technical feasibility of other aspects of partial CCS are adequately demonstrated

– namely, post - combustion carbon capture (Sec V.D.) and sequestration (Sec. V.L. and Sec. V.M. ). Further, this section’s conclusions are reinforced by Sec. V.F., in which we identify commercial vendors that offer CCS performance guarantees as well as developers that have publicly stated their confidence in CCS technologies. 1. Pre
- combustion Carbon Capture

– How it Works Pre - combustion capture systems are typically used with IGCC processes. In a gasification system, the fuel (usually coal or petroleum coke) is heated with water and oxygen in an oxygen
lean environment. The coal (carbon), water and oxygen react t o form primarily a mixture of hydrogen (H2 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) known as synthesis gas or syngas according to the following high temperature reaction:***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **216** of **684** 3C + H2 O + O 2  H2 + 3CO In an IGCC system, the resulting syngas, after removal of the impurities, can be combusted using a conventional combustion turbine in a combined cycle configuration (i.e., a combustion turbine combined with a heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine ). The gasification process also typically produces some amount of CO 2 192 as a by-product along with other gases (e.g., H2 S) and inorganic materials originating from the coal (e.g., minerals, ash). The amount of CO 2 in the syngas can be increased by “shifting” the composition via the catalytic water
- gas shift (WGS) reaction. This process involves the catalytic reaction of steam (“water”) with CO (“gas”) to form H 2 and CO 2 according to the following catalytic reaction: CO + H2 O  CO 2 + H2 An emission standard that requires partial capture of CO 2 from the syngas could be met by adjusting the level of CO 2 in the syngas stream by controlling the level of syngas “shift” prior to treatment in the pre
- combustion acid gas treatment system. If a high level of CO 2 captu re is required, then multi
-

192 The amount of CO 2 in syngas depends upon the specific gasifier technology used, the operating conditions, and the fuel used; but is typically less than 20 volume percent (http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/co alpower/gasification/gas ifipedia/4
- gasifiers/4
- 3_syngastable2.html).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **217** of **684** stage WGS reactors will be needed and an advanced hydrogen turbine will likely be needed to combust the resulting hydrogen
rich syngas. Most syngas streams are at higher pressure and can contain higher concentrations of CO 2 (espe cially if shifted to enrich the concentration). As such, the pre
- combustion capture systems can utilize physical absorption (physisorption) solvents rather than the chemical absorptions solvents described earlier. Physical absorption has the benefit of rel ying on weak intermolecular interactions and, as a result, the absorbed CO 2 can often be released (desorbed) by reducing the pressure rather than by adding heat. Pre
- combustion capture systems have been used widely in industrial processes such as natural gas processing. Additional information on pre
- combustion carbon capture can be found in a summary technical support document. 193 2. Pre - Combustion Carbon Capture Projects that have not Received DOE Assistance through EPAct05 or Tax Credits under IRC S ection 48A
a. Dakota Gasification Great Plains Synfuels Plant . Each day the Dakota Gasification’s Great Plains Synfuels Plant uses

193 Technical Support Document

– “Literature Survey of Carbon Capture Technology”, available in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **218** of **6 84**  approximately 18,000 tons of North Dakota lignite in a coal gasification process which produces syngas (a mixture of carbon monoxide , carbon dioxide, and hydrogen) which is then converted to methane gas (synthetic natural gas) using a methanation process. Each day the process produces an average of 145 million cubic feet of synthetic natural gas that is ultimately transported for use i n home heating and electricity generation. 194 Capture of CO 2 from the facility began in 2000. The Synfuels Plant, using a pre
- combustion Rectisol® process, captures about 3 million tons of CO 2 per year - more CO 2 from coal conversion than any facility in the world, and is a participant in the world's largest carbon sequestration project. On average about 8,000 metric tons per day of captured CO 2 from the facility is sent through a 205
-mile pipeline to oil fields i n Saskatchewan, Canada, where it is used for EOR operations that result in permanent CO 2 geologic storage. The geologic sequestration of CO 2 in the oil reservoir is monitored by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Weyburn CO 2 Monitoring and Storage Proje ct.

194 http://www.dakotagas.com/Gasification/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **219** of **684** Several commenters to the January 2014 proposal argued that the Great Plains Synfuels facility is not an EGU, that it operates as a chemical plant, and that its experience is not translatable to an IGCC using pre
- combustion carbon capture technology. The commenters noted that the Dakota facility can be operated nearly continuously without the need to adjust operations to meet cyclic electricity generation demands. In the January 2014 proposal the EPA had noted that while the facility is not an EGU, it has significant similarities to an IGCC, and that the implementation of the pre
- combustion capture technology would be similar enough for comparison. See 79 FR at 1435
- 36 and n. 11. We continue to hold this view. As explained above, in an IGCC gasification system, coal (or petroleum coke) is gasified to produce a synthesis gas comprised of primarily of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2 ) and some amount of CO 2 (depending on the gasifier and the specific operating conditions). A water - ga s - shift reaction using water (H2 O, steam) is then used to shift the syngas to CO 2 and H2 . The more the syngas is “shifted” the more enriched it becomes in H2 . In an IGCC , power can be generated by directly combusting the un
- shifted syngas in a conventional combustion turbine. If the syngas is shifted such that the resulting syngas is highly enriched in H2 , then a special, advance d hydrogen***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **220** of **684** turbine is needed. If CO 2 is to be captured, then the syngas would need to be shifted either fully or partially, depending upon the level of capture required. 195 The Dakota Gasification process bears essential similarities to the just
- described IGCC gasification system . As with the IGCC gasification system, the Dakota Gasification facility gasifies coal (lignite) to produce a syngas which is then shifted to increase the concentration of CO 2 and to produce the desired ratio of CO and H2 . As with the IGCC gasification system, the CO 2 is then removed in a pre
- combustion capture system , and the syngas that results is made further use of. For present purposes, it is only the manner in which the syngas is used that distinguishes the IGCC gasification system from the Dakota Gasification facility. In the IGCC process, the syngas is combus t ed. In the Dakota Gasification facility, the s yngas is processed through a catalytic methanation process where the CO and H2 react to produce CH 4 (methane, synthetic natural gas) and water. Importantly, the CO 2 capture system that is used in the Dakota Gasification facility can readily be used in an I GCC EGU. There is no indication that the RECTISOL® process (or other similar physical gas removal systems) is not feasible for an

195 “Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC for a Range of Carbon Capture”, Rev 1 (2013), DOE/NETL
- 2011/1498.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **221** of **684** IGCC EGU. In confirmation, a ccording to product literature, RECTISOL®, which was independently developed by Linde and Lurgi, i s frequently used to purify shifted, partially shifted or un
shifted gas from the gasification of coal, lignite, and residual oil. 196 b. International projects . There are some international projects that are in various stages of development that indicate confidence by the developers in the technical feasibility of pre - combustion carbon capture. Summit Carbon Capture, LLC is developing the Caledonia Clean Energy Project, a proposed 570
- megawatt, IGCC plant with 90 percent CO 2 capture that would be built in Scotland, U.K. Captured CO 2 from the plant will be transported via on
- shore and sub - sea pipeline for sequestration in a saline formation in the North Sea. The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) recently announced funding to allow for feasibility studies for this plant. 197 Commercial operation is expected in 2017. 198 The China Huaneng Group

– with multiple collaborators, including Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private sector

196 www.linde
engineering.com/en/process_plants/hydrogen_and_synthesis_gas_pla nts/gas_processing/rectisol_wash/index.html 197 http://www.downstreambusiness.com/item/Summit
- Power -Wins
Funding
- Studies
- Proposed- IGCC - CCS - Project_140878 198 http://www.summitpower.com/projects/carbon
- capture/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **222** of **684** coal company - is building the 400 MW GreenGen IGCC facility in Tianjin City, China. The goal is to complete the power plant before 2020 . Over 80 percent of the CO 2 will be separated us ing pre - combustion capture technology. The captured CO 2 will be used for EOR operations. 199 Vattenfall and Nuon’s pilot project in Bugennum, The Netherlands involves carbon capture from a coal - and biomass
fired IGCC plants. It has operated since 2011. 200 Approximately 100 tons of CO 2 per day are captured from a coal - and petcoke - fired IGCC plant in Puertollano, Spain. The facility began operating in 2010. 201 Emirates Steel Industries is expected to capture approximately 0 .8Mt of CO 2 per year from a steel -production facility in the United Arab Emirates . Full - scale operations are scheduled to begin by 2016. 202

199 http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/greengen.html 200 Buggenum Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies @ MIT, http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/buggenum.html (last visited ). 201 Puertollano Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies @ MIT, https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/puertollanto.html (last visited ). 202 ESI CCS Project Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide and Storage Project, Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technolog ies @ MIT, http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/esi
- ccs -project (last visited ).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **223** of **684** The Uthmaniyah CO 2 EOR Demonstration Project in Saudi Arabia will capture 0.8 Mt of CO 2 from a natural gas processing plant over three years. It is expected to begin operating in 2015 . 203 The experience of the Dakota Gasification facility, coupled with the descriptions of the technology in the literature, the statements from vendors, and the experience of facilities internationally, are sufficient to support our determination that the technical feasibility of CCS for an IGCC facility is adequately demonstrated. The experience of additional facilities, described next, provides additional support. 3 . Pre - Combustion Carbon Capture Projects that have Received DOE Assistance through EPAct05 but did not Receive Tax C redits under IRC S ection 48A
a. Coffeyville Fertilizer . Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC, owns and operates a nitrogen fertilizer facility in Coffeyville, Kansas. The plant began operation in 2000 and is the only one in North America using a petroleum coke -based fertilizer production process. The petroleum coke is generated at an oil refinery adjacent to the plant. The petroleum coke is gasified to produce a hydrogen rich synthetic

203 Utmaniyah CO 2 EOR Demonstration Project, Global CCS Institute, http://www.globalccsinstitue.com/project/uthmaniyah
- co2
- eor demonstration
-project
- 0 (last visited ).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **224** of **684** gas, from which ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate fertilizers are subsequently synthesized. As a by
‐ product of manufacturing fertilizers, the plant also produces significant amounts of CO 2 . In March 2011, Chaparral Energy announced a long- term agreement for the purchase of captured CO 2 which is transported 68 miles via CO 2 pipeline for use in EOR operations in Osage County, OK. Injection at the site started in 2013. At least one commenter suggested that the cost and complexity of carbon capture from these and other industrial projects was significantly decreased because the sources already separate CO 2 as part of their normal operations. The EPA finds this argument unconvincing. The Coffeyville process involves gasification of a solid fossil fuel (pet coke), shifting the resulting syngas stream, and separation of the resulting CO 2 using a pre
- combustion carbon capture system. These are the same, or very similar, processes that are used in an IGCC EGU. The argument is even less convinci ng when considering that the Coffeyville Fertilizer process uses the SelexolTM pre
- combustion capture process
– the same process that Mississippi Power described as having been “in commercial use in the chemical industry for decades” and is expected by Miss issippi Power to “pose little technology risk” when used at the Kemper IGCC EGU.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **225** of **684** 4. Pre - Combustion Carbon Capture Projects that have Received DOE Assistance Through EPAct05 and Tax Credits Under IRC S ection 48A
a. Kemper County Energy Facility . Southern Company’s subsidiary Mississippi Power has constructed the Kemper County Energy Facility in Kemper County, MS. This is a 582 MW IGCC plant that will utilize local Mississippi lignite and includes a pre
combustion carbon capture system to reduce CO 2 emissions by approximately 65 percent. The pre - combustion solvent, SelexolTM has also been used extensively for acid gas removal (including for CO 2 removal) in various processes. In filings with the Mississippi Public Service Commission for the Kemper proj ect, Mississippi described the carbon capture system: The Kemper County IGCC Project will capture and compress approximately 65% of the Plant's CO 2 [...] a process referred to as SelexolTM is applied to remove the CO 2 such that it is suitable for compression and delivery to the sequestration and EOR process. [...} The carbon capture equipment and processes proposed in this project have been in commercial use in the chemical industry for decades and pose little technology risk. (emphasis added) 204
Thus , Mississippi Power believes that, because the SelexolTM process has been in commercial use in the chemical industry for

204 Mississippi Power Company, Kemper County IGCC Certificate Filing, Updated Design, Description and Cost of Kemper IGCC Project, Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) DOCKET NO. 2009
- UA- 0014, filed December 7, 2009.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **226** of **684** decades, it is well proven, and will pose little technical risk when used in the Kemper IGCC EGU. b. Texas Clean Energy Project and Hydro gen Energy California Project. The Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP) , a 400 MW IGCC facility located near Odessa, Texas will capture 90 percent of its CO 2 , which is approximately 3 million metric tons annually. The captured CO 2 will be used for EOR in the West Texas Permian Basin. Additionally, the plant will produce urea and smaller quantities of commercial
- grade sulfuric acid, argon, and inert slag, all of which will also be marketed. Summit has announced that they expect to commence construction on the p roject in 2015. 205 The facility will utilize the Linde Rectisol® gas cleanup process to capture carbon dioxide 206

– the same process that has been deployed for decades, including at the Dakota Gasification facility , a clear indication of the developer’s confidence in that technology and further evidence that the Dakota Gasification carbon capture technology is transferable to E GU s . F. Vendor Guarantees, Industry Statements, Academic Literature , and Commercial Availability

205 “Odessa coal - to - gas power plant to break ground this year”, Houston Chronicle (April 1, 2015). 206 http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com/project/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **227** of **684** In this section, we describe additional information that supports our determination that CCS is adequately demonstrated to be technically feasible. This includes performance guarantees from vendors , public statements from industry officials , and review of the literature. 1. Performance Guarantees The D.C. Circuit made clear in its first cases concerning CAA section 111 standards, and has affirmed since then, that performance guarantees from vendors are an important basis for support ing a determination that pollution technology is adequately demonstrated to be technically feasible. In 1973, in Essex Chem. Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 440 (D.C. Cir. 1973) , the Court upheld standards of performance for coal - fired steam generators based on “prototype testing data and full - scale control systems, considerations of available fuel supplies, literature sources, and documentation of manufacturer guarantees and expectations ” (emphasis supplied) ) . 207 Subsequently, in Sierra Club v. Costle, the Court noted, in upholding the standard: “we

207 See also Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 375, 401
- 02 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (“It would have been entirely appropriate if the Administrator had justified the standards ... on testimony from experts and vendors made part of the record.”) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **228** of **684** find it informative that the vendors of FGD equipment corroborate the achievability of the standard.” 208 Linde and BASF offer performance guarantees for carbon capture technology. The two companies are jointly marketing new, advanced technology for capturing CO 2 from low pressure gas streams in power or chemical plants. In product literature 209 they note that Linde will provide a turn
- key carbon capture plant using a scrubbing process and solvents developed by BASF, one of the world’s leading technical supplier s for gas treatment. They further note that:

The captured carbon dioxide can be used commercially for example for EOR (enhanced oil recovery) or as a building block for the production of urea. Alternatively it can be store d underground as a carbon abatement measure. [...] The PCC (Post - Combustion Capture) technology is now commercially available for lignite and hard coal fired power plant [...] applications. The alliance between Linde, a world
- leading gases and engineering company and BASF, the chemical company, offers great benefits [...] Complete capture plants including CO 2 compression and drying ... Proven

208 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298, 364 (D.C. Cir. 1981) . See also National Petrochem & Refiners Assn v. EPA, 287 F. 3d 1130, 1137 (D.C. Cir 2002) (noting that vendor guarantees are an indicia of availability and achievability of a technology
-based standard since, notwithstanding a desire to promote sales, “a manufacturer would risk a considerable loss of reputation if its technology could not fulfill a mandate that it had persuaded EPA to adopt”). 197 www.intermediates.basf.com/chemicals/web/gas
treatment/en/function/conversions:/publish/content/products
- andindustries/gas
- treatment/images/Linde_and_BASF
Flue_Gas_Carbon_Capture_Plants.pdf .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **229** of **684** and tested processes including guarantee
... Synergies between process, engineering, construction and operation
... Optimiz ed total and operational costs for the owner. (emphasis added) In addition, other well - established companies that either offer technologies that are actively marketed for CO 2 capture from fossil fuel
- fired power plants or that develop those power plants , have publicly expressed confidence in the technical feasibility of carbon capture . For example, Fluor has developed patented CO 2 recovery technologies to help its clients reduce GHG emissions. The Fluor product literature 210 specifically points to Econamine FG Plus SM process which uses an amine solvent to capture and produce food grade CO 2 from post - combustion sources. The literature further note s that Econamine FG Plus SM (EFG+) is also used for carbon capture and sequestration projects , that the proprietary technology provides a proven, cost - effective process for the removal of CO 2 from power plant flue gas streams and that the process can be customized to meet a power plant's unique site requirements, flue gas conditions, and operating parameters . Fluor has also published an article titled “Commercially Available CO 2 Capture Technology” in which it describe s the EFG+

210 www.fluor. com/client
-markets/energy
- chemicals/Pages/carbon
capture.aspx***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **230** of **684** technology. 211 The article note s, “Technology for the removal of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from flue gas streams has been around for quite some time. The technology was developed not to address the GHG effect but to provide an economic source of CO 2 for use in enhanced oil recovery and industrial purposes, such as in the beverage industry.” Mitshubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) offers a CO 2 capture system that uses a proprietary energy
- efficient CO 2 absorbent called KS - 1TM. Compared with the conventional monoethanolamine (MEA) -based absorbent, KS - 1TM solvent requires less solvent circulation to capture the CO 2 and less energy to recover the captured CO 2 . In addition, Shell has developed the CANSOLV CO 2 Capture System, which Shell describes i n its product literature 212 a s a world leading amine based CO 2 capture technology that is ideal for use in fossil fuel
- fired power plants where enormous amounts of CO 2 are generated. The company also note s that the technology can help refiners, utilities and other industries lower their carbon intensity and meet stri ngent GHG abatement regulations by

211 http://www.powermag.com/commercially
- available
- co2
- capture technology/ 212 www.shell.com/global/products
- services/solutions
- for businesses/globalsolutions/shell
- cansolv/shell
- cansolvsolutions/c o2
- capture.html***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **231** of **684** removing CO 2 from their exhaust streams, with the added benefit of simultaneously lowering SO 2 and NO 2 emissions. 2. Academic and Other L iterature Climate change mitigation options

– including CCS - are the subject of great academic interest and there is a large body of academic literature on the se options and their technical feasibility . In addition, other research organizations (e.g., U.S. national laboratories and others) have also published studies on these subjects that demonstrate the availability of these technologies . A compendium of relevant literature is provided in a Technical Support Document available in the rulemaking docket. 213 3 . Additional S tatements by Technology Developers The discussion above of vendor guarantees, positive statements by industry officials, and the academic literature supports the EPA’s determination that partial CCS is adequately demonstrated to be technically feasible. Industry officials have made additional positive statement s in conjunction with facilities that received DOE assistance under EPAct05 or the IRC section 48A tax credit

– these statements provide further, although not necessary, support .
213 Technical Support Document

– “Literature Survey of Carbon Capture Technology”, available in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **232** of **684** For example, Southern Company’s Mississippi Power has stated that , because the SelexolTM process has been used in industry for decades , the technical risk of its use at the Kemper IGCC facility is minimized . For example:

The carbon capture process being utilized for the Kemper County IGCC is a commercial technology referred to as SelexolTM. The SelexolTM process is a commercial technology that uses proprietary solvents, but is based on a technology and principles that have been in commercial use in the chemical industry for over 40 years. Thus, the risk associated with the design and operation of the carbon capture equipment incorporated into the Plant’s design is manageable. 214 And ... “The carbon capture equipment and processe s proposed in this project have been in commercial use in the chemical industry for decades and pose little technology risk.”215 Similarly, in an AEP Second Quarter 2011 Earnings Conference Call, Chairman and CEO Mike Morris said of the Mountaineer CCS proj ect:

“We are encouraged by what we saw, we’re clearly impressed with what we learned, and we feel that we have demonstrated to a certainty that the carbon capture and storage is in fact viable technology for the United States and quite honestly for the res t of the world going forward.”216

214 Testimony of Thomas O. Anderson, Vice President, Generation Development for Mississippi Power, MS Public Service Commission Docket 2009
- UA- 14 at 22 (Dec. 7, 2009) . 215 Mississippi Power Company, Kemper County IGCC Certificate Filing, Updated Design, Description and Cost of Kemper IGCC Project, Mississippi Public Service Commission ( MPSC) DOCKET NO. 2009
- UA- 0014, filed December 7, 2009. 216 American Electric Power Co Inc AEP Q2 2011 Earnings Call Transcript, Morningstar,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **233** of **684**
Some commenters have claimed that CCS technology is not technically feasible , and some further assert that vendors do not offer performance guarantees. For example, Alstom commented:

The EPA referenced projects fail to mee t the 'technically feasible' criteria. These technologies are not operating at significant scale at any site as of the rule publication. We do not support mandating technology based on proposed projects (many of which may never be built). 217
As discussed above, in fact, vendors do offer performance guarantees . Moreover, as noted above, Boundary Dam Unit #3 is a full - scale project that is successfully implementing full CCS with post
- combustion capture, and Dakota Gasification is likewise a full
- scale commercial operation that is successfully implementing pre
- combustion CCS technology. Moreover, as we explain above, this technology and performance is transferable to the steam electric generating sector. In addition, as noted above, t echnology providers and technology end users have expressed confidence in the availability and performance of CCS technology . 218 http://www.morningstar.com/earnings/28688913
- american
- electric
power - co - incaep
- q2
- 201 1
- earnings
- call - transcript.aspx. 217 Alstom Comments , p. 3. 218 We note that before filing comments for this rule asserting that CCS is not technically feasible, Alstom issued public statements that, like the other industry officials quoted above, affirmed that CCS is technically feasible. According to an***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **234** of **684** G. Response to Key Comments on the Adequacy of the Technical Feasibility Demonstration 1. Commercial Availability Some commenters asserted that CCS cannot be considered the BSER because it is not commercially available. There is no requirement, as part of the BSER determination, that the EPA finds that the t echnology in question is “commercially available”. As we described in the January 2014 proposal, the D.C. Circuit has explained that a standard of performance is “achi evable” if a technology or other system of emission reduction can reasonably be projected to be available to new sources at the time they are constructed that will allow them to meet the standard , and that there is no requirement that the technology “must be in routine use somewhere” . See Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F. 2d at 391; 79 FR 1463 . In any
case , as discussed above, CCS technology is available through vendors who provide performance guarantees, which indicates that in fact, CCS is commercial ly available, which adds to the

Alstom Power press release, Alstom President Phillipe Joubert, referencing results from an internal Alstom study, stated at an industry meeting : “We can now be confident that carbon capture technology (CCS) works and that it is cost effective”. http://www.alstom.com/p ress - centre/2011/6/2011
- 06
- 16
- CCS - cost competiveness/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **235** of **684** evidence that the technology is adequately demonstrated to be technically feasible. 2. Must a technology or system of emission reduction be in full scale use to be considered demonstrated ? C ommenters maintained that the EPA can only show that a BSER is “adequately demonstrated” using operating data from the technology or system of emission reduction itself . This is mistaken. Since the very inception of the CAA section 111 program, courts have noted that “[i]t would have been entirely appropriate if the Administrator had justified the standard, not on the basis of tests on existing sources or old test data in the literature, but on extrapolations from this data, on a reasoned basis responsive t o comments, and on testimony from experts and vendors ....” Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F. 2d at 401
- 02 . 219 In any event, as discussed above, Boundary Dam

219 More recently, the D.C. Circuit stated: Our prior decisions relating to technology
- forcing standards are no bar to this conclusion. We recognize here, as we have recognized in the past, that an agency may base a standard or mandate on future technology when there exists a rational connection between the regulatory target and the presumed innovation. API v. EPA, 706 F. 3d at 480 (D.C. Cir 2013) ( citing the section 111 case Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F. 2d at 364 ). The Senate Report to the original section 111 likewise makes clear that it was not intended that the technology “must be in actual routine use somewhere.” Rather, the question was whether the technology***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **236** of **684** has provided data from the operation of the CCS equipment itself. In a related argument, other c ommenters stated that a system cannot be adequately demonstrated unless all of its component parts are operating together. 220 Courts have, in fact, accepted that the EPA can legitimately infer that a technology is demonstrated as a whole based on operation o f component parts which have not, as yet, been fully integrated. Sur Contra la Contaminacion v. EPA, 202 F . 3d 443, 448 (1 st Cir 2000); Native Village of Point Hope v Salazar 680 F . 3d 1123, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012). Moreover, all components of CCS are fully integrated at Boundary Dam: post - combustion full CCS is being utilized at a steam electric fossil fuel
- fired plant, with captured carbon being transported via dedicated pipeline to both sequestration and EOR sites . All components are likewise demonstrated for pre
combustion full CCS at the Dakota Gas IGCC facility, except that the facility does not generate electricity, a distinction without a difference for this purpose (see above ). The short of it is that the “EPA does have authority to hold the industry to a standard of improved design and operational advances, so long as there is substantial evidence
would be available for installation in new plants. S.Rep. No.9 1
- 1196, 91 st Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1970). 220 See e.g. Comments of UARG p. 5 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **237** of **684** that such improvements are feasible and will produce the improved performance nece ssary to meet the standard.” Sierra Club , 657 F. 2d at 364. The EPA’s task is to “ identify the major steps necessary for development of the device, and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining”. API v. EPA, 706 F. 3d at 480 (quoting NRDC v. EPA , 655 F. 2d 318, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1981), and citing Sierra Club for this proposition). 3 . Scalability of P ilot and Demonstration P rojects Commenters maintained that EPA had no basis for maintaining that pilot and demonstration plant operations showed that CCS was adequately demonstrated. This is mistaken. In a 1981 decision, Sierra Club v. Costle , the D.C. Circuit explained that data from pi lot - scale, or less than full - scale operation, can be shown to reasonably demonstrate performance at full - scale operation, although it is incumbent on the EPA to explain the necessary steps involved in scaling up a technology and how any obstacles may reasonably be surmounted when doing so. 221 The EPA has done so here.

221 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F. 2d 298, 341 n.157 and 380
- 84 (D.C. Cir. 1981). See also Essex Chemical Corp. v. EPA , 486 F. 2d at 440 (upholding achievability of standard of performance for coal -burning steam generating plants which hadn’t been achieved in full
- scale performance based in part on “prototype testing data” which, along with vendor guarantees, indicated that the promulgated standard was achievable); Weyerhaeuser v.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **238** of **684** Most obviously, the final standard reflects experience of full - scale operation of both pre
- and post - combustion carbon capture. Second, the record explains in detail how CCS can be implemented at full - scale. The NETL cost and performance reports, indeed, contain hundreds of pages of detailed, documented explanation of how CCS can be implemented at full
scale for both utility boiler and IGCC facilities. See, for example, the detailed description of the following systems projected to be needed for a new supercritical PC boiler to capture CO 2 : coal and sorbent receiving and storage, steam generator and ancillaries, NOX control system, particulate control, flue gas desulfurization, flue gas system, CO 2 recovery facility, steam turbine generator system, balance of plant, and accessory electric plant, and instrumentation and control systems. 222 The DOE/ NETL is explicit that its studies confirm the technical feasibility of CCS, stating, in relevant part, that the “studies ... establish estimates for the cost and performance of combustion and gasification based power plants

Costle , 590 F. 2d 1054 n. 170 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (use of pilot plant information to justify technology
-based standard for Best Available Technology Economically Achievable under section 304 of the Clean Water Act); FMC Corp. v. Train , 539 F. 2d 973, 983
- 84 (4 th Cir. 1976)(same ) . 222 Cost and Performance Baseline fo r Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1 : Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity; Revision 2a, pp. 57 - 74.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **239** of **684** ... with ... carbon dioxide capture and storage. Several ranks of coal are being assessed in process configurations that are based on technology that could be constructed today such that the plant could be operational in the 2012
- 2015 timeframe.” 223 It is important to note that, while some commenters challenged EPA’s use of costs in the DOE/NETL cost and performance reports, commenters did not challenge the technical methodology in the work. In addition, the AEP FEED study indicates how the development scale post - combustion CCS could be successfully scaled up to full scale operation. See V.D.3.b above. Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLC also prepared a FEED study224 for the carbon capture portion of the previously proposed Trailblazer Energy Center, a 760 MW SCPC EGU that was proposed to include 85 to 90 percent CO2 post - combustion capture. Tenaska selected the Fluor Econamine FG Plus SM technology and contracted Fluor to conduct the FEED study. One of the goals of the FEED study was to “ [c] onfirm that scale up to a large commercial size is achievable”. T enaska ultimately concluded that the study had achieved its objectives resulting in “ [c] onfirmation that the technology can be scaled up to
223 http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy
- analysis/energy
baseline
- studies. 224 http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/tenaska
trailblazer
- front - end- engineering
- design
- feed- study at p.[ ] .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **240** of **684** constructable design at commercial size through (1) process and discipline engineering design and CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analysis, (2) 3D model development, and (3) receipt of firm price quotes for large equipment. ” Much has been written about the complexitie s of adding CCS systems to fossil fuel
- fired power plants. Some of these statements come from high government officials. Some commenters argued that the EPA minimized

– or even ignored

– these publically voiced concerns in the discussion presented in the January 2014 proposal. On the contrary, the EPA has not minimized or ignored these complexities , but it is important to realize that most of these statements come in a different context: namely, implementing full CCS, or retrofitting CCS onto existing power plants . For example, i n the Final Report of the President’s CCS Task Force, it was noted that “integration of CCS technologies with the power cycle at generating plants can present significant cost and operating issues that will need to be addressed to fa cilitate widespread, cost
- effective deployment of CO 2 capture.” 225 This statement

– and most of the statements

225 Report o f the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (August 2010), page 28 . See also DOE Carbon Capture Website: “First generation CO2 capture technologies are currently being used in various industrial applications. However, in their current state of development, these technologies are not ready for implementation on coal
-based***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **241** of **684** in this vein

– are in reference to implementation of full CCS systems that capture more than 90 percent of the CO 2 and many reference widespread implementation of such technology. The EPA has addressed the concerns regarding “significant cost” by finalizing a standard that relies on partial CCS which we show, in this preamble and in the supporting record, can be implemented at a reasonable , non - exorbitant cost. Concerns regarding “operating issues” are also often associated with implementation of full CCS

– and often with implementation of full CCS as a retrofit to an existing source. The EPA addresses technical feasibility of partial CCS in this final action . The Boundary Dam facility, in particular, demonstrates that the complexities of implementing CCS

– even full CCS

– can be overcome. Many of the challenges that are often noted are only issues for implementation o f CCS retrofits for existing sources. Implementation of CCS at some existing
power plants because they have not been demonstrated at appropriate scale, requisite approximately one
- third of the plant’s steam power to operate, and are cost prohibitive . ” (Dec 2010); and Testimony of Dr. S. Julio Friedmann, Deputy Asst. Secretary of Energy for Clean Coal, US Dept. of Ene rgy, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce (Feb. 11, 2014): CCS technologies at new coal - fired plants would result in "something like a 70 to 80 percent increase on the wholesale price of electricity."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **242** of **684** sources may be challenging because of space limitations. That should not be an issue for a new facility because the developer will need to ensure that adequate space is available during the design of the facility. Constructing CCS technology at an existing facility can be challenging even if there is adequate space because the positioning of the equipment may be awkward when it must be constructed to fit with the existing equipment at the plant. Some commenters noted the challenges of diverting steam from the plant’s steam cycle. Again, that is primarily an issue with full CCS implementation as a retrofit to an existing source. Consideration of steam requirements for solvent regeneration can be factored into the design of a new facility. We also note that issues of integration with the plant’s steam cycle are less challenging when implementing partial CCS. Some commenters noted conclusions and statements from the CCS Task Force report as contradictory to EPA’s determination of that partial CCS is technically feasible and adequately demonstrated. However, the EPA mentioned in the January 2014 proposal , and we emphasize again here , that the Task Force was charged with proposing a plan t o overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost
- effective deployment of CCS by 2020. Implicit in all of the conclusions, recommendations, and statements of that final report is a goal of widespread implementation of full CCS

– including retrofits of existi ng sources. This final action***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **243** of **684** does not require

– nor does it envision

– the near term widespread implementation of full CCS. On the contrary, as we have noted several times in this preamble, the EPA and others predict that very few , if any, new coal - fired steam generating EGUs will be built in the near term. Thus, the EPA has provided an ample record supporting its finding that partial CCS is feasible at full
- scale. As in Sierra Club , the EPA has presented evidence from full
- scale operation, smaller scale installations, and reasonable, corroborated technical explanations of how the BSER can be successfully operated at full scale. See 657 F. 2d at 380, 382. Indeed, the EPA has more evidence here, as the baghouse standard in Sierra Club was justified based largely on less than full scale operation. See 657 F. 2d at 380 (there was only “limited data from one full scale commercial sized operation”) , 376 (“the baghouses surveyed were installed at small plants”), and 341 n. 157. H. Consideration of Costs CAA section 111(a) defines “standard of performance” as an emission standard that reflects the best system of emission reduction that is adequately demonstrated, “taking into account [among other things] the cost of achieving such reduction.” Based on consideration of relevant cost metrics in the context***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **244** of **684** of current market conditions, the EPA concludes that the costs associated with the final standard are reasonable. In reaching this determination, the EPA considered a host of different cost metrics, each of which illuminated a particular aspect of cost consideration, and each of which demonstrated that the costs of the final standard are reasonable. The EPA evaluated capital costs on a per -plant bas is, responding to public comment that noted the particular significance of capital costs for fossil steam EGUs . As in the proposal, the EPA also considered how the standard would affect the levelized cost of electricity for individual affected EGUs as well as national, overall cost impacts of the standard . The EPA found that the anticipated cost impacts are similar to those in other promulgated NSPS

– including for this industry
- that have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit. The costs are also comparable to those of other base load technologies that might be selected on comparable energy portfolio diversity grounds. In addition, in an analysis of the impacts of adding the BSER control technology to a single illustrative facility, the EPA concluded that the ma rginal costs are within the range of the marginal monetized social benefits. Finally, the EPA does not anticipate any significant overall nationwide costs or cost impacts on consumers. Accordingly, after considering costs from***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **245** of **684** a range of different perspect ives, the EPA conclude s that the costs of the final standard are reasonable. 1. Rationale at P roposal At proposal, the EPA evaluate d the costs of new fossil steam EGUs implementing full (90 percent) and partial CCS . The EPA compared the predicted levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of those units against the LCOE of other new dispatchable technologies often considered for new base load power with fuel diversity , primarily including a new nuclear plant , as well as a new biomass
- fired EGU. See 79 FR at 1475
- 78. The levelized cost for a new steam EGU implementing full CCS was higher than that of the other non -NGCC dispatchable technologies, and we did not propose to identify a new steam EGU implementing full CCS as BSER on that basis. Id. at 1477. The EPA proposed that a standard of performance of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , reflecting a new steam EGU implementing partial CCS, could be achieved at reasonable cost based on a comparison of the projected LCOE associated with achieving this standard with the alternative dispatchable technologies just mentioned . In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA used LCOE projections for new fossil fuel
fired EGUs from a series of studies conducted by the DOE NETL. These studies

– the “cost and performance studie s”

– detail expected costs and performance for a range of technology options***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **246** of **684** both with and without CCS. 226 The EPA used LCOE projections for
non - fossil dispatchable generation

– specifically nuclear and biomass

– from the EIA AEO2013. See 79 FR 1435. In addition, the EPA proposed that the costs to implement partial CCS were reasonable because a segment of the industry was already accommodating them. Id. at 1478. The EPA also considered anticipated decreases in the cost of CCS technologies, the availabi lity of government tax benefits, loan guarantees, and direct expenditures, and the opportunity to generate income from sale of captured CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery. Id. at 1478
- 80. The EPA noted that the proposed standard was not expected to lead to any significant overall costs or effects on electricity prices. Id. at 1480
- 81. The EPA also acknowledged the overall market context, noting that fossil steam EGUs, even without any type of CCS, are significantly more expensive than new natural
- gas fired electricity generation, but that some electricity suppliers might include new fossil steam

226 For the cost estimates in the January 2014 proposal , the EPA used costs for new SCPC and IGCC units utilizing bituminous coal from the reports “ Co st and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy P lants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to El ectricity”, Revision 2, Report DOE/NETL

– 2010/1397 (November 2010) and “Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Di oxide Capture”, DOE/NETL

– 2011/ 1498, May 27, 2011. Additional cost and performance information can be found in additional volume s that are available at http:// www.netl.do e.gov/ research/energy
- analysis/energy
baseline
- studies***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **247** of **684** generating sources in their generation portfolio, and would pay a premium to do so. Id. at 1478. 2. Brief Summary of C ost C onsiderations under CAA Section 111 As explained above, CAA section 111(a) directs the EPA to

“ tak[e] into account the cost” of achieving reductions in determining if a particular system of emission reduction is the best that is adequately demonstrated. The statute does not provide further guidance on how costs should be considered, thus affording the EPA considerable discretion in choosing a means of cost consideration. In addition, it should be not ed that i n evaluating reasonableness of costs , the D.C. Circuit has upheld application of a variety of metrics, such as the amount of control costs or product price increases . See III.H.3. (b)(1) above. Following the directive of CAA s ection 111(a) and applicable precedent, the EPA evaluated relevant metrics and context in considering the reasonableness of the regulation’s costs. The EPA’s findings demonstrate that the costs of the selected final standard are reasonable. 3. Current C ontext The EIA projects that few new fossil steam EGUs will be constructed over the coming decade and that those that are built will apply CCS , reflecting the broad consensus of government,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **248** of **684** academic, and industry forecasters . 227 The primary reasons for this projected trend include low electricity demand growth , highly competitive natural gas prices, and increases in the supply of renewable energy. In particular, U . S . electricity demand growth has followed a downward sloping trend for decades with future growth expected to remain very low. 228 Furthermore, the EPA projects that for any new fossil fuel
- fired electricity generating capacity that is constructed through 2030 , natural gas will be the overwhelming fuel of choice. The EIA’s projection is confirmed by an examination of Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) contained in a TSD in the docket for this rulemaking. IRPs are used by utilities to plan operations and investments in both owned generation and power purchase agreements over long time horizons. Though IRPs do not demonstrate a utility’s intent to pursue a particular generation technology, they do indicate the types of new generating technologies that a utility would consider for new generating capacity. The EPA’s surve y of recent IRPs demonstrates that across the nation, utilities are not actively considering

227 Even in its sensitivity analysis that assumes higher natural gas prices and electricity demand , EIA does not project any additional coal beyond its reference case until 2023, in a case where power companies assume no GHGs emission limitations , and until 2024 in a case where power compani es do assume GHGs emission limitations . 228 EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2014,” Figure MT
- 29, May 7, 2014.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **249** of **684** constructing new fossil steam generation without CCS in the near term. Accordingly, construction of new uncontrolled fossil steam generating capacity is not anticipated in the near term , even in the absence of the standards of performance we are finalizing today , except perhaps in certain limited circumstances. In particular, commenters suggested that some developers might choose to build a new coal
- f ired EGU, despite its not being cost competitive , in order to achieve or maintain “ fuel diversity . ” Fuel diversity could provide important value by
serving as a hedge against the possibility that future natural gas prices will far exceed projected levels. Public announcements including IRPs confirm that utilities are interested in technologies that could provide or preserve fuel diversity within generating fleets. The Integrated Resource Plan TSD notes examples where the goal of fuel diversity was considered in IRPs ; in many cases, these plans considered new generation that would not rely on natural gas. In particular,
s everal utilities that considered fuel diversity in developing their IRPs include d new nuclear generation as a potential future gene ration strategy. In addition, the EPA recognizes that there may be interest in constructing a new combined
-purpose fossil steam facility that would generate power as well as produce chemicals or carbon***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **250** of **684** dioxide for use in enhanced oil recovery projects . These facilities would similarly provide additional value due to the revenue streams from saleable chemical products or carbon dioxide . 229 As demonstrated below , the agency carefully considered the reasonableness of costs in identifying a standard that all ows a path forward for such projects and rejects more stringent options that would impose potentially excessive costs. In fact, based on this careful consideration of costs, the EPA is finalizing a substantially lower cost standard than the one we proposed. At the same time, we note the unusual circumstances presented here, where the record, and indeed simple consideration of electricity market economics , demonstrate that
non - economic factors such as fuel diversit y are likely to drive any construction of new fossil steam generation . See also RIA chapter 4 (documenting that electric power companies will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of this rule even in its absence, primarily NGCC units, because of existing and expected market conditions). Under these circumstances, the EPA’s consideration of costs takes into account that higher costs can be viewed as reasonable when costs
229 The EPA may, of course, consider revenues generated as a result of application of pollution control measures in assessing the costs of a best system of emission reduction. See New York v. Reilly, 969 F. 2d 1147, 1150
- 52 (D.C. Cir. 1992).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **251** of **684** are not a paramount factor in new coal capacity decisions. At the same time, the EPA acknowledges, and agrees with, the public comments that such an argument, left unconstrained, could justify any standard and obviate all cost considerations. 230 The EPA has reasonably cabined its consideration of costs by examining costs for comparable non -NGCC base load dispatchable technologies, as well as by considering capital costs and other cost metrics. 231 This cost - reasonable standard will preserve the opportunity for such projects while driving new technology deployment. 4. Consideration of C apital C osts As noted above, CAA s ection 111 does not mandate any particular method for evaluating costs, leaving the EPA with significant discretion as to how to do so. One method is to consider the incremental capital costs required for a unit to achieve the standard of performance.

230 See, e.g. Comments of Murray Energy, pp. 79
- 80. 231 Indeed, EPA is not only adopting a standard predicated on a lower rate of carbon capture than proposed, but also rejecting full CCS for reasons of cost. See section V.O.2 below. Thus, although EPA has reasonably taken into account the current economic posture of the industry whereby new capacity would be added for non - economic reasons, it is not using that fact to negate consideration of cost here. See also section V.O.1. b below responding to comments that the incremental cost of partial CCS could prove the difference between constructing and not constructing new coal capacity.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **252** of **684** The EPA included information on capital cost at proposal and, as discussed further below, the LCOE metric relied upon at proposal incorporates and fully reflects capital costs . 232 Nonetheless, extensive comment from industry representatives and others noted persuasively that fossil
- steam units are very capital
- intensive projects and recommended that a separate metric, solely of capital costs , be considered in evaluating the final standard’s costs . Accordingly , the EPA has considered the final standard’s impact on the capital costs of new fossil
- steam generation . The EPA has determined that the incremental capital costs of the final standard are reasonable because they are comparable to those in prior regulations and to industry experience , and because the fossil steam electric power industry has been shown to be able to successfully absorb capital costs of this magnitude in the past . Prior new source performance standards for new fossil steam generation units have had significant

– yet manageable

– impacts on the capital costs of construction. The EPA estimated that the costs for the 1971 NSPS for coal
- fired EGU s were $19M for a 600 MW plant, consisting of $3.6M for particulate matter controls, $14.4M for sulfur dioxide controls, and $1M for nitrogen oxides controls, representing a 15.8 percent increase in capital costs
232 [ Draft ] RIA p. 5 - 20 and Table 5
- 5. [  check this against final RIA]***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **253** of **684** above the $120M cost of the plant. See 1972 Supplemental Statement, 37 FR 5767, 5769 (March 21, 1972). The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s determination that the costs associated with the final 1971 standard were reasonable, concluding that the EPA had properly taken costs into consideration. Essex Cement v. EPA, 486 F. 2d at 440. In reviewing the 1979 NSPS for fossil steam EGU s, the D.C. Circuit recognized that “EPA estimates that utilities will have to spend tens of billions of dollars by 1995 on pollution control under the new NSPS” and that “[c]onsumers will ultimately bear these costs.” Sierra Club , 657 F.2d at 314. The
cou rt nonetheless upheld EPA’s determination that the standard was reasonable . Id. at 410. The cost and investment impact s of the 1978 NSPS on electric utilities was subsequently evaluated in a 1982 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) retrospective study . 233 The CBO study highlighted that installation of scrubbers
- capital intensive pollution control equipment that had “in effect” been mandated by the 1978 NSPS - increased capital costs for new EGUs by 10 to as much as 20 percent. 234 The study further noted that air pollution control requirements in general had led to an
233 Congressional Budget Office report , “ The Clean Air Act, the Electric Utilities, and the Coal Market”, April 1982, p. 10
- 11, 23 . 234 Id. at 10
- 11 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **254** of **684** estimated 37.5 to 45 percent increase in capital costs for coal
fired power plant installation between 1971 and 1980 . 235 The study retrospectively confirmed the EPA’s conclusion that imposition of these costs was reasonable , finding that

“ utilities with commitments to pollution control tend to fare no better and no worse than all electric utilities in general.” 236 In assessing the capital cost impacts of the suite of 1970’s EPA air pollution standards, the report concluded that “though controlling emissions is indeed costly, it has not played a major role in impairing the utilities **’** financial position, and is not likely to do so in the future.” 237 In NSPS standards for other sectors, the EPA's determination that capital cost increases were reasonable has similarly been upheld . In Portland Cement Association , the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA’s consideration of costs for a standard of performance that would increase cap ital costs by about 12 percent , al though the rule was remanded due to an unrelated procedural issue . 486 F.2d at 387
- 88. Reviewing the EPA’s final rule after remand, the court again upheld the standards and the EPA’s consideration of costs , noting that “[t]he industry has not shown inability to adjust itself in a healthy economic

235 Id. at 22. 236 Id. at xvi. 237 Id.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **255** of **684** fashion to the end sought by the Act as represented by the standards prescribed . ” Portland Cement v. Ruckelshaus , 513 F. 2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975 ). The capital cost impacts i ncurred under these prior standards are comparable in magnitude on an individual unit basis to those projected for the present standard. We predict that the incremental costs of control for a new highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal ( SCPC ) unit to meet the final emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g would be an increase of 21
- 22 percent for capital costs . See Table 7 below. 238 **Table 7**  **. Comparison of estimated**  **capital costs for a new SCPC and a new SCPC meeting the final standard of**  **performance. 239**  Total Total Overnight As - Spent Cost Capital (2011$/kW) (2011$/kW) SCPC - no CCS 2,507 2,842 SCPC - partial CCS 3,042 3,458 (1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g ) Incremental cost increase 21.3 % 21.7%

5. Consideration of C osts Based on Levelized Cost of E lectricity

238 We explain at [ ] below the reasonableness of EPA’s cost projections here. 239 Exhibit A
- 3 (p. 18); “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants”, DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June [xx], 2015).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **256** of **684** As in the proposal, the EPA also considered the reasonableness of costs by evaluating the LCOE associated with the final standard. The LCOE is a commonly used economic metric that takes into account all costs to construct and operate a new power plant over an assumed time period and an assumed capacity factor. The LCOE is a summary metric, which expresses the full cost of generating electricity on a per unit basis (i.e., megawatt - hours). Levelized costs are often used t o compare the cost of different potential generating sources. While capital cost is a useful and relevant metric for capital
- intensive fossil
- steam units, the LCOE can serve as a useful complement because it takes into account all specified costs ( operation and maintenance, fuel

– as well as capital costs) , over the whole lifetime of the project. As previously mentioned, at proposal the EPA relied on LCOE projections for fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (with and without CCS) from DOE/NETL reports detailing the results of studies evaluating the costs and performance of such units. For non
fossil dispatchable generating sources, the EPA relied on LCOE projections from EIA AEO2013. For this final action, the EPA is relying on updated costs from the same source s. The NETL has provided updated cost and performance information in recently published revisions of reports used in the January 2014***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **257** of **684** proposal. 240 The updated SCPC cases in the reports include up
- to date cost and performance information from recent vendor qu otes and implementation of the Shell Cansolv post - combustion capture process – the process that is currently being utilized at the Boundary Dam #3 facility. The IGCC cost and performance results in the updated reports utilize vendor quotes from the previou s report; the costs are adjusted from $2007 to $2011. Important also to note is that DOE/NETL utilized conventional financing for cases without CCS and utilized high
- risk financial assumptions for cases that include CCS. Using information from those reports, the DOE/NETL prepared a separate report summarizing a study that evaluated the cost and performance of various plants designed to meet a range of CO2 emissions by varying the CO2 capture rate (i.e., the level of partial capture). 241 The EIA also updated LCOE projections from AEO2013 to AEO2014 and again in AEO2015. Those are

240 “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants: Volume 1a” Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 3, U.S. DOE NETL report (2015) and “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants: Volume 1b: Bituminous Coal (IGCC) to Electricity, Revision 2

– Year Dollar Update, U.S. DOE NETL report (2015). Both reports are available at www.netl.doe.gov/rese arch/energy
- analysis/energy
-baseline
studies 241 “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants”, DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June [ ], 2015). Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/resear ch/energy
- analysis/energy
baseline
- studies .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **258** of **684** discussed in more detail in [insert section]. In evaluating costs for the final standards in this action, the EPA relied primarily on the updated NETL LCOE projections for new fossil fuel - fired EGUs provided in the reports described above and on the LCOE projections for non
- fossil, dispatchable generating options from the EIA’s AEO2015. 242 Here, the EPA compared the LCOE of the final standard to the LCOE of analogous potential sources of intermediate and base load power. This comparison demonstrated that the LCOE for a fossil steam unit with partial CCS is within the range of the LCOE of comparable alternative generation sources. In particular , nuclear and biomass generation, which similarly provide both base load power and fuel diversity, have comparable LCOE . The EPA concludes that an evaluation of the LCOE also demonstrates that the costs of the final standard are reasonable.
a. Calculation of the LCOE . The LCOE of a power plant source is calculated with the expected lifetime and average capacity factor, and represents the average cost of producing a megawatt
hour (MWh) of electricity over the expected lifetime of the asset. The LCOE incorporate s all specified costs, and therefore is dependent on the project’s capital costs, the fixed and variable

242 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **259** of **684** operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, the fuel costs, the costs to finance the project, and finally on the assumed capacity factor. The relative contr ibution of each of these inputs to LCOE will vary among the generating technologies. For example, the LCOE for a new supercritical PC plant or a new IGCC plant is influenced more by the capital costs (and thus the financing assumptions) and less on fuel co sts than a comparably sized new NGCC facility which would require less capital investment but would be more influenced by assumed fuel costs. b. Use of the LCOE . The utility industry and electricity sector regulators often use levelized costs as a summary measure for comparing the cost of different potential generating sources. Use of the LCOE as a comparison measure is appropriate where the facilities being compared would serve load in a similar manner. The value of generation, as reflected in the wholesale electricity price, can vary seasonally and over the course of a day. In addition, electricity generation technologies differ on dimensions other than just cost, such as ramping efficiency, intermittenc y, or uncertainty in future fuel costs. These other factors are also important in determining the value of a particular generation technology to a firm, and accordingly cost compari sons between two different technologies are most appropriate and insightful when the technologies align along these other dimensions. I solating a comparison of technologies***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **260** of **684** based on their LCOE is appropriate when they can be assumed to provide similar service s and similar value s of electricity generated. As we indicated in the proposal, we evaluated publicly available IRPs and other available information (such as public announcements) to determine the types of technologies that utilities are considering as options for new generating capacity. 243 In the near future, the largest sou rces of new fossil fuel
- fired power generation are expected to be new NGCC units. But the IRPs also suggested that utilities are interested in a range of technologies that can be used to provide or preserve fuel diversity within the utilities’ respective generating fleets. 244 , 245 The options for dispatchable generation

243 See also discussion at V.C.3 above. The IRPs do not provide an indication of the utility’s intention to pursue a particular generation technology. However, the IRPs do provide an indication of the types of new generating technologies that the utility would consider for new generating capacity. 244 See, e.g. the 2014 IRP of Dominion Virginia Power: With those factors in mind, the 2014 Plan presents two paths forward for resource expansion: a Base Plan, designed using least - cost planning methods and consistent with the requirements of Rule R8
- 60 for utility plans to provide "reliable electric utility service at least cost over the planning period;" and a Fuel Diversity Plan, which includes a broader array of low or zero - emissions options. While the Fuel 2 Diversity Plan currently represents a higher cost option at today's current and projected commodity prices, its resource mix provides the important bene fits of greater fuel diversity and lower carbon intensity. Therefore, the Company will continue reasonable development of the more diverse and lower carbon intensive***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **261** of **684** options in the Fuel Diversity Plan and will be ready to implement them as conditions warrant....... The Fuel Diversity Plan places a greater reliance on generation sources with little or no carbon emissions and is less reliant on natural gas. While following the resource expansion scenario in the least - cost Base Plan, the Company will continue eval uation and reasonable development efforts for the following projects identified in the Fuel Diversity Plan. These include: • Continued development of a third nuclear reactor at North Anna Power Station, using reactor technology supplied by GE
- Hitachi Nucle ar Energy Americas LLC. While the Company has made no final commitment to building this unit, it recognizes the many operational and environmental benefits of nuclear power and continues to actively develop the project. Our customers have benefitted from the existing nuclear fleet for many years now, and they will continue to benefit from the existing fleet for many years in the future. A final decision on construction of North Anna Unit 3 will not be made until after the Company receives a Combined Operating License or COL from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, now expected in2016. The Fuel Diversity Plan includes the addition of North Anna Unit 3's 1,453 megawatts of zero - emissions generation by 2028. If constructed, the project would provide a dramatic boost to the regional economy. • Additional reliance on renewable energy, including 247 megawatts of onshore wind capacity at sites in western Virginia and a 12 megawatt offshore wind demonstration project by 2018. • An additional 559 megawatts of nameplate solar capacity, including several new Company
- owned photovoltaic CPV) installations. Solar PV costs have declined significantly in recent years, making utility
- scale solar much more cost effective than distributed solar, and continuing technol ogical development, in which the Company is participating, may allow it to become a more cost - effective source of intermittent generation in the future.” cover letter for 2014 IRP
- https://www.dom.com/library/domcom/pdfs/corporate/integrated
resource -planning/va
- irp
- 2014.pdf 245 Another example are the recent statements of officials of Tri
- State Generation and Transmission, available at http://www.wyofile.com/coal
-power/ , including:***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **262** of **684** that can provide intermediate or base
- load power and fuel diversity would include new fossil steam units, new nuclear power, and biomass
- fired generation. Thus, in both the proposal and in this final rule, the EPA is comparing the LCOE of technologies that would be reasonably anticipated to be designed, constructed, and operated for a similar purpose

– that is, to provide dispatchable base load power that provides fuel diversity by relying on a fuel source other than natural gas. In contrast , it may not be appropriate to compare the LCOE for a base load coal - fired plant with that of a peaking natural gas
- fired simple cycle turbine. Similarly, it may not be appropriate to compare LCOE for dispatchable “We are considering nuclear, coal and natural gas,” said Ken Anderson, general manager of Tri
- State at a conference in October [2010], a position that Tri
- State representatives say remains. “We will pick our technology once policy certainty comes about,” he added. ...Longer - term forecasts are based on assumptions that may or may not prove well - founded. Because of this uncertainty, Tri
- State believes it must retain options for all fuels and technologies. “We will not take anything off the table,” [Tri
- State spokesman Lee] Boughey said. That includes coal. “Coal is an affordable and plentiful resource, but it does come with challenges

– and we are looking to different technology that can address some of those challenges while continuing to provide a reliable and affordable power supply,” Boughey said. “Some critics believe we shouldn’ t be looking at resource options that include coal, and even nuclear technology,” Boughey added. “We believe it would be irresponsible not to consider these fuels or technologies as part of an affordable, reliable and responsible resource portfolio.”***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **263** of **684** technologies (i.e., generating sources that can be ramped up or down as needed, e.g., coal - fired units, NGCC units, nuclear) with that of non - dispatchable technologies (i.e., generating sources that cannot be reliably ramped up or down to meet demand, e.g., wind, solar. )
c. Reasonableness of costs based on LCOE . An examination of the LCOE of analogous sources of base load , dispatchable power shows that the final standard’s LCOE is comparable to that of other sources, as shown in Table 8 below . As mentioned earlier and discussed in further detail below, these estimates rely most heavily on DOE/NETL cost project ions for fossil fuel generating technologies and on the updated EIA AEO2015 for non - fossil generation technologies. Recent estimates from Lazard246 are also provide for nuclear and biomass generation options. **Table 8**  **. Predicted Cost and CO 2**  **Emission Levels for a Range of Potential New Generation Technologies**  **247**

246 La zard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis

– Version 8.0; September 2014; available at: http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_
- _version_80.pdf and in the rulemaking docket. 247 LCOE cost estimates for SCPC and IGCC cases come from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants” DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June 22, 2015). LCOE cost estimates for nuclear and biomass are derived from “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoid Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015”, June 2015, www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf . LCOE cost estimates for NGCC technology are EPA estimates based on a range of potential natural gas prices.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **264** of **684** New Generation Emission LCOE * Technology lb CO 2 /MWh
- g $/MWh SCPC - no CCS 1, 620 76
- 95 SCPC + ~ 16 % partial CCS (bit) 1,400 9 2
- 11 7 SCPC + ~ 23 % partial CCS ( low rank ) 1, 4 00 95
- 121

Nuclear (EIA) 0 87
- 115 Nuclear (Lazard) 0 92
- 132 Biomass (EIA) 248

- 94

– 113 Biomass (Lazard)
- 87
- 116 IGCC 1430 94
- 120 NGCC 1,000 52

– 86** * The LCOE range s presented in Table 8 include an uncertainty of

- 15%/+30% on capital costs for SCPC and IGCC cases and an uncertainty of
- 10%/+30% on capital costs for nuclear and biomass cases. ** This range represents a natural gas price from $ 5 /MMBtu to $10/MMBtu. As shown in Table 8 , we project that the LCOE for new fossil steam capacity meeting the final 1 , 400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g standard to be substantially similar to that for a new nuclear unit , the principal other alternative to natural gas to provide new base load power. This is the case for new units firing bituminous and subbituminous coals and dried lignite. This is
248 Table 8 includes LCOE figures for biomass
- fired generation, a potential sources of dispatchable base load power that is not fueled by natural gas. The EPA includes this information for completeness, while noting that biomas s - fired units in operation in the U.S. are smaller scale and thus are not as robust analogues as nuclear power.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **265** of **684** another demonstration that the costs of the final standard are reasonable because nuclear and fossil steam generation each would serve an analogous role in adding dispatchable base load generation diversity

– or at least non -NGCC alternatives
- to a power provider’s portfolio; hence, they are reasonably viewed as comparable alternatives. 249 As previously mentioned, the DOE/NETL assumed conventional financing for cases without CCS and assumed high
- risk financing for case with some level of CCS. Specifically a high
- risk financial structure resulting in a capit al charge factor (CCF) of 0.124 is used to evaluate the c osts of all cases with CO2 captu re (non - capture case uses a conventional financial structure with a CCF of 0.116). This is in contrast to the approach taken by the EIA which applies a 3
-percentage -po int cost of capital premium (the ‘climate uncertainty adder’) to
non - capture coal plants to reflect the market reaction to potential future GHG regulation. As a comparison of how this affects the resulting DOE/NETL costs, a new SCPC utilizing 16 percent pa rtial CCS is projected to have an LCOE of $99/MWh (including transportation and storage costs; does not include

249 LCOE comparisons of reasonably available compliance alternatives

– IGCC with natural gas co
- firing, and SCPC with natural gas co - firing
- are found below in Table 9. As shown there, these alternatives are either lower cost than SCPC with partial CCS, or of comparable cost.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **266** of **684** the range for uncertainty). That projected LCOE includes the “high risk financial assumptions”. If the LCOE for that unit were to be calculated using the “conventional financing assumptions”, the resulting LCOE would be $94/MWh. Under current and anticipated market conditions, power providers that are considering costs alone in choosing a fuel source for new intermediate or base load generation will choose natural gas because of its competitive current and projected price. However, as noted in section V.H.3, public IRPs indicate that utilities are considering and selecting technologies that could provide or preserve fuel diversity within generating fleets. For example , utilities have been willing to pay a premium for nuclear power in certain circumstances , as indicated by the recent new constructions of nuclear facilities and by IRPs that include new nuclear generation in their plans. In general , fossil steam and nuclear generation each can provide dispatchable, base load power while also maintaining or increasing fuel diversity. 250 Utilities may be willing to pay a premium for these generation sources because they could serve as

250 As another example, San Antonio customers will benefit from low- carbon power from the Texas Clean Energy Project. CPS Energy CEO Doyle Deneby said in a news release: “ Adding clean coal to our portfolio dovetails with our strategy to diversify and reduce the carbon intensity of the power we supply to our customers .” www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2014/10/06/cps
energy- strikes
- new- deal - to -buy-power - from.html***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **267** of **684** a hedge against the possibility that future natural gas prices will far exceed projected levels. Accordingly, the LCOE analysis demonstrates that the final s tandard’s costs are in line with power sources that provide analogous services

– dispatchable base load power and fuel diversity. We further note a number of conservative elements of the costs we used in making this comparison. In particular, these estimates include the highest value in the projected range of potential costs for partial CCS . They do not reflect revenues which can be generated by selling captured CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery, and reflect the costs of partial CCS rather than potential ly less expensive alternative compliance paths such as use of IGCC with co
- firing of natural gas, or of a utility boiler co - firing with natural gas. See also V.H.7 below. 6. Comparison with Monetized Benefits In assessing the final standard’s costs, we also took into account a comparison of the marginal costs of applying the standard to an individual facility with the associated marginal benefits. Again, this comparison supported our conclusion that the costs are reasonable. As discussed above in section V.H. 3 , our modeling analysis indicated that , under a wide range of scenarios, including unlikely natural gas prices and other particularly favorable cost assumptions, construction of new fossil steam generation is***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **268** of **684** uneconomical in the near
- future. Although our modeling did not identify any situations where new fossil steam units were economical to construct

— even in the absence of this rule, over the wide range possible futures analyzed

— public comments and public information suggested that developers may cons ider constructing a limited number of new fossil steam EGUs in the coming years. In assessing the impact of this rule, the EPA accordingly conducted an illustrative analysis to identify and consider the costs and benefits that would be associated with adding partial CCS to an individual generic fossil steam unit. In our “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA
45 2/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015) (RIA) , we found that the estimated costs of adding partial CCS to a generic fossil steam unit were within the range of the estimated monetized benefits to society of reducing carbon and criteria pollutant air pollution. We further found that the estimated costs of this standard were in line with the monetized value of the direct benefit of application of this standard

– reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This analysis again supports our conclusion that the costs of the standard are reasonable.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **269** of **684** Our conclusion is further bolstered by conservative aspects of our benefit estimates. The SC - CO2 estimates applied in our analysis do not capture all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature, as discussed in detail in the RIA . In particular, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007 ) concluded that “it is very likely that [ SC - CO 2 estimates ] underestimate the damage costs . ” 251 Furthermore, the monetized non
- GHG benefits do not capture a number of other important benefits associated with reductions in criteria and hazardous air pollutants. In addition, our cost estimates were developed based on middle of the road assumptions regarding the costs of constructing and operating a new fossil steam generation unit. We anticipate that if a firm found it desirable to construct a new fossil steam unit in the future under this standard, it would be under circumstances where the economic conditions for the unit are particularly favorable, for example, in locations where EOR is available and/or the costs of operation are lower. Accordingly, this comparison supports our conclusion that the cost of the final standard is reasonable.
251 Since then, the peer
- reviewed literature has continued to support this conclusion. For example, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report observed that SCC estimates continue to omit various impacts that would likely increase damages.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **270** of **684** 7. Overall Co sts and Economic Impacts As noted above, an assessment of national costs is also an appropriate means of evaluating the reasonableness of costs under CAA section 111. See Sierra Club , 657 F.2d at 330. The EPA considered the regulation’s overall costs and economic impacts as part of its RIA. The RIA demonstrates that these costs would be negligible and that the effects on electricity rates and other market indicators would similarly be minimal. These result s are driven by the existing market context for fossil
- steam generation. Even in the absence of the standards of performance for newly constructed EGUs, substantial new construction of uncontrolled fossil steam units is not anticipated under existing preva iling and anticipated future economic conditions. Modeling projection s from government, industry, and academia anticipate that few new fossil steam EGUs will be constructed over the coming decade and that those that are built would have CCS. 252 Instead, EIA data shows that natural gas is likely to be the most widely
- used fossil fuel for new construction of electric generating capacity in the near future . 252 For example, even in the EIA’ s sensitivity analysis that assumes higher natural gas prices and electricity demand , the EIA does not project any additional coal beyond its reference case until 2023, in a case where power companies assume no GHGs emission limitations , and until 2024 in a case where power companies do assume GHGs emission limitations .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **271** of **684** Of the coal - fired units moving forward at various advanced stages of construction and development
- Southern Company's Kemper County Energy Facility and Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP)

– each will deploy IGCC with some level of CCS. The p rimary reasons for this rate of current and projected future development of new coal projects include highly competitive natural gas prices, lower electricity demand, and increases in the supply of renewable energy. In its RIA, the EPA considered the overall costs of this regulation in the context of these prevailing market trends. Because of the expectation of no new fossil steam generation, the RIA projects that this final rule will result in negligible costs overall on owners and operators of newly cons tructed EGUs by 2022. 253 More broadly, this regulation is not expected to have significant effects on fuel markets, electricity prices, or the economy as a whole, as described in detail in Chapter [x] of the RIA. In comparison, courts have upheld past regula tions that imposed substantial overall costs in order to protect against uncontrolled emissions. As noted above, in Sierra Club v. Costle , the D.C. Circuit upheld a standard of performance that imposed costly controls on SO 2 emissions from new coal
- fired
253 Conditions in the analysis year of 2022 are represented by a model year of 2020.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **272** of **684** power plants. 657 F.2d at 410. These standards had implications for the economy “at the local and national levels,” as “EPA estimates that utilities will have to spend tens of billions of dollars by 1995 on pollution control under the new NSPS.” Id. at 314. Further, the court acknowledged that “[c]onsumers will ultimately bear these costs, both directly in the form of residential utility bills, and indirectly in the form of higher consumer prices due to increased energy costs,” before concluding that the cos ts were reasonable. Id. The projected total incremental capital costs associated with the standard we are finalizing today are dramatically lower than was the case for this prior standard, as well as other prior standards summarized previously. For exampl e, when the standard at issue in Sierra Club was upheld, the industry was expected to build, and did build, dozens of plants ultimately meeting the standards

– at a projected incremental cost of tens of billions of dollars. 254 Here, by contrast, few if any fossil steam EGUs are projected to be built in the foreseeable future, indicating that the total incremental costs are likely to be considerably more modest. Commenters stated that the cost provision in CAA section 111(a)(1 ) does not authorize the EPA to consider the nationwide

254 Sierra Club , 657 F . 2d at 314 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **273** of **684** costs of a system of emission reduction in lieu of considering the cost impacts for individual new plants . In this rule, we are considering both sets of costs and, in fact, we are not identifying full CCS as the BSER primarily for reasons of its cost to individual sources . At the same time, total projected costs are relevant in assessing the overall reasonableness of costs associated with a standard. Our analysis demonstrates that the impacts on the i ndustry as a whole are negligible, and are certainly not greater than “what the industry could bear and survive.” 255 These facts support EPA’s overall conclusion that the costs of the standard are reasonable. 7 . Opportunities to Further Reduce Compliance Costs While the EPA believes , as detailed above, that there is sufficient evidence to show that the final standards of performance for new steam generating units can be met at a reasonable cost, we also note that there are potential opportunities to furthe r reduce compliance costs . We believe that, in most cases, the actual costs will be less than those presented earlier . As explained in more detail in the following subsection , a new utility boiler can meet the final standard of performance by
co - firing wi th natural gas. Some project developers may choose

255 Portland Cement Ass’n , 513 F. 2d at 508.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **274** of **684** to utilize natural gas co
- firing as a means of delaying, rather than avoiding, implementation of partial CCS. Developers can also choose to install IGCC with a small amount of natural gas
co - firing, which again would meet the standard at a somewhat lower cost. The EPA also notes that new units that capture CO 2 will likely be built in areas where there are opportunities to sell the captured CO 2 for some useful purpose prior to (or concomitant with) permanent storage. The DOE refers to this as “carbon capture, utilization and storage” or CCUS. In particular, the ability to sell captured CO 2 for use in enhanced oil recovery operations offers the most opportunity to reduce costs. In this regard, the newly- operating Boundary Dam facility is selling captured CO 2 for EOR. The Kemper facility likewise plans to do so. 256 In some instances, the costs of CCS may be defrayed by grants or other benefits provided by federal or state governments. The need for subsidies to support emerging energy systems and new control technologies is not unusual. Each of the major types of energy used to generate electricity has been or
256 The EPA is referring to the Kemper facility here as an example of how costs can be defrayed, not for use of technology or level of emission reduction achieved. The EPA therefore does not believe that the EPAct05 prevents reference to the fact that Kemper plans to sell captured carbon.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **275** of **684** is currently being supported by some type of government subsidy such as tax benefits, loan guarantees, low
- cost leases, or direct expenditures for some aspect of development and utilization, ranging from exploration to control installation. This is true for fossil fuel
- fired , as well as nuclear - , geothermal - , wind
- , and solar - generated electricity . As stated earlier, the EPA considers the costs of partial CCS at a level to meet the final standard of performance to be reasonable even without considering these opportunities to further reduce implementation and compliance costs. We did not in the proposal

– and we do not here in this final action

– rely
on any cost reduction opportunities to justify the costs of meeting the standard as reasonable , but again note the conservative assumptions embodied in our assessment of compliance costs . c. Cost and feasibility of natural gas co - firing as an alternative compliance pathway . Although the EPA has determined that implementation of partial CCS at an emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g is the BSER for newl y constructed fossil fuel - fired steam generating EGUs, we also note that operators can consider the use of natural gas co
- firing to achieve the final emission limitation, likely at a lower cost.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **276** of **684** At the final emissions limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g a new supercritical PC or supercritical CFB can meet the standard by co - firing with natural gas at levels up to approximately 40 percent (heat input basis) and could potentially avoid (or delay) installation and use of partial CCS altogether . Most new IGCC units will be able to meet the final standard by capturing less than 10 percent of the CO 2 and many IGCC designs have a sufficient compliance margin such that they would likely not need to use a water
- gas - shift (WGS) reactor. As an alternative, new IGCC facilities will be able to meet the final standard by co - firing less than ten percent natural gas. Natural gas co - firing has long been recognized as an option for coal - fired boilers to reduce emissions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants. EPRI sponsored a study to assess both technical and economic issues associated with natural gas co firing in coal
- fired boilers . 257 They determined that the largest number of applications and the longest experience time is with natural gas reburning and with supplementa l gas firing. Natural gas reburning has been used primarily as a NOX control technology. It is implemented by introducing natural gas (up to 20 percent total fuel heat input) in a secondary combustion zone

257 Gas Cof iring Assessment for Coal Fired Utility Boilers; Final Report, August 2000 ; EPRI Technical Report available at www.epri.com.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **277** of **684** (called the “reburn zone”) downstream of the prima ry combustion zone in the boiler. Injecting the natural gas creates a fuel rich zone where NOx formed in the main combustion zone is reduced to nitrogen and water vapor. Higher levels of natural gas co
- firing can be met by utilizing supplemental gas co
- firing (either alone or along with natural gas reburning). This involves the simultaneous firing of natural gas and pulverized coal in a boiler’s primary combustion zone. Others have also evaluated configurations that would allow coal - fired units to utilize natural gas. 258 , 259 A 2013 article entitled “Utility Options for Leveraging Natural Gas” 260 noted that:

Utility owners of coal
- fired power stations that wish to balance their exposure to coal
- fired generation with additional natural gas

–fired generation have several options to consider. The four most practical options are co
- firing coal and gas in the same boiler, converting the coal
- fired boiler to gas - only operation, repowering the coal plant with natural gas

–fired combustion turbines, or replacing the coal plant with a combined cycle plant. [...] Co
- 258 Many of the studies evaluated opportunities to use natural gas reburn, natural gas co - firing and other configurations in existing coal
- fired boilers. Those conclusions would also be applicable for new coal
- fired boilers. 259 “Dual Fuel Firing

– The New Future for the Aging U.S. Based Coal - Fired Boilers”, presented by Riley Powe r, Inc. at 37th International Technical Conference on Clean Coal and Fuel Systems June 2012 Clearwater, FL, available at http://www.babcockpower.com/pdf/RPI
- TP - 0228.pdf . 260 Utility Options for Leveraging Natural Gas , 10/01/2013 article in Power . Available at http://www.powermag.com/utility
options
- for - leveraging
- natural - gas/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **278** of **684** firing is the lowest
-risk option for substituting gas use for coal. The EPA examined compliance costs for a new steam generating unit to meet the final standard of performance using natural gas co - firing and compared those costs to the estimated costs of meeting the final standards using partial CCS. Those costs are provided below in Table 9. **Table 9**  **. Predicted Costs to Meet the Final Standard Using Natural Gas Co**  **- firing.**  New Generation Emission LCOE* Technology lb CO 2 /MWh
- g $/MWh SCPC - no CCS 1,620 82 SCPC + ~16% partial CCS 1,400 99 SCPC + ~40% NG co - fire 1,400 [90] IGCC - no CCS 1,434 103 IGCC + ~6% NG co
- fire 1,400 [x] NGCC 1,000 59 * The LCOE values for non - natural gas generation (i.e., SCPC with and without CCS) include +30% for uncertainty. The generation cost using NG co - fire and NGCC assume a natural gas price of $6.11/mmBtu. The EPA thus again notes that the cost assumptions it is making in its BSER determination are highly conservative. That is, by costing partial CCS as BSER, the EPA is likely overestimating actual compliance costs since there exist other less expensive means of meeting the promulgated standard. 261

261 Certain commenters argued that the proposed standard essentially mandated a sole method of compliance, and hence constituted a work practice for purposes of section 111(h) of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **279** of **684** Notwithstanding that costs for a SCPC to meet the standard would be lower if it co
- fired with natural gas , we have not identified that compliance alternative as BSER becau se we believe that new coal
- fired steam electric generating capacity would be built to provide fuel diversity, and burning substantial amounts of natural gas would be contrary to that objective. In addition, this choice would not promote use of advanced po llution control technology. New IGCC has costs which are comparable to SCPC , as does IGCC with natural gas co
firing, 262 but we are choosing not to identify it as BSER for reasons stated at section V.C.2 above: use of IGCC does not advance emission control beyond current levels of performance for sources which may choose to utilize IGCC technology, and also does not promote carbon capture and sequestration, the most advanced CO2 control. Nonetheless, use of IGCC remains a viable compliance option available at reasonable cost and (as shown at below) without significant adverse nonair quality impacts or
the Act. These commenters argued further that the EPA had failed to justify the proposal under the section 111(h) criteria. The EPA disagrees with the premise of these comments, but, in any case, there are clearly multiple compliance paths available for achieving the final standard. 262 IGCC already has combined cycle capacity, and so can be readily operated in whole or in part using natural gas as a fuel. CITE. Indeed, both the Edwardsport and Kemper facilities have been operating as NGCCs (i.e. firing exclusively natural gas).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **280** of **684** energy implications which is demonstrated and available to meet the 1 , 400 lb CO2/MWh
- g standard of performance. d. Costs are reasonably expected to decrease over time . The E PA reasonably expects that the costs of CCS will decrease over time as the technology becomes more widely deployed . Although, for the reasons that have been noted , we consider the current costs of CCS to be reasonable, the projected decrease in those costs further supports their reasonableness. The D.C. Circuit case law that authorizes determining the “best ” available technology on the basis o f reasonable future proje ctions support s taking into account projected cost reductions as a way to support the reasonableness of the costs. We expect the costs of CCS technologies to decrease for several reasons. We expect that significant additional knowledge will be gained from deployment and operation of the new coal
fired generation facilities that are either operating or are nearing completion. These would include the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility, the Petra Nova WA Parish project, and the Kemper County IGCC facility. The operators of the Boundary Dam Unit #3 are considering construction of additional CCS units and have projected that the next units could be constructed at a cost of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **281** of **684** at least 30 percent less than that at Unit #3. 263 These savings primarily come from application of lessons learned from the Unit #3 design and construction. To facilitate the transfer of the technology and to accelerate development of carbon capture technology, SaskPower has created the CCS Global Consortium. 264 This consortium provides SaskPower the opportunity to share the knowledge and experience from the Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility with global energy leaders, technology developers, and project developers. SaskPower, in partnership with Mitsubishi and Hitachi, is also helping to advance CCS knowledge and technology development through the creation of the Shand Carbon Capture Test Facility (CCTF). 265 The test facility will provide technology developers with an opportunity to test new and emerging carbon capture systems for controlling carbon emissions f rom coal - fired power plants. We expect continued additional cost reductions to come from knowledge gained from continued operation of non -power sector industrial projects which, as we have discussed, are informative in transferring the technology to power sector applications. We

263 [Add citation here] 264 http://www.saskpowerccs.com/consortium/ 265 http://www.saskpowerccs.com/ccs
-projects/shand
- carbon - capture test - facility/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **282** of **6 84**  expect the on - going research and development efforts

– such as those sponsored by the DOE/NETL. Significant reductions in the cost of CO 2 capture would be consistent with overall experience with the cost of pollution control technology. Reductions in the cost of air pollution control technologies as a result of learning
-by- doing, reductions in financial premiums related to risk, research and development investments, and other factors have been observed over the decades.
e. Opportunities to reduce cost through sales of captured CO 2 . Geologic storage options include use of CO 2 in EOR operations , which is the injection of fluids into a reservoir a fter production yields have decreased from primary production in order to increase oil production efficiency. CO 2 - EOR has been successfully used for decades at many production fields throughout the U.S. to increase oil recovery. The use of CO 2 for EOR can significantly lower the net cost of implementing CCS. The opportunity to sell the captured CO 2 for EOR, rather than paying directly for its long
- term storage, improves the overall economics of the new generating unit. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), of the CCS projects under construction or at an advanced stage of planning, 70 percent***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **283** of **684** intend to use captured CO 2 to improve recovery of oil in mature fields. 266 I. Key Comments Regarding EPA’s Consideration of Costs In its consideration of the costs associated with the final standard, the EPA considered a range of different cost metrics, each with its individual strengths and weaknesses. As discussed above, each metric supports the EPA’s conclusion that the costs of the final standard are reasonable. In this section, we review the comments received on assessing cost reasonableness and specific cost metrics. We explain how these comments informed our consideration of different metrics and cost reasonableness in general. 1. Use of LCOE as a Cost Metric As noted, CAA section 111(a) directs the EPA to consider “cost” in determining if the BSER is adequately demonstrated. It does not provide further guidance as to how costs are to be considered, thus affording the EPA considerable discretion to cho ose a reasonable means of cost consideration. See, e.g. Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 F. 3d at 933. Certain commenters nonetheless argued that LCOE was an impermissible metric because it does not measure the cost of achieving the

266 Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013, International Energy Agency (IEA), Input to the Clean Energy Ministerial, OECD/I EA 2013.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **284** of **684** emission reduction, but rather measures the impact on the product produced by the entity subject to the standard. 267 The EPA does not agree that its authority is so limited . I ndeed, in the first decided case under section 111, the D.C. Circuit, in holding that the EPA’s consideration of costs was reasonable, specifically noted the EPA’s examination of the impact of the standards on the regulated source category ’s product in comparison to competitive products. Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 486 F. 2d at 388 (“costs of control equipment could be passed on without substantially affecting competition with construction substitutes such as steel, asphalt, and aluminum” ). Commenters also argued that the choice of LCOE as a cost metric masked consideration of the considerable capital costs associated with CCS. The EPA disagrees with this contention. The LCOE does not mask consideration of capital costs. Rather, as explained at V.H.5 above, LCOE is a summary metric that expresses the full cost (e.g., capital, O&M, fuel) of generating electricity and therefore provides a useful summary metric of costs per unit of production (i.e., megawatt
- hours). Provided that those megawat t - hours provide similar electricity services and align on dimensions other than just cost , then the LCOE

267 Comments of EEI, pp 94
- 5.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **285** of **684** provides a useful comparison of which technologies are least cost. The EPA certainly does not minimize that project developers must take capital costs into consideration, and accordingly as discussed in section V.H.4 above, the EPA has considered direct capital costs here as part of its assessment and found those costs to be reasonable. In addition, the EPA notes that its comparison of the marginal impacts from an individual illustrative facility’s compliance with the standard, discussed in detail above and in the RIA, took into account the marginal capital costs that woul d be incurred by an individual facility. At the same time, the agency believes LCOE is a valuable complementary metric because there are other costs that are also considered when evaluating technology options to provide new generating capacity. According to EIA268 , the capital costs represent roughly 63 percent of the LCOE for a new coal
- fired SCPC plant; roughly 66 percent of the LCOE for a new IGCC plant; roughly 74 percent of the LCOE for a new nuclear plant; and only about 22 percent of the LCOE for a new NGCC unit. The LCOE of a new NGCC unit is much more strongly affected by fuel costs (natural gas). As we have discussed in detail in this preamble, in the preamble for the January 2014 proposal, and in associated

268 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **286** of **684** technical support documents, for a varie ty of reasons, the power sector has moved toward increased use of natural gas. If capital was the only cost that utilities and project developers considered, then they would almost certainly always choose to build a new NGCC unit. However, the EPA recogniz es the variety of factors that can be involved in selecting a generation source beyond capital costs, and in considering cost reasonableness we accordingly also considered metrics that encompassed other costs as well as the value of fuel and fleet diversit y. Some commenters maintained that even if LCOE was a proper cost metric, the comparison with the costs of a new nuclear power plant is improper because nuclear itself is a highly expensive technology. The EPA disagrees. The comparison is appropriate and valid because , as discussed at [ ] above, under current and foreseeable economic conditions affecting the cost of new fossil steam generation and new nuclear generation relative to the cost of new natural gas generation, both new nuclear power and fossil steam generation are similarly not competitive with new natural gas if evaluated on the basis of LCOE alone. Nonetheless, both are important potential alternatives to natural gas power for those interested in dispatchable base load power that ma intains or increases fuel diversity. As shown in a survey of recent IRP filings in the docket [cite to docket filing] , several utilities are***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **287** of **684** considering new nuclear power as a potential generation option. Because both fossil steam and nuclear generation se rve a comparable role of offering a diverse source of base load power generation, EPA concludes that the comparison of their LCOE is a valid approach to evaluating cost reasonableness. Finally, the EPA noted that new nuclear generation addresses potential risks (including future costs to the source) associated with future carbon liabilities

– the same risks coal with some degree of CCS would addres s. See 79 FR at 1477. 2. Use of Cost E stimates from DOE/NETL and DOE/EIA In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA relied mostly on the cost projections for new fossil fuel
- fired generating sources that were informed by cost studies conducted by DOE/NETL. The EPA relied on the EIA’s AEO2013 projections for non
- fossil based generati ng sources (i.e., nuclear, renewables, etc.). For this final rule, the EPA continues to rely most heavily on DOE/NETL cost projections for fossil fuel generating technologies and on the updated DOE/EIA AEO2014 for nuclear and other base load non fossil generation technologies.
a. DOE/NETL cost and performance studies . The DOE/NETL “Cost and Performance Baselines for Fossil Energy Plants” are a series of studies conducted by NETL to establish estimates for the cost and performance of combustion and gasification based power***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **288** of **684** plants with and without CO 2 capture and storage. 269 The studies evaluate numerous technology configurations utilizing different coal ranks and natural gas. The EPA relied on those sources because the NETL studies are the most comprehensive and transparent of the available cost studies and NETL has a reputation in the power sector industry for producing high quality, reliable work. 270 The NETL studies
were extensively peer reviewed. 271 The EPA Science Advisory Board Work Group considering the adequac y of the peer review noted EPA staff’s statement that “the NETL studies were all peer reviewed under DOE peer review protocols”, further noted EPA staff’s statement that “the different levels of review of these DOE documents met the requirements to support the analyses as defined by the EPA Peer Review Handbook,” and concluded that “peer review on the DOE documents” was conducted “at a level required by agency guidance.” 272

269 http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy
- analysis/energy
baseline
- studies 270 The NETL costs and studies are often cited in academic and other publications. 271 The initial NETL study “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity” (2006) was subject to peer review by industry experts, academia, and government research and regulatory agencies. Subse quent iterations of the study were not further peer reviewed because the modeling procedures used in the cost estimation were not revised. 272 Letter from James Mihelcic, Chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Sc ience***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **289** of **684** The cost estimates were indicated by DOE/NETL to carry an accuracy of - 15 percent to + 30 percent on the capital costs , consistent with a AACE Class 4 cost estimate

– i.e, a “feasibility study” level of design engineering. 273 The DOE/NETL further notes that “The value of the study lies not in the absolute accuracy of the individual case result s but in the fact that all cases were evaluated under the same set of technical and economic assumptions. This consistency of approach allows meaningful comparisons among the cases evaluated. ” 274 For the final standard, the EPA made particular use of the most recent NETL cost estimates for post
- combustion CCS, which reflect up - to - date vendor quotes and incorporate the post
combustion capture technology

– the Shell Cansolv amine
-based process – that is being utilized at the Boundary Dam Unit #3

to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons ( page 3, Jan. 24, 2014). http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F43D89070E89893485257 C5A007AF573/$File/SAB+work+grp+memo+w+attach+20140107.pdf. The SAB’s statement that these guidance documents “require” any specific peer review is an overstatement, since guidance documents, by definition, do not mandate any specific course of action. 273 Recommended Practice 18R
- 97 of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE) de scribes a Cost Estimate Classification System as applied in Engineering, Procurement and Construction for the process industries . 274 “ Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity ” Rev 2a (Sept 2013); DOE/NETL
- 2010/1397, page 9.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **290** of **684** facility. 275 The EPA did so not only to assure that it considers the most up - to - date information, but also to address public comments criticizing the proposal for relying on out
- of - date cost information, and on information based on a model plant rather than an actual operating facility. The Shell Cansolv vendor quote is informed by the experience at the Boundary Dam Unit #3 project. b. Other studies that corroborate NETL cost estimates . A variety of government, industry and academic groups routinely conduct studies to estimate costs of new generating technologies. These studies use techno
- economic models to predict the cost to build a new generating facility at some point in the future. These studies often use levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) to summarize costs and to compare the competiveness of the different generating technologies. A variety of groups have recently published LCOE estimates for new dispatchable generating technologies. Those are shown below in Table 10 . The table shows LCOE projections from the EPA’s January 2014 proposal, from studies conducted by the

275 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 3, July 6, 2015, DOE/NETL
- 2015/1723 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **291** of **684** Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 276 , by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in their 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2014), by the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and by researchers from the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, PA.

276 EPRI is a non
-profit organization, headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, that conducts research on issues related to the U.S. electric power industry (www.epri.com) .*** EO 12866 Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***



### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866/13563	Interagency Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. **Table 10**  **. Selection of Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Projections**  **Lazard 277**  **EPRI 278**  **AEO201 5**  **279 DOE/NETL** **280 CMU** **281 $201**  **4 /MWh**  **$2011/MWh $201**  **3 /MWh**  **$2011/MWh $2010/MWh**  SCPC

– no CCS 66 62

– 77 95* 76
- 95 59 SCPC (full CCS) 151 102
- 137
- 140
- 176
- SCPC ( ~16% partial CCS)
- - - 92
- 117
-

Nuclear 92
- 132 85

– 97 87
- 115
- - Biomass 87
- 116 90
- 155 94
- 113
- - IGCC 102 82

– 96 116* 94
- 120
- IGCC(full CCS) 171 105

– 136 144 142
- 178
- NGCC 61
- 87 33

– 65 73 58 63

277 Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis

– Version 8.0 (Sept 2014); available at http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_
-_version_80.pdf and in the rulemaking docket. 278 "Program on Technology Innovation: Integrated Generation Technology Options 2012; Report 1026656; Available at:www.epri.com 279 “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided C ost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 201 5 ”, Available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm ; the LCOE values displayed incorporate
- 10%/+30% for uncertainty for biomass and nuclear. 280 “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants” DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June 22, 2015). 281 CMU is Carnegie Mellon University; Zhai, H., Rubin, E.; “Comparative Performance and Cost Assessments of Coal - and Natural Gas - Fired Power Plants under a CO 2 Emission Performance Standard Regulation”, Energy & Fuels , 2013, 27, 4290, Table 1; Note: the authors assumed an emission limit of 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **293** of **684** * These cost projections include a climate uncertainty adder (CUA); which is a 3
- percentage point increase in the cost of capital ** Partial CCS is 1,100 lb/MWh for EPA costs; 1,000 lb/MWh fo r CMU costs.*** EO 12866 Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***



### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. The LCOE values from the Lazard, EPRI, and NETL studies are presented as a range. The EPRI costs incorporate uncertainty reflecting the range of inputs (i.e., capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable O&M, etc.). The NETL costs are indicated to carry an accuracy of - 15 percent to + 30 percent, consist ent with a “feasibility study” level of design. The range in Table 10 is the NETL projected costs with the
- 15 percent to +30 percent uncertainty on the capital costs . Overall , as can be seen from the results in Table 10 , the range of LCOE estimates from the different groups are in reasonable agreement with the DOE/NETL estimates most often representing the most conservative of the estimates shown . The EIA cost estimates include a climate uncertainty adder (CUA)

– represented by a three percent increase to the weighted average cost of capital

— to certain coal
- fired capacity types. The EIA developed the CUA to address inconsistencies between power sector modeling absent GHG regulation and the widespread use of a cost of CO2 emissions in power sector resource planning. The CUA reflects the additional planning cost typically assigned by project developers and utilities to GHG
intensive projects in a context of climate uncertainty. The EPA believes the CUA is consistent with the industry’s planning and evaluati on framework (demonstrable through IRPs and PUC orders)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **295** of **684** and is therefore pertinent when evaluating the cost competitiveness of alternative generating technologies. The EPA believes the CUA is relevant in considering the range of costs that power companies are willing to pay for generation alternatives to natural gas and includes the CUA in the cost of coal - fired utility boilers when evaluating competitiveness of that generating technology . c. Industry information that corroborates NETL cost estimates . Information from vendors of CCS technology also supports the reliability of the cost estimates EPA is using here. 282 Specifically, the EPA had conversations with representatives from Summit Carbon Capture, LLC regarding available cost information. Cost estimates provided by another leading provider of CCS technology likewise are consistent (indeed, somewhat less than) the estimates EPA is using for purposes of cost analysis in the rule. Summit Carbon Capture’s primary business is large
- scale carbon capture f rom power and other industrial projects and use of the captured CO 2 for EOR. 283 Summit is actively working with several different technology companies offering CO 2 capture

282 See section V.F above, explaining that the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly stated that vendor statements are probative in demonstrating that a technology is adequately demonstrated under section 111. 283 http://www.summitpower.com/projects/carbon
- capture/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **296** of **684** systems, including the leading equipment manufacturers for fossil fuel power production equipment. Their current projects include the 400 MW IGCC Texas Clean Energy Project and the Caledonia Clean Energy Project

– a new project underway in the United Kingdom

– and a variety of other projects under development which are not yet public. Summit is also interested in potentially retrofitting CCS onto existing coal
- fired plants for the purpose of capturing CO 2 for sale to EOR markets. Summit provided the EPA with copies of slides from a presentation that it has used in different public forums. 284 The presentation focused on costs to retrofit available carbon capture equipment at an existing PC power plant that is ideally located to take advantage of opportunities to sell captured CO 2 for use in EOR operations. Summit received proprietary costing information from numerous technology providers and that information, along with other publically available information, was used to develop their cost predictions. 285 Though the primary focus of their effort was to examine costs associated with retrofitting CCS to an existing

284 “Coal’s Role in a Low Carbon Energy Environment”, presented at 2 015 Euromoney Power & Renewables Conference, remarks by Jeffrey Brown (amended to address EPA questions on the original). Available in the rulemaking docket . 285 No proprietary or business confidential information was shared with EPA. No specific vendors were mentioned by name during discussions with Summit Power. Summit also used available DOE/NETL and EIA cost information.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **297** of **684** coal fired power plant, Summit Power also calculated costs for several new generation scenarios

– including the cost of a new NGCC, a new SCPC, a new SCPC with full CCS, and a new SCPC with partial CCS at 50 percent. The costs are reas onably consistent with costs predicted by NETL, EIA, EPRI and others. The company ultimately concluded that “in a world of uncertain gas prices, falling CO 2 capture equipment prices, improving CCS process efficiency, and possible compliance costs ... existing coal plants retrofitted with available CCS equipment can be cost competitive with development of new NGCC generation.” 286 In June 2012, Alstom Power released a report entitled “Cost assessment of fossil power plants equipped with CCS under typical scenario s”. 287 , The study examined costs for a new coal
fired power plant implementing post
- combustion CCS (full CCS) in Europe, in North America, and in Asia. The results for the North American case

– along with similar cost estimates from Summit

– 286 Others have come to similar conclusions

– that retrofit of CCS technology at existing coal
- fired power plants can be feasible

– e.g., “The results indicate that for about 60 gigawatts of the existing coal
- fired capacity, the implementation of partial CO 2 capture appears feasible, though its cost is highly dependent on the unit characteristics and fuel prices.” (Zhai, H.; Ou, Y.; Rubin, E.S.; “Opportunities for Decarbonizing Existing U.S. Coal
- fired Plants via CO 2 Capture, Utilization, and Storage”, accepted for publication in Env. Sci & Tech. (2015). 287 Leandri, J., Skea, A., Bohtz, C., Heinz, G.; “Cost assessment of fossil power plants equipped with CCS under typical scenarios”, Alstom Power, June 2012. Available in the rulemaking docket: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **298** of **684** are shown in Tab le 11 below. The DOE/NETL estimated costs are also included for comparison. The results show predicted costs for a new SCPC ranging from $53/MWh to $8 2 /MWh and costs to implement full CCS ranging from $97/MWh to $14 3 /MWh. Costs to implement varying levels of partial CCS are also provided for comparison. The industry cost estimates are on the lower end of the range of costs predicted from other techno - economic studies (see Table 11 below ) and, like those economic studi es, are affected by the specific assumptions. There is relatively good agreement among the studies in the incremental cost to implement full CCS on the new SCPC units (ranging from 74 to 85 percent) and to implement 50 percent CCS on the new SCPC unit (from 41 to 45 percent increase) . **Table 11**  **. Industry LCOE Estimates for Implementation of Post****** **Combustion CCS** Summit Alstom DOE/NETL $/MWh $/MWh* $/MWh SCPC 64.5 52.6 82.3 SCPC + full CCS 117.6 97.4 152.4 Full CCS incremental cost, % 82.3% 85.0% 85.2 % SCPC + 50% CCS 91.1
- 123.6 50% CCS incremental cost, % 41.2%
- 50.1 % SCPC + 35 % CCS
- - 114.7 SCPC + 16 % CCS
- - 100.5 NGCC** 47.7 35.0 5 2 .0 ** * Costs are from Figure 2 in the referenced Alstom report (North American case) ; costs are presented as €/MWh in the report. The costs were converted to $/MWh assuming a conversion rate of 1 USD = 0.76 € (in 2012). ** NGCC cost is estimated by EPA using NETL information. Assumed natural gas prices = Summit ($4/mmBtu); Astom ($3.9/mmBtu); EPA ($ 5.00 /mmBtu ).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **299** of **684**
The EPA notes that in its public comments, Alstom maintained that “no CCS projects that would [sic] be considered cost competitive in today’s energy economy.” 288 As explained above, no steam electric EGU would be cost competitive even without CCS

– and that is substantiated in the projected costs present ed above in Table 11 where NGCC is consistently the most economic new generation option when compared to the other listed technologies . Alstom does not explain (or address) why the cost premium for partial CCS would be a decisive deterrent for capacity that would otherwise be constructed. More important, Alstom does not challenge the specific cost estimates used by the EPA at proposal (and in this final rule), nor disavow its own estimates of CCS costs (which a re even less) which it is publically disseminating in the marketplace. See also section V.F. 3 above, quoting Alstom’s press release stating unequivocally that “CCS works and is cost
- effective”. The EPA reasonably is relying on the specific Alstom estimate s which it is using for its own commercial purposes, and not on the generalized concerns presented in its public comments.

288 Alstom Comment p. 3. The comment also urged EPA to evaluate costs without considering EOR opportunities (which in fact is our methodology, albeit a conservative one), and without considering possible subsidies. Id. The LCOE and capital cost estimates above are direct cost comparisons, again consistent with the commenter’s position.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **300** of **684** d. Use of cost information from EIA Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) . For the January 2014 proposal the EPA chose to rely on the EIA AEO2013 cost projections for non
- fossil based generation. The AEO presents long- term annual projections of energy supply, demand, and prices focused on U.S. energy markets. The predictions are based on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). The AEO costs are updated annually, they are highly scrutinized, and they are widely used by those involved in the energy sector . In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA presented LCOE costs for new non - fossil dispatchable generation (see 77 FR 1477, Table 7) from the AEO2013. Those costs were updated as part of the AEO2015 release. The estimated cost for all of these technologies decreased from AEO2013 to AEO2014 and AEO2015 . This was due to changes in the macroeconomic projections that resulted in lower financing costs relative to those used the AEO2013. The EIA commissioned a comprehensive update of its capital cost assumptions for all generation technologies in 2013. Fuel cost and financial assumptions are updated for ea ch edition of the Annual Energy Outlook.
e. Accounting for uncertainty of projected costs . As previously mentioned, the projected costs are dependent upon a range of assumptions including the projected capital costs, the cost of financing the project, the fixed and variable O&M costs, the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **301** of **684** projected fuel costs, and incorporation of any incentives such as tax credits or favorable financing that may be available to the project developer. There are also regional or geographic differences that affect the final c ost of a project. The LCOE projections in this final action are not intended to provide an absolute cost for a new project using any of these respective technologies. Large construction projects

– as these would be

– would be subjected to detailed cost ana lyses that would take into consideration site
- specific information and specific design details in order to determine the project costs. The DOE/NETL noted that the cost estimates from their studies carry an accuracy in the range of
- 15 percent to +30 percent, which is consistent with a “feasibility study” level of design. They also noted that the value of the studies lies “not in the absolute accuracy of the individual case results but in the fact that all cases were evaluated under the same set of technical and economic assumptions. This consistency of approach allows meaningful comparisons among the cases evaluated.” The EIA AEO201 5 presented LCOE costs as a single point estimate representing average nationwide costs and separately as a range to repre sent the regional variation in costs. That range reflecting regional variation is presented in Table 12 . In order to compare the fossil fuel generation technologies from the NETL studies with the cost projections for non
- fossil dispatchable***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **302** of **684** technologies from EIA AEO201 5 , we assume that the EIA studies would carry a similar level of uncertainty (i.e., +30 percent) and we present the AEO201 5 projected costs as the average nationwide LCOE with a range of
- 10 percent to + 30 percent to account for uncertainty . 289 3. Use of C osts from Current P rojects Although we are relying on cost estimates drawn from techno - economic models, we recognize that there are a few s team electric plants that include CCS that have been built, or are being constructed. Some information about the costs (or cost - to date) for these projects is known. We discuss in this section the costs at facilities which have installed or are installing CCS, why the EPA does not consider those costs to be reasonably predictive of the costs of the next new plants to be built , and why the EPA considers that the next new plants will have lower costs along the lines predicted by NETL. 290

289 EIA does not provided uncertainty estimates in the AEO cost projections. However, EIA staff have indicated to EPA that a range of uncertainty of
- 10%/+30% on the capital component of the LCOE can be expected based on market uncertainties. 290 The EPA notes that two of these facilities, Kempe r and TCEP , received both assistance from DOE under EPAct05 and the IRC section 48A tax credit; and that the AEP Mountaineer pilot project received assistance from DOE under EPAct05. Under the most extreme interpretations of those provisions offered by commenters , the EPA would be preclude d from any consideration of any information from those sources , including cost information, in showing whether a system of emission reduction is adequately demonstrated . We note, however, that many of these same***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **303** of **684** The Boundary Dam Unit #3 facility utilizing post
- combustion capture from Shell Cansolv is now operational. Petra Nova, a joint venture between NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration, is currently constructing a post
- combustion capture system at NRG’s WA Parish generating station near Houston, TX. The post
combustion capture system will utilize MHI amine
-based solvent s and is currently being constructed with plans to initiate operation in 2016. 291 Construction on Mississippi Power’s Kemper County Energy Center IGCC facility is now nearly complete. The combined cycle portion of the facility has been generating power using natural gas. The gasification portion of the facility and the carbon capture system are undergoing system checks and training to enable commercial operations using a UOP SelexolTM pre
- combustion capture system in early 2016. 292

commenters urged consideration of the cost information from these sources. In fact, the EPA is not relying on information about the costs of these sources to determine the BSER or the standards of performance in this rulemaking, and the EPA is discussing the cost in formation here to explain why not. Accordingly, this discussion of cost information from these sources is not precluded by the EPAct05 and IRC section 48A provisions and, even if it is precluded, that would have no impact on the EPA’s determination of the BSER and the standards of performance in this rule. 291 http://www.nrg.com/sustainability/strategy/enhance
generation/carbon
- capture/wa
-parish
- ccs -project/ 292 http://www.mississippipower.com/about
- energy/plants/kemper
county- energy- facility/facts***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **304** of **684** Another full - scale project , the Summit Power Texas Clean Energy Project has not commenced construction but remain s a viable project. Several other full
- scale projects have been proposed and have progressed through the early stages of design, but have been cancelled or postponed for a variety of reasons. Some cost information is also available for small demonstration projects

– including those that have been supported by USDOE research programs. These projects would include Alabama Power’s demonstration project at Plant Barry and the AEP/Alstom demonstration at Plant Mountaineer. Many commenters felt that the EPA should rely on those high costs when considering whether the costs are reasonable. 293 The costs from these large - scale projects appear to be consistently higher than those projected by techno
- economic models. However, the costs from these full - scale projects represent first
- of - a kind (FOAK) costs and, it is reasonable to expect these costs to come down to the level projected in the NETL and other techno economic studies for the next new projects that are built

– which are the sources that would be subject to this standard. Significant reductions in the cost of CO 2 capture would be consistent with overall experience with the cost of pollution

293 At other times some of the same commenters insisted that the EPA is forbidden from considering information from any projects that received funding from the Energy Policy Act of 2005.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **305** of **684** control technology. A significant body of literature suggests that the per - unit cost of producing or using a given technology declines as experience with that technology increa ses over time, and this has certainly been the case with air pollution control technologies. Reductions in the cost of air pollution control technologies as a result of learning
-by- doing, research and development investments, and other factors have been ob served over the decades. We expect that the costs of capture technology will follow this pattern. The NETL cost estimates reasonably account for this documented phenomenon. Specifically, the report “reflect[s] the cost of the next commercial offering for plants that include technologies that are not yet fully mature and/or which have not yet been serially deployed in a commercial context, e.g. IGCC plants and any plant with CO2 capture. These cost estimates for next commercial offerings do not include the unique cost premiums associated with first
- of - a - kind (FOAK) plants that must demonstrate emerging technologies and resolve the cost and performance challenges associated with initial iterations.” 294 Commenters argued that the next plants to be buil t would still reflect first
- of - a - kind costs, pointing to the newness of the technology and the lack of operating experience, i.e. the

294 NETL p. 37. [  add full reference here]***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **306** of **684** alleged absence of learning by doing. The EPA disagrees. In addition to operating experience from operating and partially constructed CCS projects, substantial research efforts are underway providing a further knowledge base. Research is underway to reduce CO 2 capture costs and to improve performance. The DOE/NETL sponsors an extensive research, development and demonstration program that is focused on developing advanced technology options that will dramatically lower the cost of capturing CO2 from fossil fuel energy plants compared to currently available capture technologies. The large
scale CO 2 capture demonstrations that are currently planned and in some cases underway, under DOE’s initiatives, as well as other domestic and international projects, will generate operational knowledge and enable continued commercialization and deployment of these technologies. Gas absorpt ion processes using chemical solvents, such as amines, to separate CO2 from other gases have been in use since the 1930s in the natural gas industry and to produce food and chemical grade CO2. The advancement of amine
-based solvents is an example of techno logy development that has improved the cost and performance of CO2 capture. Most single component amine systems are not practical in a flue gas environment as the amine will rapidly degrade in the presence of oxygen and other contaminants. The Fluor Econamine FG process, the process modeled in the NETL cost study***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **307** of **684** for the SCPC cases, uses a monoethanolamine (MEA) formulation specially designed to recover CO2 and contains a corrosion inhibitor that allows the use of less expensive, conventional materials of c onstruction. Other commercially available processes use sterically hindered amine formulations (for example, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries KS

– 1 solvent) which are less susceptible to degradation and corrosion issues. The DOE/NETL and private industry are continuing to sponsor research on advanced solvents (including new classes of amines) to improve the CO 2 capture performance and reduce costs. As noted in section V.H.7.d above, SaskPower has created the CCS Global Consortium to facilitate further knowledge regarding, and use of carbon capture technology . 295 This consortium provides SaskPower the opportunity to share its knowledge and experience with global energy leaders, technology developers, and project developers. SaskPower , in partnership with Mitsubishi and Hitachi, is also helping to advance CCS knowledge and technology through the creation of the Shand Carbon Capture Test Facility (CCTF). 296 The test facility will provide technology developers with an opportunity to test new

295 http://www.saskpowerccs.com/consortium/ 296 http://www.saskpowerccs.com/ccs
-projects/shand
- carbon - capture test - facility/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **308** of **684** and emerging carbon capture systems for controlling carbon emissions from coal
- fired power plants. We also note certain features of the commercial plants already built that suggests that their costs are uniquely high , and otherwise not fairly comparabl e to the costs of plants meeting the NSPS using the BSER . Most obviously, many of these projects involve deeper capture than the partial CCS that EPA assumes in this final action . In addition, cost overruns at the Kemper facility resulted in major part from poor or precipitate management decisions, and related to the cost of the IGCC system, not the cost of CCS. 297 The EPA does not believe that

297 See Independent Monitor’s Prudency Evaluation Report for the Kemper County IGCC Project (prepared for Mississippi Public Utilities Sta ff), available at http://www.psc.state.ms.us/InsiteConnect/InSiteView.aspx?model=I NSITE_CONNECT&queue=CTS_ARCHIVEQ&docid=328417 (“Report”). As documented in this Report, costs escalated significantly because the developers adopted a “compressed schedule” in an attempt to obtain the IRC 48A tax credit, resulting in “engineering and design changes which are a normal result of detailed engineering and design ... occurring at the same time as, rather than ahead of, construction activities”, which did not allow for proper sequencing during construction. This “’just
- in
- time’ approach to engineering and procurement (meaning that the engineering was often completed shortly before material procurement and construction activities) resulted in a greater number of construction work
- arounds, congestion of construction craft labor in the field, inefficiencies and additional steps that became necessary during construction to cope with this just
- in
time engineering, procurement and construction approach.” Report, p. 6. All senior management officials in charge of the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **309** of **684** these highly idiosyncratic circumstances, reflecting among other things unfortunate management choices, are a reasonable basis for assessing costs of either CCS or IGCC here.
4. Cost Competitiveness of New Coal Units As the EPA noted, all indications suggest that very few new coal - fired power plants will be constructed in the foreseeable future. Although a small number of new coal - fired power plants have been built recently, the industry generally is not building these kinds of power plants at present and is not expected to do so for the foreseeable future. The reasons include the current economic environment and improved energy efficiency , which has led to lower electricity demand, and competitive current and projected natural gas prices. On average, the cost of generation from a new NGCC power plant is expected to be lower than the cost of generation from a new c oal - fired power plant and the EPA has concluded that, even in the absence of the requirements of this final rule, very few new coal
- fired power plants will be built in the near term .

project either resigned or were otherwise replaced. Id. pp. 12, 16. Ironically, work was still completed too late to obtain the tax credit. Id. p. 15.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **310** of **684** Some commenters , however, disagreed with this conclusion

– that without a CCS -based NSPS, no coal - fired generation will be built. They contended instead that it is the CCS
-based NSPS that would preclude such new generation. However, as the EPA has discussed, there is considerable evidence that utilities and project developers a re moving away

– or have already moved away

– from a long term dependence on coal - fired generating sources. A review of publicly available integrated resource plans show that many utilities are not considering construction of new coal - fired sources without CCS. See S ection V. H.3 above. Few new coal - fired generating sources have commenced construction in the past 5 years and, of the projects that are currently in the development phase, the EPA is only aware of projects that will include CCS in the design. As we have noted in this preamble, the bulk of new generation that has been added recently has been either natural gas
- fired or renewable sources. Overall, the EPA remains convinced that the energy sector modeling is reflecting the realities of the market in predicting very few new coal
fired power plants in the near future

– even in the absence of thes e final standards. In addition, we note that the Administration’s CCS Task Force report recognized that CCS would not become more widely available without the advent of a regulatory framework that***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **311** of **684** promoted CCS or a provided a strong price signal for CO 2 . T oday’s action is an important component in developing that framework 5. Accuracy of Cost Estimates for T ransportation and Geologic Sequestration The EPA’s estimates of costs take into account the transport of CO 2 and sequestration of captured CO 2 . E stimates of transport and sequestration costs

– approximately $5
- $15 per ton of CO 2 - are based on DOE NETL studies and also consistent with other published studies . 298 For transport, costs reflect pipeline capital costs , related capital expenditures, and O&M costs . S equestration cost estimates reflect the cost of site screening and evaluation, the cost of injection wells, the cost of injection equipment, operation and maintenance costs, pore volume acquisition expense, and long term liability protection . The se sequestration costs reflect the regulatory requirements of the Underground Injection Control Class VI program and GHGRP subpart RR for geologic sequestration of CO 2 in deep saline

298 Updated Costs (June 2011 Basis) for Selected Bituminous Ba seline Cases (DOE/NETL
- 341/082312 ; Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture (DOE/NETL
2011/1498) and Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energ y Plants (DOE/NETL
- 2010/1397 ); Economic Evaluation of CO2 Storage and Sink Enhancement Options, Tennessee Valley Authority, NETL and EPRI, December 2002 ; Carbon Dioxide and Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studies. DOE/NE TL - 2013/1614. March 2013.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **312** of **684** formations , which are discussed further in sections V. L. and M below . 299 Based on DOE/NETL studies, the EPA estimated that the total CO 2 transportation, storage, and monitoring ( TSM ) cost associated with EGU CCS would comprise less than 5.5 percent of the total cost of electricity in all capture cases modeled
- approximately $5
- $15 per ton of CO 2 . 300 The range of TSM costs the EPA relied on are broadly consistent with estimates provided by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute as well . 301 Some c ommenters suggested that the EPA underestimated the costs asso ciated with transporting captured CO 2 from an EGU to a sequestration site. 302 Specifically, commenters suggested that the EPA’s estimated costs for constructing pipelines were lower than costs based on actual industry experience. Commenters also opined that the EPA’s assumed length of pipeline needed between the EGU and the sequestration site is not reasonable and that the DOE -NETL study upon which the EPA relied does not account for CO 2 transport costs when EOR is not available.

299 Carbon Dioxide and Transport and Storage Costs in NETL Studi es. DOE/NETL
- 2013/1614. March 2013. P. 13. 300 RIA at [ ] ; proposed rule RIA at 5 - 30. 301 http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/economic
assessment - carbon - capture - and- storagetechnologies
- 2011
- update . 302 See, for example, comments from American Electric, pp 97
- 8, Southern Company, pp. 47 - 48, and Duke Power p. 98 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **313** of **684** The EPA believes its estimates of transportation and sequestration costs are reasonable. First, the EPA in fact included cost estimates for CO 2 transport when EOR opportunities are not available

– consistent with its overall conservative cost methodology o f assuming no revenues from sale of captured CO 2 . Specifically, the EPA estimate d transport, storage and monitoring ( TSM ) costs of $5
- $15 per ton of CO 2 for non - EOR applications. 303 This estimate is reflected in the LCOE comparative costs. 304 The EPA also carefully reviewed the assumptions on which the transport cost estimates are based and continues to find them reasonable. The NETL studies referenced in Section V.I.2 above based transport costs on a generic 100 km (62 mi) pipeline and a generic 80 ki lometer pipeline . 305 At least one study estimated that of the 500 largest point sources of CO 2 in the United States, 95 percent are within 50 miles of a potential

303 See RIA at section 5.5 and proposed RIA at 5 - 30 . For EOR applications the point of sale is typically the facility fence line, in which case the CO 2 supplier (i.e. the EGU) will avoid the TSM cost. Consequently, the economic benefit of EOR may be greater than simply the price paid for CO 2 . ARE THESE SENTENCES NEEDED? EOR ISNT PART OF THE COST ESTIMATE 304 See RIA at **[ ]**

. 305 The pipeline diameter was sized for this to be achieved without the need for recompression stages along the pipeline length.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **314** of **684** storage reservoir. 306 As a point of reference, the longest CO 2 pipeline in the United States is 502 miles. 307 For new sources, pipeline distance and costs can be factored into siting and, as discussed in section V. L , there is widespread availability of geologic formations for geologic sequestration ( GS ) . Moreover, data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration show that in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO 2 pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a seven percent increase in CO 2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in CO 2 pipeline miles since 2004. For the reasons outlined above, the EPA believes its estimates have a reasoned basis. See also section V. L below further discussing the current availability of CO 2 pipelines. With respect to sequestration , certain commenters argued that the EPA’s cost analysis failed to account for many contingencies and uncertainties (surface and sub
- surface property rights in particular), ignored the costs of GHGRP subpart RR, and also was not representative of the costs associated with specific GS site characterization, development,

306 JJ Dooley, CL Davidson, RT Dahowski, MA Wise, N Gupta, SH Kim, EL Malone (2006), Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Key Component of a Global Energy Technology Strategy to Address Climate Change. Joint Global Change Research Institute, Battell e Pacific Northwest Division. PNWD
- 3602. College Park, MD. 307 A Review of the CO 2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S., April 21, 2015, DOE/NETL
- 2014/1681, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **315** of **684** and operation/injection of monitoring wells. Commenter American Electric Power (AEP) referred to its own experience with the Mountaine er demonstration project. AEP noted that although this project was not full scale, finding a suitable repository, notwithstanding a generally favorable geologic area, proved difficult. The company referred to its estimated cost of expanding the existing Mountaineer plant to a larger scale project, particularly the cost of site characterization and well construction . 308 The EPA’s cost estimates account for the requirements of the Underground Injection Control Class VI program, and GHGRP subpart RR , among them site screening and evaluation costs, costs for injection wells and equipment, O&M costs, and monitoring costs. The estimated sequestration costs include operational and post
- injection site care monitoring, which are components of the UIC Class VI requirements , and also reflect costs for sub - surface pore volume property rights acquisition . 309 These estimates are consistent with the costs presented in the study CO2 Storage and Sink Enhancements: Developing Comparable

308 AEP Comments at pp. 93, 96. 309 NET L p. 49. Specifically, the report estimates the costs associated with acquiring rights to use the pore space in the geologic formation. Costs are estimated based on studies of subsurface rights acquisition for natural gas storage. The report also estimates costs for land acquisition for surface property rights. Id. p. 48.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **316** of **684** Economics , which incorporates the c osts associated with site evaluation, well drilling, and the capital equipment required for transporting and injecting CO 2 . 310 , 311 Monitoring costs were evaluated based on the methodology set forth in the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme’s Overview of Monitoring Projects for Geologic Storage Projects report. 312 The EPA’s cost estimates for sequestration thus cover all aspects commenters claimed the EPA disregarded. The EPA believes that the use of costs and scenarios presented in the studies referenced are representative for purposes of the cost analysis. The NETL cost estimates upon which the EPA’s costs are based draw directly from the UIC Class VI economic impact analysis. 313 That analysis is based on estimated characteristics for a
representative group of projects over a 50
- year period of

310 Bock, B., R. Rhudy, H. Herzog, M. Klett, J. Davidson, D G. De La Torre Ugarte, and D. Simbeck. (2003). Economic Evaluation of CO 2 Storage and Sink Enhancement Options, Final Technical Report Prepared by Tennessee Valley Authorit y for DOE . 311 As noted above, o ther sequestration
- related costs are also estimated, including injection wells and equipment, pore volume acquisition , and long- term- liability . NETL (2013) pp. 49
- 50. 312 Overview of Mon itoring Requirements for Geologic Storage Projects. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Repo rt Number PH4/29, November 2004 . 313 Cost Analysis for the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA 816
- R10
- 013, November 2010, pages 3
- 1 , 5 - 42.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **317** of **684** analysis, as well as industry averages for several cost components and sub - components. The EPA also made reasonable assumptions regarding the assumed injection site: a deep saline formation with typi cal characteristics (e.g., depth and pressure). 314 With respect to AEP’s experience with the Mountaineer demonstration project, sequestration siting issues are of course site
- specific, and raise individual issues. For this reason, it is inappropriate to generalize from a particular individual experience. In this regard, as explained in Section V. L below, the construction permits i ssued by EPA to - date under the Underground Injection Control Class VI regulations required far fewer wells for site characterization and monitoring than AEP found to be necessary at its Mountaineer site. Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties, the company was able to successfully dril l and complete wells, and safely inject captured CO 2 . Moreover, the company indicated it fully expected to be able to do so at full scale and explained how. 315 For discussion of 40 C FR Part 98 subpart RR (the GHGRP requirements

314 Economic Evaluation of CO 2 Storage and Sink Enhancement Options, Tennessee Valley Authority, NETL and EPRI, December 2002. 315 See AEP FEED Study at pp. 36
- 43. The company likewise explained the monitoring regime it would utilize to verify containment, and the well construction it would utilize to guarantee secure sequestration. Id. at pp. 44
- 54.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **318** of **684** for geologic sequestration ), including costs associated with compliance with those requirements, see section V. L below. J. Achievability of the Finals Standards The EPA finds the final standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g to be achievable over a wide range of variable conditions that are reasonably likely to occur when the system is properly designed and operated. As discussed elsewhere, the final standard reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the BSER which we have de termined to be a highly efficient SCPC implementing partial CCS at approximately 16 percent. In determining the predicted cost and performance of such a system, the EPA utilized information contained in updated DOE/NETL studies that assumed use of bituminous coal and an 85 percent capacity factor. Here we examine the effects of deviating from those assumed operational parameters on the achievability of the final standard of performance. 1. Operational fluctuations, start
- ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions Importantly, compliance with the standard must be demonstrated over a 12
- operating
-month average. The total CO2 emissions (pounds of CO2) over 12 operational months are summed and divided by the total gross output (in megawatt
- hours) over the same 12 operationa l months. Such a compliance averaging period is very forgiving of short
- term excursions that can be***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **319** of **684** associated with non
- routine events such as start
- ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. A new fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGU

– if constructed

– would, mo stly likely, be built to serve base load power demand and would not be expected to routinely start
up or shutdown or ramp its capacity factor in order to follow load demand. Thus planned start - up and shutdown events would only be expected to occur a few times during the course of a 12
- operating
-month compliance period. Malfunctions are unplanned and unpredictable events and emission excursions can happen at or around the time of the equipment malfunction. But a malfunctioning EGU that cannot be operated properly should be shut down until it the malfunctioning equipment can be addressed and the EGU can be restarted to operate properly. The post - combustion capture systems that have been uti lized have proven to be reliable. As described earlier, in evaluating results from the Mountaineer slip
- stream demonstration, AEP and Alstom reported robust steady- state operation during all modes of power plant operation including load changes, and saw an availability of the CCS system of greater than 90 percent. 316

316 http://www.alstom.com/press
- centre/2011/5 /alstom
- announces sucessful - results - of -mountaineer
- carbon - capture - andsequestration
- ccs -project/. The Boundary Dam facility likewise is operating reliably (see section V.D.3.a above. See also [NETL , 2015] at p. 36 (“[t]he capture and CO2 compression technologies have commercial operating experience with demonstrated ability for high reliability”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **320** of **684** 2. Variations in coal type The use of specific coal types can affect the amount of CO2 that is emitted from a new coal
- fired power plant. As previously discussed, the EPA utilized studies by the DOE/NETL to predict the cost and performance of new steam genera ting units. Based on those reports, the EPA predicts that a new SCPC burning either subbituminous coal or dried lignite would have an uncontrolled emission rate about 7 percent higher than a similar unit firing typical bituminous coal. 317 The EPA predicts that such a highly efficient new SCPC utilizing subbituminous coal or dried lignite would need to capture approximately 23 percent of the CO2 and the EPA finds that this is technically feasible and that the cost to do so is reasonable (see cost information i n Table 8) . K. Emission Reductions Utilizing Partial CCS Although the definition of “standard of performance” does not by its terms identify the amount of emissions from the category of sources and the amount of emission reductions achieved as factors the EPA must consider in determining the “best system of emission reduction,” the D.C. Circuit has stated that the EPA must do so. See Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d at 326 (“we can think of no sensib le interpretation of the

317 [This is derived from information provided in the DOE/NETL reports; add citation to the specific location of the information used.]***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **321** of **684** statutory words “best ... system” which would not incorporate the amount of air pollution as a relevant factor to be weighed when determining the optimal standard for controlling ... emissions”). 318 This is consistent with the Court’s st atements in Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427 , 437 (D.C. Cir. 1973) that it is necessary to “[k]eep[ ] in mind Congress’ intent that new plants be controlled to the ‘maximum practicable degree’” . The final standard of performance will result in meaningful and significant emission reductions of GHG emissions from a new coal - fired steam generating unit. The EPA estimates that a new highly efficient 500 MW coal
- fired SCPC meeting the final standard of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g will emit about 354 ,0 00 fewer metric tons of CO 2 each year than that new highly efficient unit would have emitted otherwise. That is equivalent to taking about 75,000 vehicles off the road each year 319 and will result in over 14 , 000,000 fewer metric tons of CO 2 in a 40
- year operating life. To emphasize the importance of constructing a highly efficient
318 Sierra Club v. Costle , 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir. 1981) was governed by the 1977 CAAA version of the definition of “standard of performance,” which revised the phrase ‘‘best system’’ to read, “best technological system. ” The 1990 CAAA deleted “ technological, ” and thereby returned the phrase to how it read under the 1970 CAAA. The Sierra Club v. Costle ’s interpret ation of this phrase to require consideration of the amount of air emissions remains valid for the phrase “best system. ” 319 U sing U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) estimate of average vehic le emissions of 4.7 tonnes/year.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **322** of **684** SCPC unit that includes partial CCS
- the highly efficient 500 MW coal - fired SCPC with partial CCS would emit about 675,000 fewer metric t ons of CO2 each year than that from a new, less efficient coal
- fired utility boiler with an assumed emission of 1,800 lb CO2/MWh - g . For comparison, see Table 13 below which provides the amount of CO 2 emissions captured each year by other CCS projects. Thes e result show that, even though the emission reductions are significant, they are reasonably within the range of emission reductions that are currently being achieved now in existing facilities. For comparison, over 60,000,000 metric tons of CO2 were suppl ied to U.S. EOR operations in 2013. 320 **Table 13**  **. Annual Metric Tons of CO 2**  **Captured (or predicted to capture)**  **from CCS Projects and from a Model 500 MW Plant Meeting the Final Standard.**  **CO 2**  **captured Project**  **tonnes/year** AES Shady Point 66,000 AES Warrior Run 110,000 Southern Company Plant Barry 165,000 Searles Valley Minerals 270,000 New 500 MW SCPC EGU (1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g) 354,000 Coffeyville Fertilizer 700,000 Boundary Dam #3 1,000,000 Petra Nova/NRG WA Parish 1, 4 00,000 Dakota Gasification 3,000,000

320 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, data reported as of August 18, 201 4 . 321 “ The Influence of Government Actions on Innovative Activities***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **323** of **684** L . Further Development and Deployment of CCS Technology Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) have studied the history and the technological response to environmental regulations. By examining U.S. research funding and patenting activity over the past century, the CMU researchers found that promulgation of national policy requiring large reductions in power
-plant emissions resulted in a significant upswing in inventive activity to develop technologies to reduce those emissions. The researchers found that, following the 1970 Clean Air Act, there was a 10
- fold increase in patenting ac tivity directed at improving the SO 2 scrubbers that were needed to comply with stringent federal and state - level standards. Much like carbon capture scrubbers today, the technology to capture and remove SO 2 from power plant flue gases was new to the indust ry and was not yet widely deployed at large coal -burning plants when the EPA first promulgated the 1971 standards . Many of the early FGD units did not perform well , as the technology at that time was poorly understood and there was little or no prior expe rience on coal
- fired power plants. 321 In

321 “ The Influence of Government Actions on Innovative Activities in the Development of Environmental Technologies to Control Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources ”, PhD Thesis of M.R. Taylor, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2001).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **324** of **684** contrast, amine
-based capture systems have a much longer history of reliable use at coal
- fired plants and other industrial sources. There is also a better understanding of the amine process chemistry and overall proce ss design

– and project developers have much sophisticated analytical tools available today than in the 1970s during the development of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber technologies. While R&D efforts were essential to achieving improvements in FGD scrubber technology

– and are also very important to improving carbon capture technologies , the influence of regulatory actions that establish commercial markets for advanced technologies cannot be minimized. M . Technical and Geographic Aspects of Disposition of Captured CO2 In the following sections of the preamble, we discuss issues associated with the disposition of captured CO 2 : the “S”

- sequestration

– in CCS. In the below section, we review the existing processes, technologies, and geologic conditions that enable successful geologic sequestration (GS). In Section V.M., we discuss in detail the comprehensive, in
-place regulatory structure that is currently avail able to oversee GS projects and assure their safety and effectiveness. Together these discussions demonstrate that the technical feasibility of GS, another key component of a partial CCS unit, is adequately***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **325** of **684** demonstrated. S equestration is already well proven . CO 2 has been retained underground for eons in geologic (natural) repositories and the mechanisms by which CO 2 is trapped underground are well understood. The physical and chemical trapping mechanisms, along with the regulatory requirements and safeguards of the Underground Injection Control Program and complementary monitoring and reporting requirements of the GHGRP , together
ensure that sequestered CO 2 will remain secure and provide the monitoring to identify and address potential leakage using Safe Dri nking Water Act (SDWA) and CAA authorities (see Section M of this preamble ) . 322 1. Geologic and geographic considerations for GS Geologic sequestration (i.e., long
- term containment of a CO 2 stream in subsurface geologic formations) is technically feasible and available throughout most of the United States. GS is based on a demonstrated understanding of the processes that affect CO 2 fate in the subsurface; these processes can vary
322 See also Carbon Sequestration Council and Southern Company Services v. EPA, No. 14
- 140 6 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2015) at 8 (“[c]arbon capture and storage is an emerging climate change mitigation program that involves capturing carbon dioxide from industrial sources, compressing it into a ‘supercritical fluid,’ and injecting that fluid underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration, with the goal of preventing the carbon from reentering the atmosphere. Because the last of these steps

– geologic sequestration of the supercritical carbon dioxide

– involves that injection of fluid into underground wells, it is subject to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **326** of **684** regionally as the subsurface geology changes. GS occurs through a combination of mechanisms including: 1) structural and stratigraphic trapping (generally trapping below a low permeability confining layer); 2) residual CO 2 trapping (retention as an immobile phase trapped in the pore spaces of the geologic formation); 3) solubility trapping (dissolution in the in situ formation fluids); 4) mineral trapping (reaction with the minerals in the geologic formation and confining layer to produce carbonate minerals); and 5) p referential adsorption trapping (adsorption onto organic matter in coal and shale). 323 These mechanisms are functions of the physical and chemical properties of CO 2 and the geologic formations into which the CO 2 stream is injected. Subsurface formations suitable for GS of CO 2 captured from affected EGUs are geographically widespread throughout most parts of the United States. The effectiveness of long
- term trapping of CO 2 has been demonstrated by natural analogs in a range of geologic settings where CO 2 has remained trapped for millions of years. 324 For example, CO 2 has been trapped for more than 65 million years in

323 See, e.g., USEPA. 2008. Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. 324 Holloway, S., J. Pearce, V. Hards, T. Ohsumi, and J. Gale. 2007. Natural Emissions of CO 2 from the Geosphere and their Bearing on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Energy 32: 1194

– 1201.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **327** of **684** the Jackson Dome, located near Jackson, Mississippi. 325 Other examples of natural CO 2 sources include Bravo Dome and McElmo Dome in Colorado and New Mexico , respectively . These natural storage sites are themselves capable of holding volumes of CO 2 that are larger than the volume of CO 2 expected to be captured from a fossil fuel
- fired EGU . In 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated current CO 2 reserves of 594 million metric tons at Jackson Dome, 424 million metric tons at Bravo Dome, and 530 million metric tons at McElmo Dome. 326 GS is feasible in different types of geologic formations including deep saline formations (formations with high salini ty formation fluids) or in oil and gas formations, such as where injected CO 2 increases oil production efficiency through a process referred to as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Both deep saline and oil and gas formation types are widely available in the Uni ted States. The geographic availability of deep saline formations and EOR is shown in Figure 1 below . As shown in the figure, there are 39 states for which onshore and offshore deep

325 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 326 DiPietro, P., Balash, P. & M. Wallace. A Note on Sources of CO 2 Supply for Enhanced- Oil Recovery Operations. SPE Economics & Management. April 2012.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **328** of **684** saline formation storage capacity has been identified. 327 EOR operations are currently being conducted in 12 states. An additional 17 states have geology that is amenable to EOR operations. There are 10 states with operating CO 2 pipelines and 18 states that are within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of an active EOR l ocation. CO 2 may also be used for other types of enhanced recovery, such as for natural gas production. Reservoirs such as unmineable coal seams also offer the potential for geologic storage. 328 Enhanced coalbed methane recovery is the process of injecting and storing CO 2 in unmineable coal seams to enhance methane recovery. These operations take advantage of the preferential chemical affinity of coal for CO 2 relative to the methane that is naturally found on the surfaces of coal. When CO 2 is injected, it is adsorbed to the coal surface and releases methane that can then be captured and produced. This process effectively “locks” the CO 2 to the coal, where it remains stored. DOE has identified over 54 billion metric tons of potential CO 2 sto rage capacity in unmineable coal across 21

327 Alaska is not shown in Figure 1 ; it has deep saline formation storage capacit y, geology amenable to EOR operations, and potential GS capacity in unmineable coal . 328 Other types of opportunities include organic shales and basalt.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **329** of **684** states. 329 The availability of unmineable coal seams is shown in Figure 1 below . As discussed below in Sections M .1 and M .2 , a few states do not have geologic conditions suitable for GS, or may not be located in proximity to these areas . However, i n some cases, demand in those states can be served by coal
- fired power plants located in areas suitable for GS, and in other cases, coal
- fired power plants are unlikely to be built in those areas for other reasons, such as the lack of available coal or state law prohibitions against coal
- fired power plants. 330

329 The United States 2012 Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas, Fourth Edition, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 330 Similarly, as discussed below , the U.S. territories lack available coal, do no t currently have coal - fired power plants, and, as a result, are not expected to see new coal - fired power plants.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **330** of **684*****EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **331** of **684 Figure**  **1 : Geologic Sequestration in the Continental United**  **States*****EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **332** of **684 Figure 2**  **– Electrical Transmission Lines**  **a cross the Continental**  **United States 331**  2 . Availability of Geologic Sequestration in Deep Saline Formations The DOE and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have independently conducted preliminary analyses of the availability and potential CO 2 sequestration capacity of deep saline formations in the United S tates. DOE estimates are compiled by the DOE’s National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) using volumetric models and published in a Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas. 332 DOE estimates that areas of the United State s with appropriate geology have a sequestration potential of at least 2, 035 billion metric tons of CO 2 in deep saline formations. According to DOE and as noted above, at least 39 states have geologic characteristics that are amenable to deep saline GS in either onshore or offshore locations. In 2013, the USGS completed its evaluation of the technically accessible GS resources for CO 2 in U.S. onshore areas and state waters using probabilistic

331 Ventyx Velocity Suite Online. April 2015. 332 The United States 2012 Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas, Fourth Edition, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **333** of **684** assessment. 333 The USGS estimates a mean of 3,000 billion metric tons of subsurface CO 2 sequestration potential, including saline and oil and gas reservoirs, across the basins studied in the United States. The DOE has created a network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) to deploy large - scale field projects in different geologic settings across the country to demonstrate that GS can be achieved safe ly, permanently, and economically at large scales. Collectively, the seven RCSPs represent regions encompassing 97 percent of coal
- fired CO 2 emissions, 97 percent of industrial CO 2 emissions, 96 percent of the total land mass, and essentially all the geologic sequestration sites in the United States potentially available for GS. 334 The seven partnerships include more than 400 organizations spanning 43 states (and four Canadian provinces). 335 RCSP p roject objectives are to inject at least one million metric tons of CO 2 . In April 2015, DOE announced that

333 U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Te am, 2013, National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources

—Results: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1386, p. 41, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1386/ . 334 http://energy.gov/fe/science
- innovation/carbon
- capture - andstorage - research/regional
-partner ships . 335 http://energy.gov/fe/science
- innovation/carbon
- capture - andstorage - research/regional
-partnerships .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **334** of **684** CCS projects supported by the department have safely and permanently stored 10 million metric tons of CO 2 . 336 E ight RCSP “Development Phase” projects have been initiated and five of the eight projects are injecting or have completed CO 2 injection into deep saline formations. Three of these projects have already injected more than one million metric tons each, and one, the Cranfield Site, injected over eight million metric tons of CO 2 between 2009 and 2013. 337 Various types of technologies for monitoring CO 2 in the subsurface and air have been employed at these projects, such as seismic methods (crosswell seismic, 3
- D and 4 - D seismic, and ve rtical seismic profiling), atmospheric CO 2 monitoring, soil gas sampling, well and formation pressure monitoring, and surface and ground water monitoring. 338 No CO 2 leakage has been reported from these sites, which further supports the availability of effect ive GS.

336 http://energy.gov/articles/milestone
- energy- department projects
- safely- and-permanently- store - 10
-million
-metric
- tons 337 U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Project Facts, Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

—Development Phase, Cranfield Site and Citronelle Site Projects, NT42590, October 2013. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/NT42590. pdf . 338 A description of the types of monitoring technologies employed at RCSP projects can be found here: http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon
- storage/carbon
storage - infrastructure/regional
-partnership
- development -phase iii .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **335** of **684** 2. Availability of CO 2 Storage via EOR Although the determination that the BSER is adequately demonstrated and the regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, the EPA also recognizes the potential for securely sequestering CO 2 via EOR. EOR is a technique that is used to increase the production of oil . Approaches used for EOR include steam injection, injection of specific fluids such as surfactants and polymers, and gas injection including nitrogen and CO 2 . EOR using CO 2 , sometimes referred to as “CO 2 flooding” or CO 2 - EOR, involves injecting CO 2 into an oil reservoir to help mobilize the remaining oil to make it more amenable for recovery. The crude oil and CO 2 mixture is then recovered and sent to a separator where the crude oil is separated from the gaseous hydrocarbons, native formation fluids, and CO 2 . The gaseous CO 2 - rich stream then is typically dehydrated, purified to remove hydrocarbons,
re - compressed, and re - injected into the reservoir to further enhance oil recovery. Not all of the CO 2 injected into the oil reservoir is recovered and re
- injected. As the CO 2 moves from the injection point to the production well, some of the CO 2 becomes trapped in the small pores of the rock, or is dissolved***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **336** of **684** in the oil and water that is not recovered. The CO 2 that remains in the reservoir is not mobile and becomes sequestered. The amount of CO 2 used in an EOR project depends on the volume and injectivity of the reservoir that is being flooded and the length of time the EOR project has been in operation. Initially, all of the injected CO 2 is newly received. As discussed above, as the project matures, some CO 2 is recovered with the oil and the recovered CO 2 is separated from the oil and recycled so that it can be re
- injected i nto the reservoir in addition to new CO 2 that is received. If an EOR operator will not require the full volume of CO 2 available from an EGU, the EGU has other options such as sending the CO 2 to other EOR operators, or sending it to deep saline formation GS facilities. CO 2 used for EOR may come from anthropogenic or natural sources. The source of the CO 2 does not impact the effectiveness of the EOR operation. CO 2 capture, treatment and processing steps provide a concentrated stream of CO 2 in order to meet the needs of the intended end use. CO 2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source of the CO 2 and take into account CO 2***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **337** of **684** composition, impurities, and phase behavior. Additionally, EOR operators and transport companies have specifications related to the composition of the CO 2 stream. The regulatory requirements and company specifications ensure EOR operators receive a known and consistent CO 2 stream. EOR has been successfully used at numerous production fields throughout the United States to increase oil recovery. The oil industry in the United States has over 40 years of experience with EOR. An oil industry study in 2014 identified more than 125 EOR projects in 98 fields in the United States. 339 More than half of the projects evaluated in the study have been in operation for more than 10 years, and many have been in operation for more than 30 years. This experience provides a strong foundation for demonstrating successful CO 2 injection and monitoring technologies, which are needed for safe and secure GS (see Section M below) that can be used for deployment of CCS across geographically diverse areas. Currently, 12 states have active EOR operations and most have developed an extensive CO 2 infrastructure, including pipelines, to support the continued operation and growth of EOR. An additional 18 states are within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of

339 Koottungal, Leena, 2014, 2014 Worldwide EOR Survey, Oil & Gas Journal, Volume 112, Issue 4, April 7, 2014 (corrected tables appear in Volume 112 , I ssue 5, May 5, 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **338** of **684** current EOR operations. See Figure 1 above. The vast majority of EOR is conducted in oil reservoirs in the Permian Basin, which extends through southwest Texas and southeast New Mexic o. S tates where EOR is utilized include Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Several commenters raised concerns about the volume of CO 2 used in EOR projects relative to the scale of EGU emissions and the demand for CO 2 for EOR projects. At the project level, the volume of CO 2 already injected for EOR and the duration of operations are of similar magnitude to the duration and volume of CO 2 expected to be captured from fossil fuel
- fired EGUs. The volume of CO 2 used in EOR operations can be large (e.g., 55 million tons of CO 2 were stored in the SACROC unit in the Permian Basin over 35 years) , and operations at a single oil field may last for decades , injecting into multiple parts of the field. 340 According to data reported to the EPA’s GHGRP, approximately 60 million metric tons of CO 2 were supplied to EOR in the United States in 2013. 341 Approximately 70 percent of this total CO 2 supplied was produced from natural (geologic) CO 2 sources and

340 Han, Weon S., McPherson, B J., Lichtner, P C., and Wang, F P. “Evaluation of CO 2 trapping mechanisms at the SACROC northern platform, Permian basin, Texas, site of 35 years of CO 2 injection.” American Journal of Science 310. (2010): 282
- 324. 341 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, data reported as of August 18, 201 4 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **339** of **684** approximately 30 percent was captured from anthropogenic
sources. 342 A DOE - sponsored study has analyzed the geographic availability of applying EOR in 11 major oil producing regions of the United States and found that there is an opportunity to significantly increase the application of EOR to areas outside of current operations. 343 DOE - sponsored geologic and engineering analyses show that expanding EOR operations into areas additional to the capacity already identified and applying new methods and techniques over the next 20 years could utilize 18 billion metric tons of anthropogenic CO 2 and increase total oil production by 67 billion barrels. The study found that one of the limitations to expanding CO 2 use in EOR is the lack of availability of CO 2 in areas where reservoirs are most amenable to CO 2 flooding. 344 DOE’s Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas

342 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, data reported as of August 18, 201 4 . 343 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO 2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO 2 - Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/re search/energy
analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba
- 6b4b
- 4721
- a7b4 - 04a505a19185 . 344 “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO 2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO 2 - Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), 2011. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/energy
analysis/publications/details?pub=df02ffba
- 6b4b
- 4721
- a7b4 - 04a505a19185 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **340** of **684** identifies 29 states with oil reservoirs amenable to EOR , 12 of which currently have active EOR operations . A comparison of the current states with EOR operations and the states with potential for EOR shows that an opportunity exists to expand the use of EOR to regions outside of current areas. The availability of anthropogenic CO 2 in areas outside of current sources could drive new EOR projects by making more CO 2 locally available. Some commenters raised concerns that data are extremely limited on the extent to which EOR operations permanently sequester CO 2 , and the efficacy of long term storage, or that the EOR industry does not have the requisite experience with and technical knowledge of long
- term CO 2 sequestration. The EPA disagrees with these commenters. Several EOR sites , which have been operated for years to decades, have been studied to evaluate the viability of safe and secure long
- term sequestration of injected CO 2 . Examples are identified below.

 CO 2 has been injected in the SACROC Unit in the Permian basin since 1972 for EOR purposes. One study evaluated a portion of this project, and estimated that the injection operations resulted in final sequestration of about 55***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **341** of **684** million tons of CO 2 . 345 This study used modeling and simulations, along with collection and analysis of seismic surveys , and well logging data, to evaluate the ongoing and potential CO 2 trapping occurring through various mechanisms. The monitoring at this site demonstrated that CO 2 can become trapped in geologic formations. In a separate study in the SACROC Unit, the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology conducted an extensive groundwater sampling program to look for evidence of CO 2 leakage in the shallow freshwater aquifers. No evidence of leakage was detected. 346

 The International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme conducted an extensive monitoring program at the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan between 2000 and 2010 (the site receiving CO 2 captured by the Dakota Gasification synfuel plant di scussed in Section E .2.a above). During that time over 16 million metric tons of CO 2 were safely

345 Han, Weon S., McPherson, B J., Lichtner, P C., and Wang, F P. “Evaluation of CO 2 trapping mechanisms at the SACROC northern platform, Permian basin, Texas, site of 35 years of CO 2 injection.” American Journal of Science 310. (2010): 282
- 324. 346 Romanak, K.D., Smyth, R.C., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S., Detection of anthropogenic CO 2 in dilute groundwater: field observations and geochemical modeling of the Dockum aquifer at the SACROC oilfield, West Texas, USA: presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Pittsburgh, PA, May 10
- 13, 20 10. GCCC Digital Publication Series #10
- 06.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **342** of **684** sequestered as evidenced by soil gas surveys, shallow groundwater monitoring, seismic surveys and wellbore integrity testing. An extensive shallow groundwater monitoring program revealed no significant changes in water chemistry that could be attributed to CO 2 storage operations. 347 The International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme developed a best practices manual for CO 2 monitoring at EOR sites based on the comprehensive analysis of surface and subsurface monitoring methods applied over the 10 years. 348

 The Texas Bureau of Economic Geology also has been testing a wide range of surface and subsurface monitoring tools and approaches to document sequestration e fficiency and sequestration permanence at the Cranfield oilfield in Mississippi (see Section L .1 above). 349 As part of a DOE Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership study, Denbury Resources injected CO 2 into a depleted oil and gas reservoir at a rate greater than 1.2 million

347 Roston, B., and S. Whittaker (2010), 10+ years of the IEA
- GHG Weyburn -Midale CO 2 monitoring and storage project; success and lessons learned from multiple hydrogeological investigations, to be published in Energy Procedia, Elsevier, Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 348 Hitchon, B. (Editor), 2012, Best Practices for Validating CO 2 Geological Storage: Geosci ence Publishing, p. 353. 349 http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/cranfield.php .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **343** of **684** tons/year. Texas Bureau of Economic Geology is currently evaluating the results of several monitoring techniques employed at the Cranfield project and preliminary findings indicate no impact to groundwater. 350 The project also demonstrates the availability and effectiveness of many different monitoring techniques for tracking CO 2 underground and detecting CO 2 leakage to ensure CO 2 remains safely sequestered . As discussed in Section L .1 above and as shown in Figure 1, the United States has widespread potential for storage, including in deep saline formations and oil and gas formations. However, s ome c ommenters maintained that the EPA’s information regarding availability of GS sites is overly general and ignores important individual considerations. A number of commenters, for example, maintained that site conditions often make monitoring difficult or impossible, so that sites are not available as a practical matter. 351 Commenter American E lectric Power pointed to its own experience in siting monitoring wells for its pilot plant Mountaineer CCS project, which involved protracted time and expense to eventually site monitoring wells. 352 Other commenters noted significant geographic disparity in GS site

350 http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/cranfield.php . 351 Comments of Southern Co., p. 38. 352 Comments of AEP pp. 93, 96.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **344** of **684** availability, claiming absence of sites in southeastern areas of the country. 353 Project
- and site
- specific factors do influence where CO 2 can be safely sequestered. However, as outlined above, there is widespread potential for GS in the United State s . If an area does not have a suitable GS site, EGUs can either transport CO 2 to GS sites via CO 2 pipelines (see Section L . 3 below), or they may choose to locate their units closer to GS sites and provide electric power to customers through transmission li nes (see Figure 2) . In addition, there are alternative means of complying with the final standards of performance which do not necessitate use of partial CCS, so any siting difficulties based on lack of a CO 2 repository would be obviated. See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2011), holding that the EPA could adopt section 111 standards of performance based on the performance of a kiln type that kilns of older design would have great difficulty satisfying, since , among other th ings, there were alternative methods of compliance available should a new kiln of this older design be built. 3. Alternatives to Ge ologic S equestration

353 Comments of Duke Energy, pp. 24
- 5; UARG, pp. 53, 57 citing Cichanowicz (2012).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **345** of **684** Potential alternatives to sequestering CO 2 in geologic formations are emerging. These relatively new po tential alternatives may offer the opportunity to offset the cost of CO 2 capture. For example, captured anthropogenic CO 2 may be stored in solid carbonate materials such as precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) or magnesium or calcium carbonate, bauxite
res idue carbonation, and certain types of cement through mineralization. PCC is produced through a chemical reaction process that utilizes calcium oxide (quicklime), water, and CO 2 . Likewise, the combination of magnesium oxide and CO 2 results in a precipitati on reaction where the CO 2 becomes mineralized. The carbonate materials produced can be tailored to optimize performance in specific industrial and commercial applications. These carbonate materials have been used in the construction industry and, more recently and innovatively, in cement production processes to replace Portland cement. The Skyonics Skymine project, which opened its demonstration project in October 2014, is an example of captured CO 2 being used in the production of carbonate products. This plant converts CO 2 into commercial products. It captures over 75,000 tons of CO 2 annually from a San Antonio, Texas, cement***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **346** of **684** plant and converts the CO 2 into other products, including sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, hydrochloric acid and bleach. 354 A few commenters suggested that CO 2 utilization technologies alternative to GS are being commercialized, and that these should be included as compliance op tions for this rule. The rule generally requires that captured CO 2 be either injected on
- site for geologic sequestration or transferred offsite to a facility reporting under 40 CFR subpart RR. The EPA does not believe that the emerging technologies just di scussed
are sufficiently advanced to unqualifiedly structure this final rule to allow for their use . Nor are there plenary systems of regulatory control and GHG reporting for these approaches, as there are for geologic sequestration. Nonetheless, as state d above, these technologies not only show promise, but could potentially be demonstrated to show permanent storage of CO 2 . In the January 2014 proposal, the EPA noted that it would need to adopt a mechanism to evaluate these alternative technologies before any could be used in lieu of geologic sequestration. 79 FR at 1484. The EPA is establishing such a mechanism in this final rule. See [ADD CITE TO FINAL RULE WHEN WE FIND A HOME FOR Mark’s rule language]. The rule provides for
a case -by- case adjudication b y the EPA of applications seeking

354 http://skyonic.com/technologies/skymine .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **347** of **684** to demonstrate to the EPA that a non - geologic sequestration technology would result in permanent confinement of captured CO2 from an affected EGU. The criteria to be addressed in the application, and evaluated by the EPA, are drawn from CAA section 111(j), which provides an analogous mechanism for case
by- case approval of innovative technological systems of continuous emission reduction which have not been adequately demonstrated. Applicants would need to demonstrate that the proposed technology would operate effectively, and that captured CO2 would be permanently stored. Applicants must also demonstrate that the proposed technology will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety. In evaluating applications, the EPA may conduct tests itself or require the applicant to conduct testing in support of its application. Any application would be publicly noticed, and the EPA would solicit comment on the application and on intended action the EPA might take. The EPA could also provide a conditional approval of an application on operating results from
a proscribed period. The EPA could also terminate an approval, including a termination based on operating results calling into question a technology’s effectiveness. As noted at proposal, given the unlikelihood of new coal
fired EGUs being constructed, the E PA does not expect there to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **348** of **6 84**  be many (if any) applications for use of non
- geologic sequestration technology. 79 FR at 1484. 4 . Availability of Existing or P lanned CO 2 P ipelines CO 2 pipelines are the most economical and efficient method of transporting large quantities of CO 2 . 355 CO 2 has been transported via pipelines in the United States for nearly 40 years. Over this time, the design, construction, operation, and safety requirements for CO 2 pipelines have been proven, and the U.S. CO 2 pipeline network has been safely used and expanded. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) reported that in 2013 there were 5,195 miles of CO 2 pipelines operating in the United States. This represents a seven percent increase i n CO 2 pipeline miles over the previous year and a 38 percent increase in CO 2 pipeline miles since 2004. 356 Some commenters argued that the existing CO 2 pipeline capacity is not adequate and that CO 2 pipelines are not available in a majority of the United St ates.

355 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (August 2010), page 36. 356 “Annual Report Mileage for Hazardous L iquid or Carbon Dioxide Systems ”, U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, March 2, 2015 . Available at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data
- stats .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **349** of **684** The EPA does not agree. The CO 2 pipeline network in the United States has almost doubled in the past ten years in order to meet growing demands for CO 2 for EOR. CO 2 transport companies have recently proposed initiatives to expand the CO 2 pipeline
ne twork. Several hundred miles of dedicated CO 2 pipeline are under construction, planned, or proposed, including projects in Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. Examples are identified below.

 Kinder Morgan has reported several proposed pipeline projects including the proposed expansion of the existing Cortez CO 2 pipeline, crossing Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, to increase the CO 2 transport capacity from 1.35 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) to 1.7 Bcf/d, to support the expansion of CO 2 production capacity at the McElmo Dome production facility in Colorado. The Cortez pipeline expansion is expected to be placed into service in 20 15. 357

 Denbury reported that the company utilized approximately 70 million cubic feet per day of anthropogenic CO 2 in

357 “Form 10
- K: Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Security and Exchange Act of 1934, For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2014”, Kinder Morgan, February 2015. Available at: http://ir.kindermorgan.com/sites/kindermorgan.investorhq.busines swire.com/files/report/additional/KMI
- 2014
- 10K_Final.pdf .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **350** of **684** 2013 and that an additional approximately 115 million cubic feet per day of anthropogenic CO 2 may be utilized in the future from currently planned or future construction of facilities and associated pipelines in the Gulf Coast region. 358 Denbury also initiated transport of CO 2 from a Wyoming natural gas processing plant in 2013 and reported transporting approximately 22 million cubic feet per day of CO 2 in 2013 from that plant alone. 359

 Denbury completed the final section of the 325
-mile Green Pipeline for transporting CO 2 from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to EOR oil fields in Texas. 360 Denbury completed construction and commenced operation of the 23 2
-mile Greencore Pipeline in 2013; the Greencore pipeline transports CO 2 to EOR fields in Wyoming and Montana. 361 A proposed project by NRG (Petra Nova) would

358 “2013 Annual Report”, Denbury, April 2014. Available at http://www.denbury.com/files/doc_financials/2013/Denbury_Final_0 40814.pdf . 359 “CO 2 Sources ” , Denbury, 2014 . Available at : http://www.denbury.c om/operations/rocky
-mountain
- region/co2
- sources - and-pipelines/default.aspx . 360 http://www.denbury.com/responsiblity/public
- awareness/Denbury
Aware/default.aspx. 361 “CO 2 P ipelines” , Denbury, 2014 . Available at : http://www.denbury.com/operations/rocky
-mountain
- region/COsub2
- sub - Pipelines/default.aspx .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **351** of **684** capture CO 2 from a power plant in Fort Bend County, Texas for transport to EOR sites in Jackson County, Texas through a proposed 82
-mile CO 2 pipeline. 362 The project is anticipated to commence operation in 2016. 363 Some commenters suggested that there may be challenges associated with the safety of transporting supercritical CO 2 over long distances, or that the EPA did not adequately consider the potential non
- air environmental impacts of the construction of CO 2 pipelines. The EPA has carefully evaluated the safety of pipelines used to transport captured CO 2 and determined that pipelines can indeed convey captured CO 2 to sequestration sites with certainty and provide full protection of human health and the environment. 76 FR at 48082
- 83 (Aug. 8, 2011); 79 FR 352, 3 54 (Jan. 3, 2014) . Existing and new CO 2 pipelines are comprehensively regulated by the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration. The regulations govern pipeline design, construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency response planning. See generally 49 CFR 195.2. Additional regulations

362 “ The West Ranch CO 2 - EOR Project , NRG Fact Sheet”, NRG, 2014. Available at : http://www.nrg.com/documents/business/pla
- 2014
- west - ranch - fact - sheet.pdf . 363 “WA Parish Carbon Capture Project ” , NRG, 2015. Available at: http://www.nrg.com/sustainability/strategy/enhance
generation/carbon
- capture/wa
-parish
- ccs -project/ .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **352** of **684** address pipeline integrity management by requiring heightened scrutiny to assure the quality of pipeline integrity in areas with a higher potential for adverse consequences. See 49 CFR 195.450 and 195.452. On
- site pipelines are not subject to the Department of Transportat ion standards, but rather adhere to the Pressure Piping standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which EPA has found to provide similar protective safeguards as the Department of Transportation regulations. 364 See 79 FR 358
- 59 (Jan. 3, 2014 ). The EPA reiterates here its findings that existing controls over CO 2 pipelines assure protective management, guard against releases, and assure that captured CO 2 will be securely conveyed to a sequestration site. 5 . States with Emission Standards That Would Re quire CCS Several states have established emission performance standards or other measures to limit emissions of GHGs from new EGUs that are comparable to or more stringent than the final standard in this rulemaking. For example, in September 2006 , California Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 1368. The law limits long
- term investments in base load generation by the state’s utilities to power plants that meet an

364 See the B31 Code for pressure piping, developed by the American Society of Mechanical Eng ineers, Pipeline Transportation Systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other liquids.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **353** of **684** emissions performance standard jointly established by the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission. The Energy Commission has designed regulations that establish a standard for new and existing base load generation owned by, or under long- term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh. In May 2007, Washington Governor Gregoire signed Substitute Senate Bill 6001, which established statewide GHG emissions reduction goals, and imposed an emission standard that applies to any base load electric generation that commenced operation after June 1, 2008 and is located in Washington, whether or not that generation serves load located within the state. Base load generation facilities must initially comply with an emission limit of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh. In July 2009, Oregon Governor Kulongoski signed Senate Bill 101, which mandated that facilities generating base load electricity, whether gas
- or coal - fired, must have emissions equal to or less than 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh, and prohibited utilities from entering into long
- term purchase agreements for base load electricity with out
- of - state facilities that do not meet that standard.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **354** of **684** In 2012 New York established emission standards of CO 2 at 925 lb CO 2 /MWh for new and expanded base load fossil fuel
- fired plants . In May 2007, Montana Governor Schweitzer s igned House Bill 25, adopting a CO 2 emissions performance standard for EGU s in the state. House Bill 25 prohibits the state Public Utility Commission from approving new EGU s primarily fueled by coal unless a minimum of 50 percent of the CO 2 produced by the facility is captured and sequestered. On January 12, 2009, Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed Senate Bill 1987, the Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law. The legislation establishes emission standards for new power plants that use coal as their primary fee dstock. From 2009

– 2015, new coal - fueled power plants must capture and store 50 percent of the carbon emissions that the facility would otherwise emit; from 2016

– 2017, 70 percent must be captured and stored; and after 2017, 90 percent must be captured and s tored. 6 . Coal -by-wire In addition, as discussed in the proposal, electricity demand in states that may not have geological sequestration sites may be served by coal
- fired electricity generation built in nearby areas with geological sequestration, and this electricity can be delivered through transmission lines. This***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **355** of **684** method, known as “ coal -by-wire,” has long been used in the electricity sector because siting a coal
- fired power plant near the coal mine and transmitting the generation long distances to the load area is generally less expensive than siting the plant near the load area and shipping the coal long distances. For example, we noted in the proposal: “There are many examples where coal - fired power generated in one state is used to supply electric ity in other states. For instance, historically, nearly 40 percent of the power for the City of Los Angeles was provided from two coal
- fired power plants located in Arizona and Utah. In another example, Idaho Power, which serves customers in Idaho and East ern Oregon, meets its demand in part from coal - fired power plants located in Wyoming and Nevada.” 79 FR at 1478. In sum, subsurface formations suitable for GS of CO 2 captured from affected EGUs are geographically widespread throughout many parts of the Un ited States , including via deep saline formations or EOR . Characteristics of geologic formations may vary based on geography, but the mechanisms by which CO 2 is trapped underground are well understood and proven. Additionally , CO 2 pipelines have been operating for over 40 years in the United States and new pipeline projects continue to be proposed and built. Some states already impose emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **356** of **684** limits that can be met only through CCS, and i n the few states that do not have geologic conditions suitable for GS, or may not be located in close proximity to these areas, demand could be served by coal - fired generation that is sited in areas with GS. N . Final Requirements for Disposition of Captured CO2 This section discusses the different regulatory components, already in place, that assure the safety and effectiveness of GS. This section, by demonstrating that GS is already covered by an effective regulatory structure, complements the analysis of the technical feasibility of GS contained i n Sec. V.L. Together, these sections affirm that the technical feasibility of GS is adequately demonstrated. In 2010, the EPA finalized an effective and coherent regulatory framework to ensure that CO 2 is safely sequestered
-- that is, that CO 2 can be inje cted and remain securely and permanently underground. The EPA developed these Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI well regulations under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to facilitate injection of CO 2 for GS, while protecting human health and the environment by ensuring the protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). The Class VI regulations are built upon 35 years of federal experience regulating underground injection wells, and many additional years of state UIC program expertise.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **357** of **684** The EPA and states have decades of UIC experience with the Class II program , which provides a regulatory framework for the protection of USDWs for CO 2 injected for purposes of EOR. In addition, to complement both the Class VI and Class II rules, the EPA used CAA authority to develop air
- side monitoring and reporting requirements for CO 2 capture, underground injection, and geologic sequestration through the GHGRP. Information collected under the GHGRP provides a transparent means for the EPA and the public to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of GS. As explained below, these requirements help ensure that sequestered CO 2 will remain in place, and provide the monitoring mechanisms to identify and address po tential leakage using SDWA and CAA authorities . We note the near consensus in the public responses to the Class VI rulemaking that saline and oil and gas reservoirs provide ready means for secure GS of CO 2 . 365 1. Requirements for UIC Class VI and Class II wells Under SDWA , the EPA developed the UIC Program to regulate the underground injection of fluids in a manner that ensures

365 “Most commenters encouraged EPA not to automatically exclude any potential injection formations for GS at this stage of deployment. Commenters suggested, in particular, that there is sufficient technical basis and scientific evidence to allow GS in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and in saline formations, noting that there is consensus on how to inject into these formation types.” 75 FR at 77252 (Dec. 10, 2010).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **358** of **684** protection of USDWs. UIC regulations establish six different well classes that manage a range of injectates (e.g., industrial and municipal wastes; fluids associated with oil and gas activities; solution mining fluids; and CO 2 for geologic sequestration) and which accommodate varying geologic, hydrogeological, and other conditions. The standards apply to injection into any type of fo rmation that meets the rule’s rigorous criteria, and so apply not only to injection into deep saline formations, but also can apply to injection into unmineable coal seams and other formations. See 75 FR 77256 (Dec. 10, 2010). The EPA's UIC regulations define the term USDWs to include current and future sources of drinking water and aquifers that contain a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system, where formation fluids either are currently being used for human consumption or that contain less than 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids. 366 UIC requirements have been in place for over three decades and have been used by the EPA and states to manage hundreds of thousands of injection wells nationwide.
a. Class VI requirements . In 2010, the EPA established a new class of well, Class VI. Class VI wells are used to inject CO 2 into the subsurface for the purpose of long
- term sequestration.

366 40 CFR §1 44.3.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **359** of **684** See 75 FR 77230 (Dec. 10, 2010). This rule accounts for the unique nature of CO 2 injection for large - scale GS. Specifically, the EPA addressed the unique characteristics of CO 2 injection for GS including the large CO 2 injection volumes anticipated at GS projects, relative buoyancy of CO 2 , its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and it s corrosivity in the presence of water. The UIC Class VI rule was developed to facilitate GS and ensure protection of USDWs from the particular risks that may be posed by large scale CO 2 injection for purposes of long- term GS . The Class VI rule establishes technical requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, area of review (i.e., the project area) and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post
- injection site care, site closure, and financial responsibility for the purpose of protecting USDWs. 367 Notably:

367 The Class VI rule rests on a robust technical and scientific foundation, reflecting scientific oversight and peer review. In developing these Class VI rules, EPA engaged with the SAB, providing detailed information on key issues relating to geologic sequestration

– including monitoring schemes; methods to predict and verify capacity, injectivity, and effectiveness of subsurface CO2 storage; and characterization and management of risks associated with plume migration and pressure increases in the subsurface. See: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/AD09B42B75D9E36D852***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **360** of **684**

 Site characterization includes assessment of the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical, and geomechanical properties of a proposed GS site to ensure that Class VI wells are sited in appropriate locations and CO 2 streams are inject ed into suitable formations with a confining zone or zones free of transmissive faults or fractures to ensure USDW protection. 368 , 369 Site characterization is designed to eliminate unacceptable sites that may pose risks to USDWs. Generally, injection of CO 2 for GS should occur beneath the

57704004882CF?OpenDocument . In addition, EPA developed a peer reviewed Vulnerability Evaluation Framework, which served as a technical support document for both the Class VI and Subpart RR rules. See: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/VEF
Technical_Document_072408.pdf . In the section 111 (b) rulemaking here, the SAB Work Group, in a letter endorsed by the full SAB Committee, found that “while the scientific and technical basis for carbon storage provisions is new and emerging science, the agency is using the best available science and has conducted peer review at a level required by agency guidance.” Memorandum of Jan. 7, 2014, from SAB Work Group Chair to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons, p. 3. The letter was subsequently endorsed by the full SAB. Work Group Letter of Jan. 24, 2014, as edited by the full Committee.

368 75 FR 77240 and 75 FR 77247 ( December 10, 2010). 369 40 CFR §146.82 and §146. 83. Comments indicating that EPA rules have not considered issues of exposure pathways such as abandoned wells or formation fissures are mistaken. (See, e.g., Comments of UARG, p. 52 . )***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **361** of **684** lowermost formation containing a USDW. 370 To increase the availability of Class VI sites in geographi c areas with very deep USDWs, waivers from the injection depth requirements may be sought where owners or operators can demonstrate USDW protection. 371

 Owners or operators of Class VI wells must delineate the project area of review using computational modeli ng that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of the injected CO 2 and displaced fluids and is based on an iterative process of available site characterization, monitoring, and operational data. 372 Within the area of review, owners or operators mu st identify and evaluate all artificial penetrations to identify those that need corrective action to prevent the movement of CO 2 or other fluids into or between USDWs. 373 , 374 Due to the potential ly large size of the area of review for Class VI wells, corrective actions may be conducted on a phased basis during the lifetime of the project. 375 Periodic reevaluation of the area of review is required and enables owners or

370 40 CFR §146.81(d). 371 40 CFR §146.95. 372 40 CFR §146.84(a). 373 40 CFR §146.84(c)(1)(3) and §146.90(d)(1). 374 40 CFR §146.81(d) and §146.84. 375 40 CFR §146.84(b)(2)(iv).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **362** of **684** operators to incorporate previous ly collected monitoring and operational data to verify that the CO 2 plume and the associated area of elevated pressure are moving as predicted within the subsurface. 376

 Well construction must use materials that can withstand contact with CO 2 over the operati onal and post - injection life of the project. 377 These requirements address the unique physical characteristics of CO 2 , including its buoyancy relative to other fluids in the subsurface and its potential corrosivity in the presence of water.

 Requirements for operation of Class VI injection wells account for the unique conditions that will occur during large - scale GS including buoyancy, corrosivity, and high sustained pressures over long periods of operation. 378 , 379

 Owners or operators of Class VI wells must develop and implement a comprehensive testing and monitoring plan for their projects that includes injectate analysis, mechanical integrity testing, corrosion monitoring, ground water and

376 40 CFR §146.84(e)(1). 377 40 CFR §146.86(b). 378 75 FR 77250
- 52 (December 10, 2010) ; see also id. at 77234
- 35. Commenters were mistaken in asserting (without reference to Class VI provisions) that the EPA had ignored issues relating to CO 2 properties when injected in large volumes in supercritical state into geologic formations . 379 40 CFR §146.88.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **363** of **684** geochemical monitoring, pressure fall
- off testing, CO 2 plume and pressure front monitoring and tracking, and, at the discretion of the Class VI director , surface air and/or soil gas monitoring. 380 Owners and operators must periodically review the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate operational and monitoring data and the mo st recent area of review reevaluation. 381 Robust monitoring of the CO 2 stream, injection pressures, integrity of the injection well, ground water quality and geochemistry, and monitoring of the CO 2 plume and position of the pressure front throughout injection will ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment, preserve water quality, and allow for timely detection of any leakage of CO 2 or displaced formation fluids.

 Although subsurface monitoring is the primary and effective means of determining if there are any risks to a USDW, the Class VI rule also authorizes the UIC Program Director to require surface air and/or soil gas monitoring on a site
specific basis. For example, the Class VI Director may require surface air/soil gas monitoring of the flux of CO 2 out of the subsurface, with elevation of CO 2 levels above

380 40 CFR §146.90. 381 40 CFR §146.90(j).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **364** of **684** background serving as an indicator of potential leakage and USDW endangerment. 382

 Class VI well owners or operators must develop and update a site
- specific, comprehensive emergency and remedial respon se plan that describes actions to be taken (e.g., cease injection) to address potential events that may cause endangerment to a USDW during the construction, operation, and post - injection site care periods of the project. 383

 Financial responsibility demonstrations are required to ensure that funds will be available for all area of review corrective action, injection well plugging, post
- injection site care, site closure, and emergency and remedial response. 384

 Following cessation of injection, the operator must conduct comprehensive post
- injection site care activities to show the position of the CO 2 plume and the associated area of elevated pressure to demonstrate that neither poses an endangerment to USDWs. 385 The injection well also must be plugged, and following a demonstration of non
- endangerment of USDWs by the Class VI owner or operator, the site must

382 40 CFR §146.90(h) ( 1) and 75 FR at 77259 (Dec. 10, 2010). 383 40 CFR §146.94. 384 40 CFR §146.85. 385 40 CFR §146.93.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **365** of **684** be closed. 386 , 387 The default duration for the post
- injection site care period is 50 years, with flexibility for demonstrating that an alternative period is appropri ate if it ensures non
- endangerment of USDWs. 388 Following successful closure, the facility property deed must record that the underlying land is used for GS. 389 The EPA has completed technical guidance documents on Class VI well site characterization, area of review and corrective action, well testing and monitoring, project plan development, well construction, and financial responsibility. 390 , 391 , 392 , 393 , 394 , 395 The EPA has also issued guidance documents on transitioning Class II wells to Class VI wells; well plugging, post
- injection
386 40 CFR §146.92. 387 40 CFR §146.93. 388 40 CFR §146.93(b). 389 40 CFR §146.93(c). 390 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/ class6/upload/epa816r1 3004.pdf. 391 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816r1 3005.pdf. 392 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816r1 3001.pdf. 393 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816r1 1017.pdf. 394 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816r1 1020.pdf. 395 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/uicfinan cialresponsibilityguidancefinal072011v. pdf.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **366** of **684** site care, and site closure; and recordkeeping, reporting, and data management. 396 , 397 , 398 , 399 To inform the development of the UIC Class VI rule, the EPA solicited stakeholder input and reviewed ongoing domestic and international GS research, demonstration, and deployment projects. The EPA also leveraged injection experience of the UIC Program, such as injection via Class II wells for EOR. A description of the work conducted by the EPA in support of the UIC Class VI rule can be found in the preamble for the final rule (see 75 FR 77230 and 77237
- 240 ( December 10, 2010) ) . The EPA has issued Class VI permits for six wells under two projects. In September 2014, a UIC Class VI injection well permit (to construct) was issued by the EPA to Archer Daniels Midland for an ethanol facility in Decatur, Illinois. The goal of the proje ct is to demonstrate the ability of the Mount Simon geologic formation , a deep saline formation, to accept and retain industrial scale volumes of CO 2 for permanent GS. The

396 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816p1 3004.pdf. See also 40 CFR §144.19. 397 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816p1 3005.pdf . 398 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816p1 3001.pdf . 399 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/epa816p1 3002.pdf .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **367** of **684** permitted well has a projected operational period of five years, during which time 5 .5 million metric tons of CO 2 will be injected into an area of review with a radius of approximately 2 miles. 400 Following the operational period, Archer Daniels Midland plans a post
- injection site care period of ten years. 401 In September 2014, the EPA also i ssued four Class VI injection well permits (to construct) to the FutureGen Industrial Alliance project in Jacksonville, Illinois, which proposed to capture CO 2 emissions from a coal
- fired power plant in Meredosia, Illinois and transport the CO 2 by pipeline approximately 30 miles to the deep saline GS site. 402 The Alliance proposed to inject a total of 22 million metric tons of CO 2 into an area of review with a radius of approximately 24 miles over the 20 year life of the project, with a post
- injection site ca re period of fifty years. 403 Both permit applicants addressed siting and operational aspects of GS (including issues relating to volumes of the CO 2
400 http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/ . In addition, Archer Daniels Midland received a UIC Class VI injection well permit for a second well in December 2014. Archer Daniels Midland had been injecting CO 2 at this well since 2011 under a UIC Class I pe rmit issued by the Illinois EPA. 401 http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/ . 402 After permit issuance, and for reasons unrelated to the permitting proceeding, DOE initiated a structured closeout of federal support for the FutureGen project in February 2015. However, these are still active Class VI permits. 403 http://www.epa.gov/r5wate r/uic/futuregen/ .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **368** of **684** and nature of the CO 2 injectate), and include d monitoring that helps provide assurance that CO 2 will not migrate to shallower formations. The permits were based on findings that regional and local features at the site allow the site to receive inject ed CO 2 in specified amounts without buildup of pressure which would create faults or fractures, and further, that monitoring provides early warning of any changes to groundwater or CO 2 leakage. 404 The permitting of these projects illustrates that permit applicants were able to address perceived challenges to issuance of Class VI permits. These permits demonstrate the EPA’s view that these projects are capable of safely and securely sequestering large volumes of CO 2 -- including from steam generating units
-- for geologic timeframes since the EPA would not otherwise have issued the permits. b. Class II requirements . As explained in section L .2 above, CO 2 has been injected into the subsurface via injection wells for EOR, boosting production efficiency by re
-pressurizing oil and gas reservoirs and increasing the mobility of oil. There are decades of indust ry experience in operating EOR projects. The CO 2 injection wells used for EOR are regulated through the UIC

404 http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/futuregen / ; http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/ .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **369** of **684** Class II program . 405 CO 2 storage associated with Class II wells is a common occurrence and CO 2 can be safely stored where injected through Class II
-permitted wells for the purpose of enhanced oil or gas
- related recovery. UIC Class II regulations issued under s ection 142 1 of SDWA provide minimum federal requirements for site characterization,
area of review, well construction (e.g., casing and cementing), well operation (e.g., injection pressure), injectate sampling, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and abandonment, financial responsibility, and reporting. Class II wells must undergo periodic mechanical integrity testing which will detect well construction and operational conditions that could lead to loss of injectate and migration into USDWs. Section 1425 of SDWA allows states to demonstrate that their program is effective in preventing endangerment of USDWs. These programs must include permitting, inspection, monitoring, record- keeping, and reporting components. 2. Relevant Requirements of the GHGRP The GHGRP requires reporting of facility
- level GHG data and other relevant information from l arge sources and suppliers in the United States. The final rules under 40 CFR part 60 specifically require that if an affected EGU captures CO 2 to

405 40 CFR §144.6(b).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **370** of **684** meet the applicable emissions limit, the EGU must report in accordance with 40 CFR part 98 , subpart PP (Suppl iers of Carbon Dioxide) and the captured CO 2 must be injected at a facility or facilities that reports in accordance with 40 CFR part 98 , subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). See 40 CFR 60.46Da(h)(5) and 40 CFR 60.5555(d). Taken together, these requirements ensure that the amount of captured and sequestered CO 2 will be tracked as appropriate at project
- and national
levels, and that the status of the CO 2 in its sequestration site will be monitored, including air
- side monitor ing and reporting. Specifically, subpart PP provides requirements to account for CO 2 supplied to the economy. This subpart requires affected facilities with production process units that capture a CO 2 stream for purposes of supplying CO 2 for commercial app lications or that capture and maintain custody of a CO 2 stream in order to sequester or otherwise inject it underground to report the mass of CO 2 captured and supplied to the economy. 406 CO 2 suppliers are required to report the annual quantity of CO 2 transferred offsite and its end use, including GS. 407 This rule finalizes amendments to subpart PP reporting requirements, specifically requiring that the following pieces

406 40 CFR §98.420(a)(1). 407 40 CFR §98.426.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **371** of **684** of information be reported: (1) the electronic GHG Reporting Tool identification (e
- GGRT ID) of the EGU facility from which CO 2 was captured, and (2) the e
- GGRT ID(s) for, and mass of CO 2 transferred to, each GS site reporting under subpart RR. 408 As noted, this final rule also requires that any affected EGU unit that captures CO 2 to meet the applicable emissions limit must transfer the captured CO 2 to a facility that reports under GHGRP subpart RR. In order to provide clarity on this requirement, the EPA reworded the proposed language under 40 CFR 60.46Da(h)(5) and 40 CFR 60.5555(d) to use the phrase “If your affected unit captures CO 2 ” in place of the phrases “If your affected unit uses geologic sequestration” and “If your affected unit employs geologic sequestration”, respectively. This revision is not a change from the EPA’s initial inten t. Reporting under subpart RR is required for all facilities that have received a Class VI UIC permit for injection of CO 2 . 409 Subpart RR requires facilities meeting the source category definition (40 CFR 98.440) for any well or group of wells to report bas ic information on the mass of CO 2 received for injection; develop and implement an EPA
- approved monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan; report the mass of CO 2

408 40 CFR §98.426(h). 409 40 CFR §98.440.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **372** of **684** sequestered using a mass balance approach ; and report annual monitoring activities. 410 , 411 , 412 , 413 Although deep subsurface monitoring is the primary and effective means of determining if there are any leaks to a USDW, the monitoring employed under a subpart RR MRV Plan can be utilized , if required by the UIC Program Director , to further ensure protection of USDWs. 414 The subpart RR MRV plan includes five major components:

 A delineation of monitoring areas based on the CO 2 plume location. Monitoring may be phased in over time. 415

 An identification and evaluation of the potential surface leakage pathways and an assessment of the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of CO 2 through these pathways. The monitoring program will be designed to address the risks identified. 416

 A strategy for detecting and quantifying any surface leakage of CO 2 in the event leakage occurs. Multiple monitoring methods and accounting techniques can be used to address changes in plume size and risks over time. 417

410 40 CFR §98.446. 411 40 CFR §98.448. 412 40 CFR §98.446(f)(9) and (10). 413 40 CFR §98.446(f)(12). 414 See 75 FR at 77263 (Dec. 10, 2010). 415 40 CFR §98.448(a)(1). 416 40 CFR §98.448(a)(2). 417 40 CFR §98.448(a)(3).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **373** of **684**

 An approach for establishing the expected baselines for monitoring CO 2 surface leakage. Baseline data repre sent pre - injection site conditions and are used to identify potential anomalies in monitoring data. 418

 A summary of considerations made to calculate site
specific variables for the mass balance equation. Site
specific variables may include calculating CO 2 emissions from equipment leaks and vented emissions of CO 2 from surface equipment, and considerations for calculating CO 2 from produced fluids. 419 Subpart RR provides a nationally consistent mass balance framework for reporting the mass of CO 2 that is sequestered. Certain monitoring and operational data for a GS site is required to be reported to the EPA annually. More information on the MRV plan and annual reporting is available in the subpart RR final rule (75 FR 75065; December 1, 2010) and its associated technical support document. 420 Under this final rule, any well receiving CO 2 captured from an affected source, be it a Class VI or Class II well, must

418 40 CFR §98.448(a)(4). 419 40 CFR §98.448(a)(5). 420 Technical Support Document: “General T echnical Support Document for Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Subparts RR and UU” (Docket EPA

–HQ

–OAR

– 2009

– 0926), November 2010.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **374** of **684** report under subpart RR. 421 As explained below in S ection M .5.a, a Class II well’s UIC regulat ory status does not change because it receives such CO 2 . Nor does it change by virtue of reporting under subpart RR. 3. UIC and GHGRP rules provide assurance to prevent , monitor, and address releases of sequestered CO 2 to air Together the requirements of the UIC and GHGRP programs help ensure that sequestered CO 2 will remain secure, and provide the monitoring mechanisms to identify and address potential leakage using SDWA and CAA authorities. The EPA designed the GHGRP subpart RR requirements for GS with c onsideration of UIC requirements. The monitoring required by GHGRP subpart RR is complementary to and builds on UIC monitoring and testing requirements. 75 FR 77263. Although the regulations for Class VI and Class II injection wells are designed to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment, as explained below, the practical effect of these complementary technical requirements is that they also prevent releases of CO 2 to the atmosphere. The UIC and GHGRP programs are built upon an understanding of the mechanisms by which CO 2 is retained in geologic formations, which are well understood and proven.

421 See §60.46Da(h)(5) and §60.5555(d).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **375** of **684**

 Structural and stratigraphic trapping is a physical trapping mechanism that occurs when the CO 2 reaches a stratigraphic zone with low permeability (i.e., geologic confining system) that prevents further upward migration.

 Residual trapping is a physical trapping mechanism that occurs as residual CO 2 is immobilized in formation pore spaces as disconnected droplets or bubbles at the trailing edge of the plume due to capillary forces.

 Adsorption trapping is another physical trapping mechanism that occurs when CO 2 molecules attach to the surfaces of coa l and certain organic rich shales, displacing other molecules such as methane.

 Solubility trapping is a geochemical trapping mechanism where a portion of the CO 2 from the pure fluid phase dissolves into native ground water and hydrocarbons .
 Mineral trapping is a geochemical trapping mechanism that occurs when chemical reactions between the dissolved CO 2 and minerals in the formation lead to the precipitation of solid carbonate minerals.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **376** of **684**
a. Class VI Wells . As just discussed in section M .1, the UIC Class VI rule provides a framework to ensure the safety of underground injection of CO 2 such that USDWs are not endangered. Through the injection well permit application process , the Class VI permit applicant (i.e., a prospective Class VI well owner or operator ) must demonstrate that the injected CO 2 will be trapped and retained in the geologic formation, and not migrate out of the injection zone or the approved project area (i.e., the area of review). To assure that CO 2 is confined within the injection zone, major components to be considered and included in Class VI permits are site characterization, area of review delineation and corrective action, well construction and operation, testing and monitoring, financial responsibility, post
- injection site care, well plugging, emergency and remedial response, and site closure as described in Section M .1. Site characterization provides the foundation for successful GS projects. It includes evaluation of the chemical and physical mechanisms that will occur in the subsurface to immobilize and securely store the CO 2 within the injection zone for geologic timeframes (see above) . Site characterization requires a detailed assessment of the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical, and geomechanical properties of the proposed GS***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **377** of **684** site to ensure that wells are sited in suitable locations. 422 Data and information collected during site characterization are used in the development of injection well construction and operating plans; provide inputs for modeling the extent of the injected CO 2 plume and related pressure front; and establish baseline information to which geochemical, geophysical, and hydrogeologic site monitoring data collected over the life of the injection project can be compared. The Class VI rules contain rigorous subsurface monitoring requirements to assure that the chosen site is functioning as characterized. This subsurface monitoring should detect leakage of CO 2 before CO 2 would reach the atmosphere. For example, when USDWs are present, they are generally located above the injection zone. If CO 2 were to reach a USDW prior to being released to the atmosphere, the presence of CO 2 or geochemical changes that would be caused b y CO 2 migration into unauthorized zones would be detected by a UIC Class VI monitoring program that is approved and periodically evaluated/adjusted based on permit conditions. Likewise, UIC Class VI mechanical integrity testing requirements are designed t o confirm that a well maintains internal and external mechanical integrity. Continuous

422 40 CFR §146.82(a) and (c).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **378** of **684** monitoring of the internal mechanical integrity of Class VI well s ensure s that injection wells maintain integrity and serves
as a way to detect problems with the well system. Mechanical integrity testing provides an early indication of potential issues that could lead to CO 2 leakage from the confining zone, providing assurance and verification that CO 2 will not reach the atmosphere . Further assurance is provided by the regulatory requirement that injection must cease if there is evidence that the injected CO 2 and/or associated pressure front may cause endangerment to a USDW. 423 Once the anomalous operating conditions are verified, the cessation of injection, as required by UIC permits, will minimize any risk of release to air. Following cessation of injection, the operator must conduct comprehensive post
- injection site care to show the position of the CO 2 plume and the associated area of elevated pressure to demonstrate that neither poses an endangerment to USDWs

– also having the practical effect of preventing releases of CO 2 to the atmosphere . Post - injection site care includes appropriate monitoring and other needed actions (including corrective action). The default durati on for the post - injection site care period is 50 years, with flexibility for demonstrating that an

423 40 CFR § 146.94(b)***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **379** of **684** alternative period is appropriate if it ensures non
- endangerment of USDWs. As the EPA has found, the UIC Class VI injection well requirements protect against releases from all exposure pathways . Specifically, EPA stated that the Class VI rules “[ are ] specifically designed to ensure that the CO 2 ( and any incidental associated substances derived from the source materials and the capture process) will be isolated within the injection zone. The EPA concluded that the elimination of exposure routes through these requirements , which are implemented through a SDWA UIC permit, will ensure protection of human health and the environment .. .” . 424 GHGRP subpart RR complements these UIC Class VI requirements. Requirements under the UIC program are focused on demonstrating that USDWs are not endangered as a result of CO 2 injection into the subsurface, while requirements under the GHGRP through subpart RR enable accounting for CO 2 that is geologically sequestered. A methodology to account for potential leakage is developed as part of the subpart RR MRV plan (see Sec tion M .2) . The MRV plan submitted for subpart RR may describe

424 79 FR at 353 ( January 3, 2015 ) (Final Hazardous Waste Management System: Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities under subtitle C of RCRA ). See S ection M .5. c below.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **380** of **684** (or provide by reference to the UIC permit) the relevant elements of the UIC permit (e.g. assessment of leakage pathways in the monitoring area) and how those elements satisfy the subpart RR requirements. The MRV plan required under subpart RR may rely upon the knowledge of the subsurface location of CO 2 and site characteristics that are developed in the permit application process , and operational monitoring results for UIC Class VI permitted wells. In summary, there are well - recognized physical mechanisms for storing CO 2 securely. The comprehensive and rigorous site characterization requirements of the Class VI rules assure that sites with these properties are selected. Subsurface monitoring serves to assure that the sequestration site operates as intended, and this monitoring continues through a post
- closure period. Although release of CO 2 to air is unlikely and should be detected prior to release by subsurface monitoring, the subpart RR air
- side monitoring and reporting regime provides backup
assurance that sequestered CO 2 has not been released to the atmosphere . b. Class II wells . The Class II rules likewise are designed to protect USDWs during EOR operation, including the injection of CO 2 for EOR. For example, UIC Class II minimum federal requirements promulgated under SDWA address site***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **381** of **684** characterization, area of review, well construction (e.g., casing and cementing), well operation (e.g., injection pressure), injectate sampling, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and abandonment, financial responsibility, and reporting. Class II wells must undergo periodic mechanical integrity testing which will detect well construction and operational conditions that could lead to loss of injectate and migration into USDWs. The establishment of maximum injection pressures, designed to ensure that the pressure in the injection zone during injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the confining zone , prevents injection f rom causing the movement of fluids into an underground source of drinking water. The safeguards that protect USDWs also serve as an early warning mechanism for releases of CO 2 to the atmosphere . CO 2 injected via Class II wells become s sequestered by the trapping mechanisms described above in Section M .3.a. As with Class VI wells, for Class II wells that report under subpart RR, there is monitoring to evaluate whether CO 2 used for EOR will remain safely in place both during and after the injection period. Subpart RR provides a CO 2 accounting framework that will enable EPA to assess both the project
- level and national efficacy of geologic sequestration to determine whether***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **382** of **684** additional requirements are necessary and, if so, inform the design of such regulation s.
c. Response to Comments . Commenters maintained that GS was not demonstrated for CO 2 captured from EGUs. In addition, commenters noted that the volumes of captured CO 2 would be considerably larger than from existing GS sites, and could quadruple amounts inj ected into Class II EOR wells. In addition to volumes of CO 2 to be injected, commenters opined on the possibility of sporadic CO 2 supply due to the nature of EGU operation. 425 The EPA does not agree. CO 2 capture from EGUs is demonstrated as discussed in Sections V.D and V.E. As discussed below, the volumes of CO 2 are comparable to the amounts that have been injected at large scale commercial operations. The EPA also disagrees that the volume of CO 2 would quadruple amounts injected into Class II EOR wells because CO 2 may be sequestered in deep saline formations , which have widespread geographic availability (see Section L .1) . The BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations . 426 However, the EPA also recognizes the

425 See, e.g. Comments of Southern Company, p. 41. 426 The EPA anticipates EOR projects may be early GS projects because these formations have been previously well characterized for hydrocarbon recovery, likely already have suitable***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **383** of **684** potential for sequestering CO 2 via EOR and allows the use of EOR as a compliance option . According to data reported to the GHGRP, approximately 60 million metric tons of CO 2 were supplied to EOR in the United States in 2013. 427 Approximately 70 percent of total CO 2 supplied in the United States was produced from geologic (natural) CO 2 sources and approximately 30 percent was captured from anthropogenic sources. CO 2 pipeline sys tems, such as those serving the Permian Basin, have multiple sources of CO 2 that serve to levelize the pipeline supply thus minimizing the effect of supply on the EOR operator. GS of anthropogenic CO 2 in deep saline formations is demonstrated. First, as explained above, the EPA has issued construction permits under the Class VI program. It would not have done so, and under the regulations cannot have done so, without demonstrations that CO 2 would be se curely confined. One of these projects was for a steam generating EGU. Second , international experience with large scale commercial GS projects has demonstrated through extensive monitoring programs that large volumes of CO 2 can be safely injected and securely sequestered for long periods of time at infrastructure (e.g., wells, pipelines, etc.), and have an associated economic benefit of oil production. 427 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, data reported as of August 18, 201 4 .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **384** of **684** volumes and rates consistent with those expected under this rule. This experience has also demonstrated the value and efficacy of monitoring programs to determine the location of CO 2 in the subsurface and detect potential leakage through the presence of CO 2 in the shallow subsurface, near surface and air. The Sleipner CO 2 Storage Project is located at an offshore gas field in the North Sea where CO 2 must be removed from the natura l gas in order to meet customer requirements and reduce costs. The project began injecting CO 2 into the deep subsurface in 1996. The single offshore injection well injects approximately 1 million metric tons per year into a thick, permeable sandstone above the gas producing zone. Approximately 15 million metric tons of CO 2 have been injected since inception. Many US and international organizations have conducted monitoring at Sleipner. The location and dimensions of the CO 2 plume have been measured numerous times using 3
- dimensional seismic monitoring since the 1994 pre
- injection survey . The monitoring data have demonstrated that although the plume is behaving differently than initially modeled due to thin layers of impermeable shale that were not initially identified in the reservoir model, the CO 2 remains trapped in the injection zone. Numerous other techniques have been successfully used to monitor CO 2 storage at Sleipner. The research and monitoring at***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **385** of **684** Sleipner demonstrates the value of a comprehensive approach to site characterization, computational modeling and monitoring, as is required under UIC Class VI rules. The experience at Sleipner demonstrates that large volumes of CO 2 , of the same order of magnitude expected for an EGU, can be safely injected and stored in saline reservoirs over an extended period. Snøhvit is another large offshore CO 2 storage project, located at a gas field in the Barents Sea. Like Sleipner the natural gas must be treated to reduce high levels of CO 2 to meet processing standards and reduce costs. Gas is transported via pipeline 95 miles to a gas processing and liquefied natural gas plant and the CO 2 is piped back offshore for injection. Approximately 0.7 million metric tons per year CO 2 are injected into permeable sandstone below the gas reservoir. Between 2008 and 2011, the operator observed pressure increases in the injection formation (Tubaen Formation) greater than expected and conducted time lapse seismic surveys and studies of the injection zone and concluded that the pressure increase was mainly caused by a limited storage capacity in the formation. 428

428 Grude, S. M. Landrøa, and J. Dvorkinb, 2014, Pressure effects caused by CO 2 injection in the Tubåen Fm., the Snøhvit field. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 27 (2014) 178

– 187 . Commenters argued that the project had failed to sequester CO 2 , referring to the initial cessation of injection. See, e.g.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **386** of **684** In 2011, the injection well was modified and injection was initiated in a second interval (Stø Formation) in the field to increase the storage capacity. Approximately 3 mi llion metric tons of CO 2 have been injected since 2008. Monitoring demonstrates that no leakage has occurred, again demonstrating that large volumes of CO 2 , of the same order of magnitude expected for an EGU, can be safely injected and stored in deep saline formations over an extended period. As discussed above in s ection s V.E.2.a and L , CO 2 from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in North Dakota has been injected into the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan Canada since 2000. Over that time period the project has injected more than 16 million metric tons of CO 2 . It is anticipated that approximately 40 million metric tons of CO 2 will be permanently sequestered over the lifespan of the project. Extensive monitoring by U . S . and international partners has demonstrated that no leakage has occurred. The sources of CO 2 for EOR may vary (e.g., industrial processes, power generation), however this does not impact the effectiveness of EOR operation s (see Section L .2). CO 2 used for EOR may come from anthropogenic or natural sources. The source of the CO 2 does not impact the effectiveness Comments of UARG p. 56. In fact, injection resumed successfully, as described in the text above.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **387** of **684** of the EOR operation. CO 2 capture, treatment and processing steps provide a concentrated stream of CO 2 in order to meet the needs of the intended end use. CO 2 pipeline specifications of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found at 49 CFR part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) apply regardless of the source of the CO 2 and take into account CO 2 composition, impurities, and phase behavior. Additionally, EOR operators and transport companies have specifications to ensure related to the composition of CO 2 . These requirements and specifications ensure EOR operators receive a known and consistent CO 2 stream. At the In Salah CO 2 storage project in Algeria, CO 2 is removed from natural gas produced at three nearby gas fields in order to meet export quality specification. The CO 2 is transported by pipeline approximately 3 miles to the injection site. Three horizontal wells are used to inject the CO 2 into the down - dip aquifer leg of the gas reservoir approximately 6 , 200 feet deep. Between 2004 and 2011 over 3.8 million metric tons of CO 2 were stored. Injection rates in 2010 and 2011 were approximately 1 million metric tons per year. Storage integrity has been monitored by several US and international organizations and the monitoring program has employed a wide range of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **388** of **684** geophysical and geochemical methods, including time lapse seismic, microseismic, wellhead sampling, tracers, down
- hole logging, core analysis, surface gas monitoring, groundwater aquifer monitoring and satellite data. The data have been used to support periodic risk as sessments during the operational phase of the project. In 2010 new data from seismic, satellite and geomechanical models were used to inform the risk assessment and led to the decision to reduce CO 2 injection pressures due to risk of vertical leakage into the lower caprock, and risk of loss of well integrity. The caprock at the site consisted of main caprock units, providing the primary seal, and lower caprock units, providing additional buffers. There was no leakage from the well or through the caprock, bu t the risk analysis identified an increased risk of leakage, therefore, the aforementioned precautions were taken. Additional analysis of the reservoir, seismic and geomechanical data led to the decision to suspend CO 2 injection in June 2011. No leakage ha s occurred and the injected CO 2 remains safely stored in the subsurface. The decision to proceed with safe shutdown of injection resulted from the analysis of seismic and geomechanical data to identify and respond to storage site risk. The In Salah project demonstrates the value of developing an integrated and comprehensive set of baseline site data prior to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **389** of **684** the start of injection, and the importance of regular review of monitoring data. Commenters also noted that the data collection and analysis had proven effective at preventing any release of sequestered CO 2 to either underground drinking water sources or to the ambient air. 429 These projects demonstrate that sequestration of CO 2 captured from industrial operations has been successfully conducted on a large scale and over relatively long periods of time. The volumes of captured CO 2 are within the same order of magnitude as that expected from EGUs. Even though potentially adverse conditions were identified at some projects (In Salah and Snøhvit), there were no releases to air and the monitoring systems were effective in identifying the issues in a timely manner, and these issues were addressed effectively. In each case, the site
- specific characteristics were evaluated on a
case -by- case basis to select a site where the geologic conditions are suitable to ensure long
- term , safe storage of CO 2 . Each project was designed to address the site
- specific

429 “It is important to note that although the In Salah project is no longer injecting CO 2 , the CCS community still views this early saline project as a success because the monit oring program served its intended purpose. That is, the monitoring methods deployed at this site informed the operator of a potential problem, leading to a shutdown of CO 2 injection before the Caprock was breached.” Comment of EPRI, p. 14.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **390** of **684** characteristics and operated to successfully inject CO 2 for safe storage. 5 . Must the s tandard of performance for CO 2 i nclude CAA
requirements on the s equestration s ite? One commenter maintained as a matter of law that a standard predicated on use of CCS is not a “system of emission reduction”, and therefore is not a “standard of performance” within the meaning of secti on 111 (a)(1) of the Act. The commenter argued that the standard does not require sequestration of captured CO 2 but only capture, so that no emission reductions are associated with the standard. A gloss on this argument is that there are no enforceable requirements for the captured CO 2 (“[t]he fate of that [captured] CO 2 is something that the proposed standard does not proscribe with enforceable requirements”). The commenter further argues that a “system of emission reduction” under section 111 must be “des igned into the new source itself” so that off - site underground sequestration of captured CO 2 emissions “could never satisfy the statutory requirements governing a ‘standard of performance’” (emphasis original). 430 The EPA disagrees with both the legal and fa ctual
a ssertions in this comment . As to the legal point, the commenter

430 Comments of UARG, pp. 37, 38.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **391** of **684** fails to distinguish capture and sequestration of carbon from every other section 111 standard which is predicated on capture of a pollutant. Indeed, all emission standards not predicated on outright pollutant destruc tion involve capture of the pollutant and its subsequent disposition in the capturing medium. Thus, metals are captured in devices like baghouses or scrubbers, leaving a solid waste or wastewater to be managed. Gases can be captured with activated carbon, or under pressure, again requiring further management of the captured pollutant(s). The EPA is required to consider these potential implications in promulgating an NSPS. See section 111(a)(1) (in promulgating a standard of performance under section 111, the EPA must “tak[e] into account ... any nonair quality health and environmental impact”). The EPA thus considers such issues as solid waste and wastewater generation as part of determining if a system of emission reduction is “best” under section 111. See s ection N below (discussion of this rule’s potential cross
-media impacts). The further comment that the standard is arbitrary because it fails to impose any requirements on the captured CO 2 is misplaced. The commenter mischaracterizes the standard as requir ing capture only. The BSER is not just capturing a certain amount of CO 2 , but sequestering it. Sequestration can occur either on
- site or off
- site. Sequestration sites receiving and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **392** of **684** injecting the captured CO 2 are required to obtain UIC permits and report under subpart RR of the GHGRP . They must conduct comprehensive monitoring as part of these obligation s . Although the NSPS does not impose regulatory requirements on the transportation pipeline or the sequestration site, such requirements already exist under other regulatory programs of the Department of Transportation and the EPA. In particular, the EPA is reasonably relying on the already
- adopted, and very rigorous, Class VI well requirements in combination with the subpart RR requirements to provide secure sequestration of captured CO 2 . The EPA has also considered carefully the requirements and operating history of the Class II requirements for EOR wells, which, in combination with the subpart RR requirements, ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment , provide the monitoring mechanisms to identify and address potential leakage using SDWA and CAA authorities, and have the practical effect of preventing releases of CO 2 to the atmosphere . This is analogous to the many section 111 standards of performance for metals which result in a captured air pollution control residue to be disposed of pursuant to waste management requirements of the rules implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the many section 111 standards of performance for metals o r organics captured in wet***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **393** of **684** air pollution control systems resulting in wastewater discharged to a navigable water where pollutant loadings are controlled under rules implementing the Clean Water Act. Again, these are
non - air environmental impacts for which the EPA must account in establishing a section 111(a) standard. The EPA has reasonably done so here based on the regulatory regimes of the Class VI and Class II UIC requirements in combination with the monitoring regime of the subpart RR reporting rules, a s well as the CO 2 pipeline standards of the Department of Transportation. In this regard, the EPA notes that at proposal it acknowledged the possibility “that there can be downstream losses of CO 2 after capture, for example during transportation, injection or storage.” 79 FR at 1484. Given the rigorous substantive requirements and the monitoring required by the Class VI rules, the complementary monitoring regime of the subpart RR MRV plan and reporting rules, as well as the regulatory requirements for Class II wells, any such losses would be de minimis. Indeed, the same commenter maintained that the monitoring requirements of the Class VI rule are overly stringent and that a 50
- year post - injection s ite care period is unnecessarily long. 431 As it happens, as noted above, the Class VI rules allow for an alternative post
- injection site care

431 Comments of UARG, p. 63.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **394** of **684** period based on a site
- specific demonstration. See 40 CFR 146.93(b). The EPA addresses these comments in more detail in chapter 2 of the Response to Comment Document. 6 . Other Perceived Obstacles to Geologic Sequestration
a. Class II to Class VI transition . A number of commenters maintained that the Class VI rules could effectively force all Class II wells to transition to Class VI wells if they inject anthropogenic CO 2 , and further maintained that, as a practical matter, this would render EOR unavailable for such CO 2 . The EPA disagree s with these comment s . Injection of anthropogenic CO 2 into Class II wells does not force transition of these wells to Class VI wells

– not during the well’s active operation and not when EOR operations cease. We recognize the widespread use of EOR and the expectation that injected CO 2 can remain underground. The EPA issued a memorandum to its regional offices on April 23, 2015 reflecting these principles: 432

 Geologic storage of CO 2 can continue to be permitted under the UIC Class II program.

432 “Key Principles in EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program Class VI Rule Related to Transition of Class II Enhanced Oil Recovery or Gas Recovery Wells to Class VI”, April 23, 2015. Available at: http://water .epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/upload/class2eo rclass6memo.pdf***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **395** of **684**

 Use of anthropogenic CO 2 in EOR operations does not necessitate a Class VI permit .
 Class VI site closure requirements are not required for Class II CO 2 injection operations.

 EOR operations that are focused on oil or gas production will be managed under the Class II program. If oil or gas recovery is no longer a significant aspect of a Class II permitted EOR operation, the key factor in determining the potential need to transition a EOR operation from Class II to Class VI is increased risk to USDWs related to significant storage of CO 2 in the reservoir, where the regulatory tools of the Class II program cannot successfully manage the risk. 433 b. GHGRP Subpart RR . A number of commenters maintained that no EOR operator would accept captured carbon from an EGU due to the reporting and other regulatory burdens imposed by the monitoring requirements of GHGRP subpart RR. 434 They noted that preparing a

433 In this regard, the Class VI rules provide that, “[o]wners or operators that are injecting carbon dioxide for the primary purpose of long- term storage into an oil and gas reservoir must apply for and obtain a Class VI geologic sequestration permit when there is an increased risk to USDWs compared to Class II operations.” 40 CFR § 144.19. 434 See e.g., comments of UARG , p, 63 ; Southern Co., p. 37 ; American Petroleum Institute pp. 40
- 50.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **396** of **684** subpart RR MRV plan could cost upwards of $100,000 which would be cost prohibitive given other available sources of CO 2 . The EPA disagrees wi th this comment in several respects. First, the BSER determination and regulatory impact analysis for this rule relies on GS in deep saline formations, not on EOR. However , the EPA also recognizes the potential for sequestering CO 2 via EOR , but disagrees that subpart RR is prohibitive to the use of EOR . The cost of compliance with subpart RR is not significant enough to offset the potential revenue for the EOR operator from the sale of produced oil for CCS projects that are reliant on EOR. Firs t, the costs associated with subpart RR are relatively modest , especially in comparison with revenues from an EOR field . In the economic impact analysis for subpart RR, the EPA estimated that an EOR project with a Class II permit would incur a first year cost of up to $147,030 to develop an MRV plan, and an annual cost of $27,787 to maintain the plan; the EPA estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping costs at $13,262 per year. 435 Monitoring costs are estimated to range from $0.02 per metric ton (base case scenario) to approximately $2 per metric ton of CO 2 (high scenario) . Using a range of scenarios (that included high end estimates), these s ubpart RR costs are

435 Subpart RR costs are presented in 2008 US dollars.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **397** of **684** approximately three to four percent of estimated revenues for an average EOR field, indicating that the costs can readily be absorbed. 75 FR 75073. Furthermore, there is a demand for new CO 2 by EOR operators, even beyond current natural sources of CO 2
. For example, in an April 2014 study, DOE concluded that future development of EOR will need to rely on captured CO 2 . 436 Thus, the argument that EOR operators will obtain CO2 from other sources without triggering subpart RR responsibilities , which assumes adequate supplies of CO2 from other sources, lacks foundation. In addition, the Internal Revenue Code section 45Q provides a tax credit for CO 2 sequestration which is far greater than subpart RR costs . 437 In sum, the cost of complying with subpart RR requirements, including the cost of MRV, is not significant enough to deter EOR operators from purchasing EGU captured CO 2 . The EPA addresses these comments in more detail in the Response to Comment Document.

436 “Near Term Projections of CO 2 Utilization for Enhanced Oil Recovery”. DOE/NETL
- 2014/1648. April 2014. 437 http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009
- 44_IRB/ar11.html. The section 45Q tax credit for calendar year 201 5 i s $10. 92 per metric ton of qualified CO 2 that is captured and used in a qualified EOR project and $21.85 per metric ton of qualified CO 2 that is captured and used in a qualified non
- EOR GS project .http://www.irs.gov/irb/ 2015
- 26_IRB/ar14.html .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **398** of **684**
c. Conditional exclusion for geologic sequestration of CO 2 streams under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . Certain commenters voiced conce rns that regulatory requirements for hazardous wastes might apply to captured CO 2 and these requirements might be inconsistent with, or otherwise impede, GS of captured CO 2 from EGUs. The EPA has acted to remove any such (highly conjectural) uncertainty. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes the EPA to regulate the management of hazardous wastes. In particular, RCRA Subtitle C authorizes a cradle to grave regulatory program for wastes identified as hazardous, whether specifically list ed as hazardous or whether the waste fails certain tests of hazardous characteristics. The EPA currently has little information to conclude that CO 2 streams (defined in the RCRA exclusion rule as including incidental associated substances derived from the source materials and the capture process, and any substances added to the stream to enable or improve the injection process) might be identified as “hazardous wastes” subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation. 438 Nevertheless, to reduce potential uncertainty regarding the regulatory status of CO 2 streams under

438 No hazardous waste listings apply to CO 2 streams. Therefore, a CO 2 stream could be identified (i.e. defined ) as a hazardous waste only if it exhibits one or more of the hazardous characteristics. 79 FR 355 (Jan 3. 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **399** of **684** RCRA Subtitle C, and in order to facilitate the deployment of geologic sequestration, the EPA recently concluded a rulemaking to exclude certain CO 2 streams from the RCRA definition of hazardous waste. 439 In that rulemaking, the EPA determined that if any such CO 2 streams would be hazardous wastes, further RCRA regulation is unnecessary to protect human health and the environment provided certain conditions are met. Specifically, the rule conditionally excludes from Subtitle C regulations CO 2 streams if they are (1) transported in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation or state requirements; (2) injected in compliance with UIC Class VI requirements (s ummarized above); (3) no other hazardous wastes are mixed with or co
- injected with the CO 2 stream; and (4) generators (e.g., emission sources) and Class VI well owners or operators sign certification statements. See 40 CFR 261.4(h)). 440 The D.C. Circuit recently dismissed all

439 79 FR 350 (Jan. 3, 2014). 440 The EPA made clear in the final conditional exclusion that that rule does not address, and is not intended to affect the RCRA regulatory status of CO 2 streams that are injected into wells other than Class VI. However, the EPA noted in the preamble to the final rule that (based on the limited information provided in public comments) should CO 2 be used for its intended purpose as it is injected into UIC Class II wells for the purpose of EOR/EGR (enhanced oil recovery / enhanced gas recovery), it is the EPA’s expectation that such an injection process would not generally be a waste management activity. 79 FR 355. The EPA encouraged persons to consult with the appropriate regulatory authority to address any fact
- specific questions that they may have regarding the status of CO 2 in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **400** of **684** challenges to this rule in Carbon Sequestration Council and Southern Company Services v. EPA, No. 14
- 1046 (June 2, 2015). d. Other perceived uncertainties . Other commenters claimed that various legal uncertainties preclude a finding that geologic sequestration of CO 2 from EGUs can be considered to be adequately demonstrated. Many of the issues referred to in comments relate to property rights: issues of ownership of pore space, relationship of sequestration to ownership of mineral rights, issues of dealing with multiple landowners, lack of state law frameworks, or competing, inconsistent state laws. 441 Other commenters noted the lack of long - term liability insurance, and noted uncertainties regarding long
- term liability generally . 442 An IPCC special report on CCS found that with an appropriate site selection, a monitoring program, a regulatory system, and the appropriate use of remediation methods, the risks of GS would be comparable to risks of current activities , situations that are beyond the scope of that rule. Id. Moreover, use of anthropogenic CO 2 for EOR is long
- standing and has flourished in all of the years that EPA’s subtitle C regulations (which among other things, define what a solid waste is for pu rposes of those regulations) have been in place. The RCRA subtitle C regulatory program consequently has not been any impediment to use of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR. 441 See e.g. Comments of Duke Energy , p. 28; UARG , p. 62; AEP , p. 91. 442 See e.g. Comments of UARG, pp. 26, 62; EEI, p. 92; Duke Energy, pp. 27, 28.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **401** of **684** such as EOR, acid gas injecti on and underground natural gas storage . 443 Furthermore, an interagency CCS task force examined GS - related legal issues thoroughly and concluded that early CCS projects can proceed under the existing legal framework with respect to issues such as property rights and liability. 444 As noted earlier, both the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and FutureGen projects addressed siting and operational aspects of GS (including issues relating to volumes of the CO 2 and the nature of the CO 2 injectate) in their permit applicat ions . The fact that these applicants pursued permits indicates that they regarded any potential property rights issues as resolvable. Commenter American Electric Power (AEP) referred to its own experience with the Mountaineer demonstration project. AEP noted that although this project was not full scale, finding a suitable repository, notwithstanding a generally favorable geologic area, proved difficult. The company referred to years spent in site characterization and digging multiple wells. 445 Other commenters noted more generally that site characterization issues can be time
- consuming and difficult, and quoted studies

443 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 444 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ccs/CCS
- Task- Force Report - 2 010.pdf 445 AEP Comments at pp. 93, 96.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **402** of **684** suggesting that it could take 5 years to obtain a Class VI permit. 446 The EPA agrees that robust site characterization and selection is impo rtant to ensuring capacity needs are met and that the sequestered CO 2 is safely s tored. Efforts to characterize geologic formations suitable for GS have been underway at DOE through the RCSPs since 2003 (see Section V. L ). Additionally, since 2007, the USGS has been assessing U . S . geologic storage resources for CO 2 . As noted earlier, DOE, i n partnership with researchers, universities, and organizations across the country, is demonstrating that GS can be achieved safely, permanently, and economically at l arge scales , and projects supported by the department have safely and permanently stored 10 million metric tons of CO 2 . In the time since the commenter submitted comments several Class VI permits have been issued by the EPA. These projects demonstrate that a GS site permit applicant could potentially prepare and obtain a UIC permit concurrent with permits required for an EGU. With respect to AEP’s experience with the Mountaineer demonstration project, notwithstanding difficulties, the company was able to successfully dig wells, and safely

446 See e.g. Comments of UARG, p. 55, citing to Cichanowitz CCS Report (2012).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **403** of **684** inject captured CO 2 . Moreover, the company indicated it fully expected to be able to do so at full scale and explained how. 447 The EPA notes further that a monitoring program and its associated infrastructure (e.g., monitoring wells) and costs will be dependent on site
- specific characteristics, such as CO2 injection rate and volume, geology, the presence of artificial penetrations , among other factors. It is thus not appropriate to generalize from AEP’s experience, and assume that other sites will require the same number of wells for site characterization or injection. In this regard, we note that the ADM and FutureGen construction permits for Class VI wells involved far fewer injection wells than AEP references. 448 See also discussion of this issue in section V.I.5 above. O . Nonair Quality Impacts and Energy Requirements As part of the determination that SCPC with partial CCS is the best system of emission reduction adequately demonstrated, the EPA has given careful consideration to nonair quality health
447 See AEP FEED Study at pp. 36
- 43. The company likewise explained the monitoring regime it would utilize to verify containment, and the wel l construction it would utilize to guarantee secure sequestration. Id. at pp. 44
- 54. 448 The FutureGen UIC Class VI injection we ll permits (four in total) require nine monitoring wells. http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/futuregen/ . The Archer Daniels Midland U IC Class VI injection well permit issued in September 2014 (CCS2) requires five monitoring wells and the Archer Daniels Midland UIC Class VI injection well permit issued in December 2014 (CCS1) was permitted with two monitoring wells . http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **404** of **684** and environmental impacts and energy requirements, as required by CAA section 111 (a). We have also considered those factors for alternative potential compliance paths to assure that the standard does not have unintended adverse health, environmental or energy- related conse quences. TheEPA finds that neither the BSER, nor the possible alternative compliance pathways, would have adverse consequences from either a nonair quality impact or energy requirement perspective. 1. Transport and Sequestration of Captured CO2 . As just discussed in detail, EPA finds that the Class VI and II rules, as complemented by the subpart RR and PP GHRP reporting and monitoring requirements, amply safeguard against potential of injected CO2 to degrade underground sources of drinking water and amply protect against any releases of sequestered CO2 to ambient air. The EPA likewise finds that the plenary regulatory controls on CO2 pipelines assure that CO2 can be safely conveyed without environmental release, and that these rules, plus the compl ementary tracking and reporting rules in the subpart RR, assure that captured CO2 will be properly tracked and conveyed to a sequestration site. 2. Water Use Impacts Commenters claimed that the EPA ignored the negative environmental impacts of the use of CCS for the mitigation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
- fired steam generating EGUs. In***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **405** of **684** particular, commenters noted that the use of CCS will increase the water usage at units that implement CCS to meet the proposed standard of performance. At least one c ommenter claimed that addition of an amine
-based CCS system would double the consumptive water use of a power plant, which would be unacceptable, especially in drought
- ridden states and in the arid west and referenced a study in the scientific literature a s support for the claim. 449 The commenter also references a DOE/NETL report that also notes significant increases in the amount of cooling and process water required with the use of carbon capture technology. 450 However, those studies discuss increased water u se for cases where full CCS (90 percent or greater capture) is implemented. As we discussed in both the proposal and in this preamble, the EPA does not find that highly efficient new generation technology implementing full CCS is the BSER for new steam generating EGUs. The EPA examined water use predicted from the updated DOE/NETL studies in order to determine the magnitude of increased water usage for a new SCPC implementing partial CCS to

449 See comments of UARG at p. 84; referencing Haibo Zhai , et al. , Water Use at Pulverized Coal Power Plants with Post
combustion Carbon Capture and Storage, 45 Environ. Sci. Technol. , 2479
- 85 (2011) 450 Id at p. 84; referencing DOE/NETL
- 402/ 080108, “Water Requirements for Existing and Emerging Thermoelectric Plant Technologi es” at 13 (Aug. 2008, Apr. 2009 revision) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **406** of **684** meet the final standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g. The predicted water consumption for varying levels of partial and full CCS are provided in Table [x]. The results show that a new SCPC unit that implements 16 percent partial CCS to meet the final standard would see an increase in water consumption (the difference between the predicted water withdraw and discharge) of about 6.4 percent compared to an SCPC with no CCS and the same net power output. By comparison, a unit implementing 35 percent CCS to meet the proposed emission limitation of 1,100 lb CO2/MWh
- g would see an increase in water consumption of 16.0 percent and a new unit implementing full (90 percent) CCS would see an increase of almost 50 percent. **Table [x]. Predicted Water Consumption with Implementation of Various Levels of Partial CCS**  **451** Raw Water Increase Compared Technology Consumption, gpm to SCPC , % SCPC 4,095
- SCPC + 16% CCS 4,359 6.4 SCPC + 35% CCS 4,751 16.0 SCPC + 90% CCS 6,069 48.2 IGCC* 3,334
- 18.6 IGCC + 90% CCS* 4,815 17.6 * The IGCC results presented in the DOE/NETL report are for an IGCC with net output of 622 MWe and an IGCC with full CCS with

451 Exhibits A
- 1 and A
- 2 at p. 16
- 17 from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants”, DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June [ ], 2015).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **407** of **684** net output of 543 MWe. The water consumption for each was normalized to 550 MWe to be consistent with the SPCP cases. Similar to other air pollution controls

– such as a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber

– utilization of post
combustion amine
-based capture systems results in increased consumption of water. However, by finalizing a standard that is less stringent than the proposed limitation and by rejecting full CCS as the BSER, the EPA has minimized the increased amount of water needed as compared to a similar unit without CCS. Further, the EPA notes that there are additional opportunities to minimize the water usage at such a facility. For example, the SaskPower Boundary Dam Unit #3 pos t - combustion capture project captures water from the coal and from the combustion process and recycles the captured water in the process, resulting in decreased need for withdrawal of fresh water. The EPA also examined the predicted water usage for a new IGCC and for a new IGCC implementing 90 percent CCS. The predicted water consumption for the new IGCC unit is nearly 20 percent less than that predicted for the new SCPC unit without CCS (and almost 25 percent less than the SCPC unit meeting the final standard). The EPA rejected new IGCC implementing full CCS as BSER because the predicted costs were significantly more than alternative technologies . The EPA also doe s not find that a new IGCC EGU is part of the final BSER (for reasons discussed***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **408** of **684** elsewhere). However, the EPA does note that IGCC is a viable alternative compliance option and, as shown here, would result in less water consumption than the compliant SCPC EGU. The EPA also notes that predicted water consumption at a new NGCC unit would be less than half that for a new SCPC EGU with the same net output. 452
3. Energy Requirements The EPA also examined the expected impacts on energy requirements for a new unit meeting the final promulgated standard and finds impacts to be minimal. Specifically , the EPA examined the increased auxiliary load or parasitic energy requirements of a system implementing CCS. The EPA examined the predicted auxiliary power demand from the updated DOE/NETL studies in order to determine the increased energy requirement for a new SCPC implementing partial CCS to meet the final standard of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh
- g. The predicted gross power output, the auxiliary power demand, and the parasitic power demand (% of gross output) are provided in Table [x] for varying levels of partial and full CCS.

452 The EPA also finds that the standards would not result in any significant impact on solid waste generation or management. See section XII.D bel ow.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **409** of **684 Table [x]. Predicted Parasitic Power Demand with Implementation**  **of Various Levels of Partial CCS**  **453** Generation Gross Power Auxiliary Parasitic Technology Output, MWe Power, MWe Demand (%) SCPC 580 30 5.2 SCPC + 16% CCS 599 38 6.3 SCPC + 35% CCS 603 53 8.8 SCPC + 90% CCS 642 91 14.2 IGCC 748 126 16.8 IGCC + 90% CCS 734 191 26.0 The auxiliary power demand is the amount of the gross power output that is utilized within the facility rather than used to produce electricity for sale to the grid. The parasitic power demand (or parasitic load) is the percentage of the gross power output that is needed to meet the auxiliary power demand. 454 In an SCPC EGU without CCS, the auxiliary power is used to primarily to operate fans, motors, pumps, etc. associated with operation of the facility and the associated pollution control equipment. When c arbon capture equipment is incorporated, additional power is needed to operated associated equipment and

453 Exhibits A
- 1 and A
- 2 at p. 16
- 17 from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Supplement: Sensitivity to CO2 Capture Rate in Coal
- Fired Power Plants”, DOE/NETL
- 2015/1720 (June [ ], 2015). 454 Note that this auxiliary power demand is not necessarily met from power or steam generated from the EGU. External sources can also be utilized for this purposes.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **410** of **684** steam is need to regenerate the capture solvents (i.e., the solvents are heated to release the captured CO2). The results in Table [x] show that a new SCPC unit without CCS can expect a parasitic power demand of about 5.2 percent. A new SCPC unit meeting the final standard of performance by implementing 16 percent partial CCS will see a parasitic power demand of about 6.3 percent, which is not a signific ant increase in energy requirement. Of course, new SCPC EGUs that implement higher levels of CCS will expect higher amounts of parasitic power demand. As shown in Table [x], a new SCPC EGU implementing full CCS would expect to utilize over 14 percent of it s gross power output to operate the facility and the carbon capture system. But, as we have noted several times in this preamble, the EPA does not find that a new SCPC implementing full CCS is the BSER for new fossil
- fired steam generating units. The EPA a lso notes that there is on
- going research sponsored by DOE/NETL and others to further reduce the energy requirements of the carbon capture systems. Progress is being made. As was mentioned previously, the heat duty (the energy required to regenerate the capture solvent) for the amine scrubbing process used at the Searles Valley facility in the mid
- 70’s was about 12 MJ/mt CO 2 removed as compared to a heat duty of about 2.5 MJ/mt CO 2 removed for the amine processes used***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **411** of **684** at Boundary Dam and for the amine system that will be used at the WA Parish facility. 455 The EPA also examined the predicted parasitic power demand for a new IGCC and for a new IGCC implementing 90 percent CCS. As we have noted elsewhere, the auxiliary power demand for a new IGCC unit more that for that of a new SCPC. As one can see in Table [x], a new IGCC unit can expect to see a nearly 17 percent parasitic power demand; and a new IGCC unit implementing full CCS would expect a parasitic power demand of nearly 30 percent. Of course, the EPA rejected new IGCC implementing full CCS as BSER because of the potentially unreasonable costs. The EPA also does not find that a new IGCC EGU is part of the final BSER (for reasons di scussed elsewhere). However, as we have noted, the EPA does find IGCC to be a viable alternative compliance option. Utilities and project developers should consider the increased auxiliary power demand for an IGCC when consider their options for new power generation. The EPA also notes that the predicted parasitic load for a new NGCC unit would be about 2 percent
-

455 “From Lubbock, TX to Thompsons, TX - Amine Scrubbing for Commercial CO 2 Capture from Power Plants”, plenary address by Prof. Gary Rochel le at the 12 th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technology (GHGT - 12), Austin, TX (October 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **412** of **6 84**  less than half that for a new SCPC EGU with the same net output. 456 As described above in section V. H.3 and more extensively in the RIA chapter 4 , EPA reasonably projects that no new non compliant fossil
- fuel fired steam electric capacity will be constructed through 2022 ( the end of the 8 year review cycle for NSPS). It is possible, as described earlier, that some new sources could be built to pre serve fuel diversity, but even so, the number of such sources would be small and therefore would not significantly impact energy requirements. P . Options That Were Considered by EPA but Were Ultimately Not Determined to Be the BSER In light of the comments received, the EPA re - examined several alternative systems of emission reduction and reaffirms in this rulemaking our proposed determination that those alternatives do not represent the “best” system of emission reduction when compared against the other available emission reduction options. These are described below. See also section IV.B.1 above . 1. Highly efficient generation technology (e.g., supercritical or ultra - supercritical boilers)

456 The EPA also finds that the standards would not result in any significant impact on solid waste generation or management. See section XII.D below.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **413** of **684** In the January 2014 proposal, we considered whether ‘Highly Efficient New Generation without CCS Technology’ should constitute the BSER for new steam generating units. 79 FR at 1468
- 69. The discussion focused on the performance of highly efficient generation technology (that does not include any implementation of CCS), such as a supercritical 457 pulverized coal (SCPC) or a supercritical CFB boiler, or a modern, well
performing IGCC unit. All these options are technically feasible

– there are numerous examples of each operating in the U.S. and worldwide. However, we do not find them to qualify as the best system for reduction of CO 2 emissions for the following reasons:
a. Lack of significant CO 2 reductions when compared to business as usual . At the outset, we reviewed the emission rates of efficient PC and CFB units . According to the DOE/NETL estimates 458 , [add additional text to note that these figures are corroborated in comments] a newly constructed subcritical PC unit

457 Subcritical coal
- fired boilers are designed and operated with a steam cycle below the critical point of water. Super critical coal - fired boilers are designed and operated with a steam cycle above the critical point of water. Increasing the steam pressure and temperature increases the amount of energy within the steam, so that more energy can be extracted by the steam turbine, which in turn leads to increased efficiency and lower emissions. 458 Exhibit ES
- 2 from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity”, Revision 2, Report DOE/NETL
- 2010/1397 (November 2010).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **414** of **684** firing bituminous coal would emit approximately 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , a new SCPC unit using bituminous coal would emit nearly 1,700 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , and a new IGCC unit 459 would emit about 1,450 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . 460 Emissions from comparable sources utilizing sub
-bituminous coal or lignite will have somewhat higher CO 2 emissions. 461 Some commenters noted that new coal - fired plants utilizing supercritical boiler design or IGCC would provide substantial emission reductions compared to the emissions from the existing subcritical coal plants that are currently in wide use in the power sector. However, most of the recent new power sector projects using solid fossil fuel (coal or petroleum coke) as the primary fuel

– both those that have been constructed and those that have been proposed

– are supercritical boilers and IGCC units. About 60 percent of new coal
- fired utility boiler capacity that has come on
- line since 2005 was supercritical and of the new capacity that came on - line since 2010, about 70

459 “Case 1” from Exhibit ES
- 2 from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity”, Revision 2, Report DOE/NETL
- 2010/1397 (November 2010). 460 The comparable emissions on a net basis are: subcritical PC

– 1,8 90 lb CO 2 /MWh - n ; supercritical PC

– 1,7 70 lb CO 2 /MWh - n ; and IGCC

– 1,72 0 lb CO 2 /MWh - n . 461 Exhibit ES
- 2 from “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 3b : Low Rank Coal to Electricity: Combustion Cases”, Report DOE/NETL
- 2010/1 463 ( March 2011 ) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **415** of **684** percent was supercritical. No new coal - fired utility boilers began operation in either 2013 or 2014. Coal - fired power p lants that have come on - line most recently include AEP’s John W. Turk, Jr. Power Plant, which is a 600 MW ultra
- supercritical 462 PC (USCPC) facility located in the southwest corner of Arkansas, and Duke Energy’s Edwardsport plant, which is a 618 MW “ CCS ready ” IGCC unit located in Knox County, Indiana. Both of those facilities came on
- line in 2012. It is likely that the units that initiated operation in 2010 or later were conceived of, planned, designed, and permitted well before 2010

– likely in the early 2000s. Thus, it seems clear that the power sector had already , at that point , transitioned to the selection of supercritical boiler technology as “business as usual” for new coal - fired power plants. Since that time, there have been other coal - fired power plants that have been proposed and almost all of them have been either supercritical boiler designs or IGCC units. In Table 1 of the Technical Support Document Fossil Fuel
Fired Boiler and IGCC EGU Projects Under Development: Status and Approach 463 for the January 2014 proposal, the EPA listed the development status of “potential transitional sources” (i.e.,

462 Ultra - supercritical (USC) and advanced ultra
- supercritical (A
USC) are terms often used to designate a coal
- fired power plant design with steam conditions well above the critical point. 463 Available in the rulemaking docket ID: EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495
- 0024.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **416** of **684** projects that had been proposed and had received Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permits as of April 13, 2012. Of the 16 proposed EGUs projects in Table 1

– most of which have been cancelled or converted to or replaced with NGCC projects

– the majority (nine) are either supercritical PC or IGCC designs. Five of the proposed projects were CFB designs with only one being a subcritical PC design. The EPA is aware of only one new coal
- fired power plant that is actively in the construction phase. That plant is Mississippi Power’s Kemper County Energy Facility in Kemper County, MS

– an IGCC unit that plans to begin operations in 2016 and will implement partial CCS to capture approximately 65 percent of the available CO 2 , which will be sold for use in EOR operations. Considering the direction that the power sector has been taking and the changes that it is undergoing, identifying a new supercritical unit as the BSER and requiring an emission limitation based on the performance of such units thus would provide few, if any, additional CO 2 emission reductions beyond the sector’s “business as usual”. As note d, for the most part, new sources are already designed to achieve at least that emission limitation. This criterion does not itself eliminate supercritical technology from consideration as BSER. However,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **417** of **684** existing technologies must be considered in the cont ext of the range of technically feasible technol ogies and, as we discuss elsewhere in this final preamble , partial CCS can achieve emission limitations beyond business as usual and do so at a reasonable cost . The EPA also considered IGCC technology and whe ther it represents the BSER for new power plants utilizing coal or other solid fossil fuels. IGCC units, on a gross
- output basis, have inherently lower CO 2 emission rates when compared to similarly
sized SCPC units. However, the net emission rates and overall emissions to the atmosphere (i.e., tons of CO 2 per year) tend to be more similar (though still somewhat lower) for new IGCC units when compared to new SCPC units with the same electrical output. Therefore an emission limitation based on the expected pe rformance of a new IGCC unit would result in some CO 2 emission reductions from the segment of the industry that would otherwise construct new PC units, but not from the segment of the industry that would already construct new IGCC units. A gross
- output based emission limitation consistent with the expected performance of a new IGCC unit would still require some additional control, such as partial CCS, on a new supercritical boiler. As is shown in S ection [ x.x ] , additional emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **418** of **684** reductions beyond those that would result from an emission standard based on a new SCPC boiler or even a new IGCC unit as the BSER can be achieved at a reasonable cost. Because practicable emission controls are available that are of reasonable cost at the source level and that will have little cost and energy impact at the national l evel , the EPA is according significant weight to the factor of amount of emissions reductions in determining the BSER. As discussed above, the D.C. Circuit has emphasized this factor in describing the purpose of CAA section 111 as to achieve “as much [emis sion reduction] as practicable.” 464 b. Lack of incentive for technological innovation . As discussed above, the EPA is justifying its identification of the BSER based on its weighing of the factors explicitly identified in CAA section 111(a)(1), including the amount of the emission reduction. Under the D.C. Circuit case law , encouraging the development and implementation of advanced control technology must also be considered (and, in any case, may reasonably be considered; see section V.H.3.d above) . Consideration of this factor confirms the EPA’s decision not to identify highly efficient generation technology (without CCS) as the BSER. At present, CCS technologies are the most promising options to

464 Sierra Club , 657 F.2d at 327 & n. 83.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **419** of **684** achieve significant reductions in CO 2 emissions from newly constructed fossil fuel - fired steam generating units. CCS technology is also now a viable retrofit option for some modified, reconstructed and existing sources

– depending upon the configuration, location and age of those sources. As CCS technologies are deployed and used more there is an expectation that, based on previous experience with advanced technologies, the performance will improve and the implementation costs will decline. The improved performance and lower costs will provide additional incentive for further implementation in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released its Fifth Assessment report 465 , which recognizes that widespread deployment of CCS is crucial to reach the long term climate goals. The authors of the report used models to predict the likelihood of stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 450 ppm by 2050 with or without carbon capture and storage (CCS). They found that several of the models were not able to reach this goal without CCS, which underlines the importance of deploying and further developing CCS on a large scale. American Electric Power (AEP), in an evaluation of lessons learned from the Phase 1 of its Mountaineer CCS project, wrote:

465 IPCC, Working Group III, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, http://mitigation2014.org/report/publication/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **420** of **684** “AEP still believes the advancement of CCS is critical for the sustainability of coal
- fired generation.” 466 Some commenters felt that the proposed standard of performance for new steam generating units, based on implementation of partial CCS at an emission rate of 1,100 lb/MWh - g , would not serve to promote the increased deployment and implementation of CCS. The commenters argued that such a standard could instead have the unintended result of discouraging the further development of advanced coal generating technologies such as ul tra - supercritical boilers and improved IGCC designs. Commenters further argued that such a standard will stifle further development of CCS technologies. Commenters felt that the standard would effectively deter the construction of new coal - fired generation – and, if there is no new coal
- fired generation, then there will be no implementation of CCS technology and, therefore, no need for continued research and development of CCS technologies. They argued , in fact , that the best way to promot e the development of CCS was to set a standard that did not rely on it. The EPA does not agree with these arguments and, in
466 CCS LESSONS LEARNED REPORT American Electric Power Mountaineer CCS II Project Phase 1, Prepared for The Global CCS Institute Projec t # PRO 004, January 23, 2012 , page 2. See also AEP FEED Study at pp. 4, 63 (same).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **421** of **684** particular, does not see how a standard that is not predicated on performance of an advanced control technology would serve to promote development and deployment of that advanced control technology. On the contrary, the history of regulatory actions has shown that emission standards that are based on performance of advanced control e quipment lead to increased use of that control equipment, and that the absence of a requirement stifles technology development. There is a dramatic instance of this paradigm presented in the present record. In 2011, AEP deferred construction of a large - sca le CCS retrofit demonstration project on one of its coal - fired power plants because the state’s utility regulators would not approve cost recovery for CCS investments without a regulatory requirement to reduce CO 2 emissions. AEP’s chairman was explicit on this point, stating in a July 17, 2011 press release announcing the deferral:

We are placing the project on hold until economic and policy conditions create a viable path forward ... We are clearly in a classic ‘which comes first?’ situation. The commercialization of this technology is vital if owners of coal
- fueled generation are to comply with potential future climate regulations without prematurely retiring efficient, cost
- effective generating capacity. But as a regulated utility, it is impossib le to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for validating and deploying the technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already in place. The***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **422** of **684** uncertainty also makes it difficult to attract partners to he lp fund the industry’s share. 467 Some commenters also argued that the incremental cost associated with including CCS at the proposed level would prevent new coal - fired units from being built. Instead, they advocated for a standard based on most efficient te chnology (supercritical) coupled with government subsidies to advance and promote CCS technology., The final standard is less stringent than that proposed, and can be met at a lower cost than the proposed standard , and as explained above in section V.H, EPA has carefully evaluated those costs and finds them to be reasonable. Further, the record and current economic conditions (fuel costs, renewables, demand growth, etc.) show that non economic factors such as a desire for fuel diversity will likely drive future development of new coal - fired EGUs. For this reason, the commenters’ bare assertions that the incremental cost of CCS (particularly as reasonably modulated for this final standard) would make the difference between constructing and not constructing new coal capacity ring hol low. Rather , a cost reasonable standard is, in fact, what will drive new technology deployment.

467 http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **423** of **684** The EPA expects that it is unlikely that a new IGCC unit would install partial CCS to meet the final standard unless the facility is built to take advantage of EOR opportunities or to operate as a poly- generation facility (i.e., to co
-produce power along with chemicals or other products). For new IGCC units, the final standard of performance can be met by co
- firing a small amount of natural gas. Some commenters argued that IGCC is an advanced technology that, like CCS, should be promoted. The EPA agrees. IGCC is a low
- emitting, versatile technology that can be used for purposes beyond just power production (as mentioned just above). Commenters further argued that a requirement to include partial CCS (at a level to meet the proposed standard of performance) would serve to deter

– rather than promote

– more installation of IGCC technology. We disagree with a similar argument that commenters make with respect to partial CCS for post - combustion facilities, but our final standard moots that argument for IGCC facil ities because the final emission limitation of 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g will not itself deter installation of IGCC technology, by the terms of the commenters’ own argument. 2. “Full” carbon capture and storage (i.e., 90 percent capture) We also reconsidered whether the emission limitation for new coal - fired EGUs should be based on the performance of full implementation of CCS technology. For a newly constructed***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **424** of **684** utility boiler, this would mean that a post
- combustion capture system would be used to treat the en tire flue gas stream to achieve an approximately 90 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions. For a newly constructed IGCC unit, a pre
- combustion capture system would be used to capture CO 2 from a fully shifted gasification syngas stream to achieve an approximat ely 90 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions. In the proposal for newly constructed sources (, we found that “full CCS” would certainly result in significant CO 2 reductions from any new source implementing the technology. However, we also found that the cost s associated with implementation, on either a new utility boiler system or a new IGCC unit, are predicted to substantially exceed the costs for other dispatchable non
-NGCC generating options that are being considered by utilities and project developers (e. g., new nuclear plants and new biomass
- fired units). See 79 FR at 1477. This remains the case, and indeed, the difference between cost of full capture and new nuclear technology is estimated to be even greater than at proposal. The EPA thus is not selecti ng full capture CCS as BSER. **VI. Rationale for Final Standards for Modified Fossil Fuel**  **- fired**  **Electric Utility Steam Generating Units** The EPA has determined that, as proposed, the BSER for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **425** of **684** steam generating units that trigger the modification provisions is each affected unit’s own best potential performance as determined by that unit’s historical performance. The final standards of performance are similar to those proposed in the June 2014 proposal. Differences between the proposed standards and the final st andards issued in this action reflect responses to comments received on the proposal. Those changes are described below. As noted previously, the EPA is issuing final emission standards only for affected modified steam generating units that conduct modifi cations resulting in a hourly increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of more than 10 percent ("large" modifications) . The EPA is continuing to review the appropriate standards for modified sources that conduct modifications resulting in a hourly increas e in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of less than or equal to 10 percent ("small" modifications) , is not issuing final standards for these sources in this action, and is withdrawing the proposed standards for these sources. A. Rationale for Final Applicability Criteria for Modified Steam Generating Units Final applicability criteria for modified steam generating EGUs include those discussed earlier in section III.A.1 (General***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **426** of **684** Applicability) and section III.A.3 (Applicability Specific to Modified Sources). CAA section 111(a)(4) defines a “modification” as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source o r which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.” Certain types of physical or operational changes are exempt from consideration as a modification. Those are described in 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14(e). To be clear, our action in this fi nal rule , and the discussion below, does not change anything concerning what constitutes or does not constitute a modification under the CAA or the EPA’s regulations. A modified steam generating unit is a source that fits the definition and applicability c riteria of a fossil fuel
- fired steam generating unit and that commences a qualifying modification on or after June 18, 2014 (the publication date of the proposed modification standards ) . 79 FR 34960 . For the reasons discussed below, the EPA in this final action is finalizing requirements only for steam generating units that conduct modifications resulting in an increase in hourly CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of more than 10 percent as compared to the source’s highest hourly emission during the previous five years . With respect to modifications with smaller***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **427** of **684** increases in CO 2 emissions (specifically, steam generating units that conduct modifications resulting in an increase in hourly CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of 10 percent or less compared t o the source’s highest hourly emission during the previous 5 years , the EPA is not finalizing any standard or other requirements, and in a separate action today is withdrawing the June 2014 proposal with respect to these sources. The effect of EPA’s deferral on setting standards for sources undertaking modifications resulting in smaller increases in CO2 emissions and the withdrawal of the June 2014 proposal with respect to such sources is that such sources will continue to be exist ing sources and subject to requirements under section 111(d). This is because an existing source does not always become a new source when it modifies. Under the definition of “new source” in section 111(a)(2), an existing source only becomes a new source if it modifies after the publication of proposed or final regulations that will be applicable to it. Thus, if an existing source modifies at a time that there is no promulgated final standard or pending proposed standard that will be applicable to it as a modified “new” source, that source is not a new source and continues to be an existing source. Here, because EPA is not finalizing standards for sources undertaking modifications resulting in smaller increases in CO2***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **428** of **684** emissions and is withdrawing the proposal with respect to such sources, these sources do not fall within the definition of “new source” in section 111(a)(2) and continue to be an “existing source” as defined in section 111(a)(6). As we discussed i n the June 2014 proposal , the EPA has historic ally been notified of only a limited number of NSPS modifications involving fossil steam generating units and therefore predicted that very few of these units would trigger the modification provisions and be subject to the proposed standards. Given the limited information that we have about past modifications, the agency has concluded that it lacks sufficient information to establish standards of performance for all types of modifications at steam generating units at this time. Instead , the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to establish standards of performance at this time for larger modifications, such as major facility upgrades involving , for example, the reconstruction or replacement of steam turbines and other equipment upgrades that result in substantial increases in a unit’s hourly CO 2 emissions rate. The Agency has determined, based on its review of public comments and other publicly available information, that it has adequate information regarding the types of modifications that could result in large***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **429** of **684** increases in hourly CO 2 emissions, as well as on the types of measures available to control emissions from sources that undergo such modifications, and on the costs and effectiveness of such control measure s, upon which to establish standards of performance for modifications with large emissions increases at this time. In establishing standards of performance at this time for modifications with large emissions increases, but not for those with small increase s, the EPA is exercising its policy discretion to promulgate regulatory requirements in a sequential fashion for classes of modifications within a source category, accounting for the information available to the agency, while also focusing initially on tho se modifications with the greatest potential environmental impact . To be clear, the EPA is not reaching a final decision that it will regulate modifications with smaller increases, or even that such modifications should be subject to different requirements than we are finalizing in this rule for the modifications with larger increases. We have made no decisions and this matter is not concluded. We plan to continue to gather information , consider the options for modifications with smaller increases , and , in the future, develop a proposal for these modifications or otherwise take appropriate steps. In deferring issuance of standards of performance for those***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **430** of **684** sources that conduct modifications resulting in a hourly increase in CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent, the EPA is exercising its discretion to propose and promulgate standards covering sources within a source category in a sequential manner, under appropriate circumstances, such as those present here, consiste nt with the case law that authorizes agencies to establish a regulatory framework in an incremental fashion, that is, a step at a time . 468 , 469 As a means of determining the proper threshold between the larger and smaller increases in CO 2 emissions, the EPA examined changes in CO 2 emissions that may result from large, capital
-

468 As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007): ‘‘Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop;’’ and instead they may permissibly implement such regulatory programs over time, ‘‘refining their preferred approach as circums tances change and as they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed.’’ See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. F.A.A., 154 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1998), City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927, 935 (DC Cir. 1989), National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1209

– 14 (DC Cir. 1984). 469 As the D.C. Circuit stated in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. U.S. E.P.A ., 861 F.2d 277, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1988)."[A]n agency's failure to regulate more comprehensively is not ordinarily a basis fo r concluding that the regulations already promulgated are invalid. 'The Agency might properly take one step at a time.' United States Brewers Assoc. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 974,982 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Unless the agency's first step takes it down a path that fore closes more comprehensive regulation, the first step is not assailable merely because the agency failed to take a second. The steps may be too plodding, but that raises an entirely different issue . . . ."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **431** of **684** intensive projects, such as major facility upgrades involving the reconstruction or replacement of steam turbines and other equipment upgrades that would significantly increase a unit's capacity to burn more fossil fuel, thereby resulting in large emissions increases. Major upgrades such as these could increase a steam generating unit's hourly CO 2 emissions by well over 10 percent . 470 An example of such major upgrade would be work performed at AmerenUE’s Labadie Plant, a facility with four 600
-MW (nominal) coal - fired units located 35 miles west of St. Louis. In the early 2000’s plant staff conducted process improvements that raised maximum unit capacity by at least 10 percent (from 580 MW to 630 MW). 471 Those changed included boiler improvements necessitated by its switch to from bituminous to s ubbituminous coal, installation of low
-NOx burners, an overfire air system, and advanced computer controls. One of the greatest performance gains came from the upgrading of all four of its steam turbines which AmerenUE chose to replace as modules allowing engineers

470 See e.g., Power Engineering, Steam Turbine Upgrades Boost Plant Reliability, Efficiency, available at http://www.power
eng.com/articles/print/volume
- 116/issue
- 11/features/steam
turbine
- upgrades -boost -plant - reliability
- efficiency.html. 471 “ Steam turbine upgrading: Low
- hanging fruit ”, Power (04/15/2006), http://www.powermag.com/steam
- turbine
- upgrading
low- hanging
- fruit .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **432** of **684** more freedom to maximize performance unconstrained by the units’ existing outer casing . The EPA believes that it is reasonable to set the threshold between “ large ” modifications and “ small ” modifications at 10 percent, a level commensurate with the magnitude of the emissions increases that could result from these types of projects , and we are issuing a final standard of performance for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in hourly CO 2 emission increases that exceed that threshold. We are not issuing standards of performance for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase of CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent. Therefore, in a separate action (published in a separate notice in the Federal Register today) , the EPA is withdrawing the proposed standards for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in a hourl y increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of less than or equal to ten percent and is not issuing final standards for those sources at this time. Utilities, states and others should be aware that the differentiation between modifications with larger and smaller increases in CO 2 emissions only applies to sources covered under 40 CFR part 60 , subpart TTTT , i.e . , i t is only applicable to CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel - fired steam generating units . There***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **433** of **684** is no similar provision for criteria pollutants or for other source categories. Utilities, states and others should also be aware that the distinction between large and small modifications only applies to NSPS modifications. Sources undertaking modifications may still be subject to requirements of New Source Review under CAA part C or other CAA requirements . The EPA notes that some commenters expressed concern that a number of existing fossil steam generating units, in order to fulfill requirements of an approved CAA section 111(d) plan, may pursue actions that involve physical or operational changes that result in some increase in their CO 2 emissions on an hourly basis, and thus constitute modifications. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should exempt projects undertaken specifically for the purpose of complying with CAA section 111(d). The EPA does not have sufficient information at this time to predict the full array of actions that existing steam generating units may undertake in response to applicable requirements under an approved CAA section 111(d) plan, or which, if any, of these actions may result in increases in CO 2 hourly emissions. Nevertheless, EPA expects that, to the extent actions undertaken by existing steam generating units in
re sponse to 111(d) requirements trigger modifications, the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **434** of **684** magnitude of the increases in hourly CO 2 emissions associated with such modifications would generally be small and would therefore generally not subject such modifications to the standards of performance that the EPA is finalizing today for modified steam generating units with large increases in hourly CO 2 emissions. We note that modified steam generating units that are not subject to the standard of performance finalized in this rule would be existing sources subject to section 111(d). 472 B. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction The EPA has determined that, as was proposed, the BSER for steam generating units that trigger the modification provisions is the affected source’s own best potential performance as determined by that source’s historical performance. The EPA proposed that the BSER for modified steam

472 Any source that undergoes a modification resulting in CO2 increases of less than 10 percent will continue to be an “existing source” and so will be covered by requi rements under section 111(d). Under the definition of “existing source” in section 111(a)(6), an existing source is any source that is not a new source. Under the definition of “new source” in section 111(a)(2), a modified source is a new source only if the modification occurs after the publication of regulations (or proposed regulations, if earlier) that will be applicable to that source. Because we are not finalizing regulations with respect to the modifications with small CO2 increases, and are withdrawing the proposal with respect to such sources, there are neither final regulations nor pending proposed regulations which will be applicable to such modifications.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **435** of **684** generat ing EGUs is each unit’s own best potential performance based on a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. Specifically, the EPA co
-proposed two alternative standards for modified utility steam generating units. In the first co
-propo sed alternative, modified steam generating EGUs would be subject to a single emission standard determined by the affected source’s best demonstrated historical performance (in the years from 2002 to the time of the modification) with an additional 2 percent emission reduction. The EPA proposed that the standard could be met through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. To account for facilities that have already implemented best practices and equipment upgrades, the proposal also specified that modified facilities would not have to meet an emission standard more stringent than the corresponding standard for reconstructed EGUs.The EPA also co -proposed that the specific standard for modified sources would be dependent on the timing of the modification. We proposed that sources that modify prior to becoming subject to a CAA section 111(d) plan would be required to meet the same standard described in the first co
-proposal

— that is, the modified source would be required to meet a unit
specific emission limit determined by the affected source’s best demonstrated historical performance (in the years from 2002 to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **436** of **684** the time of the modification) with an additional 2 percent emission reduction (based on equipment upgrades). We also proposed that sources that modify after becoming subject to a CAA section 111(d) plan would be required to meet a unit
specific emission limit that would be determined by the CAA section 111(d) implementing authority and would be based on the source’s expected performance after implementation of identified unit
- specific energy efficiency improvement opportunities. The final standards in this action do not depend upon when the modification commences (as long as it commences after June 8, 2014). The EPA received comment s on the June 2014 propos al that called into question the need to differentiate the standard based on when the modification was undertaken. Further, commenters noted that the proposed requirements for sources modifying after becoming subject to a CAA section 111(d) plan, which were based on energy efficiency improvement opportunities were vague and that standard setting under CAA section 111(b) is a fe deral duty and would require notice
- and- comment rulemaking. The EPA considered those comments and has determined that we agree that there is no need for subcategories based on the timing of the modification. C. BSER Criteria 1. Technical Feasibility***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **437** of **684** The EPA ba sed technical feasibility of the unit
- specific efficiency improvement on analyses done to support heat rate improvement for the proposed CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines (Clean Power Plan). That work was summarized in Chapter 2 of the TSD, “GHG Abatement Measures”.[add ref] In response to comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan, the approach was adjusted, as described in the final CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines. As with proposed actions, the EPA is basing technical feasibility for final standards for modified source efficiency improvements on the analyses for heat rate improvements for the CAA 111(d) final rule. 2. Cost Any efficiency improvement made by EGUs for the purpose of reducing CO 2 emissions will also reduce the amount of fuel that EGUs consume to produce the same electricity output. The cost attributable to CO2 emission reductions, therefore, is the net cost of achieving heat rate improvements after any savings from reduced fuel expenses. As summarized below, we estimate that, on average, the savings in fuel cost associated with a 4 percent heat rate improvement would be sufficient to cover much of the associated costs, and thus that the net costs of heat rate improvements associated with reducing CO2 emissions from affected EGUs are rel atively low.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **438** of **684** We recognize that our cost analysis just described will represent the costs for some EGUs better than others because of differences in EGUs’ individual circumstances. We further recognize that reduced generation from coal
- fired EGUs will tend to reduce the fuel savings associated with heat rate improvements, thereby raising the effective cost of achieving the CO 2 emission reductions from the heat rate improvements. Nevertheless, we still expect that the majority of the investment required to capture the technical potential for CO 2 emission reductions from heat rate improvements would be offset by fuel savings, and that the net costs of implementing heat rate improvements as an approach to reducing CO 2 emissions from modified fossil fuel
- fired EGUs are reasonable. 3. Emission Reductions This approach would achieve reasonable reductions in CO 2 emissions from the affected modified units as those units will be required to meet an emission standard that is consistent with more efficient operation. In light of the limited opportunities for emission reductions from retrofits, these reductions are adequate. 4. Technology Promotion As noted previously, the case law makes clear that the EPA is to consider the effect of its selection of the BSER on***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **439** of **684** technological innovation or development, but that the EPA also has the authority to weigh this factor, along with the various other factors. With the selection of emissions controls, modified sources face inherent constraints that newly constructed greenfield and even reconstructed sources do not; as a result, modified sources present different, and in some ways more limited, opportunities for technological innovation or development. In this case, the standards promote technological development by promoting further development and market penetration of equipment upgrades and process changes that improve plant efficiency. **VII. Rationale for Final Standards for Reconstructed Fossil**  **Fuel -**  **fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units**  A. Rationale for Final Applicability Criteria for Reconstructed Sources The applicability rationale for reconstructed utility steam generating units is the same as for newly constructed utility steam generating units. We are finalizing the same general criteria and not amending the reconstruction provisions included in the general provisions. B. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction In the proposal, the EPA evaluated seven different control technology configurations to determine the BSER for reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired boiler and IGCC EGUs: (1) The***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **440** of **684** use of partial CCS, (2) conversion to (or co
- firing with) natura l gas, (3) the use of CHP, (4) hybrid power plants , (5) reductions in generation associated with dispatch changes, renewable generation, and demand side energy efficiency,(6) efficiency improvements achieved through the use of the most efficient generation technology, and (7) efficiency improvements achieved through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. Although the EPA concluded that the first 4 technologies met most of the evaluation criteria, namely they are adequately demons trated, have reasonable costs and provide GHG emissions reductions, they were inappropriate for BSER due to site specific constraints for existing EGUs on a nationwide basis. We rejected best operating practices and equipment upgrades because we concluded the GHG reductions are not sufficient to qualify as BSER. The majority of commenters agree with EPA's decision that these technologies are not BSER. In contrast, as described in more detai l later in this section a few commenters did support partial CCS as BSER. The fifth option, reductions in generation associated with dispatch changes, renewable generation, and demand side energy efficiency, is comparable to application of measures identi fied in building blocks two, three and four in the emissions guidelines that we are finalizing under CAA section 111(d). We***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **441** of **684** solicited comment on any additional considerations that the EPA should take into account in the applicability of building blocks two , three and four in the BSER determination. Most commenters stated that building blocks two, three and four should not be considered for reconstructed sources . The proposed BSER was based on the performance of the most efficient generation technology avai lable, which we concluded was the use of the best available subcritical steam conditions for small units and the use of supercritical steam conditions for large units. We concluded this technology to be technically feasible, to have sufficient emission reductions, to have reasonable costs, and some opportunity for technological innovation. The proposed emission standard for these sources was 1,900 lb CO 2 /MWh - n for units with a heat input rating of greater than 2,000 MMBtu/h and 2,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - n for units with a heat input rating of 2,000 MMBtu/h or less. The difference in the proposed standards for larger and smaller units was based on greater availability of higher pressure/temperature steam turbines (e.g. supercritical steam turbines) for larger units. As explained in S ection III of this preamble , we are finalizing the standard on a gross output basis for utility steam generating units. The equivalent gross
- output -based standards are 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh and 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh respectively.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **442** of **684** We solici ted comment on multiple aspects of the proposed standards. First, we solicited comment on a range of 1,600 to 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for large units and 1,800 to 2,200 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for small units. We also solicited comment on whether the standards for utility boilers and IGCC units should be subcategorized by primary fuel type. In addition, we solicited comment on if there are sufficient alternate compliance technologies (e.g., co
- firing natural gas) that the small unit subcategory is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Those small sources would be required to meet the same emission standard as large utility boilers and IGCC units. Many commenters support ed the upper limits of the suggested ranges, saying the standard will be consistently met. Some commenters raise d concerns about the achievability of these limits for the many boiler and fuel types. A few commenters suggest ed that there should be separate subcategories for coal
fired utility boilers and IGCC units, since IGCC units have demonstrated limits clo ser to 1,500 lb CO 2 /MWh - n and the units' designs are so fundamentally different. Some commenters sa id that CFB (due to lower maximum steam temperatures), IGCC, and traditional boilers each need their own subcategory. Some commenters suggest ed that due to high moisture content and high relative CO 2 emissions of lignite, lignite
- fired units should***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **443** of **684** have its own subcategory. Other commenters opposed the proposed standards for reconstructed units because they thought the BSER determination for reconstructed subpart Da units was inconsistent with the BSER determination for newly constructed units. These commenters stated that the EPA did not provide sufficient justification for eliminating partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). These comment ers also stated that the reason the EPA gave for dismissing CCS in the proposal was a lack of "sufficient information about costs." These commenters hold that the cost rationale does not apply for reconstructed coal - fired power plants. The fact that recons tructed units may face greater costs to comply with a CAA section 111(b) standard than new sources does not relieve them of their compliance obligation. Based on a review of the comments , we have concluded that both the proposed BSER and emission standards are appropriate, and we are finalizing the standards as proposed. Nothing in the comments changed our view that the BSER for reconstructed steam generating units should be based on the performance of a well operated and maintained EGU using the most effic ient generation technology available, which we have concluded is a supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) or supercritical circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler for large units, and subcritical for small units. As described at proposal, we have concluded that these***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **444** of **684** standards are achievable by all the primary coal types. The final standards for reconstructed utility boilers and IGCC units is 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for sources with a heat input rating of greater than 2,000 MMBtu/h and 2,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for sources with a heat input rating of 2,000 MMBtu/h or less. While the final emission standards are based on the identified BSER, a reconstructed EGU would not necessarily have to rebuild the boiler to use steam temperatures and pressures that are higher than the original design. As commenters noted, a reconstructed unit is not required to meet the standards if doing so is deemed to be "technologically and economically" infeasible. 40 CFR 60.15(b). This provision inherently requires
case -by- case reconst ruction determinations in the light of considerations of economic and technological feasibility. However, this case
-by- case determination would consider the identified BSER (the use of the best available steam conditions), as well as
-- at a minimum
-- the f irst four technologies the EPA considered, but rejected, as BSER for a nationwide rule. One or more of these technologies could be technically feasible and reasonable cost, depending on site specific considerations and, if so, would likely result in suffic ient GHG reductions to comply with the applicable reconstructed standards. Finally, in some cases, equipment***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **445** of **684** upgrades and best operating practices would result in sufficient reductions to achieve the reconstructed standards. **VIII. Summary of Final Standards for Newly Constructed,**  **Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Turbines** This section summarizes the final applicability requirements , BSER determinations , and emission standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed station ary combustion turbines. In addition, it also summarizes significant differences between the proposed and final provisions. A. Applicability Requirements We are finalizing BSER determinations and emission standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines that (1) have a base load rating for fossil fuels greater than 260 GJ/h ( 250 MMBtu/h ) and (2) serve a generator capable of selling more than 25 MW
- net of electricity to the grid. We also are finalizing applicability requirements that will exempt from the final standards (1) all stationary combustion turbines that are dedicated non
- fossil fuel - fired units (i.e., combustion turbines capable of combusting 50 percent or more non
- fossil fuel ) and subject to a federally enforceable permit condition restricting annual fossil fuel use to 10 percent or less of a unit’s annual heat input capacity ; (2) the large majority of industrial combined heat and power units (i.e., combustion turbines that are combined heat***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **446** of **684** and power units that are subject to a federally enforceable permit condition limiting annual net - electric sales to the product of the unit’s net design efficiency multiplied by the unit’s potential output , or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater ); (3) stationary combustion turbines that serve a generator with generation capacity of 25 MW
- net or less; ( 4 ) municipal waste combustors and commercial or industrial solid waste incinerators (units subject to subparts Eb or CCCC of this part); and 5) combustion turbines that are physically incapable of burning natural gas (i.e., not connected to a natural gas pipeline. For combustion turbines subject to an emission standard, we are finalizing three subcategories: natural gas - fired base load units, natural gas
- fired peaking units, and multi
- fuel - fired
units. We use the term natural gas - fired base load units to refer to stationary combustion turbines that (1) burn over 90 percent natural gas and (2) sell electricity in ex cess of their design efficiency (not to exceed 50 percent) multiplied by their potential electric output. To be in this subcategory, a stationary combustion turbine must exceed the “ natural gas - use criterion ” on a 12
- operation month rolling average and the

“percentage electric sales ” criteri on on both a 12
- operating month and 3
- year rolling average basis. We use the term natural gas - fired peaking units to refer to s tationary combustion turbines that (1) burn over 90 percent natural gas and (2) have***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **447** of **684** net - e lectric sales equal to or below their design efficiency (not to exceed 50 percent) multiplied by their potential electric output. These criteria are calculated on the same rolling average bases as for the base load subcategory. Finally,
we use the term mul ti
- fuel - fired units to refer to stationary combustion turbines that burn 10 percent or more non
- natural gas on a 12
- operating month roll ing average basis. For modifications, we are finalizing emission standards for a subset of the sources for which we proposed standards . We are only establishing emission standards for large modifications in this rule and deferring at this time the setting of standards for small modifications. Specifically, the EPA is not finalizing standards for those units that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of less than or equal to ten percent and is withdrawing the proposed standards for those sources. We explain our rationale for these final decisions in Section IX of this preamble. B. Best System of Emission Reduction We are finalizing BSER determinations for the three subcategories of stationary combustion turbines referred to above : natural gas - fired base load units, natural gas
- fired peaking units, and multi
- fuel - fired units . For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas
- fired base load stationary combustion turbines , the BSER is the use of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **448** of **684** efficient NGCC technology. For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas - fired peaking stationary combu stion turbines, the BSER is the use of clean fuels (i.e., natural gas with an allowance for a small amount of distillate oil ) . For multi
- fuel - fired stationary combustion turbines , the BSER is the use of clean fuels ( e . g ., natural gas, ethylene, propane, naphtha, jet fuel kerosene, distillate oil s 1 and 2, biodiesel, and landfill gas) . C. Final Emission Standards For all newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas - fired base load combustion turbines , we are finalizing an emission standard of 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , calculated on a 12
- operating month rolling average basis . We are also finalizing an optional emission standard of 1,03 0 lb CO 2 /MWh - n , calculated on a 12
- operating month rolling average basis , for stationary combustion turbines in this subcategory . For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed natural gas fired peaking combustion turbines , we are finalizing a standard of 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu, calculated on a 12
- operating month rolling average basis. For newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed multi
- fuel - fired combustion turbines , we are finalizing a standard of 120 to 160 lb CO 2 /MMBtu, calculated on a 12
- operating month rolling average basis. The emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **449** of **684** standard for multi
- fuel - fired c ombustion turbines co
- firing natural gas with other fuels shall be determine d at the end of each operating month based on the percentage of co - fired natural gas . Table x summarizes the subcategories , BSER determinations , and emission standards for combustion turbines. **Table X**  **: Combustion Turbine Subcategories and BSER**

D. Significant Differences between Proposed and Final Combustion Turbine Provisions As shown in Tables X and X below , the proposed rule included several general applicability criteria and two subcategorization criteria for combustion turbines. In addition to the proposed applicability and subcategorization framework, we solicited comment on a "broad applicability approach" that include d most combustion tu rbines irrespective of the actual amount of electricity sold to the grid or the actual amount of

473 The emission standard for c ombustion turbines co
- firing natural gas with other fuels s hall be determine d based on the amount of co - fired natural gas at the end of each operating month. **S ubcategory**  **BSER Emission**  **standard** Natural gas - fired base load combusiton turbine Efficient natural gas fi red combined cycle 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh g or 1,030 lb CO 2 /MWh - n Natural gas - fired peaking combustion turbine Clean fuels 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu
Multi fuel
- fired combus t i on turbine Clean fuels 120 t o 160 lb CO 2 /MMBtu 473***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **450** of **684** natural gas burned (i.e., peaking units and multi
- fuel - fired units , respectively ). The broad applicability approach recast the proposed " electric sales " and "natural gas - use " criteria to distinguish among subcategory
- specific emissions standards. Specifically, in the broad applicability approach , we solicited comment on subjecting peaking units and multi
- fuel - fired units to "no emissions standard , " while still i ncluding them in the general applicability. We also solicited comment on subcategorizing peaking units and establishing a separate numerical standard. The final rule retains all of the proposed applicability criteria in some form , but most closely tracks the broad applicability approach by finalizing the percentage electric sales and natural gas
- use criteria as thresholds that distinguish among three subcategories of combustion turbines with separate emissions standards. The final rule also retains proposed exceptions to the broad applicability approach, with some changes that are responsive to public comments. C ategorical exceptions to the broad applicability criteria are the exclu sions for CHP units , non - fossil fuel unit s , and combustion turbines not able to combust natural gas . First , the proposed applicability criteria did not include CHP units that were constructed for the purpose of and actually sell more than one - third of their potential electric output or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **451** of **684** grid . The final rule eliminates the “constructed for the purpose of” and actual sales aspects of the proposal and replaces them with an exemption for CHP units that take federally enforceable permit conditions restricting net
- electric sales to the sliding
scale or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater. Second, the proposed applicability criteria did not include non
- fossil fuel units that burn 10 percent or less fossil fuel on a 3
- year rolling average. The final rule similarly replaces the actual fuel use
aspect of the proposal with an exemption for non - fossil fuel units that take federally enforceable permit condition s limiting fossil
- fuel use to less than 10 percent of the ir annual heat input capacity . Finally, the proposed applicability criteria did not in clude combustion turbines that burn 90 percent or less natural gas on a 3
- year rolling average basis. In contrast, the final rule includes most fossil fuel
- fired combustion turbines regardless of the amount of natural gas burned , with an exception for combustion turbines that are not connected to natural gas pipelines . In addition to these changes to the applicability criteria , the final rule excludes combustion turbines that undergo modifications resulting in hourly emission rate increases of ten percent or less , whereas the proposal would have covered all modifications . Finally, in response to public comments, we are not finalizing the subcategories for large and small combustion***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **452** of **684** turbines that were contained in the proposal . Instead, all natural gas - f ired base load combustion turbines must meet the 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g emission standard. Table X : Proposed Applicability Criteria versus Final Applicability Criteria **Applicability Criteria**  **Proposed Applicability Final Applicability**  Base load rating criterion Base load rating > 73 MW

(250 MMBtu/h) Base load rating > 260 GJ/h 474 (250 MMBtu/h) Total electric sales criterion Constructed for purpose

of and actually selling > 219,000 MWh - n to the grid Ability to sell > 25 MW- n to the grid Percentage electric sales criterion Constructed for purpose

of and having actual net s ales to the grid > 1/3 of potential electric output Changed to subcategorization criterion per broad applicability approach Natural gas use criterion Actually burns > 90

percent natural gas  Changed to subcategorization criterion per broad applicability approach  Exemption for combustion turbines that are not connected to a natural gas supply Fossil fuel
use criterion Actually burns > 10

percent fossil fuel Exemption based on permit condition limiting amount of fossil fuel burned to ≤ 10 percent of annual heat input capacity

474 73 MW is equivalent to 260 GJ/h. We changed units to avoid potential confusion of MW referring to electric output rather than heat input.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **453** of **684** Combined Heat and Power (CHP) exemption NA Exemption based on permit condition limiting net
- electric sales to ≤ design efficiency multiplied by potential electric output, or 219,000 MWh - n, whichever is greater Non - EGU criterion exemption Exemption for municipal

solid waste combustors and commercial or industrial solid waste incinerators Same as proposal

Table X : Proposed Subcategories versus Final Subcategories **Subcategory Proposed** 

**Criteria Final Criteria**  Small combustion turbine subcategory Base load

rating ≤ 850 MMBtu /h NA
Large combustion turbine subcategory Base load

rating > 850 MMBtu /h NA
Natural gas fired base load combustion turbine subcategory NA  Actually burns > 90 percent natural gas  Net - electric sales > design efficiency (not to exceed 50 percent) multiplied by potential electric output Natural gas fired peaking combustion turbine subcategory NA  Actually burns > 90 percent natural gas  Net - electric sales ≤ design efficiency (not to exceed 50 percent) multiplied by potential electric output Multi
- fuel fired combustion NA Actually burns ≤ 90 percent natural gas***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **454** of **684** turbine subcategory
**IX. Rationale for Final Standards for Newly Constructed, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Combustion Turbines**  This section discusses the EPA’s rationale for the final applicability criteria, BSER determinations , and standards of performance for newl y constructed, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines. In this section, we present a
summa ry of what we propose d , a selection of the significant comments we received, and our rational e for the final determinations , including how the comments influenced our decision
-making . A. Applicability This section describes the proposed applicability criteria , applicability issues we specifically solicited comment on, the relevant significant comments, and the final applicability criteria. We also provide our rationale for finalizing applicability criteria based strictly on design and permit restrictions rather than actual operating characteristics . Finally, we explain why the proposed percent age electric sales and natural gas - use applicability crit eria are being finalized instead as criteria to distinguish between separate subcategories of stationary combustion turbines .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **455** of **684** As noted in Section VIII and discussed later in this section , the EPA is issuing final emission standards only for affected combustion turbines that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of more than 10 percent ("large" modifications). The EPA is continuing to review the appropriate standards for affected sources that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of less than or equal to 10 percent ("small" modifications) . As a result, the EPA is not issuing final standards for these modifications in this action and is withdrawing the propo sed standards for these modifications . 1. Proposed Applicability Criteria In the January 2014 proposal, we proposed several applicability criteria for stationary combustion turbines . Specifically, to be subject to the proposed emission standards , we proposed that a unit must (1) be capable of combusting more than 73 MW ( 250 MMBtu/h ) heat input of fossil fuel; (2) be constructed for the purpose of supplying and actually supply more than one - third of its potential electric output capacity to a util ity power distribution system for sale (that is, to the grid) on a 3
- year rolling average; (3) be constructed for the purpose of supplying and actually supply more than 219,000 MWh***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **456** of **684** net - electric output to the grid on a 3
- year rolling average; (4) combust over 10 percent fossil fuel on a 3
- year rolling average; and (5) combust over 90 percent natural gas on a 3
- year rolling average. We proposed exempting municipal solid waste combustors and commercial or industrial solid waste incinerators. Under these proposed applicability criteria, two types of stationary combustion turbines that are currently subject to criteria pollutant standards under subpart KKKK would not have been subject to CO 2 standards . The first type was stationary combustion tu rbines that are constructed for the purpose of selling or that actually sell one
- third or less of their potential output or 219,000 MWh or less to the grid on a 3
- year rolling average basis (i.e., peaking units) . The second type was multi
- fuel - fired stationary combustion turbines (i.e., combustion turbines that actually combust 90 percent or less natural gas on a 3
- year rolling average basis) . We proposed the 1/3 e lectric sales criteri a in part because they already exist in other regulatory context s (e.g., the coal fired EGU criteria pollutant NSPS) and would promote consistency between regulations. Our understanding at proposal was that the percentage electric sales criteri a would distinguish between peaking units (i.e., low capital cost, flexible, but relatively inefficient simple cycle units) and intermediate and base load***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **457** of **684** units (i.e., higher capital cost, less flexible, but relatively efficient combined cycle units). Under the proposed approach, a stationary combustion turbine could be an affected EGU one year, but not the next, depending on the unit’s actual electric sales and the composition of fuel burned. While the proposed applicability criteria did not explicitly exempt simple cycle combustion turbines from the emission standards , we concluded that , as a practical matter , the vast majority of simple cycle turbines would be excluded because they historically have operated as peaking units and, on average, have sold less than five percent of their potenti al electric output on an annual basis , well below the proposed percentage of electric sales threshold of 33.3 percent . a . Solicitation of comment on applicability, generally . We solicited comment on a range of issues related to applicability. In conjunction with the proposed percentage of electric sales threshold of 33.3 percent , we solicited comment
on whether a threshold between 20 to 40 percent of potential electric output would be appropriate. We also solicited comment on whether a variable percentage electric sales criterion, which would allow more efficient, lower emitting turbines to run for longer periods of operation before becoming subject to the standards of performan ce, would be appropriate . Under this***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **458** of **684** “sliding scale” approach , the percentage electric sales criterion would be based on the nameplate design efficiency of the combustion turbine being installed . In this way, more efficient combustion turbines would be able to sell a greater portion of their potential electric output compared with less efficient combustion turbines before becoming subject to an emission standard . This approach had the benefit of incentivizing the development and installation of more effi cient simple cycle combustion turbines to serve peak load. We also solicited comment on whether the percentage electric sales criterion for stationary combustion turbines should be defined on a single calendar year basis. In addition, we solicited comment on eliminating the 219,000 MWh aspect of the total electric sales criterion to eliminate any incentive for generators to install multiple, small, and less efficient stationary combustion turbines that would be exempt due to their lower output . We further solicited comment on whether to provide an explicit exemption for all simple cycle combustion turbines regardless of the amount of electricity sold . We additionally solicited comment on how to implement the proposed electric sales , fossil fuel - use , and natural gas - use criteria given that they were to be evaluated as 3
- year rolling averages during the first three years of operation , and we requested comment on appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **459** of **684** requirements . We specifically solicited comment on whether these proposed requirements raise d implementation issues because they
were based on source operation after construction has occurred. We also solicited comment on excluding electricity sold during system emergencies from the calculation of net
- electric sales. The rationale for this exclusion was that simple cycle combustion turbines intended only for peaking applications might be required to ope rate above the proposed net - electric sales thresholds if a major power plant or transmission line became unexpectedly unavailable for an extended period of time. The EPA concluded that this flexibility would be appropriate if the unit
were called upon to run after all other available generating assets were already running at full load. The definition of "system emergency" presented in the proposal was "any abnormal system condition that the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO), Independent System Operators (ISO) or control area Administrator determines requires immediate automatic or manual action to prevent or limit loss of transmission facilities or generators that could adversely affect the reliability of the power system and therefore call for maximum generation resources to operate in the affected area, or for the specific affected facility to operate to avert loss of load." b. Solicitation of comment on b road applicability approach . In both the January 2014 proposal for newly constructed EGUs and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **460** of **684** the June 2014 proposal for modified and reconstructed EGUs, the EPA solicited comment on finalizing a broad applicability approach. The broad applicability approach is consistent with histori cal NSPS applicability approaches that are based on design criteria and include different emission standards for subcategories that are distinguished by operating characteristics. Specifically, we solicited comment on whether we should completely remove the electric sales and natural gas use criteria from the general applicability framework . I nstead the percentage electric sales and natural gas - use thresholds would serve as subcategorization criteria for distinguishing among classes of EGUs and subcategory- specific emission s standards . Under this broad applicability approach, the “constructed for the purpose of” component of the percentage electric sales criteri on would be completely eliminated so that applicability for combustion turbines would be determined only by a unit’s base load rating (i.e., greater than 260 GJ/h ( 250 MMBtu/h ) ) and its capability to sell power to a utility distribution system (i.e., serving a generator capable of selling more than 25 MW). In contrast to the proposed applic ability criteria , under the broad applicability approach , peaking (i.e., simple cycle) and multi
- fuel - fired (e. g ., oil
fired) combustion turbines would remain subject to the rule regardless of the ir net - electric sales or fuel use. We solicited***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **461** of **684** comment on all aspects of this "broad applicability approach," including the extent to which it would achieve the policy objectives of assuring that simple cycle turbine s and combined cycle turbine s would be subject to the same standard if they sell more than the spe cified electric sales threshold to the grid. 2. Comments on Applicability We received comments specific to each of the proposed applicability criteria. We also received more general comments on the scope of the proposed framework as compared to the scope of the broad applicability approach. For combustion turbines, we received few specific comments on the 10 percent fossil fuel
- use threshold or the 90 percent natural gas - use threshold. Many commenters supported the general size (base load rating) thresholds ( 260 GJ/h ( 250 MMBtu/h ) and 25 MW) because they are consistent with the thresholds used in states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ( RGGI ) and under Title IV programs. Other commenters opposed these thresholds and stated that all new, modified, and reconstructed units that sell electricity to the grid , including small EGUs, oil
- fired combustion turbines, and simple cycle combustion turbines should be affected sources because they would otherwise have a competitive advantage in energy markets as they would not be required to internalize the costs of compliance. C omments***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **462** of **684** regarding the applicability criteria related to dedicated non
fossil units (i.e., units that combust less than 10 percent fossil fuel) and industrial CHP are discussed in Section III of this preamble.
a. Percentage and total e lectric sales criteria . Commenters from the power sector generally supported a complete exemption for simple cycle turbines. These commenters stated that simple cycle turbines are uniquely capable of achieving the ramp rates (the rate at which a power plant can increase or decrease output ) necessary to respond to emergency conditions and hourly variations in output from intermittent renewables. Commenters noted that simple cycle combustion turbines serve a different purpose than NGCC power blocks . In addition, commenters noted that electricity generation dispatch is based on the incremental cost to generate electricity and that because NGCC units have a lower incremental generation cost than simple cycle units, economics will drive the use of NGCC technologies over simple cycle units. However, commenters also stated that historic simple cycle operating data may not be representative of future system requirements as coal units retire, generation from intermittent renewable generation increases, and numerous market and regulatory drivers impact plant operations. In the absence of a c omplete exemption, these commenters supported a percentage***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **463** of **684** electric sales threshold between 40 to 60 percent of a unit’s potential electric output . Some commenters said that because the proposed percentage electric sale s criterion applied over a three
- year period , it would adversely affect grid reliability because operators conservatively would hedge short - term operating decisions to
ensure that they have sufficient capacity to respond to unexpected scenarios during future compliance periods when the demand for electricity is higher. These commenters were concerned that such compliance decisions would drive up the cost of electricity as the most efficient new units are taken out of service to avoid triggering the NSPS and older, less efficient units with no capacity limitations are ramped up instead. Some commenters supported the sliding
- scale approach (i.e. , a percentage electric sales threshold based on the design efficiency of the combustion turbine) and stated that incentives for manufacturers to develop ( and end users to purchase ) higher efficienc y combustion turbines could help mitigat e concerns about a monolithic national constraint on simple cycle capacity factors. In contrast, others commented that rapid
- response NGCC units intended for peaking and intermediate load applications can achieve comparable ramp rates to simple cycle combustion turbines , but with lower CO 2 emission rates . These commenters***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **464** of **684** said that simple cycle turbines should be restricted to their historical role as true peaking units and that the proposed percentage electric sales threshold of 33.3 percent provide s sufficient flexibility. Some commenters suggested that the proposed 33.3 percent electric sales threshold could be reduced to 20 percent or lower without adverse impact s on grid reliability. Commenters noted that a complete exclusion for simple cycle turbines would create a regulatory incentive for generators to install and operate less efficient unaffected units instead of more efficient affected units. According to these commenters , any applicability distinctions should be based on utilization and function rather than purpose or technology. Commenters also noted that the 219,000 MWh net - electric sales threshold put larger combustion turbines at a competitive disadvantage by distorting the market and could have the perverse impact of increasing CO 2 emissions . These comment er s noted that the 219,000 MWh net - electric sales threshold would allow combustion turbines smaller than approximately 80 MW to sell more than one - third of their potential electric output , but would restrict larger, more efficient combustion turbines to sell ing one - third of their potential electric output to avoid triggering the NSPS . They argued that this would result in a regulatory incentive for generators to install multiple , less -***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **465** of **684** efficient combustion turbines instead of fewer , more - efficient combustion turbines and could have the unintended consequence of increas ing CO 2 emissions. Commenters in general supported use of 3
- year rolling average s instead of a single
- year average for the percentage and total electric sales criteri a because , in their view, the 3
- year rolling average s would provide a better overall picture of normal operations . Some commenters stated that a rolling 12
- month or calendar - year average could be severely skewed in a given year because of unforeseen or unpredicted events. They said that using a 3
- year averaging methodology would provide system operators with needed flexibility to dispatch simple cycle units at higher than normal capacity factors . In contrast,
some c ommenters stated that , because capacity is forward
- looking (e.g., payments for capacity are often made several years in advance) , the 3
- year averaging period provides limited benefit because owner/operators need to reserve the ability to respond to unforeseen events . C ommenters noted that the inconsistency between the 3
- calendar year electric sales applicability and 12
- operating month compliance period results in potential compliance issues. For example, a facility could sell greater than one - third of its potential electric output over a 3
- year period but sell less than one - third of its potential electric output during a 12
-***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **466** of **684** operat i ng month compliance period with in the same 3
- year peri od. Because the CO 2 emissions can be higher during periods of low electric sales due to more frequent starting and stopping, cycling operation, and operation at part load , even a facility operating at maximum efficiency c ould exceed the proposed emission standard in such a situation . Regarding the relationship between the percentage electric sales criteria and system emergencies, multiple commenters supported exclusion of electricity generated as a result of a grid emergency from counting towards net sales. These commenters stated that the exclusion was appropriate because the benefits of operating these units to generate electrical power during emergency conditions outweigh any adverse impacts from short
term increases in CO 2 emissions. One commenter stated that , in addition to declared grid emergencies, other circumstances might warrant emergency exemption under the rule, including extreme market conditions, limitations on fuel supply, and reliability responses. Multiple commenters opposed the exclusion of grid emergencies when calculating a source's percentage electric sales for applicability purposes because NSPS must apply continuously, even during grid emergencies. The se commenters stated that the EPA does not have the authority under the CAA to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **467** of **684** suspend the applicability of a standard during periods of "grid emergency . " Some commenters stated that an exclusion would be unnecessary because the EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement has the authority to advise a source that the government will not sue the source for taking certain actions during an emergency. Commenters said this enforcement discretion approach has provided prompt, flexible relief that is tailored to the needs of the particular emergency and the communit ies being served and is only utilized where the relief will address the particular emergency at hand. Commenters added that this enforcement discretion approach is consistent with the CAA’s mandate that emission limits apply continuously and provide safeguards against abuse. One commenter stated that emergencies happen rarely and typically last for short periods, that the proposed percentage electric sales threshold would allow a source to operate at its full rated capacity for up to 2,920 hours per year without triggering applicability , and that the potential occurrence of grid emergencies would represent a tiny fraction of this time. Another commenter stated that no emergency short of large scale destruction of power generating capacity by terrorism, war, accident, or natural disaster could justify operating a peaking unit above a 10 percent capacity factor on a 3
- year rolling average.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **468** of **684** b. Broad applicability approach . In response to the EPA's request for comments on whether the proposed applicability requirements that retrospectively look back at actual events ( i.e., the electric sales and fuel use criteria) would create implementation issues, several permitting authorities opposed the provisions because units could be subject to coverage one year but not the next, result ing in compliance issues and difficulties in determining proper pre
- construction and operating permit conditions. These permitting authorities suggested that in order for a source to avoid applicability, the
source should be subject to a federally enforceable permit condition limit with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting conditions for assessing applicability on an ongoing basis. Other commenters stated that an applicability test that concludes after construction and operation have commenced is inconsistent with the general purpose of an applicability test: to provide clear and predictable standards of performance for new sources that would apply when the y begin operations. Some c ommenters opposed the proposed retrospective applicability criteria related to actual output supplied during a preceding compliance period because EGUs must know what performance standards will apply to them during the licensing process , and such criteria do not allow the permitting authority and the public to know in advance whether an emission standard***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **469** of **684** applies to a proposed new unit. Other c ommenter s said EGUs undergoing permitting should be allowed to request limits in operating permit conditions in order to remain below the applicability thresholds , as this methodology is consistent with the pre - construction permitting requirements in many federally approved SIPs and the current approach under the Title V permitting program. Many commenters stated a preference for the "proposed applicability approach" over the "broad applicability approach." These commenters did not think it was necessary to require peaking or multi
- fuel - fired combustion turbines to be subject to emission standards . They stated that there is no justification for imposing burdensome monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that would have no environmental benefit (i.e., would not reduce CO 2 emissions) because these units would be subject to "no emissions standards **."** In addition, s ome commenters stated that use of the broad applicability approach under CAA section 111(b) proceedings is not appropriate because the plain language of the CAA prohibits establishment of applicability requirements under CAA section 111 that rely on "no emissions standard .” These commenters stated that "no emission standard" is not a "standard of performance" as defined in CAA section 111(a)(1) because a "standa rd of performance" is defined as a "requirement of continuous emission reduction."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **470** of **684** In contrast, to preserve the discretion of state planners under section 111(d), many other commenters supported inclusion of new simple cycle units within the scope of the CAA 111(b) applicability criteria so that similar, existing simple cycle units would be subject to the CAA 111(d) standard . Numerous other commenters stated that all units that sell electricity to the grid should be subject to the standard, including simple cycle units, because they view the utility grid as a single integrated system and that doing so may simplify development of future frameworks for cost - effective carbon reductions from existing units, such as frameworks based on system
-wide approache s . 3. Final Applicability and Rationale The final applicability criteria for combustion turbines
are generally consistent with the broad applicability approach on which we solicited comment. Based on consideration of the comments received related to the proposed applicability criteria and practical implementation issues, we are revising how those criteria will be implemented. When describing these revisions,
we refer to the applicability criteria in § 60.5509 as "general applicability criteria" or the "gene ral applicability framework." We refer to the criteria in Table 2 of subpart TTTT that determine which emissions standard applies to a particular combustion turbine as " subcategorization criteria ."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **471** of **684** In this preamble, Table XXX presents each proposed applicability criterion together with the form of the criterion in the final rule. The final general applicability framework in § 60.5509 includes the proposed criteria based on the combustion turbine's base load rating for heat input and the proposed criteria based on the turbine's total electric sales capacity. The final general applicability framework also includes four exemptions that are relevant to combustion turbines: combustion turbines that are not connected to natu ral gas pipelines are exempt ; CHP facilities with federally enforceable limits on total electric sales are exempt; groups of EGUs that serve a single generator with prorated capacities below the total electric sales threshold are exempt; and EGUs undertaking modifications with emission s increases of 10 percent or less are exempt. The final applicability framework reflects four variations from the proposal that are responsive to public comment. First, consistent with the broad applicability approach, we are finalizing the percentage electric sales and natural gas
- use thresholds as s ubcategorization criteria instead of as applicability criteria. Second, for non
- CHP combustion turbines, we are eliminating the proposed total electric sales criterion. Third, we are finalizing the proposed fossil fuel
- use criterion as an exemption for non
- fossil fuel
- fired units that are subject to a federally enforceable permit condition limiting the use of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **472** of **684** fossil fuel. Finally, we are eliminating the proposed “constructed for the purpose of” qualifier for the percentage electric sales criterion. We are a lso not finalizing CO 2 standards for dedicated non
- fossil fuel
- fired or industrial CHP combustion turbines. The rationale for not finalizing CO 2 standards for these units is discussed in section III. The EPA agrees with commenters that the NSPS applicabili ty framework should be structured so that permitting authorities and the regulated community can determine what standards apply prior to a facility having commenced construction. With this in mind, the EPA has concluded that the proposed fossil fuel
- use,
natural gas - use, total electric sales, and percentage electric sales applicability criteria for combustion turbines are not ideal approaches because applicability determinations based on these criteria could change from year to year (i.e., facilities could move in and out of coverage each year), and some operators would not know the extent of their compliance obligations until after the compliance period. Further, from a practical implementation standpoint, existing permitting rules generally require pre
- construction permitting authorities to include enforceable conditions limiting operations such that unaffected units will not trigger applicability thresholds . Such conditions are often called “avoidance” or “synthetic minor” conditions, and these***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **473** of **684** conditions typically include ongoing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that operations remain below a particular regulatory threshold. The following sections provide further discussion of the final general applicability criteria under § 60.5509 and the rationale for recasting certain criteria ( proposed for determining general applicability) as subcategorization criteria in Table 2 of subpart TTTT . a. Baseload rating criterion. We are retaining the applicability criteria that a combusti on turbine must be capable of combusting more than 260 GJ/h ( 250 MMBtu/h ) heat input of fossil fuel and must serve a generator capable of selling more than 25 MW to the grid. We revised the proposed 73 MW form of the baseload rating criterion for heat input to 260 GJ/h because many commenters from the power sector misinterpreted the 73 MW form (which is mathematically equivalent to 250 MMBtu/h) as the electrical output rating of the generator. While some commenters suggested that we expand the applicability criteria to cover smaller EGUs as well, we did not propose to cover smaller units. Because smaller sources emit relatively few CO 2 emissions compared to larger units and because we currently do not have enough information to identi fy an appropriate BSER for these units , we are not finalizing CO 2 standards for smaller units.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **474** of **684** b. Total Electric Sales Criterion . Commenters expressed concerns that, as proposed, the 219,000 MWh total annual electric sales applicability criterion would en courage the installation of multiple smaller, less efficient simple cycle combustion turbines instead of a single, more efficient and larger turbine. The 219,000 MWh total electric sales criterion allows smaller simple cycle combustion turbines (e.g., less than 80 MW) to sell significantly more electricity relative to their potential electric output than larger turbines. Many commenters expressed that there can be value in having the flexibility to operate a simple cycle turbine at a high capacity factor even if the turbine is not intended to run at a high capacity factor. One of these drivers is the ability to get capacity payments from the transmission authority. If the EPA finalized the 219,000 MWh total electric sales criterion for combustion turbines we would be providing a perverse incentive to install smaller, less efficient simple cycle turbines. We are therefore not finalizing the 219,000 MWh total annual electric sales exemption for non
CHP combustion turbines.
c . Percentage Electric S ales Criterion . For the proposed " one third or more of potential electric output" electric sales threshold, the EPA considered applicability based on a permit restriction requiring units to sell more electricity than one
third of their potential electric output . Similar to the fossil***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **475** of **684** fuel - use criterion just discussed ; however , using this restriction for applicability purposes is not ideal because new combustion turbines could avoid applicability by simply not having a permit restriction to actually sell more than the specified threshold . Even if a facility were subject to this restriction, a permit violation for a unit that does not operate enough to sell one - third of its potential electric output is nonsensical since system demand may not be sufficient to allow all permitted units to operate above the specified threshold . The EPA concluded that looking at sales permit restrictions can
serve as a method to identify dedicated peaking units . The future role of stri ctly dedicated peaking units , however , is unclear. Public comments we received furthered our understanding of the potential future roles of combustion turbine EGUs. The growth of generation from intermittent renewable sources has created a perceived need for additional cycling generation that operates outside of the traditional roles of simpl e and combined cycle combustion turbines. In response, the market is developing new technologies to fill this need perceived by end users of combustion turbines. Historically, simple cycle combustion turbines were used as peaking units, and combined cycle combustion turbines served higher use applications. These new technological changes, however, have blurred the distinction between the historical***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **476** of **6 84**  role of simple cycle and combined cycle turbines. For example,
s ome manufacturers have developed high efficien cy simple cycle turbines. These newer turbines have higher capital costs than older simple cycle turbine designs, but they are significantly more efficient yet maintain similar flexibilities (e.g., ability to start and change load rapidly) as previous desi gns. Other manufacturers have developed fast start flexible combined cycle units specifically to fill this role. These newer combined cycle designs have lower design efficiencies than base load combined cycle designs but are able to start up more quickly t o respond to rapid changes in electricity demand. As a result of these new technological developments, b oth high efficiency simple cycle and fast start combined cycle units can be used for peaking applications and for higher use applications , such as supporting the growth of intermittent renewable generation. Importantly, these newer technologies are both significant potential sources of CO 2 emissions, and we have concluded that CO 2 standards should be established for these types of units , as discussed later . In contrast, dedicated peaking units represent a smaller potential source of CO 2 emissions and have more limited opportunities for reductions , and we thus consider it appropriate to exempt certain of them from coverage by the standards .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **477** of **684** To identify a potential appropriate exemption threshold for peaking EGUs, the EPA evaluated the annual electric sales of existing simple cycle combustion turbines between 2005 and 2014. The EPA has concluded that an appropriate annual electric sales threshold for dedicated peaking units should be high enough to include historical operation of the majority of simple cycle turbines and low enough to avoid providing an incentive to install multiple less efficient units . In developing such an exemption, the EPA considered the potential for creating perverse incentive to install multiple, lower capital cost, less efficient peaking units instead of fewer, higher capital cost, more efficient cycling units, in order to avoid applicability with the proposed standards. If developers see a value in avoiding coverage by the final standards, regardless of potentially minimal costs, a regulatory driver arises to build new, exempt units. Should this occur, CO 2 emissions would increase relative to the baseline emission levels. Although eighty eight percent of existing simple cycle units did not have annual percentage electric sales that exceeded 1 0 percent of the potential electric output between 2005 and 2014 , the EPA considers this value too low for a practical restriction. Based on comments opposed to limiting the percentage electric sales of simple cycle units to no more than 33.3 percent , the EPA has concluded that few, if any,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **478** of **684** owners/operators of new combustion turbines would consider this a reasonable absolute limitation for all simple cycle turbines. In addition, based on our cost models it would not be cost effective to install a combined cycle combustion turbine , rather than a simple cycle combustion turbine , if running at this low capacity factor is antic ipated . The EPA also considered a percentage electric sales threshold of 25 percent for dedicated peaking units . Ninety eight percent of existing simple cycle turbines did not exceed this level of sa les between 2005 and 2014 . In addition, at this percentage of electric sales our cost models indicate it is cost effective to install a combined cycle combustion turbine, compared to a simple cycle combustion turbine. Finally, the simple cycle units that had percentage electric sales in excess of 25 percent might have been operating during a system emergency, which would not be counted versus the percentage electric sales subcategorization threshold for the purposes of this rule. This level is further supported by the permit restriction for the CPV Sentinel facility in Desert Hot Springs, California. This facility consists of 8 high efficiency intercooled simple cycle turbines intended to support wind generation in California. Each unit at this facility is restricted to 2,500 hours of operation annually. Assuming an average duty cycle of 90 percent, this is equivalent to an***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **479** of **684** annual percentage electric sales restriction of approximately 25 percent. Similar to the 10 percent threshold, the EPA acknowledges that owners/operators of new simple cycle turbines would generally not elect to avail themselves of such a 25 percent sales restriction for multiple reasons. First, many commenters stated that existing simple cycle turbines are permitted to operat e 2,920 hours or more annually to respond to variable annual demands and provide capacity reserve in the event of a system emergency. The commenters stated that due to the changing nature of the grid (e.g., increased generation from intermittent renewable generation) , these needs will increase in the future. Additionally, the EPA has concluded that this level is too low to avoid adverse environmental impacts . Utilities have an obligation to provide sufficient electricity to meet system demand regardless of specific emission standards that have been placed on individual units. By limiting certain units to less than 25 percent of their potential electric output, utilities and other developers could justify (based on the perceived benefit of being totally exempt from subpart TTTT) building multiple lower capital cost, but less efficient, simple cycle combustion turbines exempt under the percentage electric sales threshold , rather than building fewer higher capital cost , more efficient simple cycle combustion turbines that could meet the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **480** of **684** same demand by operating just above the proposed threshold. The associated CO 2 emissions and the cost to ratepayers would be higher for the scenario with multiple turbines operating at lower loads than the fewer , more efficient units. We considered several other drawbacks associated with sales limit s , generally. S etting a percentage electric sales applicability threshold that is too high could leave new units with a substantial amount of potential CO 2 emissions unregulated and would reduce the number of units included in 111(d) state plans. This level also could incentivize existing combined cycle units to modify their existing operating permits to avoid obligations under the 111(d) program. Further , developers of new EGUs completely exempt from the 111(b) rule would also have a perceived benefit of not being subject to potential futu re revisions of 111(d) requirements. Finally, an exemption based on limiting electric sales does not address concerns of commenters about the achievability of the proposed standard when combustion turbines designed for base load operation are operated as peaking units. As described in the BSER section, cycling and operation at part loads can impact the efficiency of a combustion turbine and increase the CO 2 emission rate on a lb/MWh basis . In balancing these competing factors, the EPA has concluded it is appropriate to finalize the broad applicability approach***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **481** of **684** and cover combustion turbines regardless of actual electric sales . To accommodate the continued use of simple cycle and fast start combustion turbines for peaking applications and to support additional renewable generation and operation of combined cycle units during periods of operation as peaking units (i.e., when elect ric sales are below the percent electric sales threshold ) , the EPA has concluded that subcategorization tied to the design efficiency of the unit is appropriate , by use of a sliding scale approach. Specifically, owners and operators of new combustion turbines with total electric sales equal to or less than the design efficiency of the unit times the potential electric output ( e.g ., annual full - load- equivalent hours of operation equal to or less than the design efficiency times 8,760 hours) are not subj ect to the final output -based standards of this rulemaking. Instead, these units are subject to a clean fuels standard. The clean fuels approach provides environmental protection equally for all combustion turbines, regardless of the actual sales. The specific subcategories and emission standard are discussed later in this section . As mentioned previously, the EPA solicited comment on excluding electricity sold during system emergencies as counting against the total electric sales threshold. We have concluded that the emergency conditions exemption provides flexibility to maintain system reliability and minimizes overall cos ts to the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **482** of **684** sector. We disagree with commenters that the EPA’s existing enforcement discretion should be used in place of specifying how electricity generated during system emergencies should be accounted for. Including this provision provides certainty for the regulated community, public, and regulatory authorities on applicability of the emission standards. System emergencies are defined events and not declared by the owner/operator of specific combustion turbines so there is limited opportunity for use of the provision. For these reasons, we are finalizing that electricity sold during hours of operation when the unit is called upon to operate due to a system emergency will not be counted toward either the total electric sales threshold or the percentage el ectric sales threshold . The applicable emission standard during these periods would be the same standard that would otherwise apply (i.e., a heat input based standard for peaking and multi
- fuel - fired units and an output based standard for natural gas - fired base load units). Electric sales from units that are not called upon to operate specifically due to the system emergency (e.g., units already operating when the system emergency is declared) would be counted against both the total electric sales threshold and the percentage electric sales threshold .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **483** of **684** d. Fossil fuel
- use and natural gas - use criteria . The EPA evaluated several approaches for implementing the proposed fossil fuel
- use and natural gas - use criteria through federally approved pre
construction and operating permit programs. For example, regarding the proposed natural gas
- use criterion, the EPA considered including applicability coverage for all facilities with an operating permit restriction requiring that natural gas contribute over 90 percent of total heat input. This is not a practical approach, however, because many federally approved permit programs being implemented by the states require that each permit condition specify and reference the origin and authority for each term or condition in the permit. In effect, each permit is comprised of the individual state and federal requirements (that have already been codified through the requisite state and federal administrative procedures) and that already compel the source operator to take the actions delineated in the permit. Accordingly, in the absence of a state or federal administrative proceeding that requires certain combustion turbine operators to utilize natural gas for more than 90 percent of total heat input, many federally approved permitting programs do not have sufficient authority to issue permits with such a requirement. Even in st ates where federally approved permitting programs do have sufficient authority to mandate use of a particular fuel, it would be inconsistent with***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **484** of **684** Congressional intent to make regulatory applicability requirements for a uniform national standard under secti on 111 subordinate to such a wide range of federal and state agreements. While permit conditions are routinely utilized to establish practically enforceable limitations to ensure a source does not exceed an applicability threshold (i.e., they are routinely utilized to establish exemptions from applicability as in this rulemaking under § 60.5509(b) ), permit conditions are not routinely utilized to establish primary applicability criteria (e.g., § 60.5509(a) are the primary applicability criteria in this rulemaking). In summary, permit conditions are typically used in conjunction with established regulatory applicability thresholds to establish "who's out" not to establish "who's in." Finally, use of permit conditions to establish the primary applicability cri teria under § 60.5509(a) is inconsistent with the objectives under CAA section 111(d) and could essentially provide a pathway for all combustion turbines to avoid applicability under state 111(d) plans. Therefore, the EPA has concluded that permit restric tions are not ideal approaches to distinguish natural gas
- fired combustion turbines from multi
- fuel - fired combustion turbines. The EPA has concluded that the only practical approach to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **485** of **684** distinguish between these turbines is to look at the turbine’s physical ability to burn natural gas. In contrast to the proposed applicability approach (where the natural gas - use and fossil fuel
- use criteria could independently determine general applicability under subpart TTTT), the broad applicability approach recast, the natural gas use and the fossil fuel
- use criteria to subcategorize affected
sources. However, consistent with the intent of the proposal
-- to establish CO 2 emission standards for natural gas
- fired combustion turbines
-- we are not finalizing CO 2 standards for combustion turbines that are not capable of firing any natural gas. Combustion turbines without any connection to a natural gas pipeline are not subject to any of the requirements of this rulemaking.
e . F inal applicability criteria for modified combustion turbines and rationale . CAA section 111(a)(4) defines a “modification” as “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which resu lts in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.” Certain types of physical or operational changes are exempt from consideration as a modification. The se are described in 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14(e). This final rule does not***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **486** of **684** change anything conce rning what constitutes or does not constitute a modification under the CAA or the EPA’s regulations. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is finalizing requirements only for combustion turbines that conduct modifications resulting in an increase in hou rly CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of more than 10 percent as compared to the source’s highest hourly emission during the previous five years. With respect to modifications that result in CO 2 emission increases equal to below this threshold , the EPA is not finalizing any standard or other requirements and in a separate action today is withdrawing the June 2014 proposal with respect to these sources. As we discussed in the June 2014 proposal, the EPA historically has been notified of only a limited number of NSPS modifications involving combustion turbines and therefore predicted that very few of these units would trigger the modification provisions and be subject to the proposed standards. Given the limited information that we have about past modifications, we have concluded that we lack sufficient information at this time to establish standards of performance for all types of modifications at combustion turbines . Instead, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate at this time to establish standards of per formance only for larger modifications .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **487** of **684** To determine the proper applicability threshold, the EPA examined changes in CO 2 emissions that may result from large, capital
- intensive projects, such as major facility upgrades involving the addition of duct burner s and other equipment upgrades that would significantly increase a unit's capacity to burn more fossil fuel, thereby resulting in large emissions increases. Major upgrades such as these could increase a combustion turbine's hourly CO 2 emissions by well ove r 10 percent. The Agency has determined, based on its review of public comments and other publicly available information, that it has adequate information regarding the types of modifications that could result in large increases in hourly CO 2 emissions, as well as on the types of measures available to control emissions from sources that undergo such modifications , to establish standards of performance for large modifications at this time. Therefore we are setting the threshold between “large” modifications and “small” modifications subcategory at 10 percent, a level commensurate with the magnitude of the emissions increases that could result from these types of projects, and we are issuing a final standard of performance for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in hourly CO 2 emission increases that exceed that threshold. We are not***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **488** of **684** issuing standards of performance for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase of CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent. In establishing standards of performance at this time for modifications with large emissions increases, but not for those with small increases, the EPA is exercising its policy discretion to promulgate regulatory requirements in a sequential fashion for classes of modifications within a source category, accounting for the information available to the agency, while also focusing initially on those modifications with the greatest potential environmental impact. To be clear, the EPA is not reachi ng a final decision that it will regulate small modifications, or even that such modifications should be subject to different requirements than we are finalizing in this rule for large modifications. We have made no decisions and this matter is not concluded. We plan to continue to gather information, consider the options for small modifications, and, in the future, develop a proposal for these modifications or otherwise take appropriate steps. In deferring issuance of standards of performance for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in an hourly increase in CO 2 emissions of less than or equal to 10 percent, the EPA is exercising its discretion to propose and promulgate***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **489** of **684** standards covering sources within a source category in a sequential manner, under appropriate circumstances, such as those present here, consistent with the case law that authorizes agencies to establish a regulatory framework in an incremental fashion, that is, a step at a time. 475 , 476 Therefore, in a separate action (published in a separate notice in the Federal Register today), the EPA is withdrawing the proposed standards for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in a hourly increase in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of less than or equal to ten percent and is not issuing final standards for those sources at this time. Utilities, states and others should be aware that the
475 As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007): ‘‘Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop;’’ and instead they may permissibly implement such regulato ry programs over time, ‘‘refining their preferred approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed.’’ See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. F.A.A., 154 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1998), City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927, 935 (DC Cir. 1989), National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1209

– 14 (DC Cir. 1984). 476 As the D.C. Circuit stated in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. U.S. E.P.A ., 861 F.2d 277, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1988)."[A]n agency's failure to regulate more comprehensively is not ordinarily a basis for concluding that the regulations already promulgated are invalid. 'The Agency might properly take one step at a time.' United States Brewers Assoc. v. EPA, 600 F.2d 974,982 (D.C. Cir. 1 979). Unless the agency's first step takes it down a path that forecloses more comprehensive regulation, the first step is not assailable merely because the agency failed to take a second. The steps may be too plodding, but that raises an entirely different issue . . . ."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **490** of **684** differentiation between modifications with larger and smaller increases in CO 2 emissions only applies to sources covered under 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, i.e., it is only applicable to CO 2 emissions from combustion turbines. There is no similar provision for criteria pollutants or for other source categories. Utilities, states , and others should also be aware that the distinction between large and small modifications only applies to NSPS modifications. Sources undertaking modifications may still be subject to requirements of New Source Review under CAA part C or other CAA requirements. The EPA notes that some commenters expressed concern that a number of existing combustion turbines, in order to fulfill requirements of an approved CAA section 111(d) plan, may pursue actions that involve physical or operational changes that result in some increase in their CO 2 emissions on an hourly basis, and thus constitute modifications. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should exempt projects undertaken specifically for the purpose of complying with CAA section 111(d). The EPA does not have sufficient information at this time to predict the full array of actions that existing combustion turbines may undertake in response to applicable requirements under an approved CAA section 111(d) plan, or which, if any, of these actions may result in increases in CO 2 hourly emissions. Nevertheless, the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **491** of **684** EPA expects that, to the extent actions undertaken by existing combustion turbines in response to 111(d) requirements constitute modifications, the magnitude of the increases in hourly CO 2 emissions ass ociated with such modifications would generally be small and would therefore generally not subject such modifications to the standards of performance that the EPA is finalizing today for modified combustion turbines with large increases in hourly CO 2 emiss ions. We note that modified combustion turbines that are not subject to the standard of performance finalized in this rule would remain existing sources subject to section 111(d). 477 B. Subcategories At proposal, the EPA identified two size
-based subcategories: (1) large natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines with a base load rating greater than 850 MMBtu/h and

477 Any source that undergoes a modification resulting in CO 2 increases of less than 10 percent will continue to be an “existing source” and so will be covered by requi rements under section 111(d). Under the definition of “existing source ” in section 111(a)(6), an existing source is any source that is not a new source. Under the definition of “new source” in section 111(a)(2), a modified source is a new source only if the modification occurs after the publication of regulations (or propose d regulations, if earlier) that will be applicable to that source. Because we are not finalizing regulations with respect to the modifications with small CO 2 increases and are withdrawing the proposal with respect to such sources, there are neither final regulations nor pending proposed regulations that will apply to such modifications.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **492** of **684** (2) small natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines with a base load rating of 850 MMBtu/h or less. In conjunction with the "broad applicability approach," the EPA also solicited comment on a subcategorization approach based on percentage electric sales and natural gas - use . Under this approach , “no emission limit” would apply dur ing periods when operations fall below specific electric sales or natural gas
- use thresholds . Alternatively, we solicited comment on whether we should set a numerical emission limit for these subcategories. As discussed previously , we are finalizing a variation of the broad applicability approach where the percent electric sales and natural gas - use criteria serve as thresholds that distinguish
s ubcategor ies of combustion turbines . This section describes comments we received regarding the proposed siz e -based subcategories and our rationale for not finalizing them ; comments we received regarding operations based subcategories , such as base load and peaking units; our rationale for adopting operations
-based subcategories; and the appropriate thresholds to distinguish between such subcategories . (1) Comments and rationale regarding s ize
-based subcategories . The EPA received numerous comments regarding our proposal to subcategoriz e combustion turbines by size. Some commenters agreed with the 850 MMBtu/h cut -point between large and small***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **493** of **684** units, some suggested increasing it to 1,500 MMBtu/h, and others suggested eliminating size
-based subcategorization altogether . For example, s ome commenters stated that the 850 MMBtu/h cut point was inappropriate because i t was originally calculated based on NOX performance , not CO 2 performance . These commenters stated that 850 MMBtu/h was not a logical demarcation between more efficient versus less efficient combustion turbines , but rather would divide the units into arbitrary size classification s . These commenters suggested that 1,500 MMBtu/h would be a better cut -point because the existing fleet of gas turbines between the heat input range of 1,300 MMBtu/h and 1,800 MMBtu/h reflect that the more efficient and lower CO 2 emitting technologies having ratings greater than 1 ,500 MMBtu/h. In contrast, other commenters said that differentiation between small and large combustion turbines was not justified at all because many of the same technologies that reduce the emission rates of larger units could be incorporated into smaller units. These c ommenters also said that separate standards for small and large turbines would undermine the incentive for technology innovation, which they described as a key purpose of the NSPS program, and that relaxing standards for smaller units will discourage investment in more efficient technologies , resulting in increased CO 2 emissions . These***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **494** of **684** commenters recommended that the limit for both large and small units be no higher than 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh . After evaluating these comments, the EPA has concluded not to subcategoriz e combustion turbine s based on size for several
reasons. First, the EPA reviewed data on the size of available
combined cycle facilities (without duct burners) listed in Gas Turbine World . Combined cycle turbines are not currently offered in the following output sizes: between 600 to 800 MMBtu/h, 1,000 to 1,200 MMBtu/h, and 1,300 to 1,800 MMBtu/h. The EPA also reviewe d the heat input data for existing combined cycle units that has been submitted to the EPA Clean Air Markets Division . These data show that multiple combined cycle units have been built in the past with heat input capacities that fall within the ranges for which turbines are not available . Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the regulated community uses various sizes of combined cycle turbines in combination with one another and that no clear cut -point distinguishes small and large combined cycle units . S ubcategorizing by size could unduly influence the selection of technology and development of future turbine offerings. Second , the average emissions rate for NGCC units of 850 MMBtu/h or less is lower than the average emissions rate for NGCC units with he at input ratings between 850 MMBtu/h and 1,500 MMBtu/h. Finally, the EPA has concluded that, while certain***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **495** of **684** smaller NGCC designs are less efficient than larger NGCC designs, this is primarily related to design variations of the HRSG, not an inherent limitat ion in the ability of small NGCC units to have comparable efficiencies to large NGCC units . 2 . Comments and rationale regarding operations -based subcategories . Numerous commenters supported tiered subcategories for peaking, cycling/ load- following /intermediate, and base load units. Commenters noted that the EPA’s proposals excluded units that operate in peaking mode and argued that there was no basis in law or policy to exempt these units from regulation simply because they operate less frequently, and hence less efficiently. Commenters said that the EPA should set an emission standard for all sources that supply (or are designed to supply) any amount of electricity to the grid and should distinguish among subcategories based on actual operation. One of the most common comments we received was that peaking units should be either included in a subcategory of their own or completely exempted due to the highly variable capacity factors and duty cycles imposed by system operators on these versatile generators. Other commenters opposed the tiered approach. Commenters suggested that separate standards for different operating conditions would be complicated to implement and enforce, provide few benefits, and could have the unintended consequence***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **496** of **684** of encouraging less efficient technologies and less efficient operation. Commenters added that annual capacity factors would likely vary significantly from year to year for both simple and combined cycle combustion turbines , and possibly even from month to month because the 12
- operating
-month average is recalculated every operating month. These commenters stated that real -world variability and uncertainty significantly diminishes the value of creating tiered standards for peaking and load
- following units becau se individuals responsible for long
- range decisions related to reliability may react to a system of tiered standards by purchasing additional generating assets to ensure system demand can be satisfied while operating individual units below tier
- specific thresholds. After evaluating comments, the EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to adopt a two tiered subcategory approach based on the percentage of electric sales to distinguish between peaking and base load units. While commenters supporting the tiered approach suggested a three tiered approach, the EPA has concluded that at this time we do not have sufficient information to identify a separate BSER or establish an output
based standard for a middle tier subcategory (i.e., cycling/l oad- following/intermediate load units) . The two classes if units (i.e., technologies ) for stationary combustion turbines are simple and combined cycle units. While these technologies***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **497** of **684** serve different primary purposes, both can serve this middle tier subcate gory and the overlap limits our ability to establish a middle tier subcategory without potential adverse impacts to grid reliability. Since simple cycle combustion turbines have lower efficiencies and cannot achieve the same emission rate as combined cycle units and both serve a different primary role we have concluded it is appropriate to distinguish between these two classes on combustion turbines. 3 . Comments and rationale regarding the percentage e lectric sales threshold for operation s -based subcategories . At proposal, we assumed all new combustion turbines operating above the proposed percentage electric sales threshold (i.e., above 33.3 percent) would be able to comply with a standard consistent with the performance of recently constructed natural gas - fired combined cycle units. However, as described above and in the applicability section, we received many comments regarding operation s -based chara cteristics of different combustion turbines . For example, while uses of cycling and intermediate load units often overlap and may have similar annual total electric sales, their operating characteristics can differ significantly. Though they may have simil ar annual capacity, intermediate load units might have steadier operation (i.e., less starts and stops and more operation near full load) but have similar annual capacity factors. This method of operation***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **498** of **684** can result in increased CO 2 emission rates and the amount of increase depends on the specific technology installed. Commenters also expressed concern about operational characteristics that affect the achievability of the proposed standards for combined cycle combustion turbines that operate as cycling unit s for backup generation from intermittent renewable sources of generation. Such generation may be anticipated to increase, and thus future cycling EGUs may start and stop and operate at part load more frequently than in the past, increasing CO 2 emissions. Based on concerns raised in comments about the impact of intermittent renewable generation (e.g., wind and solar) on the operation of simple cycle turbines, the EPA has done additional analysis. First, we evaluated the total electric sales criterion in greater detail to get a more accurate picture of how many existing simple cycle turbines would exceed the proposed percentage electric sales threshold (i.e., the proposed 33.3 percent threshold) based on historical operation. We also examined the operation of simple cycle turbines in the lower 48 states between 2005 and 2014 using information submitted to the EPA Clean Air Markets Division. Finally , we reviewed the recent operati ng history of simple cycle turbines in regions with relatively la rge amounts of wind and solar generation.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **499** of **684** In the proposal, the EPA estimated the number of existing simple cycle turbines that would have exceeded the proposed one third percentage electric sales threshold (i.e., 33.3 percent) by looking to see whether they operat ed over 2,920 hours in any given year. However, this method overestimated the number of simple cycle turbines that would have exceeded the threshold in two ways. First, it did not account for hours in which simple cycle tu rbines were operating at part load. The typical duty cycle (i.e., average capacity factor while operating) of simple cycle turbines is approximately 70 percent. Therefore, simple cycle turbines can operate in excess of 2,920 hours and still not sell one - th ird of their potential electric output to the grid . Historically, simple cycle turbine s sell approximately 3 percent of their potential electric output , and only 10 of the 1,939 existing simple cycle turbines have individual years where the percentage of e lectric sales exceeded one - third of their potential electric output. Second, we proposed to calculate the percentage electric sales criterion on a 3
-year rolling average basis. Using a 3
- year rolling average, only two existing simple cycle turbines histori cally sold enough electricity to exceed the proposed one - third percentage electric sales threshold . We used information reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to determine the impact of renewable generation on the operation of simple cycle turbines. The EIA***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **500** of **684** provides data on the total in
- state electricity generation, including wind and so lar, from 2008 through 2014. Interstate flow of electricity data is availabl e from 2008 through 2012. Specifically, we examined data from the Southwest Power Pool (data approximated by EGUs in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma), Texas, and California , all of which had increases for the percent of wind and solar electricity generated in
- state and percent of total electric generation from wind and solar from 2008 through 2014. To determine the observed impact of the increased generation from intermittent renewab le sources, the EPA reviewed data submitted for simple cycle turbines to the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) over the same time period. (i) Southwest Power Pool . The percent of in
- state generation from wind and solar in the Southwest Power Pool inc reased from 3 to 16 percent between 2008 and 2014. The average growth rate of wind and solar was 28 percent, while overall electricity demand grew 1 percent annually on average. Based on statements in some of the comments, we would expect to see a large change in the operation of simple cycle turbines in this region. However, the average percent electric sales compared to the potential electric output from simple cycle turbines only increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent, and remained essentially unchanged at 3 percent of potential electric sales between 2008 and 2014.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **501** of **684** Overall, generation from simple cycle turbines increased slightly more at an annual rate of 2.5 percent, resulting from additional simple cycle capacity being in line with what was expecte d due to overall increased electricity demand. The lack of significant change in the operation of simple cycle turbines in this region could be explained by the relatively large amount of exported power. If most of the intermittent power was being exported , the intermittent nature of the power would primarily impact other transmission regions. An alternate explanation is that other generating assets are flexible enough to respond to the intermittent nature of wind generation and that simple cycle turbine s are not necessary to backup wind and solar generating assets to the degree some commenters suggested. If this were the case, then new simple cycle turbine will primarily continue to fill their historical role as peaking units and flexible combined cycle units will provide the primary backup capacity for new wind and solar generating assets. (ii) Texas . The percent of in
- state generation from wind and solar in Texas increased from 4 to 9 percent between 2008 and 2014. The average growth rate of wind and so lar was 13 percent, while the overall demand grew an average of 2 percent annually. Similar to the Southwest Power Pool, the overall percent of electric sales relative to the potential electric output from simple cycle turbines has remained relatively unchanged. Average***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **502** of **684** electric sales relative to potential electric output from simple cycle turbines actually decreased at an annual rate of 1.1 percent. However, the overall generation from simple cycle combustion turbines increased at an annual rate of 6.6 per cent, resulting from simple cycle capacity additions occurring at approximately four times what would be expected from growth in overall demand. The EPA has concluded that the most likely simple cycle turbines to support intermittent renewable generation a re the most efficient simple cycle combustion turbines installed in the particular transmission region. There are two highly efficient intercooled simple cycle turbines installed in Texas. These two combustion turbines sell an average of 10 percent of thei r potential electric output annually, compared to an average of 3 percent for the remaining simple cycle turbines. No simple cycle turbine in Texas sold more than 25 percent of its potential electric sales annually. This growth in simple cycle turbine capacity could indicate that the additional generation assets are providing firm capacity for intermittent generation sources such as wind and solar, but based on the data those simple cycle turbines are expected to continue operating similar to as they have historically and sell less than one - third of their potential electric output.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **503** of **684** (iii) California . The percent of in
- state generation from wind and solar in California increased from 3 to 11 percent between 2008 and 2014. The average growth rate of wind and solar was 25 percent, while overall demand has remained stable. The operation of simple cycle turbines in California has changed more significantly than the other evaluated regions. Average electric sales relative to potential electric output from simpl e cycle turbines increased from 5.1 to 5.9 percent, an annual rate increase of 4.5 percent. As in Texas, considerable additional simple cycle capacity has been added in recent years. The average capacity of simple cycle turbines is increasing at 15 percent annually even though overall demand has remained relatively steady. In addition, the newest simple cycle turbines are operating at higher capacity factors than the existing fleet of simple cycle turbines, resulting in an average increase in generation from simple cycle turbines of 21 percent. Many of the new additions are intercooled simple cycle turbines that may have been installed with the specific intent to back up wind and solar generation. The annual electric sales relative to the potential electric output for the intercooled turbines range from 3 to 25 percent, with a 7 percent average. No simple cycle turbines in California have sold more than one
- third of their potential electric output on an annual basis. The operation of simple***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **504** of **684** cycle turbines that existing prior to 2008 have not changed significantly. Average electric sales relative to potential electric output for these simple cycle turbines increased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent. This is an indication that support for additional renewable generation is being provided by new units and not by the installed base of simple cycle units. These units are still serving their historical role of providing power during peak periods of demand. Based on historical amounts of intermittent generation, the proposed percentage electric sales threshold would appear to offer sufficient operational flexibility for new peaking (i.e . , simple cycle) combustion turbines. Existing combined cycle, other generation assets, and demand response programs are currently provi di ng adequate backup to renewable generation. In the future, however, existing combined cycle facilities will likely operate at higher capacity factors. They will therefore be less available to provide backup power for intermittent generation. In additi on, the percent of power generated from intermittent sources is expected to increase in the future. Both of these factors could require additional flexibility from the remaining generation sources to maintain grid reliability. Even though fast start combi ned cycle technologies, reciprocating internal combustion engines, energy storage technologies, and demand response programs are promising***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **505** of **684** technologies for providing backup power for renewable generation, none of them historically have been deployed in suf ficient capacity to provide the potential necessary capacity to facilitate the continued growth of renewable generation. While we anticipate that state and federally issued permits for new electric generating sources will consider the CO 2 benefits of these technologies compared to simple cycle turbines, the EPA has concluded at this time it is appropriate to finalize an NSPS that provides additional flexibility for new combustion turbines intended to run at lower capacity factors. The EPA considered multip le options for extending flexibility for simple cycle turbines and accounting for impacts on efficiency due to cycling operations. Ultimately, we concluded that a trigger based on the design net efficiency at standard conditions is appropriate. The percent age electric sales threshold for classification within the base load (i.e . , natural gas - fired combined cycle) subcategory would be based on the design net efficiency of the unit. The EPA has concluded that this approach provides sufficient operational flexibility for new peaking (i.e., simple cycle and fast response combined cycle) combustion turbines, even with increased future use. In addition, even though the historical percentage electric sales of simple cycle turbines is less than 5 percent, this sliding scale approach based on the unit
- specific net efficiency***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **506** of **684** promo tes installation of the most efficient generating technol ogies since the stringency of the emissions standard and operational flexibility will both be directly linked to the efficiency of the unit . The design net efficiencies for currently available potentially impacted aeroderivative simple cycle combustion tu rbines range from approximately 32 percent for smaller designs to 39 percent for the largest intercooled designs. The efficiencies of industrial frame units range from 30 percent for smaller designs to 36 percent for the largest units. These efficiency val ues follow the methodology the EPA has historically used and are based on the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel. In contrast, combustion turbine vendors in the United States often quote efficiencies based on the lower heating value (LHV) of the fuel. The LHV of a fuel is determined by subtracting the heat of vaporization of water vapor generated during combustion of fuel from the higher heating value. For natural gas, the LHV is approximately 10 percent lower than the HHV. Therefore, the corresponding LHV efficiency ranges would be 35 to 44 percent for aeroderivative designs and 33 to 40 percent for frame designs. We considered basing the electric threshold on both the higher and lower heating value efficiency. The EPA typically***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **507** of **684** uses the higher heating value, but in light of comments expressing uncertainty in the operation of simple cycle turbines in the future, we opted to be conservative and use the lower heating value efficiency. During the next review of the EGU GHG NSPS, the EPA anticipates that fast
- start/rapid
- response combined cycle technologies, energy storage technologies, and demand response programs will be further developed, and we will
re - evaluate lowering the percent electric sales threshold. Based on comments, we anticipate the aeroderivative simple cycle turbines will make up the majority of new combustion turbines intended for limited use (i.e., peaking) applications. Based on the sliding scale threshold approach, owners/operators of new simple cycle combustion turbines would be able to sell between 35 to 44 percent of the potential electric output to avoid complying with the standards in this rulemaking. Based on historical operation of simple cycle turbines, 99.5 percent do not sell more than one - third of their potential electric output on an annual basis. Therefore, the majority of new simple cycle applications would not be significantly impacted how they would operate absent the requirements of this rulemaking. In addition, 99.9 percent o f simple cycle turbines operate less than 36 percent on an annual basis. Owners/operators of new simple cycle combustion turbines would still have multiple technology options available to them to accommodate this amount***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **508** of **684** of operation. The two simple cycle turbines that exceeded the 36 percent threshold had annual percent electric sales of 39 and 45 percent and are located in Montana and New York respectively. As noted earlier, the most efficient simple cycle turbine is 44 percent efficient and would accommodate operation of the Montana facility. The only simple cycle turbine that exceeded the maximum allowable percentage electric sales threshold, based on current simple cycle designs (i.e., 44 percent) , sold an abnormally high amount of electricity in 2014. I t is possible that this unit was operating under emergency conditions, and the incremental generation due to the emergency would not have been counted against the total electric sales subcategorization threshold . Regardless, as described earlier, for combu stion turbines operating above this threshold it is cost effective and the BSER is the addition of heat recovery to the turbine exhaust. We are capping the total electric sales threshold at 50 percent of the potential electric output for multiple reasons. First, the definition of stationary combustion turbine includes both simple and combined cycle units. Though combined cycle unit design efficiencies often exceed 50 percent, the EPA has concluded that the emission rate is relatively steady above this leve l of electric sales, and there is no reason that the same output based standard should not apply. Second, the design net***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **509** of **684** efficiency of the flexible combined cycle unit intended as an option for peaking and intermediate load applications is 49 percent. As described earlier, this technology can serve the same purpose as high efficiency aeroderivative simple cycle turbines. Setting a cap any lower than 50 percent could have the perverse impact of incentivizing the installation of less efficient technologies. 4 . Comments and rationale regarding fuel
-based subcategorization . We requested comment on whether the applicability for facilities that co
- fire non
- fossil fuels should be made on an annual average basis, instead of a 3
- year rolling average basis. Commenters noted that the inconsistency between the 3 calendar year applicability and 12
- operating month compliance period results in potential compliance issues. For example, a facility could burn greater than 90 percent natural gas over a 3 year period, but could burn greater than 10 percent distillate oil during a 12
- operatng month compliance period with the same 3 year period. Since the CO2 content of distillate oil is higher than natural gas, even if the facility is operating at maximum efficiency it would exceed the proposed emission standard. The inconsistency creates similar issues for 12
- operating month periods with low electric sales, but the 3 year sales exceed the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **510** of **684** applicability threshold. C. Identification of the Best System of Emission Reduction This section summarizes the EPA’s proposed BSER determinations for stationary combustion turbines, provides a summary of the comments we received, and explains our final BSER determination s for each of the three subcategories we are now finalizing . For natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines operating as base load units, we proposed and are finalizing the use of combined cycle technology as the BSER . For the other two subcategories of affected combustion turbines

– natural gas fired combustion turbines operating as peaking units and multi
fuel - fired combustion turbines

– we are finalizing use of clean fuel s as the BSER. 1. Proposed BSER . We considered three alternatives in evaluating the BSER for base load natural gas - fired combustion turbines : (1) CCS, (2) high
- efficiency simple cycle aeroderivative turbines , and ( 3 ) modern, efficient natural gas combined cycle ( NGCC ) units. We rejected CCS as the BSER because we concluded that we did not have sufficient information to determine the technical feasibility of implementing CCS for combustion turbines. We rejected high
- efficiency simple cycle aeroderivative turbines as the BSER because this standalone technology does not provide***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **511** of **684** emission reductions and generally is more expensive than combined cycle technology for base load applications . In contrast, NGCC is the most common type of new fossil fuel
- fired EGU currentl y being planned and built for generating base load power. NGCC design is technically feasible , and c ombined cycle units are currently the lowest
- cost, most efficient option for
new base load fossil fuel
- fired power generation. After considering the options, the EPA proposed to find that modern, efficient NGCC technology is the BSER for base load natural gas fired combustion turbine s. 2. Comments on BSER for Combustion Turbines . a . CCS . Some commenters stated that the proposed BSER analysis for coal - fired units was inconsistent with the BSER analysis for natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines. They stated that the EPA determined that the use of CCS was feasible for coal - fired generation based on current CCS projects under development at coal - fired generating stations, but did not come to the same conclusion for natural gas
- f ired combustion turbines
even though an NGCC project is being developed that will apply CCS to a slip stream of flue gas. According to these c ommenters , it is irrelevant that this project will use partial CCS whereas the developmental projects for coal
- fired units are "full
scale."***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **512** of **684** In addition, some commenters disagreed with the EPA’s decision to treat combustion turbines differently than coal
fired units with respect to CCS on the basis that combustion turbines start up and shut down more frequently than coal - fired units. According to the se commenter s , the operating characteristics of combustion turbines are not an impediment to using partial CCS, and the commenter suggested that combustion turbine operators cou ld bypass the carbon capture system during startup and shutdown modes (which are typically shorter and less intensive efforts compared to startup or shutdown of a coal facility) and then employ the carbon capture system when operating normally. Many commenters stated that CO 2 removal is just as technologically feasible and economically reasonable for
a natural gas - fired EGU as for a coal - fired EGU. These commenters referred to literature suggesting that at 40 percent removal , there would be no expected difference in the technical requirements for either type of EGU. Some commenters referred to a DOE/NETL study that suggest ed that the cost of CCS for natural gas - fired EGUs would be more cost - effective than for coal - fired EGUs.Other commenters supported the EPA ’ s determination that CCS is not the BSER for newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed combustion turbines. These commenters agreed that there are insufficient data on costs and site
- specific***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **513** of **684** constraints to conclude that CCS and EOR technologies are available and feasible at the numerous locations in the U.S. where new natural gas - fired EGUs are currently being planned. C ommenters stated that the limited scope of the one CCS
- on -NGCC project cited in the proposal did not reflect the costs of pipeline transport and geologic sequestration implicit in the use of this technology as a nation
-wide BSER because the slip stream of CO 2 is used at a local facility that temporarily incorporates the CO 2 into food products. C ommenters also stated that CCS has not been adequately demonstrated or proven to be commercially viable for combustion turbines . Other commenters stated that CO 2 capture technologies do not match well with the operating flexibilities of NGCC and simple cycle units, and even if technical barriers could be overcome, application of CCS to combustion turbines would also be more costly (compared to applications of CCS to c oal - fired units) on a dollars
-per - ton - CO 2 - captured basis because of the higher flue gas volumes (per MW of generating capacity) and the lower CO 2 concentrations from methane combustion in turbines compared to coal combustion in boilers. Some commenters stated that CAA section 111(a) requires the EPA to account not only for the cost of achieving emission reductions , but also for impact s on energy requirements and the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **514** of **684** environment. The commenters cited to Sierra Club v. Costle, where the D.C. Circuit observed that the EPA "must exercise its discretion to choose an achievable emission level which represents the best balance of economic, environmental, and energy considerations." 478 The commenters stated that requiring CCS on combustion turbines would adversely affect the nation’s energy needs and the environment because imposing partial CCS on natural gas - fired combustion turbines would invariably delay the emission reductions that can be obtained from new NGCC projects that displace load from older less efficie nt generating technologies. Finally, the commenters stated that because combustion turbines are projected to provide a significant share of new power generation, the EPA should recognize that requiring partial CCS on these units would have a disproportiona lly higher impact on electricity prices when compared to the projected number of new coal - fired generating projects. These commenters concluded that the EPA could not determine that partial CCS is the BSER for combustion turbines without producing severe and unacceptable consequences for the availability of affordable electricity in the United States. In a related comment, another commenter said that CCS is technically feasible for combustion turbines, but agree d that

478 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d at 431, n. 46.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **515** of **684** requiring CCS for all new NGCC plants may hinder the construction of new, more efficient NGCC units . The commenter suggested the EPA should wait to decide whether CCS is the BSER for combustion turbine s, but should not make adverse statements regarding technical feasibility . The commenter expressed concerns that the EPA’s ultimate rationale for rejecting CCS as the BSER for combustion turbines may be used by developers and permitting authorities as an excuse to reject CCS as the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in future New Source Revi ew (NSR) permits. b . Technology versus function . Many commenters opposed the EPA’s proposal to set emission standards for combustion turbines based on their function rather than by technology . These commenters stated that the EPA’s determination that NGCC technology is the BSER for base load natural gas - fired combustion turbines would apply equally to simple cycle turbines if they sell electricity in excess of the percentage electric sales thres hold. They pointed to the word "achievable" in CAA section 111(a)(1) and stated that applying an emission standard based on NGCC technology to simple cycle units was legally indefensible because simple cycle units cannot achieve emission rates as low as NGCC units. In contrast, many other commenters agreed with the EPA’s basic approach and stated that NGCC technology should***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **516** of **684** be the BSER for base - load functions, while simple cycle technology should be the BSER for peak- load functions.
c. NGCC technologies . Some commenters stated that the proposed BSER analysis should have reflected the emission rates achieved by the latest designs deployed at advanced, state
- of - the - art, NGCC installations. These commenters stated that advanced NGCC technologies are the best system for reducing CO 2 emissions with no negative environmental impacts and no negative economic impacts on rate payers. These commenters stated that advanced NGCC technologies are capable of achieving emission rates that are 8 percent lower than conventional NGCC facilities. Commenters said that the majority of existing sources that do not deploy these advanced technologies are currently able to meet the standard, and commenters said that the proposal failed to explain why these lower
- emitting advanced technologies that are more than adequately demonstrated were not selected as the BSER. 3. Identification of BSER . After evaluation of comments and other review, we identi fi ed BSER for each of the subcategories of combustion turbines that we are finalizing: natural gas
- fired base load units, natural gas
- fired peaking units, and multi
- fuel - fired units.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **517** of **684**
a. Natural gas - fired base load units . For this subcategory, we examined mu ltiple technologies. (1) CCS . S ome commenters stated that CCS technology applies equally to both coal - fired and NGCC EGUs . To support this conclusion, the commenters pointed out that a demonstration CCS project is being planned for a NGCC unit . However, CCS technology is still not as developed for NGCC a s for coal - fired EGUs. For example, the Department of Energy has not funding any CCS demonstrations projects for NGCC units and no CCS projects are currently operational or being constructed in the U.S . In contrast, multiple coal - fired CCS demonstrations are in various stages of development in the U.S . Differences such as lower CO 2 concentrations and the operating characteristics of NGCC limit the technical applicability of CCS for all new NGCC. The EPA has further concluded that even if CCS is demonstrated as a technical ly possible and reasonable cost option for new combined cycle units on an individual basis, the record does not support the conclusion that it would qualify as BSER. Nearly all new fossil fuel
- fired EGUs being constructed today are using combined cycle technology for generating base load power , and requiring partial CCS on these units would result in significant nationwide impacts. A BSER based on 20 percent partial CCS requirement for new NGCC units would increase the capital costs by 24 percent , increase the levelized***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **518** of **684** cost of electricity by 12 percent, and increase the incremental generating costs by 8 percent. The increase in capital expenditures would require developers of new NGCC projects to invest an additional $540 million over the next 3 years to install partial CCS control equipment. These costs could discourage the development of new NGCC units and lead to perverse environmental results. For example, since new NGCC units would have some of the lowest criteria pollutant , hazardous pollutant , and CO 2 emissions , fewer new NGCC units could result in either increased use of existing generation or the development of other base load generating technologies with higher pollutant emission rates. In addition , the output based emission rate only applies to base load NGCC units. The cost impact of a BSER based on 20 percent CCS NGCC unit is roughly equivalent to increasing the fuel price by 17 percent. Requiring CCS only on NGCC units could lead to the perverse environmental impact of owners and operators of new combustion turbines electing to burn fuels other than natural gas with higher CO 2 emission rates (e.g., distillate oil) to avoid applicability with the output
-based standard. Finally, unlike the final standards for coal - fired EGUs, owners and operators of NGCC units would have no other option than to install CCS to comply with a standa rd based on the use of partial CCS. Natural gas is the fossil fuel with the lowest CO 2 emission rate and no***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **519** of **684** alternate technology exists that would allow a new NGCC to comply with the standard. Therefore, the EPA is not making a determination as to the technical availability or individual cost reasonableness of CCS for new combined cycle units. (2) Advanced combined cycle t echnology . Regarding advanced combined cycle technologies, the EPA has concluded that the term “advanced” simply refers to incremental improvements to traditional combined cycle designs , not a new and unique technology. These incremental improvements include higher firing temperatures in the turbine engine and increasing the number of steam pressures and adding a reheat cycle to the steam cycle. The emission rates achieved by so - called “advanced” technologies were included within the data set of newer combined cycle designs that we used to establish the final emission standards . In addition, our review of the operating data fo r combined cycle power blocks installed since 2000 indicates that the mode of operation in response to system demand (e.g., capacity factor in general) affects efficiencies achieved to the extent that we cannot evaluate the impact of particular subcomponen ts used within the power block. As a result, a conventional combined cycle power block located in a region of the country where system demand requires the power block to run continuously at a steady high load can achieve higher efficiencies than an advance d combined cycle power block located in a region where***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **520** of **684** system demand requires the power block to cycle on and off to match system demand. For this reason , our data set included a large population of technologies and load conditions to ensure that new combi ned cycle power blocks can achieve the section 111 standard in all regions of the country. (3) Specific unit types . As stated in the proposal, combined cycle units have both lower CO 2 emissions and a lower cost of electricity than simple cycle turbine facilities when operated as base load EGUs. Therefore, we consider combined cycle technology to be BSER for base load stationary combustion turbines. The EPA refined the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) costing approach used at proposal to compare the cost effectiveness of simple cycle combustion turbines to combined cycle combustion turbines by adding costs and efficiency impacts due to frequent cycling. Even accounting for these cost s, when percentage electric sales exceed approximately one
- third of the potential electric output, combined cycle technology results in a lower cost of electricity than a simple cycle unit. Further, we have concluded that high efficiency simple cycle turbine technology is a sub
- component of the selected BSER. Recent combined cycle installations have included dampers that allow the associated combustion turbine to operate in either combined cycle mode or simple cycle mode. The selected BSER and emission standard are compatible with the construction***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **521** of **684** of new, modified, and reconstructed bi
-modal units with dampers that allow the new source to operate in either combined cycle mode or in simple cycl e mode. The use of natural gas - fired combined cycle technology is BSER for base load natural gas
fired combustion turbines. b. Natural gas - fired peaking units . The EPA ha s determined that the BSER for combustion turbines operating below the percentage electric sales threshold ( i.e., having annual total electric sales at or below their design efficiency , not to exceed 50 percent , multiplied by their potential electric output) is the use of clean fuel, specifically natural gas . This approach ensures that new combustion turbines will minimize CO 2 emissions during all periods of operation. The primary factors driving the BSER analyses were the percentage of electric sales typical of combustion turbines used for peaking service and the availability of suffici ent quantities of low
- carbon fuel to support the rapid but short
- term fuel consumption requirements of peakers. Eighty eight percent of existing simple cycle units did not have annual percentage electric sales that exceeded 10 percent of their potential el ectric output between 2005 and 2014. According to the final EIA data for 2013 , peaking units supplied less than 8 percent of the total electricity supplied by non - nuclear and non - renewable generators, and more than 9 6 percent of the electricity generated b y peaking units was***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **522** of **684** derived from pipeline natural gas. Section 111(a)(1) requires that the Administrator's BSER determination must take into account the lower sales and the lower emissions attributable to peaking service (as compared to base load service) as well as the limited availability of pipeline natural gas in remote service territories where peaking units are integral to reliable delivery of electricity to consumers. We specifically reviewed the use of aeroderivative, fast - start NGCC , CCS , and clean fuels when reviewing the demonst rated technologies used for peaking service Aeroderivative technologies are widely used for peaking service because they are made of lighter materials, and they are able to startup and accelerate to full load mo re quickly than the industrial frame turbines that are also used for peaking service. These rapid acceleration capabilities are integral to many state plans for expanding the use of intermittent renewables. However, aeroderivative technologies have higher initial costs that must be considered versus the specific peak
load profiles anticipated for a particular new peaking unit. Many utility companies have elected to install the heavier industrial frame type turbines because the acceleration capabilities of aeroderivative turbines are not required for their system demand profiles (i.e., the speed and durations of daily changes in electricity demand), and they cannot justify***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **523** of **684** the higher initial costs when seeking approval for new peaking projects from state util ity regulators. The efficiencies of aeroderivative technologies range from 32 to 39 percent. The efficiencies of industrial frame technologies range from 30 to 36 percent. Based on the significant overlap of the efficiencies of the available lower
- cost industrial frame type technologies with the efficiencies of available aeroderivative technologies, use of aeroderivative combustion turbines was not selected as the basis for the section 111 standard for peaking units. We also reviewed the use of fast
- start c ombined cycle technologies as the BSER for peaking units. Compared to traditional combined cycle technologies, fast
- start technologies provide system operators with significantly better acceleration capabilities during periods when consumers are requiring a steady increase in electrical output from the local utility system (e.g., during daily peak
- load cycles that begin around 5PM when electricity consumers return home from work). However, these technologies have not demonstrated the capabilities necessary to respond to nearly- immediate losses of major generating and transmission assets. Accordingly, the BSER for peaking units was not based on the use of fast
- start combined cycle technology. Carbon capture and sequestration was also reviewed and dismissed be cause the low sales and irregular operating patterns***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **524** of **684** of peaking units make this technology cost prohibitive. CCS was not selected because it would require very large capital investments in carbon capture technologies that would remain idle (on average) more than 90 percent of time. Based on available 479 EIA Form 923 operating data demonstrating that natural gas is utilized to provide more than 96 percent of total national peaking capacity , the Administrator has determined that the BSER for peaking units is use of pipeline natural gas with a small allowance for use of distillate fuel oil because natural gas has approximately thirty percent lower CO2 emissions per million Btu than the other fossil fuels most commonly used by utility sector peaking units. However, the BSER analysis recognizes that all peaking units do not have access to natural gas pipelines , and the standard derived from the BSER analysis does not apply to combustion turbines that are not physically connected to a natural gas pipeline. The final BSER analysis requires that all new, modified, and reconstructed natural gas
- fired peaking units must meet a standard of 120 lbs CO2/MMBtu of heat input.
c . Multi
- fuel - fired units . The BSER analysis for this subcategory largely relies on the preceding analysis for natural gas fired peaking units. In affect this analysis is
479 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **525** of **684** complementary to the preceding analysis because many natural gas - fired combustion turbines must be permitted to use back up fuels in order to serve their design purpose of providing electricity at any time as required by system operators. This BSER analysis and associated subcategory reflects that many combustion turbines that are connected to natural gas pipelines are subject to contracts with their natural gas suppliers that curtail the electric utility's use of natural gas under certain conditions (e.g., during winter months when residential heating demands approach the pipeline's delivery capacity). During these months of curtailment, electric utilities typically begin to deplete their inventories of fuel oil, stored in large tanks co - located with the combustion turbine . Large combustion turbines can burn more than 20,000 gallons of fuel oil per hour and these fuel oil tanks typically can store no more than two o r three days supply . The BSER analysis recognizes that during these months of natural gas curtailment, the combustion turbines can only serve limited peaking service (with inherently limited emissions) bec ause the rate of fuel - oil consumption is limited by the logistic al constraints of truck deliveries from the nearest fuel
- oil terminal to the stationary source. At many affected facilities combustion turbines can burn oil significantly faster than oil can be delivered by trucks.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **526** of **684** The BSER analysis for these units reflects that it is not reasonable to require affected sources to comply with a standard based on the use of natural gas during periods when the natural gas pipeline company is not physically capabl e of delivering natural gas to the affected source. However, the BSER determination restricts the carbon content of the back
- up fuels that can be used by combustion turbines during periods of curtailment so that the emission rate during the period of curta ilment cannot exceed 160 lbs of CO2/MMBtu. For the multi
- fuel - fired combustion turbine subcategory , the EPA ha s determined that the BSER requires the use of clean fuel s , specifically natural gas or distillate oil. The emissions standard established for this subcategory will require new combustion turbines within this subcategory to use only clean fuels as back- up fuels. Affected operators must calculate a unit
- specific emissions limit for each compliance period within the range of 120 to 160 lb CO2/MMBtu. The precise limit that applies is proportional to the fraction of heat input from natural gas during the compliance period. D . Achievability of the Final Standards As described previously, we are finalizing emission standard subcategories based on elect ric sales and fuel use. Specifically, units that sell electricity in excess of a threshold based on the ir design efficiency and that burn more***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **527** of **684** than 90 percent natural gas will be subject to an output based standard. The output -based standard is based on the performance of existing natural gas
- fired combined cycle units. Units not meeting the percentage electric sales or natural gas - use criteria will be subject to a standard based on the use of clean fuels (i.e., natural gas and/or distillate oil) . Ideally, we would establish output based standards for peaking, cycling, intermediate, and base load units. At this time however, we do not have sufficient i nformation to establish an appropriate output
-based emission rate for combustion turbines with operations that span this entire category. 1. Proposed Standards . At proposal, we concluded that, for a combustion turb ine designed to sell more than one
- third of its potential el ectric output, adding heat recovery and converting to a combined cycle is both cost effective (i.e., results in a lower cost of electricity) and results in a lower emission rate. We based the proposed standards on the performance of rece ntly constructed NGCC units. The subcategories for which the EPA proposed separate standards of performance were (1) large natural gas
fired stationary combustion turbines with a base load rating greater than 850 MMBtu/h and (2) small natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines with a base load rating of 850 MMBtu/h or less.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **528** of **684** The EPA solicited comment on a broad range of issues related to the final standard. For new, modified, and reconstructed units we proposed a limit of 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for large units (base load heat input rating greater than 850 MMBtu/h) and 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for small units (base load heat input rating of 850 MMBtu/h or less). We solicited comment on a range of 950

– 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh for large stationary combustion turbines and an emission standard range of 1,000

– 1,200 lb CO 2 /MWh for small stationary combustion turbines. We also solicited comment on eliminating the size subcategory, increasing the size distinction between large and small stationary combustion turbines to 900 MMBtu/h to account for larger aeroderivative designs , to 1,000 MMBtu/h to account for future incremental increases in base load ratings , or on increasing the size distinction to between 1,300 to 1,800 MMBtu/h
. To account for potential reduced efficiencies when not operated as a base load unit, we also solicited comment on whether a separate less stringent standard should be established for EGUs operating as load
- following units (i.e., lower capacity factors) and the more stringent standard would apply only during periods of high annual capacity factors. 2. Comments .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **529** of **684**
a . Numeric standards . Many commenters stated that the proposed emission standards for combustion turbines do not properly consider the losses in efficiency that occur due to long
- term degradation, reductions in efficiency due to operation at other than base load conditions (load cycling, frequent startups and shutdowns, and part - load operations), site
- specific factors, and secondary fuel use (e.g., distillate oil). Commenters stated that the EPA should conduct a more comprehensive BSER analysis that addresses worst - case conditions and considers the following variables over the life of the affected unit: efficiency degradation, duty cycles, startups and shutdowns, HRSG ramping constraints, and water resource constraints for cooling systems. Commenters stated that all of the units included in the analysis supporting the proposal are relatively new and have experienced limited degradation. Commenters provided data indicating that normal wear and tear can yield efficiency degradation ranging from five to eight percent and stated that this level of degradation may cause many of the units (used in the analysis for proposal) to exceed the proposed standard. Commenters stated that to the extent that s ome degradation can be recovered during periodic maintenance outages, it is not always possible or feasible to repair a degraded component immediately, as repairs often involve extended outages that must be scheduled well in advance. Commenters stated that a new unit***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **530** of **684** that initially could meet the standard at base load conditions can experience increasing heat rates with age even when adhering to the manufacturer's recommended maintenance program. Commenters said that plant heat rate and CO 2 emissions incre ase as capacity factors decrease, load
- cycling increases, and the numbers of startups and shutdowns increases. Commenters stated that the proposed standards for combustion turbines were derived from years with historically low natural gas prices when system operators were required to dispatch available NGCC assets at historically high capacity factors so that the efficiencies and CO 2 emission rates underlying the proposed standards are not representative of future periods with higher natural gas prices. Other commenters said that many NGCC units are increasingly required to cycle and operate at lower capacities (compared to the proposal's baseline) to accommodate hourly variations in intermittent renewable generation (e.g., solar and wind) . Commenters indic ated that, during startup, combustion turbines must be operated at low load for extended periods to gradually warm up the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to minimize thermal stresses on pressure vessels and boiler tubes. During these startup periods, significant CO 2 emissions occur but steam production is not sufficient for the steam turbine generator to produce electricity. Commenters also stated that a similar situation occurs during shutdown when the steam cycle***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **531** of **684** does not generate electricity but the combustion turbine is still combusting fuel as it proceeds through the shutdown process. Commenters recommended that the EPA could address these issues by creating a subcategory for cycling and intermediate load combined cycle units. Other commenters adde d that NGCC units that have a two
- on one or three - on - one configurations (e.g., three combustion turbines providing waste heat to one steam turbine) must periodically operate with one CT out of service for maintenance, which reduces efficiency due to reduce d heat input into the steam cycle. These c ommenters said that the EPA must be more complete in analyzing the potential range of real
-world operations that constrain the efficiencies achievable by affected combustion turbines over several decades of service , including the impacts on efficiency during future periods with higher natural gas prices (compared to the proposal's baseline), during mid and later years of service
- life with worst
- case performance degradation, and during normal maintenance cycles when achievable efficiencies are constrained due to activities required to maintain reliability. Many commenters said that site
- specific factors can often preclude operators from achieving design efficiencies based on ISO conditions such as combustion turbines operating at higher elevations and units operating in environments with high ambient***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **532** of **684** temperatures. Commenters stated that local water temperatures can also impact condenser operating pressure and heat rates. Commenters also said that areas with limited wa ter resources could require systems that rely on air
- cooled condensers and that cannot achieve thermal efficiencies comparable to water cooled plants. Commenters stated that fundamental principles of multi
-media environmental stewardship and sustainability require that operators should not be penalized for deploying low water
use technologies (e.g., air
- cooled condensers) in arid climates or in regions such as Southern California that are subject to drought conditions. These commenters stated that the final rule should include provisions for addressing site
- specific constraints that preclude individual affected sources from achieving the emissions rates achieved on average by other
sources. Commenters also stated that the proposed standards for modified and reconstructed combustion turbines foreclose future opportunities for operators to undertake projects to restore the performance of both degraded units subject to the NSPS and existing, pre
-NSPS units. Many commenters said that it is not possible to bring o lder combustion turbines (built prior to the year 2000) up to the efficiency levels of modern units because many newer technological options that deploy higher temperatures***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **533** of **684** are not available to pre
- 2000 combustion turbines due to their materials of constru ction. Commenters from the power sector generally supported increasing the standard for each subcategory to 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for large units and 1,200 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for small units and finalizing standards for modified and reconstructed standards that are 10 percent higher than the final standards for newly constructed combustion turbines because combustion turbines constructed prior to 2000 were not included in the EPA's BSER analysis for new sources . Conversely, some commenters stated that the proposed standards for combustion turbines do not reflect the emission rates that are achievable by modern, efficient NGCC power blocks, and these commenters do not believe the proposed numerical standards meet the CAA section 111 requirements for BSER. Some commenters stated that the appropriate standard , consistent with Congressional objectives under CAA section 111, is 800 lb CO 2 /MWh - g based on the performance of the lowest emitters in the CAMD database. Some commenters stated that a standard of 850 lb CO 2 /MWh - g reflect s BSER for high
- capacity factor units because half of the combined cycle plants in the CAMD database are achieving this level of emissions. One commenter from the power sector who operates combined cycle***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **534** of **684** power plants stated that the final standard for new large combustion turbines should be 925 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . Several other commenters stated that a reasonable standard for new combustion turbines would be 950 lb CO 2 /MWh - g , and several commenters stated that the final standard for new small combustion turbines should be 1000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . Numerous commenters stated that the final standard for new sources should not exceed 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g for either large or small combustion turbines. Other commenters stated that since the standards were developed base d on emission rates that are being achieved by the majority of existing units, the final standards should be the same for new, modified, and reconstructed units. With respect to coverage of simple cycle turbines, commenters noted that the EPA cannot final ize “no emission standard” as the EPA solicited comment on in the broad applicability approach. Some commenters recommended that rather than exempting peaking units, at a minimum, simple cycle peaking units should be subject to work practice standards such as operating safely and with good air pollution control practices, including CO 2 monitoring and reporting requirements. Other commenters pointed to recent BACT limits for CO 2 that indicate tiered limits are appropriate for the different roles served by combustion turbines citing BACT limits from 1,328 to 1,450 lb***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **535** of **684** CO 2 /MWh
- g for peaking units. One commenter supported tiered limits consistent with recent BACT determinations in the State of New York: a combined cycle limit of 925 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g and a simple cycle limit of 1,450 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g. An air quality regulator from a state with rapidly increasing renewable generation supported a limit of 825 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for base load NGCC unit s; 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for intermediately loaded, large NGCC units; 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for intermediately loaded, small NGCC units; and this commenter recommended that the EPA set a numerical limit specifically for peaking units after completion of a peaker - specific BSER analysis. Several commenters supported tiered standards based on capacity factor. They proposed 825 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for base load units (those operating over 4,000 hours annually), 875 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for intermediate and load
- following units (tho se operating between 1,200 and 4,000 hours annually), and 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g for peaking units (those operating less than 1,200 hours per year). 3. Final Standards . a. New natural gas - fired base load units . Since the standards were proposed, the EPA has expanded the NGCC emissions rate analysis that supported the proposed emission standards to include emissions information for combined cycle facilities that commenced operation in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and upda ted the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **536** of **684** emissions data to include emissions through 2014. Based on analysis of these data and the comments submitted on the proposed standard, the EPA has concluded that an emission standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh - g is achievable for all affected natural gas - fired combustion turbines selling electricity above the site
- specific subcategory threshold based on the design net efficiency. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing an emission standard of 1,000 lb/MWh - g for all combustion turbines. In our analysis, we evaluated 351 combined cycle combustion turbines. The analysis included unit data from 2007 to 2014 as available from CAMD and EIA. This data set included units with online dates ranging from 2000 to 2013 . All units were located in the lower 48 contiguous states . In our evaluation, the average 12
-month moving average CO2 rate ranged from 719 to 1,111 lb CO2/MWh
- g. All of the combustion turbines with CO2 rates above 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g would be subject to the natural
gas fired peaking combustion turbine subcategory clean fuels standard, since their percentage electric sales was less than their design efficiency multiplied by potential electric output based on the 3
- year rolling ave rage basis; therefore, they would be in compliance with the standards. Further , there we re 5 1 new combustion turbine units that started operation since 2010 , and the average emission rate from these units is 833 lb CO2/MWh
- g. The oldest units that came online in 2000 and 2001 included 55***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **537** of **684** combustion turbines, and each unit would meet the output based emission standard, although many of them would be required to meet the clean fuels standard. Of these 55 units, degradation does not seem to be an issue, as the CO2 rates have little standard deviation for each unit between 2007 and 2014. In addi tion, there are many instances where the CO2 emission rate decreases as it ages. This indicates that the efficiency of the unit is increasing and this could be due to good operating and maintenance procedures, as well as taking opportunities during outages to repair wearing equipment to preserve the heat rate. Since all units are able to meet the limit, EPA can assume that the factors of elevation and ambient temperature do not impact a combustion turbine's ability to meet the limits. We also looked at startups, shutdowns and average run time per start , as commenters indicated that these could affect a unit's ability to achieve the standard. The average operating time ranged from about 9 hours to over 8,000 hours per start , while the number of startups ranged from 0 to 440 per year. The units with fewer starts fell into one of two categories. The f irst scenario includes units that operated at such a low capacity factor, that the unit would be subject to the clean fuels standard. The second scenario included units with fewer startups, but operated almost continuously each startup. This allowed the units to operate close to base load conditions, which is where they***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **538** of **684** operate most efficiently. In either case, the units would have been able to meet the NSPS standards in this rule, and even the majority of the peaking units would be able to meet the base load units standard. For units with a high number of startups and less runtime per start, the expectation from commenters is the efficiency of the unit would suffer, causing a higher CO2 rate. In our analysis, this was not the case. Specifically, we found that 2007 had the most units with the number of startups over 100 for the year. All 27 units with over 100 startups in 2007 would have meet the 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g emission limit, although they all did not operate as base load combustion turbines. Emissions data from existing combined cycle facilities with heat input ratings of less than 850 MMBtu/h have demonstrated that the 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g level is achievable for smaller combined facilities. The sixteen NGCC facilities evaluated using the Clean Air Markets data have heat input rates of less than or equal to 850 MMBtu/h and an average 12
-month maximum CO 2 emission rate of 952 lb/MWh - g . Three of the facilities evaluated using the Clean Air Markets data had a maximum 12
- operating month rolling average emissions rate equal to or greater than 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . However, the two facilities with maximum emission rates between 1,000 and 1,100 lb/MWh were operating***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **539** of **684** significantly below the design specific electric sales threshold when higher emissions occurred. They would comply with the clean fuel standard during these periods, not the output based emission standard, so they did not emit in excess of the final NSPS standard. During periods of higher electric sales, the facilities operated below the final NSPS standard. One of those facilities had a maximum 12
- operating
-month rolling average emissions rate equal to or greater than 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . In addition, the five facilities that commenced construction between 2007 and 2012 all have maximum 12
-month emission rates of less than 950 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . For larger units, twenty- five of the 314 combined cycle facilities with heat input ratings greater than 850 MMBtu/h had maximum 12
-month average emission rates greater than 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh. However, 19 of those facilities only had 12
-month averages in excess of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh during pe riods when electric sales were less than the unit
- specific percentage electric sales threshold that triggers the output based standard , and the clean fuels standard would apply at those times. The analysis inherently includes multiple years of data and di d not filter out periods of startup, shutdown, operation at intermediate load, or cycling when determining the maximum 12
-***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **540** of **6 84**  operating month emission rate. The final standard includes a sufficient compliance margin to account for any performance degradation i n the operation of these facilities. In addition, multiple technologies that can increase the performance of new combined cycle facilities are currently available. First, vendors continue to improve the single cycle efficiency of combustion turbines. The use of more efficient combustion turbine engines improves the overall efficiency of combined cycle facilities. In addition, existing smaller combined cycle facilities were likely designed using single or dual pressure heat recovery steam generators without a reheat cycle. New designs could incorporate three pressure steam generators with a reheat cycle to improve the overall efficiency of the combined cycle facility. Additional technologies to reduce emission rates for new combustion turbines include CHP
and integrated non
- emitting technologies. The EPA also reviewed the GHG limitations in recently issued construction permits for NGCC facilities. The Permit TSD provides more detailed analysis and description of the plants and permits evaluated. All permit limits were evaluated over an annual period. In total 31 major permits were identified with 39 discrete limits on GHG emissions. Eight of the limits were expressed as lbs/h or tons per year and were not included in the analysis. In addition, one CHP unit that generates electricity***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **541** of **684** and supplies steam to a chemical plant was in the set with a limit of 1,362 lb CO 2 /MWh based only on the gross electrical portion of output and does not account for the useful thermal output. Therefore, it was also not included in this analysis. Two of the permits did not clearly specify if the output based standard was on a gross or net basis and were therefore also excluded. The remaining 28 permit standards were expressed on a lb CO 2 /MWh or a heat rate basis that cou ld be converted to a lb CO 2 /MWh basis. Eight permit limits were based on net output ranging from 774
- 936 lb CO 2 /MWh - n . The lowest emission limit was for a hybrid power plant with a solar component of heat input that could contribute up to 50 MW. Twenty permit limits were based on gross output ranging from 833
- 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . Of these 28 permit limits, only one unit had a heat input capacity less than 1,500 MMBtu/h (366 MMBtu/h); this unit also had the highest emission limit of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh. Each of the permit limits discussed above that is 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh or lower includes times of startup, shutdown and malfunction . S ome permit s, in addition to the 365
- day rolling average CO2 standard, have further limits applying solely during startup and shutdown for duration of each event or CO2 emissions during each event . For example, the Victoria Power Station has***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **542** of **684** an emission limit of 940 lb CO2/MWh
- g at all times, and additionally limits startups and shutdowns to 1,000 hr/yr and limits emissions during startup , shutdown and malfunction to 108 tons CO2/yr. All permit limits were set considering the backup and additional fuel use. Specifically, some permits restricted fuel use to only natural gas , while others limited the available usage (duration and type) of ba ckup and other fuels . For example, the Pioneer Valley Energy Center has unrestricted use of natural gas while restricting operation with ultra
- low sulfur diesel (ULSD) to 1,440 hours per 12
-month period. Under these conditions, the facility accepted a permit limit of 895 lb CO2/MWh
- net. This permit allows up to 16 percent use of a fuel other than natural gas, and still has a more stringent limit than the final CO2 standard than units in the natural gas
- fired base load combustion turbine subcategory . If this facility choose to fire 16 percent ULSD based on heat input, this unit would fall under the multi
- fuel - fired combustion turbine subcategory and would be subject to the clean fuels standard instead of the output based emission limit . Each permit limit
cons idered the mode of operation for the combustion turbine. In some cases the permit limit was determined to be appropriate because the combustion turbine is intended to operate with frequently changing loads rather than operating at relatively steady loads, and this mode of operation would make it difficult***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **543** of **684** to meet lower limits. In the instances for most of the units with the lower emission limits, their permits specified that the combustion turbines will be operating at baseload, so they will be able to operate closer to their most efficient load levels. The Lower Colorado River Authority's Ferguson plant evaluated emission limits for the plant at 50, 75 and 100 percent gross load, since the expected operation is 50 percent gross load, the plant accepted an emission limit of 918 lb CO2/MWh
- n for the corresponding evaluation . Again, this limit is well below the 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g in this final rule, and accounts for a unit operating at the threshold of the size
-based category limits. If the unit operated below the 50 percent threshold, they would be subject to the clean fuels standard. For the combined cycle combustion turbine units with duct burners on their HRSG, the hours of operation with duct burners was included in the determination of the permit limits. Typically, the hours of operation and heat input we re limited to ensure that the units are operated in the most efficient way and reduce their CO2 emissions. Most of these permits included an allowance for a design margin to reflect the possibility that the constructed facility will not be able to achieve the design heat rate; an allowance for efficiency losses due to combustion turbine degradation prior to maintenance overhauls; an allowance for the steam***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **544** of **684** turbine system; and an allowance for the variability in operation of auxiliary plant equipment due to use over time. Typically, the sum of these allowances was in the range of 10 to 13 percent. Limits typically considered whether the un it would be base load or load- following. Some permits limited the amount of No. 2 fuel oil that could be used as backup fuel and adjusted emission limits to account for this use. Startup and shutdown emissions were typically included in the annual average compliance calculation. There was only one combustion turbine permit evaluated that had a CO2 emission limit of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh
- g . The statement of basis and comments on BACT indicate that the limit of 1,100 instead of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g was determined for this facility because it is expected to operate at less than 75 percent gross load. This unit would not be subject to this standard, since it commenced construction after the date of publication of the proposal. Even so, the unit has reported emissions to CAMD for the first quarter of 2015. These reported emissions average about 980 lb CO2/MWh
- g, which is still below the final emission standard. This facility has two 50 MW combined cycle units that have been operated at about a 60% capacity factor for the time period reported. These represent some of the smallest units that will be subject to the output based emission limit instead of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **545** of **684** the clean fuel standard, and they still are able to meet the 1,000 lb CO2/MWh
- g limit. b. Mo dified and reconstructed natural gas - fired base load units . We disagree with commenters that stated that modified and reconstructed combustion turbines would not be able to achieve an emission rate of 1,000 lb CO 2 /MWh - g . Comments submitted as part of the existing source 111(d) proposal indicate there are various options available to improve the efficiency of existing combustion turbines. One combustion turbine manufacturer provided comments describing technology upgrades available to improve the efficiencies of existing combustion turbines, including available options for upgrading compressor, combustor , and gas turbine components. This manufacturer stated that operators of existing turbines can replace older internal components along the gas path with state
- of - the - art components that have higher aerodynamic efficiencies and improved seal designs. These gas path enhancements enable existing sources to transmit a higher fraction of the energy supplied to the combustion turbine (in the form of compressor work and fuel fired for expansi on of the compressed gases) to the shaft of the electric generator. The manufacturer also stated that state - of - the - art components and software can improve the systems used for cooling the metal parts along the hot - gas path and allow existing***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **546** of **684** systems to achieve higher operating temperatures and to use a smaller fraction of available compressed air for cooling purposes. The manufacturer stated that these cooling system enhancements allow existing turbines to use more of the air from the compressor for generating electricity thereby recovering a larger fraction of compressor work in power output. In total, the manufacturer stated that utilities deploying these gas path improvements on modified and reconstructed frame
- type combustion turbines with nominal output ratings of 170 to 180 MW can increase their output by 10 MW while reducing CO 2 emissions by more than 2.6 percent compared to baseline. In addition to these gas path improvements, the manufacturer indicated that state
- of the - art software routines derived from tens of thousands of hours of operating data can reduce the duration of st artups and shutdowns with a corresponding 50 percent reduction in startup emissions. In addition to gas path and software improvements, the manufacturer stated that the newest low-NOx combustor designs can be retrofitted on modified and reconstructed turbines to achieve lower NOx emissions, to improve turndown (i.e., to enable stable operations at lower loads compared to the lowest stable load achievable at baseline conditions), and to improve efficiencies across all load conditions. The manufacturer indicated that operators of existing combustion turbines***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **547** of **684** deploying both state
- of - the - art ga s path, software, and combustor upgrades can increase output on frame
- style turbines by 14 MW (on units with nominal output ratings between 170 and 180 MW) while reducing CO 2 emissions by 2.8 percent. In addition to the preceding upgrades, the manufacturer stated that existing combustion turbines can achieve the largest efficiency improvements by upgrading existing compressors with more advanced compressor technologies, potentially improving the combustion turbine's efficiency by an additional 3.8 percent improvement (i.e., the total potential efficiency improvement for the combustion turbine only considering all upgrades offered by the manufacturer is up to 6.6 percent.) A steam turbine manufacturer identified three retrofit technologies available for improving the efficiencies of existing steam turbines by 1.5 to 3 percent: (1) steam path upgrades can minimize aerodynamic and steam leakage losses; (2) replacement of the existing high pressure turbine stages with state - of - the - art stages capable of extracting more energy from the same steam supply; and (3) replacement of low
-pressure turbine stages with larger diameter components that extract additional energy and that reduce velocities, wear, and corrosion. Additional technologies for improving HRSG and steam turbine efficiencies in combined cycle power blocks include***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **548** of **684** improvements to the steam cycle. Changes to the steam cycle tend to be more involved (e.g., higher cost) than the previously discussed efficiency options. Combined cycle units originally construc ted with only a single pressure level can be upgraded to also include second and third pressure levels. Studies 480 , 481 , 482 , 483 show that converting a single pressure HRSG with steam reheat to a double pressure configuration with steam reheat can increase the net e fficiency of a combined cycle power block by 1.5 to 1.7 percent, and conversion from a single pressure configuration with reheat to a triple pressure configuration with reheat can yield a 1.8 to 2 percent efficiency increase. Similarly, units constructed with only a double pressure configuration without reheat can obtain a 0 .4 percent efficiency improvement by adding a reheat cycle or a 0.9 percent efficiency improvement by converting to a triple pressure configuration and adding a reheat cycle. Existing combined cycle combustion turbines that convert to these advanced HRSG configurations and that deploy the previously discussed combustion turbine and steam turbine

480 "Exergetic and Economic Evaluation of the Effects of HRSG Configurations on the Performance of Combined Cycle Power Plants." M. Mansouri, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 58:47
- 58, 2012. 481 "Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance Analyses Based on Si ngle - Pressure and Multipressure Heat Recovery Steam Generator." M. Raham, Journal of Energy Engineering, 138:136
- 145, 2012. 482 "Thermodynamic Evaluation of Combined Cycle Plants." N. Woudstras et al. Energy Conversion and Management 51:1099
- 1110, 2010. 483 "A Comparative Evaluation of Advanced Cycle Alternatives" (90
- GT - 335), O. Bollard, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Gas Turbine and Aerospace Congress and Exposition, Brussels, Belgium, June 11
- 14, 1990.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **549** of **684** upgrades can realize net efficiency improvements ranging from 6 to 10 percent, depending on their baseline design and condition. b. Peaking units . We are finalizing clean fuel standards, as opposed to an output -based standard, for facilities with annual total electric sales at or below their design efficiency (not to exceed 50 percent) multiplied by their potential electric output, in recognition that efficiency can be reduced at low loads. The EPA has concluded that at this time we do not have sufficient info rmation to set a meaningful output based standard for periods of low electric sales. The clean fuel standard for facilities burning more than 10 per cent natural gas on a 12 operating month basis with total electric sales that do not exceed the product of their design efficiency multiplied by their potential electric output would require them to burn fuels with an average emission rate of 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu or less, also limiting the use of residual oil.
c. Multi
- fuel - fired turbines . We are finalizing clean fuel standards, as opposed to an output -based standard, for facilities that are multi
- fuel - fired turbines burning 90 percent or less natural gas. The EPA has concluded that at this time we do not have sufficient information to set a meaningful output based standard for these units. The clean fuel standards BSER for combustion turbines is the use of natural gas and/or distillate oil. This approach ensures that new combustion***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **550** of **684** turbines would minimize CO 2 emissions during all periods of operation. Combustion turbines burning 90 percent or less natural gas would be limited to burning fuels with an average emission rate of 160 lb CO 2 /MMBtu or less. This has the practical impact of limiting the use of residual oil for new combustion turbines. The clean fuel standard for facilities burning more than 90 percent natural gas on a 12 operating month basis that are not meeting the electric sales trigger requirements would require them to burn fuels with an average emission rate of 120 lb CO 2 /MMBtu or less, also limiting the use of residual oil. The BSER determination includes a subcategory for combustion turbines that are connected to a natural gas pipeline during compliance periods when these turbines burn 90 percent or less natural gas (on a heat - input basis). The BSER for this subcategory is based on the use of natural gas and distillate oil, and the final rule requires that sources in this subcategory calculate the applicable emission standard as a value between 120 and 160 lbs CO2/MMBtu. For example, a combustion turbine that fired 85 percent natural gas (with a carbon content equivalent to 117 lbs CO2/MMBtu) and that also fired 15 percent fuel oil (with a carbon content equivalent to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **551** of **684** 170 lbs CO2/MMBtu) would be subject to a heat
- input
-weight ed emission limit as calculated in Equation AAA: **Equation AAA.** Emission Limit for Compliance Period Limit = (0.85 x 120) + (0.15 x 160) = 126 lbs CO2/MMBtu In this hypothetical compliance period the actual average emission rate would be calculated as s hown in Equation BBB: follows: **Equation BBB.** Actual Emission Rate for Compliance Period Rate = (0.85 x 117) + (0.15 x 170) = 125 lbs CO2/MMBtu According to the final data published by both CAMD and the EIA for 2013, natural gas was used to generate more than 98 percent of all the electricity delivered to the grid by combustion turbines with nameplate capacities greater than 25 MW. Table YYY presents 2013 data from EIA summarizing the generation from combustion turbines firing non
- natural gas fuels. These data show that the primary, non
- natural gas fuels used by combustion turbines for the production of electricity are fuel gas, residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, kerosene, and jet fuel. It is noteworthy that the EIA data indicate that the majorit y of the combustion turbines using these non
- natural gas fuels are associate with combined heat and power operations. The final rule includes an option for such CHP operators to take a permit limit on total electric sales to avoid applicability of the NSPS . As shown in Table YYY the carbon contents of these***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **552** of **684**
non - natural gas fuels range from 118 to 180 lbs CO2/MMBtu HHV. The BSER is based on a weighted average emission limit for periods when natural gas is fired with other fuels in order to limit the usage of high carbon fuels such as high
- carbon residual fuel oils. However, the BSER allows continued use of distillate, jet fuel, kerosene, fuel gas, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas. Combustion turbines in this subcategory are required to perform periodic fuel sampling when firing residual fuel oils and non - uniform fuels such as refinery fuel gas. Operators firing gases that already contain CO2 (prior to combustion) may elect to utilize periodic sampling to determine the quantity of CO2 in the stream prior t o combustion and may exclude this portion from the compliance calculation. You must operate and calibrate all flow meters, composition analyzers and pressure gauges used for measuring compliance parameters according to the procedures in §98.3(i). You may u se an appropriate standard method published by a consensus
-based standards organization if such a method exists or you may use an industry standard practice. Consensus
-based standards organizations include, but are not limited to, the following: ASTM International, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **553** of **684** (ASME), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). Table YYY: Non - natural Gas Fuel Use for Electricity Generation 484 **Fuel Average Carbon Content** **485 Fraction of National**  **Net Generation** Other Gas 486 (fuel gas, propane, liquefied petroleum gas) 487 115 to 139 lbs CO2/MMBtu 0.49 percent

Coal - derived synthesis gas Not applicable; units are subject to IGCC standard. 0.19 percent
Residual Fuel Oil (Nos. 5 and 6 and bunker C) 161 to 177 lbs CO2/MMBtu 0.14 percent
Pet. Coke - derived synthesis gas Not applicable; units are subject to IGCC standard. 0.14 percent
Distillate fuel oils (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) 161 to 166 lbs CO2/MMBtu 0.09 percent Kerosene and jet fuel 159 to 166 lbs CO2/MMBtu 0.05 percent
Other biomass gases and liquids 115 to 180 lbs CO2/MMBtu 0.01 percent

**X. Summary of Other Final Requirements for Newly Constructed,**

484 Usage is based on EIA 923 data for RY2013. 485 Average carbon contents taken from Table C - 1 of 40 CFR Part 98 and http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/morvayindustrial/supp/toolbox5.pdf 486 The petroleum refining and chemicals sectors reported 0.28 of the 0.49 percent shown; the balance was reported by the utilities sector. 487 EIA does not publish specific fuels within the "Other Gas" fuel code, however EIA does publish the NAICS codes for f acilities reporting this fuel code. The specific fuels listed are the gaseous fuels reported to 40 CFR Part 98 from the NAICS codes that also reported electricity generation to EIA associated with the "Other Gas" fuel code.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **554** of **684 Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel**  **- fired**  **Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Stationary Combustion Turbines**  This section describes the final action’s requirements regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction; continuous monitoring; emissions performance testing; continuous compliance; and notification, recordkeeping, and reporting for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected steam generating units and combustion turbines. We also explain final decisions regarding several of these requirements. A. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **555** of **684** below as well as in section V.J.1 above , has not established alternate standards for those periods. Specifically, startup and shutdown periods are included in the compliance calculation as periods of partial load. The final method to calculate compliance is to sum the emissions for all operating hours and to divide that value by the sum of the electric energy output (and useful thermal energy output, where applicable for affected CHP EGUs), over a rolling 12
- operating
-month period. In their compliance determinations, sources must incorporate emissions from all periods, including startup or shutdown, during which fuel is combusted and emissions are being monitored, in addition to all power produced over the periods of emissions measurements. As explained in section V.J.1, g iven that the duration of startup or shutdown periods is expected t o be small relative to the duration of periods of normal operation and that the fraction of power generated during periods of startup or shutdown is expected to be very small, the impact of these periods on the total average over a 12
- operating
-month perio d is expected to be minimal. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, infre quent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **556** of **684** monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of se ction 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through “the application of the best system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 111 standards of performance. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all
s ources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably”***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **557** of **684** fores eeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data
- gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'") See also, Weyerhaeuser v Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset si tuations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case
-by- case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99 percent removal goes off - line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the s ource would go from 99 percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **558** of **684** higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4 - day malfunction period woul d exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well
-per forming,
non -malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 111 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 111 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Given that compliance with the emission standard is determined on a 12
- operating
-month rolling average basis, the impact of periods of malfunctions on the total average over a 12
- operating
-month period is expected to be minimal. Thus, malfunctions over that period are not likely to result in a violation of the standard. In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the go od faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failu re to comply***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **559** of **684** with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a pa rticular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropr iate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. In the January 2014 proposal for newly constructed EGUs, the EPA had proposed to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many types of air***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **560** of **684** regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its
case -by- case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a more formalize d approach and more regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1057
- 58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case
by- case enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272
- 73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one o f the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 112 rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **561** of **684** the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court found: “As the language of the s tatute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case
-by- case basis, whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRDC at 1063 (“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.”). 488 In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative defense provision in this final rule. As explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case
-by- case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violations were caused by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in future civil cases when the issue

488 The court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial actions. The c ourt noted that “EPA's ability to determine whether penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a court.” Id.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **562** of **684** arises). The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement actions. 489 B. Contin uous Monitoring Requirements The majority of comments received on the proposal supported the EPA ' s use of existing monitoring requirements under the Acid Rain Program , which are contained in 40 CFR part 75 requirements . In response to this , the EPA is fina lizing monitoring requirements that incorporate and reference the part 75 monitoring requirements for the majority of the CO 2 and energy output monitoring requirements while ensuring accuracy and stringency required under the program. This final rule requires owners or operators of EGUs that combust solid fossil fuel to install, certify, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to measure CO 2 concentration, stack gas flow rate, and (if needed) stack gas moisture content in ac cordance with 40 CFR part 75, in order to determine hourly CO 2 mass emissions rates (tons/hr).

489 Although the N RDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such an affirmative defense in the final rule. As explained above, such an affi rmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. Cf . CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **563** of **684** The rule allows owners or operators of affected EGUs that burn exclusively gaseous or liquid fuels to install fuel flow meters as an alternative to CEMS and to calculate the hourly CO 2 mass emissions rates using Equation G
- 4 in Appendix G of Part 75. To implement this option, hourly measurements of fuel flow rate and periodic determinations of the gross calorific value (GCV) of the fuel are also required, in acco rdance with Appendix D of Part 75. In addition to requiring monitoring of the CO 2 mass emission rate, the rule requires EGU owners or operators to monitor the hourly unit operating time and “gross output”, expressed in megawatt hours (MWh). The gross output includes electrical output plus any mechanical output, plus 75 percent of any useful thermal output. The rule requires EGU owners or operators to prepare and submit a monitoring plan that includes both electronic and hard copy components, in accordance with sections 75.53(g) and (h). The electronic portion of the monitoring plan should be submitted to the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) using the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool. The hard copy portion of the pl an should be sent to the applicable State and EPA Regional office. Further, all monitoring systems used to determine the CO 2 mass emission rates***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **564** of **684** have to be certified according to section 75.20 and section 6 of Part 75, Appendix A within the 180
- day window of time allotted under section 75.4(b), and are required to meet the applicable
on - going quality assurance procedures in Appendices B and D of Part 75. The rule requires all valid data collected and recorded by the monitoring systems (including data recorded during startup, shutdown, and malfunction) to be used in assessing compliance. Failure to collect and record required data is a violation of the monitoring requirements, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monit oring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities that temporarily interrupt the measurement of stack emissions (e.g., calibration error tests, linearity checks, and required zero and span adjustments ). The rule requires only those operating hours in which valid data are collected and recorded for all of the parameters in the CO 2 mass emission rate equation to be used for calculating compliance with applicable emission limits . Additionally for EGUs us ing CO 2 CEMS, only unadjusted stack gas flow rate values should be used in the emissions calculations. In this rule, Part 75 bias adjustment factors (BAFs) should not be applied to the flow rate data. These restrictions on the use of Part 75 data***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **565** of **684** for Part 60 compliance are consistent with previous NSPS regulations and revisions. Additionally if an affected EGU combusts natural gas and/or fuel oil and the CO 2 mass emissions rate are measured using Equation G
- 4 in Appendix G of Part 75, then determination of site
- specific carbon
-based F - factors using Equation F
- 7b in section 3.3.6 of Appendix F of Part 75 is allowed, and use of these F c values in the emissions calculations instead of using the default F c values in the Equation G
- 4 nomenclature is also allowed. This final rule includes the following special compliance provisions for units with common stack or multiple stack configurations; these provisions are consistent with section 60.13(g):

 If two or more EGUs share a common exhaust stack, are subject to the same emission limit, and the operator is required to (or elects to) determine compliance using CEMS, then monitoring the hourly CO 2 mass emission rate at the common stack instead of monitoring each EGU separately is allowed. If this option is chosen, the hourly gross electrical load (or steam load) is the sum of the hourly loads for the individual EGUs and the operating time is expressed as “stack operating hours” (as defined in 40 CFR 72.2). Then, if compliance with the applicable emission***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **566** of **684** limit is attained at the common stack, each EGU sharing the stack will be in compliance with the CO 2 emissions limit.

 If the operator is required to (or elects to) determi ne compliance using CEMS and the effluent from the EGU discharges to the atmosphere through multiple stacks (or, if the effluent is fed to a stack through multiple ducts and is monitored in the ducts), then monitoring the hourly CO 2 mass emission rate and the “stack operating time” at each stack or duct separately is required. In this case, compliance with the applicable emission limit is determined by summing the CO 2 mass emissions measured at the individual stacks or ducts and dividing by the total gross output for the unit. The rule requires 95 percent of the operating hours in each compliance period (including the compliance periods for the intermediate emission limits) to be valid hours, i.e., operating hours in which quality
- assured data are collect ed and recorded for all of the parameters used to calculate CO 2 mass emissions. EGU owners or operators have the option to use backup monitoring systems, as provided in sections 75.10(e) and 75.20(d), to help meet this data capture requirement. This requirement is separate from the requirement for a source to demonstrate compliance with***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **567** of **684** an applicable emission standard. When demonstrating compliance with an emission standard the calculation must use all valid data to calculate a compliance average even if the percent of valid hours recorded in the period is less than the 95 percent requirement. C. Emissions Performance Testing Requirements Similarly to the comments received on monitoring for the proposal, commenters in general supported the use of current testing requirements required under the Acid Rain Program 40 CFR part 75 requirements. Thus the EPA is finalizing requirements for performance testing as consistent with part 75 requirements where appropriate to ensure the quality and accuracy of data and measurements as required by the final rule. In accordance with section 75.64(a), the final rule requires an EGU owner or operator to begin reporting emissions data when monitoring system certification is completed or when the 180
- day window in section 75. 4(b) allotted for initial certification of the monitoring systems expires (whichever date is earlier). For EGUs subject to the 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g ) emission standard, the initial performance test consists of the first 12 operating months of data, starting with the month in which emissions are first required to be reported. The initial 12
- operating
-month compliance period begins with the first month of the first calendar year of EGU operation in which the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **568** of **684** facility exceeds the capacity factor applicability threshold. The traditional 3
- run performance tests (i.e., stack tests) described in section 60.8 are not required for this rule. Following the initial compliance determination, the emission standard is met on a 12
- operating
-month rolling average basis. D. Continuous Compliance Requirements Commenters supported the use of a 12
- operating month rolling average for the compliance period for the final standards. In response, this final rule specifies that compliance with the 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh - g emission limit is determined on a 12
- operating
-month rolling average basis, updated after each new operating month. For each 12
- operating
month compliance period, quality
- assured data from the certified Part 75 monitoring systems is used together with the gross output over that period of time to calculate the average CO 2 mass emissions rate. The rule specifies that the first operating month included in the initial 12
- operating
-month compliance period is the month in which reporting of emissions data is required to begin under section 75.64(a), i.e., either the month in which monitoring system certification is completed or the month in which the 180
- day window allotted to finish certification testing expires (whichever month is earlier).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **569** of **684** Initial compliance with the applicabl e emissions limit in kg/MWh is calculated by dividing the sum of the hourly CO 2 mass emissions values by the total gross output for the 12
- operating
month period. Affected EGUs continue to be subject to the standards and maintenance requirements in the CAA section 111 regulatory general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A. Several commenters stated that the final rule should require operators to round their calculated emissions rates to three significant figures when comparing their actual rat es to the standard. These commenters said that allowing use of only two significant digits when calculating the 12
- operating month rolling average emission rate would constitute relaxation of the standard by 5 percent because an actual emission rate of 1,0 49.9 lbs CO2/MWh rounds to 1,000 lbs of CO2 per MWh when only 2 significant figures are required in the final step of compliance calculations. Commenters also suggested that the emission limits be written in scientific notation (e.g., 1.10 x 10^3 lbs CO2/MWh) to clarify the number of significant digits that should be used when evaluating compliance. Other commenters suggested that the final step in compliance calculations should reflect rounding the emission rate to the nearest whole number using the ASTM rounding convention (ASTM E29). The General Provisions of Part 60 specify the rounding***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **570** of **684** conventions for compliance calculations at 40 CFR 60.13(h)(3) including the provision that "after conversion into units of the standard, the data may be rounded to the same number of significant digits used in the applicable subpart to specify the emission limit." The final rule requires that the 12
- operating month rolling average emission rate must be rounded to 3 significant figures if the applicable emissions standard is greater than or equal to 1,000 (e.g., an actual emission rate of 1,004.9 lbs CO2/MWh is rounded to 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh); for standards of 1000 or less, the final rule requires rounding the actual emission rate to 2 significant figures (e.g., an actual emission rate of 454.9 kg CO2/MWh is rounded to 450 kg CO2/MWh). Historically, many of the emissions limits under Part 60 have been expressed to 2 significant digits (e.g., the original SO2 emission standard for coal - fired units under Subpart D was 1.2 lbs SO2/MMBtu). The rounding conventions under the General Provisions allow the reporting of all emission rates in the range from 1.15 to 1.249 as 1.2 lbs SO2/MMBtu. During compliance periods with emissions at the lower end of this range, the operator is requi red to report higher emissions than actually occurred; during compliance periods at the upper end of this range the operator is allowed to report lower emissions than actually occurred. In either case the absolute error remains small because the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **571** of **684** emission rate in this example is a relatively small numerical value. In addition, the required emission reductions typically are large enough that rounding does not impact the emission control strategy of affected units. However, the final standards for CO2 emission s include numerical values that are larger than many historical emissions standards and require a relatively small percent reduction in emissions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to require the use of three significant digits when completing compliance calculations resulting in numerical values larger than 1,000. This is particularly important when considering the relatively small emission rate changes that may be required for compliance with the unit
- specific emission standards being finalized for modified steam generating and IGCC units because a rounding error of 5 percent may be larger than the percent difference between the affected unit's historically best emission rate and the emission rate immediately preceding the modification. The final rule require s rounding of emission rates with numerical values greater than or equal to 1,000 to three significant figures and rounding of rates with numerical values less than 1,000 to two significant figures.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requiremen ts***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **572** of **684** Commenters supported the coordination of notification, recordkeeping, and reporting required under this rule in conjunction with the requirements already in place under Part 75 and so the EPA has made the requirements as efficient and streamlined as possib le with the current requirements under Part 75. This final rule requires an EGU owner or operator to comply with the applicable notification requirements in section 75.61, sections 60.7(a)(1) and (a)(3), and section 60.19. The rule also requires the applic able recordkeeping requirements in subpart F of part 75 to be met. For EGUs using CEMS, the data elements that are recorded include, among others, hourly CO 2 concentration, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture content (if needed), unit operating time, and gross electric generation. For EGUs that exclusively combust liquid and/or gaseous fuel(s) and elect to determine CO 2 emissions using Equation G
- 4 in Appendix G of Part 75, the key data elements in subpart F that are recorded include hourly fuel flow ra tes, fuel usage times, fuel GCV, gross electric generation. The rule requires EGU owners or operators to keep records of the calculations they perform to determine the total CO 2 mass emissions and gross output for each operating month. Records of the calculations performed to determine the average CO 2 mass emission rate (kg/MWh) and the percentage of valid CO 2 mass***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **573** of **684** emission rates in each compliance period are required to be kept. The rule also requires sources to keep records of calculations performed to determine site
- specific carbon
-based F - factors for use in Equation G
- 4 of Part 75, Appendix G (if applicable). Sources are required to keep all records for a period of 3 years. All required records must be kept on
- site for a minimum of 2 years, after which the records can be maintained off
- site. The rule requires all affected EGU owners/operators to submit quarterly electronic emissions reports in accordance with subpart G of Part 75. The reports in Appendix G that do not include data required to calculate compliance with the applicable CO2 emission standard are not required to be reported under this rule. The rule requires the reports in section 60.5555 to be submitted using the ECMPS Client Tool. Except for a few EGUs that may be exempt from the Acid Rain Program (e.g., oil
- fired units), this is not a new reporting requirement. Sources subject to the Acid Rain Program are already required to report the hourly CO 2 mass emission rates that are needed to assess compliance with this rule. Additionally, in the final rule and as part of an agency
wide effort to streamline and facilitate the reporting of environmental data, the rule requires selected data elements that pertain to compliance under this rule, and that serve the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **574** of **684** purpose of identifying violations of an emission standard, to be reported periodically using ECMPS. Specifically, EGU owners/operators must submit quarterly electronic reports within 30 days after the end of each quarter consistent with current Part 75 reporting requirements. The first report is for the quarter that includes the final (12 th ) operating month of the initial 12
- operating
-month compliance period. For that initial report and any subsequent report in which the 12 th operating month of a compliance period (or periods) occurs during the calendar quarter, the average CO 2 mass emissions rate (kg/MWh) is reported for each compliance period, along with the dates (year and month) of the first and twelfth operating months in the compliance period and the percentage of valid CO 2 mass emission rates obtained in the compliance period. The dates of the first and last operating months in the compliance period clearly bracket the period used in the determination, which facilitates auditing of the data. Reporting the percentage of valid CO 2 mass emis sion rates is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to obtain valid data for 95 percent of the operating hours in each compliance period. Any violations that occur during the quarter are identified. If there are no compliance periods tha t end in the quarter, a definitive statement to that effect must be***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **575** of **684** included in the report. If one or more compliance periods end in the quarter but there are no violations, a statement to that effect must be included in the report. Currently, ECMPS is not programmed to receive the additional information included in the report required under section 60.5555(a)(2) for affected EGUs. However, we will make the necessary modifications to the system in order to fully implement the reporting requirements of this rule upon promulgation. **XI. Consistency between BSER Determinations for This Rule and**  **the Rule for Existing EGUs.** In the CAA section 111(d) rule for existing steam units and combustion turbines that the EPA is promulgating at the same time as this CAA section 111(b) rule, the EPA is identifying as part of the BSER for those sources, building block 1 (for steam units, efficient operation), building block 2 (for steam units, dispatch shift to existing NGCC units), and building block 3 (for steam units and combustion turbines, substitution of generation with new renewable energy). In this section, we explain why the EPA i s not identifying building blocks 1, 2, or 3 as part of the BSER for new, modified, or reconstructed steam generators or combustion turbines. A. Newly constructed steam generating units. 1. Preference for technological controls.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **576** of **684** As discussed in this preamble and in more detail in the preamble to the CAA section 111(d) rule for existing sources, the phrase “system of emission reduction” is undefined and provides the EPA with discretion in setting a standard of performance under CAA section 111(b) or emission guidelines under CAA section 111(d). While the phrase by itself permits the same systems to be considered for application in either context (i.e., for new or existing sources ) , many other factors and considerations direct us to focus on differe nt systems when establishing a standard of performance under CAA section 111(b) and an emission guideline under CAA section 111(d). Thus, it is useful to describe part of the underlying basis for the BSER

– partial CCS
- that the EPA has determined for new steam units before discussing the building blocks that form the BSER for existing units. For new steam generating units, the EPA is identifying, as the BSER, systems of emission reduction that assure that these sources are inherently low
- emitting at the time of construction. There are several reasons for this approach to the BSER. While CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) and (a)(1) by its terms does not mandate that the BSER assure that new sources are inherently low emitting, that approach to the BSER is consiste nt with congressional intent for new sources, as expressed in the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **577** of **684** legislative history. 490 For instance, the 1970 Senate Committee Report explains that “[t]he overriding purpose of this section [concerning new source performance standards] would be to prevent new air pollution problems, and toward that end, maximum feasible control of new sources at the time of their construction is seen by the committee as the most effective and, in the long run, the least expensive approach.” 491 Existing sources, on the other hand, would be regulated through emission standards, which were broadly understood at the time to reflect available technology, alternative methods of prevention and control, alternative fuels, processes, and operating methods. 492 In 1977, Congress reinforced the distinction between new and existing source standards. Specifically, Congress ame nded the definition for a standard of performance to clarify that new source standards would reflect the “best technological system of
490 Although Congress expressed a clear preference that new sources would be “designed, built, equipped, operated, and maintained so as to reduce emissions to a minimum, ” the Senate Committee Report also makes clear that the term standard of performance “refers to the degree of emission control which can be achieved through process changes, operation changes, direct emission control, or other methods .” Sen. Rep. No. 91
- 119 6 at 15
- 17, 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 415
- 17 (emphasis added). 491 Sen . Rep. No. 91
- 1196 at 15
- 16, 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 416 (emphasis added). 492 See 1970 CAA Amendments , Pub. L. 91
- 604, § 4, 84 Stat. 1676, 1679 (Dec. 31, 1970) (describing information that the EPA must issue to the States and appropriate air pollution control agencies along with the issuance of ambient air quality criteria under Section 4 of the 1970 CAA titled “Ambient Air Quality and Emission Standards”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **578** of **684** continuous emission reduction.” This new formulation was intended to compel new sources to install technological contr ols rather than implement lower
- cost compliance measures. In shifting new sources towards technological controls, Congress explained, lower
- cost measures would be available to existing sources where “higher capital costs could be avoided”. 493 As an example, Congress believed section 111 (following the 1977 CAA Amendments) would compel new coal - fired power plants to install scrubbers and take advantage of coal washing in order to free lower - sulfur coal ( i.e. , fuel switching) for use by existing units. The 199 0 CAA Amendments repealed the provisions in section 111(a)(1) that distinguished between new and existing sources, but nothing in the 1990 CAA Amendments precludes the EPA from continuing to prefer technological controls for new sources in order to ensure lower - cost measures would be available for existing sources. Indeed, this approach is sensible because new sources are expected to have long operating lives over which initial capital costs can be amortized. Thus, new construction is the preferred time to drive capital investment in emission controls.

493 H.R. Rep. No. 95
- 294 at 186, 1977 CAA Legis. Hist. at 2653.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **579** of **684** In this case, the BSER for new steam generators, partial CCS, requires substantial capital expenditures, which those sources are able to accommodate. 2. Practical implications of including the building blo cks. Even if the EPA cannot as a matter of interpretation prefer technological controls when setting new source standards, several practical considerations make the building blocks ill
suited for new sources. Thus, for the following reasons, the EPA does not consider it appropriate to include the building blocks as part of the BSER for new sources: a. Unreasonable additional cost . Partial CCS will impose substantial costs on new steam
- generating EGUs, and, as a result, the EPA does not believe that i ncluding additional measures as part of the BSER would be cost effective. One disadvantage in doing so may make it more difficult for new steam- generating EGUs to compete with new nuclear units. Because the BSER is selected after considering cost (among other factors), the EPA is not required to, 494 and in this case

494 Cite Serra Club (1981)? If not, use this: For example, as early as a 1979 NSPS rulemaking for affected EGUs, the EPA recognized that it was not required to establish the most stringent BSER available, and instead could weigh the amount of additional emission reductions against the costs. See 44 F.R. 52792, 52798 (Sept. 10, 1979) (“Although there may be emission control technology available that can reduce emissions below those levels required t o comply with standards of performance, this technology might not be selected as the basis of standards***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **580** of **684** believes it would not be appropriate to, select the most stringent BSER (through the combination of partial CCS and the building blocks) for purposes of setting a standard of performance under CAA section 111(b). Building block 1 measures are not appropriate for the BSER because new steam generating units can be expected to be designed and constructed with state
- of - the - art, efficient equipment. Accordingly, there is little improvement in effici ency that can be justified as part of the BSER. Building block 2 and 3 measures are not appropriate for the BSER for the following reasons: New steam units would have a significantly limited range of options to implement building blocks 2 and 3. The new source performance standard was proposed and is being finalized as a rate
-based standard. Thus, if building blocks 2 and 3 were included in the BSER, a more stringent rate
based standard would be applicable to all new sources. However, it is conceivable that EPA could propose a hybrid standard that would include both an emission
- rate limit that reflects partial CCS and a requirement for allowances that reflects building of performance due to costs associated with its use. Accordingly, standards of performance should not be viewed as the ultimate in achievable emission c ontrol. In fact, the Act requires (or has potential for requiring) the imposition of a more stringent emission standard in several situations.”).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **581** of **684** blocks 2 and 3. Accordingly, the following discussion assumes either a rate
-based or mass -based standard, or part of a hybrid standard. In both a rate -based program and a mass -based program, the emissions reductions reflected in building blocks 2 and 3 measures can be achieved through alternative compliance methods, including reduced generation and trading with other EGUs. However, those methods may not be available to new sources, which would render compliance with their emission limits more challenging and more costly. Although, unlike the proposal for this rule, reduced generation does not it self constitute the BSER or an alternative BSER for existing sources, an existing source can meet an emission rate limit in part by reducing its generation, which allows it to meet its emission rate by implementing lesser amounts of building blocks 2 and 3 than it would otherwise need. An existing source can also meet a mass emission limit by reducing generation. However, reduced generation is not a practical method for new sources because they are likely to be built to be operated as base load facilities. There are large numbers of existing sources and they will become subject to the section 111(d) standards of performance at the same time. It may be more cost
- effective for some to implement the building blocks than others, and, as a result,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **582** of **684** some may over - comply and some may under - comply, and the two groups may trade with each other. Because of the large numbers of existing sources, the trading market can be expected to be robust. Trading optimizes efficiency. As a result, existing sources have more flex ibility in the overall amount of their investment in building blocks 2 and 3, and can adjust investment obligations among themselves through emissions trading. In contrast, new sources construct one at a time, and it is unknown how many new sources there will be. Without a sizeable number of new sources, there will not be a robust trading market. Thus, a new source cannot count on being able to find a new source trading partner. In addition, it is not possible to count on new sources being able to trade wi th existing sources, for several reasons. First, there is legal uncertainty as to whether new sources could trade with existing sources under section 111 . 495 Second, new sources must meet their standards of performance as soon as they begin operations. If they do so before the year 2022, when existing sources become subject to section 111(d) state plan
495 Part of the uncertainty lies in the distinctions between CAA section 111(b) and CAA section 111(d). While the EPA establishes nationally applicable performance standards for new sources, each state has considerable discretion in establishing standards of performance for existing sources. Accordingly, it is not clear that a new source rule could tap into existing source programs, particularly if that action would disrupt the operation of the state’s plan.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **583** of **684** standards of performance, no existing sources will be available as trading partners. Third, it is uncertain which type of limit (i.e., mass
- or rate -based l imits) the most exist ing sources will be subject to . As a result, a new source may not have the same type of emission limit as most existing sources, and, therefore, could not count on finding a trading partner among the existing sources. For all these re asons, individual new steam units have more limited methods for implementing building blocks 2 and 3 than existing sources. In addition, the implementation of the building blocks requires a lengthy period of lead
- time. For section 111(d) sources, we are granting a 7
- year period. This is due, in part, to the benefits of allowing the ERC market to develop. However, the new source standards take effect immediately, so that new sources would not have the advantage of a lengthy lead time were they subject to more stringent standards reflected in the building blocks. If there are an unexpectedly large number of new sources, then they would be obliged to invest in greater amounts of building blocks 2 and 3, and that could reduce the amounts of building blocks 2 and 3 available for existing sources, and thereby raise the costs of building blocks 2 and 3 for existing sources. This could compromise the BSER under section 111(d) and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **584** of **684** undermine the ability of existing sources to comply with their section 111(d) obligations. 496 Finally, it should be noted that the EPA retains the authority to revise the CAA sec tion 111(d) standard in the future to include the new steam units that, up to that time, are considered new sources and therefore not covered by the current section 111(d) requirements. Thus, in a future section 111(d) rulemaking, new steam units could be treated as existing sources for which building blocks 2 and 3 are a part of the BSER. B. New combustion turbines. For new combustion turbines, the EPA has identified the BSER as high efficiency NGCC construction. Thus, new EGUS must construct at optimal e fficiency levels and maintain those levels thereafter, without deterioration. Moreover, it is likely that they will seek to operate at an emission rate below their limit in order to build in a margin of safety. This represents a substantial commitment over time.

496 The EPA is authorized to consider the BSER for new and existing sources in conjunction with each other. [ Any support besides the following? ] In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress revised section 111(a)(1) to require technological controls for new combustion sources at least in part because this requirement would preclude new sources from relying on low
- sulfur coal to achieve their emission limit s, which, in turn, would free up low- sulfur coal for existing sources. [Cite LH ]***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **585** of **684** In addition, the building blocks are not appropriate as part of the BSER for new combustion turbines for the following
reasons: Building block 1 is limited to steam generating units, and therefore has no applicability to new combustion turbines. Me asures comparable to those in building block 1 would not be appropriate because the highly efficient NGCC construction already entails high efficiency equipment and operation. Building block 2 is also limited to steam generating units and is not appropriat e as part of the BSER for new NGCC units because it would not result in any emission reductions. The reasons why building block 3 are not appropriate are the same as why building blocks 2 and 3 are not appropriate for new steam. C. Modified and rec onstruct ed steam and NGCC units For modified and reconstructed steam generators and NGCC units, the EPA identified the BSER as maintenance of high efficiency or implementation of a highly efficient unit. The resulting emission limit must be met over the specified time period and cannot be deviated from or averaged. As a result, a modified or reconstructed unit generally will require ongoing maintenance, and may be expected to operate below its limit as a safety margin. This represents a substantial commitment of
resources.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **586** of **684** In addition, building block 1 is not appropriate for modified or reconstructed steam generating sources because the BSER is already based on highly efficient performance. For the same reasons, it does not make sense to attempt to develop the
ana logue to building block 1 for modified or reconstructed NGCC units

– the BSER for them, too, is already based on highly efficient performance. Building block 2 is not appropriate for modified or reconstructed NGCC units because it would not yield any reduc tions. Building blocks 2 and 3 are not appropriate for modified or reconstructed steam generators, and building block 3 is not appropriate for modified or reconstructed NGCC units, for the same reasons that they are not appropriate for new EGUs, as described above. **XII. Interactions with Other EPA Programs and Rules**  A. Overview This final rule will, for the first time, regulate GHGs under CAA section 111. In S ection IX of the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA addressed how regulation of GHGs under CAA section 111 could have implications for other EPA rules and for permits written under the CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit program and the CAA Title V operating permit program. The EPA proposed to adopt***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **587** of **684** provision s in the regulations that explicitly addressed some of these implications. For purpose of the PSD program, the EPA is finaliz ing provisions in part 60 of its regulations that make clear that the threshold for determining whether a PSD source must satisfy the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement for GHG s continues to apply after promulgation of this rule . This rule does not require any additional revisions to State Implementation P lans. As discussed further below, this final rule may have bearing on the determination of BACT for new and existing and modified and reconstructed EGUs that require PSD permits. With respect to the Title V operating permits program, this rule does not affect whether sources are subject to the requirement to obtai n a title V operating permit based solely on emitting or having the potential to emit GHGs above major source thresholds . However, this rule does have some implications for t itle V fees, which the EPA is address ing in this final rule. Finally, the fossil fuel - fired EGUs covered in this rule are or will be potentially impacted by several other recently finalized or proposed EPA rules, and such potential interactions with other EPA rules are discussed below. B. Applicability of Tailoring Rule Thresholds under the PSD Program In our January 8, 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed to adopt***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **588** of **684** regulatory language in 40 CFR part 60 that would ensure the promulgation of this NSPS would not undercut the application of rules that limit the application of the PSD permitting program requirements to only the large st sources of GHGs . An intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court has, to a large extent, resolved the legal issue that led the EPA to propose these Part 60 provisions. The Supreme Court has since clarified that the PSD program does not apply to smaller sources based on the amount of GHGs they emit. However, becaus e the largest sources emitting GHGs remain subject to the PSD permitting requirements, the EPA has concluded that it remains appropriate to adopt the proposed regulatory provisions in 40 CFR part 60 in this rule. We discuss our reasons for this action in detail below.Under the PSD program in part C of title I of the CAA, in areas that are classified as attainment or unclassifiable for NAAQS pollutants, a new or modified source that emits any air pollutant subject to regulation at or above specified thres holds is required to obtain a preconstruction permit. This permit assures that the source meets specifi c requirements, including application of BACT to each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA. Many states (and local districts) are authorized by the EPA to administer the PSD program and to issue PSD permits. If a state is not authorized, then the EPA issues the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **589** of **684** PSD permits for facilities in that state. To identify the pollutants subject to the PSD permitting program, EPA regulations contain a defi nition of the term “regulated NSR pollutant.” 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). This definition contains four subparts, which cover pollutants regulated under various parts of the CAA. The second subpart covers pollutants regulated under section 1 11 of the CAA. The fourth subpart is a catch
- all provision that applies to “[a]ny pollutant that is otherwise subjection to regulation under the Act.” This definition and the associated PSD permitting requirements applied to GHGs for the first time on January 2, 2011 , by virtue of EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from motor vehicle s , which first took effect on that same date. 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010). As such , GHGs became subject to regulation under the CAA and the fourth subpart of the “regulated NSR po llutant” definition became applicable to GHGs . On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514). Under its understanding of the CAA at the time, the EPA believed the Tailoring Rule was necessary to avoid a sudden and unmanageable increase in the number of sources that would be required to obtain PSD and t itle***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **590** of **684** V permits under the CAA because the sources emitted GHGs emissions over appl icable major source and major modification thresholds. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD or title V requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of non - GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the EPA applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions above applicable levels in the EPA regulations. In the PSD program, the EPA implemented the steps of the Tailoring Rule by adopting a definition of the term “subject to regulation.” The limitations in Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule are reflected in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(iv) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iv). With respect to “anyway sources” covered by PSD during Step 1, this provision established that GHG s would not be subject to PSD requirements unless the sou rce emitted GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO 2 e ) or more. The primary practical effect***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **591** of **684** of this paragraph is that the PSD BACT requirement does not apply to GHG emissions from an “anyway source” unless the source emits GHGs at or above this threshold. The Tailoring Rule Step 2 limitations are reflected in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and 51.166(b)(48)(v). These provisions contain thresholds that, when applied through the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant,” function to limit the scope of the terms “major stationary source” and “major modification” that determine whether a source is required to obtain a PSD permit. See e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(i) and (iii); 40 CFR 51 .166(b)(1); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2). This structure of the EPA’s PSD regulations created questions regarding the extent to which the limitations in the Tailoring Rule would continue to apply to GHGs once they became regulated, through this final rule, under section 111 of the CAA. 79 FR at 1487
- 1488. As discussed above, the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” in the PSD regulations contain s a separate PSD trigger for air pollutants regulated unde r the NSPS, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(ii) (the “NSPS trigger provision”). Thus, when GHGs become subject to a standard promulgated under CAA section 111 for the first time under this rule, PSD requirements would presumably apply for GHGs on an additional basis besides through the regulation of GHG s from motor vehicles . However, the Tailoring Rule, on the face of its***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **592** of **684** regulatory provisions, incorporated the revised thresholds it promulgated into only the fourth subpart of the PSD definition of regulated NSR pollut ant (“[a]ny pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act”) . The regulatory text does not clearly incorporate the thresholds into the NSPS trigger provision in the second subpart (“[a]ny pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgat ed under section 111 of the Act”). For this reason, a question arose as to whether the Tailoring Rule limitations would continue to apply to the PSD requirements after they are independently triggered for GHG s by the NSPS that the EPA is now promulgating . Stakeholders questioned whether the EPA must revise its PSD regulations

– - and, by the same token, whether states must revise their SIPs

– - to assure that the Tailoring Rule thresholds will continue to apply to sources potentially subject to PSD under the CAA based
on GHG emissions. In the January 8, 2014 proposed rule, the EPA explained that the agency had included an interpretation in the Tailoring Rule preamble, which means that the Tailoring Rule thresholds continue to apply if and when the EPA promul gates requirements under CAA section 111. 79 FR at 1488 (citing 75 FR 31582). Nevertheless, to ensure there would be no uncertainty as to this issue, the EPA proposed to adopt explicit language in sections 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 of the agency’ s regulations.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **593** of **684** The language makes clear that the thresholds for GHGs in the EPA’s PSD definition of “subject to regulation” apply through the second subpart of the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” to GHGs regulated under subparts Da, KKKK, and TTTT of part 60. The EPA received comments supporting the adoption of this proposed language, but several commenters also expressed concern that adding this language to part 60 alone would not be sufficient. Several commenters urged EPA to instead revise the PSD regulations in parts 51 and 52. In addition, commenters expressed concern that further steps were needed to amend the SIPs before there would be certainty that the Tailoring Rule limitations continued to apply after the adoption of CO 2 standards under CAA section 111 in this final rule. On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court hel d that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification there of) for the purpose of PSD applicability . The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **594** of **684** application of BAC T . The Supreme Court decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for "anyway sources" and invalidated application of PSD permitting requirements to Step 2 sources based on GHG emissions. The Court also recognized that, although EPA had not yet done so, it could “establish an appropriate de minimis threshold below which BACT is not required for a source’s greenhouse gas emissions.” 134 S. Ct. at 2449. In accordance with the Supreme Court decisi on, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The court specifically vacated sections 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v) of the EPA’s regulations, but did not vacate sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) or 52.21(b)(48)(iv). The court also directed the EPA to consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if so, to undertake such revisions. The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s clarification of the reach of the CAA is that it eliminates the need for Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule and subsequent steps of the GHG permitting phase in that EPA had planned to consider under the Tailoring Rule . This also eliminates the possibility that the promulgation***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **595** of **684** of GHG standards under section 111 could result in additional
source s becoming subject to PSD based solely on GHGs, notwithstanding the limitations the EPA adopted in the Tailoring Rule. However, for an interim period, the EPA and the states will need to continue applying parts of the PSD definition of “subject to regulation” to ensure that sources obtain PSD permits meeting the requirements of the CAA . The CAA continues to require that PSD permits issued to “anyway sources” satisfy the BACT requirement for GHGs . Based on the language that remains applicable under sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) and 52.21(b)(49)(iv), the EPA and state s may continue to limit the application of BACT to GHG emissions in those circumstances where a source emits GHGs in the amount of at least 75,000 tpy on a CO 2 e basis. The EPA’s intention is for this to serve as an interim approach while the EPA moves forward to propose a GHG Significant Emission Rate (SER) that would establish a de minimis threshold level for permitting GHG emissions under PSD. Under this forthc oming SER rule, the EPA intends to propose restructuring the GHG provisions in its PSD regulations so that the de minimis threshold for GHGs will not reside within the definition of “subject to regulation.” This restructuring will be designed to make the PSD regulatory provisions on GHGs universally applicable, without regard to the particular subparts of the definition of “regulated NSR***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **596** of **684** pollutant” that may cover GHGs . Upon promulgation of the SER rule , it will then provide a framework that states may use when updating their SIPs consistent with the Supreme Court decision. While the GHG SER rulemaking is pending, the EPA and approved state, l ocal, and tribal permitting authorities will still need to implement the BACT requirement for GHGs . In order to enable permitting authorities to continue applying the 75,000 tpy CO 2 e threshold to determine whether BACT applies to GHG emissions from an “anyway source” after GHGs are subject to regulation under CAA section 111, the EPA has concluded that it continues to be appropriate to adopt the proposed language in sections 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515. The EPA has evaluated these provisions in light of the Supreme Court decision and the comments received on the question of whether this CAA section 111 standard will undermine the application of the Tailoring Rule limitations. While most of the Tailoring Rule limitations are no longer needed to avoid triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit based on GHGs alone, the limitation in sections 51.166(b)(48)(iv) and 52.21(b)(49)(iv) will remain important to provide an interim applicability level for the GHG BACT requirement i n “anyway source” PSD permits. Thus, there continues to be a need to ensure that the regulation of GHGs under CAA section 111 does not make this BACT applicability level for anyway sources***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **597** of **684** effectively inoperable. The language the EPA proposed for sections 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 will continue to be effective at avoiding this result after the judicial actions described above and the adoption of this final rule. The provisions in part 60 reference sections 51.166(b)(48) and 52.21(b)(49) of the EPA’s regulations. However, the courts have now vacated sections 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v), and the EPA will take steps soon to eliminate these subparts from the C FR . As a result of these steps, the language in 60.46Da(j) , 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 will not incorporate the vacated parts of sections 51.166(b)(48) and 52.21(b)(49), but these provisions in part 60 will continue to apply to those subparts of the PSD rules that are needed on an interim basis to limit application of BACT to GHGs only when emitted by an anyway source in amounts of 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more. Thus, in this final rule, the EPA is adopting the proposed text of sections 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 without change. As to the concern expressed by some commenters that revisions to part 60 alone are not sufficient, the GHG SER rulemaking described above will include proposed revisions to the PSD regulations in part s 51 and 52 that should ultimately address this concern. The EPA acknowledges that the commenters concern will not be fully addressed for an interim period of time, but (for the reasons discuss ed above) the part 60***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **598** of **684** provisions adopted in this rule are sufficient to make explicit that the 75,000 tpy CO 2 e BACT applicab ility level for GHGs will apply to GHGs that are subject to regulation under the CAA section 111 standards adopted in this rule. Rather than adopting a temporary patch in its PSD regulations in this rule to address the implications for PSD of regulating GHGs under CAA section 111, the EPA believes it will be most efficient for the EPA and the states if the EPA completes a comprehensive PSD rule that will address all the implications of the Supreme Court decision. The revisions the EPA will consider based on the Supreme Court decision will inherently address the commenters concerns about the definition of the “subject to regulation” and the proposed part 60 provisions. To the extent this PSD rule is not complete before the EPA propo ses additional CAA section 111 standards for GHGs , the EPA will need to consider adding provisions like sections 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 to other subparts of part 60. As of this time, the EPA has not proposed GHG standards for other source cate gories under CAA section 111. To the extent needed, this approach of adding provisions to a few subparts in part 60 would be less burdensome to states and more efficient than revising section 51.166 at this time solely to address the implications of regulating GHGs under CAA section 111.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **599** of **684** The EPA understands that many commenters expressed concern that PSD SIPs would also have to be amended to address the implications of regulating GHGs under CAA section 111. However, the language in 60.46Da(j), 60.4315(b), and 60.5515 is designed to avoid the need for states to make revisions to the PSD regulations in their SIPs at this time. The EPA has previously observed that the form of each pollutant regulated under the PSD program is derived from the form of the pollutant described in regulations, such as an NSPS, that make the pollutant regulated under the CAA. 56 FR 24468, 24470 (May 30, 1991); 61 FR 9905, 9912
- 18 (Mar. 12, 1996); 75 FR at 31522 . Moreover, it is more likely that states would need to consider a SIP revision if the EPA were to revise section 51.166 in this rule. Revisions to 51.166 can trigger requirements for states to revise their PSD program provisions under section 51.166(a)(6). Given the process required in states to review their SIPs and submit them to the EPA for approval, it is most efficient for all concerned when the EPA is able to consolidate its revisions to section 51.166. The EPA , thus , believes it will be less work for states if we issue a comprehensive set of rules addressing regulation of GHGs under the PSD program after the Supreme Court decision.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **600** of **684** In comments on the proposed rules, states generally did not express concern that the p roposed revisions to part 60 were insufficient to avoid the need for SIP revisions. In our proposal, we addressed any state with an approved PSD SIP program that applies to GHGs which believed that this final rule would require the state to revise its SIP so that the Tailoring Rule thresholds continue to apply. First, the EPA encouraged any state that considered such revisions necessary to make them as soon as possible. Second, if the state could do so promptly, the EPA said it would assess whether to proce ed with a separate rulemaking action to narrow its approval of that state’s SIP so as to assure that, for federal purposes, the Tailoring Rule thresholds will continue to apply as of the effective date of the final NSPS rule. 79 FR 1487. The EPA did not re ceive any comments or other feedback from states requesting that the EPA narrow their program to ensure the Tailoring Rule thresholds continue to apply after promulgating this rule. We do not believe such action will be necessary in any state after the Sup reme Court decision and our action in this rule is to adopt the proposed part 60 provisions for purposes of ensuring the Step 1 BACT applicability level for GHGs continues to apply on an interim basis. C. Implications for BACT Determinations under PSD***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **601** of **684** New major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major stationary sources are required by the CAA to, among other things, obtain a permit under the PSD program before commencing construction. The emission thresholds that define PSD applicab ility can be found in 40 CFR 51 and 52 as discussed briefly in the preceding section. Sources that are subject to PSD must obtain a preconstruction permit that contains emission limitations based on application of BACT for each regulated NSR pollutant. The BACT requirement is set forth in section 165(a)(4) of the CAA, and in EPA regulations under 40 CFR parts 51 and 52. These provisions require that BACT determinations be made on a case
by- case basis. CAA section 169(3) defines BACT as: an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on the maximum degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act which would be emitted from any proposed major stationary source or major modification which the Administ rator, on a case -by- case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant.... Furthermore, this definition in the CAA specifies that “[i]n no event shall application of [BACT] result in emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act.”***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **602** of **684** This condition of CAA section 169(3) has historica lly been interpreted to mean that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard of performance under the NSPS. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, p. 20
- 21 (March 2011) (“GHG Permitting Guidance”). Thus, upon completion of an NSPS, the NSPS establishes a “BACT Floor” for PSD permits that are issued to affected facilities covered by the NSPS. BACT is a case
-by- case review that considers a number of factors. These factors include the availability, techni cal feasibility, control effectiveness, and the economic, environmental and energy impacts of the control option. See GHG Permitting Guidance at 17
- 46. The fact that a minimum control requirement is established by the EPA through an applicable NSPS (i.e. the BACT floor) does not bar a permitting agency from justifying a more stringent standard as BACT. In the proposed rule, the EPA discussed how this rule may relate to determination of BACT for new and existing EGUs that require PSD permits. Under this NSPS, an affected facility is a new EGU or a modified or reconstructed EGU. The new source NSPS requirements apply, in general, to any stationary source that adds a new EGU that is an affected facility under this NSPS. Th is could, for example, include both a new, greenfield EGU facility or an existing facility that wants to add a new EGU in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **603** of **684** order to add or replace capacity. While this latter scenario is considered a “new affected facility” under the NSPS, it may also be considered a “modification” of an existing stationary source under PSD. Thus, the new source NSPS requirements could apply to a modification, as that term is defined under PSD. In addition, this NSPS will apply to modified or reconstructed sources as those terms are defined under part 60. It is important to recognize that a physical change that triggers the NSPS modification or reconstruction requirements does not necessarily subject the source to PSD requirements, and vice versa. In general, in order to tri gger the NSPS modification or reconstruction requirements, a physical change must increase the maximum hourly emission rate of the pollutant (to be an NSPS modification) or the fixed capital cost of the change must exceed 50 percent of the fixed capital co st of a comparable entirely new facility (to be an NSPS reconstruction). See 40 CFR 60.2, 60.14, 60.15. Under the PSD program, however, a physical change (or change in the method of operation) must result in an increase in annual emissions of the pollutant by the specified emission threshold in order to be subject to PSD requirements. This emission calculation considers the unit’s past annual emission and its projected annual emissions. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(C). In addition, the PSD emissions te st for a modification allows the existing source to consider***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **604** of **6 84**  qualifying emission reductions and increases at the source within a contemporaneous period to “net out” of, or avoid, triggering PSD review. Thus, this NSPS could establish a BACT floor for sources that are modifying an existing EGU and their emissions make them subject to PSD. In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA discussed whether a standard of performance for the new source NSPS, specifically the BSER for solid fuel
- fired EGUs that is based on partial CCS, could become the BACT floor when permitting a modified or reconstructed EGU or non
- EGU source. As noted above, BACT is a case
- specific review by a permitting agency. In evaluating BACT, the permitting authority should consider all
ava ilable control technologies that have the potential for practical application to the facility or emission unit under evaluation. 497 This review must include any technologies that are part of an applicable NSPS for the specific type of source and would therefore establish the minimum level of stringency for the BACT. Some commenters expressed concern that, if the EPA finalizes a BSER for utility boilers and IGCC units that is based on partial CCS, it would establish a BACT Floor for new EGUs that would be inconsistent with prior BACT determinations

497 U.S. EPA, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, p. 2 4 (March 2011) .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **605** of **684** for EGUs in both permits issued by EPA Regions and permits issued by state agencies on which EPA has commented. Many of these comments were more directed at the development and deployment of CCS (i.e., the commenter did not believe CCS should be the basis for BSER) rather than examining whether an NSPS should establish the BACT floor for applicable sources, which is a natural consequence of setting an NSPS under the terms of the CAA. We respond to these comments in other sections of this preamble that support the selection of partial CCS as the basis for the BSER for fossil fuel - fired electric utility
s team generating units . With regard to the comment er s who stated that a BSER for EGUs that is based on partial CCS would be inconsistent with BACT determinations in previous GHG PSD permits, it is important to recognize that a BACT determination is a case
-by- case analysis and that technological capabilities and costs evolve over time. 498 In addition, t o date the EPA has not issued a PSD

498 In this regard, the 2011 GHG Permitting Guidance states that “although CCS is not in widespread use at this time, EPA generally considers CCS to be an ‘available’ add
- on pollution control technology for facilities emitting CO2 in large amounts and industrial facilities with high
-purity CO2 streams.” GHG Permitting Guidance at 35. The Gu idance goes on to note that CCS may not be available at modified sources, or in other specific circumstances. Id. at 36 (“While CCS is a promising technology, EPA does not believe***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **606** of **684** permit with GHG BACT for a source that would be an affected facility requiring partial CCS under this NSPS (i.e., a fossil
that at this time CCS will be a technically feasible BACT option in certain cases....EPA recognizes the significant logistical hurdles that the installation and operation of a CCS system presents and that sets it apart from other add
- on control that are typically used ... Logistical hurdles for CCS may include obtaining contracts for offsite land acquisition ..., the need for funding..., timing of available transportation infrastructure, and developing a site for secure long term storage. Not every source has the resources to overcome the offsite logistical barriers necessary to apply CCS technology to its operations, and smaller sources will likely be more constrained in this regard”); id. at 42
- 3 (noting that CCS may be expensive in individual instances and thus eliminated as a control option for that reason under step 4 of the BACT analysis, noting further that revenues from EOR may offset other costs). See also UARG v. EPA , 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2448 (2014) (noting that EPA’s GHG Permitting Guidance states that carbon capture is reasonably comparable to more traditional, end
- of - stack BACT technologies, and that petitioners do not dispute that) **.** As explained at section V.I.5 above **,** in determining that partial CCS is BSER for new fossil fuel steam electric plants **,** EPA has carefully considered the issue of logistics (including cost estimates for land acquisition, transportation, and sequestration) and costs generally. Nor would new plants face the same types of constraints as modified or reconstructed sources in a BACT determination, since a new source has more leeway in choosing where to site . See text at V.G.3. above. Moreover, the GHG Permitting Guidance considered BACT determinations for all types of sources, not just those for which EPA has determined in this rul e that partial CCS is the best system of emission reduction, and the concerns voiced in the Guidance thus must be considered in that broader context.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **607** of **684** fuel - fired steam generating unit ) , so one cannot determine whe ther the EPA
– as a PSD permitting authority

– has been either consistent or inconsistent with setting a BSER of partial CCS in this NSPS . Although some permitting authorities may have determined that CCS is not technologically feasible or economically achievable for a gas
- fired EGU, because of the
ca se -by- case nature of the analysis, it does not automatically follow that the same conclusion is appropriate for a solid fuel
fired EGU. Furthermore, PSD permitting requirements first applied to GHG s in January 2011 and more information about GHG control technology has been gained in this four
- and- a - half year period. Additionally, if a state was processing a permit application for a solid fuel
- fired EGU and CCS was not proposed as BACT (or not even considered as a possible control for BACT), the EPA is not necessarily required to comment negatively on the draft permit, or to otherwise request or require that the state agency amend the BACT to include CCS. For state agencies that have their own approved state implementation plan, the state has primacy over their permitting actions and discretion to interpret their approved rules and to apply the applicable federal and state regulatory requirements that are in place at the time for the facility in quest ion. The EPA’s role is to provide oversight to ensure that the state operates their PSD***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **608** of **684** program in accordance with the CAA and applicable rules. Furthermore , if the EPA does not adversely comment on a certain permit or BACT determination, it does not neces sarily imply EPA endorsement of the proposed permit or determination. Some commenters also felt that the determination of partial CCS as BSER is inconsistent with the agency’s position on CCS in the EPA’s GHG Permitting Guidance, which they say supports the notion that additional work is required before CCS can be integrated at full
- scale electric utility applications. It is important to recognize that the EPA’s permitting guidance is guidance
-- it does not contain any final determination of BACT for any source. Furthermore , we disagree with the commenters ’ characterization of the content of the GHG Permitting Guidance. The guidance specifically states “[f]or the purposes of a BACT analysis for GHGs, EPA classifies CCS as an add
- on pollution control technology that is “available” for facilities emitting CO 2 in large amounts, including fossil fuel
- fired power plants, and for industrial facilities with high
-purity CO 2 streams ( e.g ., hydrogen production, ammonia production, natural gas processing, ethanol production, ethylene oxide production, cement production, and iron and steel manufacturing). For these types of facilities, CCS should be listed in Step 1 of a top
down BACT analys is for GHGs.” GHG Permitting Guidance at 32. As***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **609** of **684** discussed elsewhere in the Guidance, technologies that should be listed in Step 1 are those that “have the potential for practical application to the emissions unit and regulated pollutant under evaluation.” GHG Permitting Guidance at 24. The EPA continues to stand by its position on the availability of CCS in this context, as expressed in the GHG Permitting Guidance. The Guidance continues on to discuss case
- specific factors and potential limitations with app lying CCS, and it acknowledges that CCS may not be ultimately selected as BACT in “certain cases” based on technology feasibility and cost. GHG Permitting Guidance at 36, 43. While acknowledging these challenges when it
was issued in March 2011, the Guidan ce clearly does not rule out the selection of CCS as BACT for any source category and it is forward looking. Nothing in the guidance is inconsistent with
agency’s present position that CCS is adequately demonstrated for the types of sources covered by this rule, as articulated elsewhere in this preamble. A commenter asserted that the GHG Permitting Guidance should be amended because it calls for consideration of CCS in BACT determinations even though the proposed NSPS identified "partial CCS" as BSER for new boiler and IGCC EGUs. The guidance explains that “the purpose of Step 1 of the process is to cast a wide net and identify all control options with potential***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **610** of **684** application to the emissions unit under review.” GHG Permitting Guidance at 26. The EPA agrees that the GHG Permitting Guidance only uses the term “CCS” and does not distinguish “partial CCS” from “full CCS.” But considering the purpose of Step 1 of the process, we believe that the term “CCS”, as it was used in the GHG Permitting Guidance, adequate ly describes the varying levels of CO 2 capture. A BACT review should analyze all available technologies in order to adequately support the BACT determination, and may require evaluation of partial CCS, full CCS, and/or no CO 2 capture. The specific facility type and CO 2 capture conditions will dictate the level(s) of CO 2 capture that are most appropriate to consider as “available” in a BACT review. D. Implications for Title V Program Under the title V program, certain stationary sources, including “major sources” are required to obtain an operating permit. This permit includes all of the CAA requirements applicable to the source, including adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to assure sources’ compliance. These permits are generall y issued through EPA
approved State title V programs. In the January 8, 2014 proposal, the EPA discussed whether this rulemaking would impact the applicability of title V***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **611** of **684** requirements to major sources of GHGs. 79 FR at 1489
- 90. The relevant issue for title V purposes was, in essence, whether promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs would undermine the Tailoring Rule, which, as explained above, phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions for stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. Based on the EPA’s understanding of the CAA at that time, the proposal discussed this issue in the context of the regulatory and statutory definitions of “major source , ” focusing on revisions that had been made in the Tailoring Rule to the definitions in the title V regulations of “major source” and “subject to regulation.” 79 FR at 1489
- 90 (quoting 75 FR 31,583). Under the title V regulations, as revised by the Tailoring Rule, “major source” is defined to include, in relevant part, “a major stationary source ... that directly emits , or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to regulation.” The proposal further explained that the GHG threshold that had been established in the Tailoring Rule had been inco rporated into the definition of “subject to regulation” under 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2, such that those definitions specif y

“ ‘that GHGs are not subject to regulation for purposes of defining a major source, unless as of July 1, 2011, the emissions of GHGs are from a source emitting or having the potential to emit 100,000 tpy of GHGs on a CO 2 e basis.’” Id .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **612** of **684** (quoting 75 FR 31 , 583). The proposal thus concluded that the title V definition of “major source , ” as revised by the Tailoring Rule, did not on its face dist inguish among types of regulatory triggers for title V. It further noted that the title V program had already been triggered for GHGs, and thus concluded that the promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements would not further impact title V applicability requirements for major sources of GHGs. 79 FR at 1489
- 90. As noted elsewhere in this section, after the proposal for this rulemaking was published, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in UARG v EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (June 23, 2014), and in acco rdance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit subsequently issued an amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 09
- 1322, 10
- 073, 10
- 1092 and 10
- 1167 (D.C. Cir., April 10, 2015). Those decisions support the same overall conclusion as the EPA discussed in the proposal, though for different reasons. With respect to title V, the Supreme Court said in UARG v EPA that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a title V operating permit. In accordance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, vacated the title V regulations under review in that case to the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **613** of **684** extent that they require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit also directed the EPA to con sider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if so, to undertake to make such revisions. These court decisions make clear that promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs will not result in EPA imposing a requirement that stationary sources obtain a title V permit solely because such source s emit or have the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds. 499 To be clear, however, unless exempted by the Administrator through regulation under CAA section 502(a), any source , including an area source (a “non
-major source”), subject to an NSPS is required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit that assures compliance with all applicable CAA requirements for the source, including any GHG
- related

499 As explained elsewhere in this notice, the EPA intends to conduct future rulemaking action to make the appropriate revisions to the operating permit rules to respond to the Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment. To the extent there are any issues related to the potential interaction between the promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs and title V applicability based on emissions above major source thresholds, the EPA expects there would be an opportunity to consider those during that rulemaking.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **614** of **684** applicable requirements. This aspect of the title V program is not affected by UARG v. EPA, as the EPA does not read that decision to affect either the grounds other than those described above on which a title V permit may be required or the applicable requirements that must be addressed in title V permits. 500 Consistent with the proposal, the EPA has concluded that this rule will not affect non
-major sources and there is no need to consider whether to exempt non
-major sources. Thus, sources that are subject to the CAA section 111 standards promulgated today are required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit that assures compliance with all appl icable CAA requirements, including any GHG
- related applicable requirements. E. Implications for Title V Fee Requirements for GHGs 1. Why is the EPA revising Title V fee rules as part of this action? The January 8, 2014 notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 1430)(the “EGU GHG NSPS proposal” or “NSPS proposal”) proposed the first section 111 standards to regulate GHGs at EGUs. That

500 See Memorandum from Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, and Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1
- 10, Next Steps and Prelimina ry Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Utility Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (July 24, 2014) at 5.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **615** of **684** notice also included proposed revisions to the fee requirements of the 40 CFR part 70 and part 71 operating permit rules under Title V of the CAA to avoid inadvertent consequences for fees that would be triggered by the promulgation of the first CAA section 111 standard to regulate GHGs. If we do not revise the fee rules by the time of the promulgation of the NSPS standards for GHGs, then approved part 70 programs implemented by state, local and tribal permitting authorities 501 that rely on the “presumptive minimum” approach and the part 71 program implemented by the EPA would be required to account for GHGs in emissions
-based fee calculations at the same dollar per ton ($/ton) rate as other air pollutants. The EPA believes this would result in the collection of fees in excess of what is required to cover the reasonable costs of an operating permit program. See NSPS proposal at 1490. In response to these concerns, the EPA proposed regulatory changes to limit the fees collected based on GHG emissions and proposed two fee adjustment options to increase the fee s collected based on the costs for permitting authorities to conduct certain review activities related to GHG emissions , while still providing sufficient funding for an operating permit

501 Hereafter, for the sake of simplicity, we wi ll general ly refer to part 70 permitting authorities as “state” permitting authorities and refer to part 70 programs as “state” programs.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **616** of **684** program . Also, we proposed an option that would have provided for no fee adjustments to recover the costs of conducting review activities related to GHG emissions . Id . at 1490. The EPA did not propose any action related to state and local permitting authorities that do not use the presumptive minimum approach. Most c ommenters on the proposal , including state and local permitting authorities, were supportive of exempting GHGs from the emissions
-based fee calculations of the permit rules , but support for the fee adjustment options was mixed, with state and local permitting authorities generally supporting either of the two fee adjustments , and other commenters generally supporting the option that provide s for no fee adjustment . 2. Background on the Fee Requirements of Title V In the NSPS proposal, the EPA explained the statutory and regul atory background related to the requirement that permitting authorities collect fees from the owner or operator of title V sources that are sufficient to cover the costs of the operating permit program. CAA section 502(b)(3)(A) requires an operating permit program to include a requirement that sources “pay an annual fee, or the equivalent over some other period, sufficient to cover all reasonable (direct and indirect) costs required to develop and administer the permit program.” See also 40 CFR 70.9(a). CAA section 502(b)(3)(B)(i) requires that, in order to have an approvable operating permit program, the permitting***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **617** of **684** authority must show “the program will result in the collection, in the aggregate, from all sources [required to get an operating permit] , of an amount not less than $25 per ton of each regulated pollutant [adjusted annually for changes in the consumer price index], or such other amount as the Administrator may determine adequately reflects the reasonable costs of the permit program.” See a lso 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2). This has been generally referred to as the “presumptive minimum” approach. If a permitting authority does not wish to use the presumptive minimum approach, it may demonstrate “that collecting an amount less than the [presumptive minimum amount] will” result in the collection of funds sufficient to cover the costs of the program. CAA section 503(b)(3)(B)(iv); see also 40 CFR 70.9(b)(5). This has been generally referred to as the “detailed accounting” approach . CAA s ection 502(b)(3)(B)(ii) sets forth a definition of “regulated pollutant” for purposes of calculating the presumptive minimum that includes each pollutant regulated under section 111 of the CAA . See also 40 CFR 70.2. 3. What fee rules did we propose to revise? In the NSPS proposal, to exempt GHGs from emissions
-based fee calculations, we proposed to exempt GHGs from the definition of “regulated pollutant” for purposes of operating permit fee calculations (“the GHG exemption”). The EPA then proposed two alternative ways to account for the costs of addressing GHGs in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **618** of **684** operating permits through a cost adjustment. First, we proposed a modest additional cost for each GHG
- related activity of certain types that a permitting authority would process (“the GHG adjustment option 1”). Alternatively, we proposed a modest additional increase in the per ton rate used in the presumptive minimum calculation for all non
- GHG fee pollutants (“the GHG adjustment option 2”). The EPA also solicited comment on an option that would provide no additional cost adjustment to account for GHGs (“the GHG adjustment option 3”). All of the GHG adjustment options are based on the assumption that the GHG exemption is finalized. See NSPS Proposal at 1493
- 1495. The EPA additionally proposed two clarificat ions. The first was regulatory text in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da, KKKK and TTTT, to clarify that GHGs, as opposed to CO 2 , is the regulated pollutant for fee purposes (“the fee pollutant clarification”). Id . at 1505, 1506 and 1511. The second was a propos al to move the existing definition of “Greenhouse gases (GHGs)” within 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 to promote clarity in the regulations (“the GHG clarification”). Id. at 1490, 1517, 1518. For background purposes, below is a brief summary of each of the proposal s.
a. The GHG exemption . To address the fee issues discussed in the NSPS proposal, the EPA proposed to exempt GHG emissions from the definition of “regulated pollutant (for presumptive fee***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **619** of **684** calculation)” in 40 CFR 70.2 and the definition of “regulated pollutant (for fee calculation)” in 40 CFR 71.2. 502 See NSPS preamble at 1493, 1495. b. The GHG adjustment option 1 . The first proposed “GHG adjustment” option (option 1) was to include an additional cost for each GHG- related activity of certain types that a permitting authority would process (an activity
-based adjustment). The three activities identified for this option were “GHG completeness determination (for initial permit or for updated application)” at 43 hours of burden, 503 “GHG evaluation for a modificat ion or related permit action” at 7 hours of burden, and “GHG evaluation at permit renewal” at 10 hours of burden. See also 79 FR 1494, fn. 280 (providing a description of each of these activities). For part 70, the burden hours per activity would be multiplied by the cost of staff time (in $/hour) specific to the state, including wages, benefits, and overhead, to determine the cost of each activity. All the activities for a given period

502 Hereafter we will refer to these definitions as the “fee pollutant” definitions. Also, note that both fee pollutant definitions cross
- reference the definitions of “regulated air pollutant” which includes air pollutants “subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act.” 503 Burden is the hours of staff time necessary to perform a task.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **620** of **684** would be totaled to determine the total GHG adjustment for the state. See 79 FR at 1494. For part 71, we proposed a labor rate assumption of $52 per hour in 2011 dollars. Using that labor rate, we proposed to determine the GHG fee adjustment for each GHG permitting program activity to be a specific dollar amount for each ac tivity (“set fees”) that the source would pay for each activity performed. See 79 FR at 1495. The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 71.9(c)(8) to implement this option.
c. The GHG adjustment option 2 . The second proposed GHG adjustment option (option 2) was to increase the dollar per ton ($/ton) rates used in the fee calculations for each non
- GHG fee pollutant. The revised $/ton rates would be multiplied by the total tons of non - GHG fee pollutants actually emitted by any source to determine the applicable total fees. The EPA proposed to increase the $/ton rates by 7 percent. 504 See NSPS proposal at 1494, 1495. d. The GHG adjustment option 3 . The EPA also solicited comment on not charging any fees related to GHGs (option 3). The basis for this proposed option was the observation that most sources

504 The EPA estimated that both options 1 and 2 would result in about a 7 percent increase in the fees collected by operating permit programs affected by the proposed rule . For example, the presumptive minimum fee rate in effect for September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015 is $48.27/ton . A 7 percent increase under option 2 would result in a revised fee of $51.65/ton.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **621** of **684** that need to address GHGs in a permit would also emit non
- GHG fee pollutants, and thus, the cost of permitting for any particular source may be accounted for adequately without charging any additional fees related to GHGs. Id. at 1494
- 1495.
e. The fee pollutant clarification . Another fee - related proposal was to add regu latory text to 40 CFR pa rt 60, s ubparts Da, KKKK and TTTT, to clarify that the fee pollutant for operating permit purposes would be considered to be “GHGs,” (as defined in 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2), 505 rather than solely CO 2 , which would be regulated under the section 111 standards and implemented through the EGU GHG NSPS. Id . at 1505, 1506, and 1511. f. The GHG clarification . The EPA proposed to move the existing definition of “Greenhouse gases (GHGs)” within the definition of “Subject to regulation” in 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 to a separate definition within those sections to promote clarity in the regulations. Id. at 1490, 1517, 1518. 4. What action is the EPA finalizing? In this action, the EPA is finalizing the following elements as proposed: (1) the GHG exemption, (2) the GHG adjustment option 1, and (3) the fee pollutant clarification. 505 Note that in 40 CFR §70.2 and §71.2, the term “ Greenhouse gases ( GHG s) ” is defined as the “aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **622** of **684** Public commenters on the proposal stated both support and opposition to using the NSPS rulemaking action to revise the title V fee rules. Two commenters state d that propos ing the title V fee revision s within the NSPS rulemaking would result in fewer commenters , particularly state and local permitting authorities, having knowledge of the changes to the fee rule s and sufficient opportunity to comment on the changes because the NSPS proposal is limited to a single source category, and one stated that a separate proposal for the fee rules would provide a sufficient opportunity for public comment . The EPA believes it is appropriate to move forward with final action amending the title V fee regulations as part of this NSPS. As we explained in the preamble for the proposal and elsewhere in this final rule, the fee rules and the section 111 st andards are interrelated because, if we do not revise the fee rules, promulgation of the final NSPS will trigger certain requirements related to title V fees for GHG emissions that the EPA believes will result in the collection of excessive fees in states that implement the presumptive minimum approach and in the part 71 program. Thus, it is important to finalize the revisions to the fee rules at the same time or prior to this NSPS, and it is within the EPA’s discretion to address the NSPS and the fee rules at the same time as part of the same rulemaking action. In response to the commenters who were concerned that including the fee rule***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **623** of **684** proposal as part of the NSPS proposal would result in the public not having sufficient public comment opportunities , the E PA believes sufficient public comment opportunit ies were provided on the fee rule changes because the proposal met all public participation requirements and we provided additional public outreach, including to state and local permitting authorities , which discussed the fee rule proposal . In addition to the publication of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, the EPA held numerous hearings, reached out to state partners and the public, and developed numerous fact sheets and other information to support public comment on this rule. The EPA has complied with the applicable public participation requirements and executive orders. The proposal met all the requirements for public notice

– it contained a clear and detailed explanation of how the part 70 and 71 rules would be affected by the promulgation of the CAA section 111 standard for EGUs and how the EPA proposed to revise the related regulatory provisions. We received many comments on the proposal to revise the fee rule for operating permits programs , and we are taking those comments into consideration in the finalization of the rulemaking action.
a. The GHG exemption . The EPA is taking final action to revise the definition of regulated pollutant (for presumptive fee calculation) in 40 CFR 70.2 and regulated pollutant (for fee calculation) in 40 CFR 71.2 to exempt GHG emissions. This***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **624** of **684** regulatory amendment will have the effect of excluding GHG emissions from being subject to the statutory ($/ton) fee rate set for the presumptive minimum calculation requirement of part 70 and the fee calculation requirements of part 71. We received supportive comments from the majority of public commenters, including state and local permitting authorities and others , on revising the operating permit rules to exempt GHGs from the emission
-based calculations that use the statutory fee rates. We are finalizing this portion of the proposal for the same reasons we explained in the proposal notice, including that leaving these regulations unchanged would have resulted in the collection of fee revenue far beyond the reasonable costs of an operating permit program. The EPA believes that these revisi ons (in conjunction with the GHG adjustment, see below) are consistent with the CAA requirements for fees pursuant to the authority of section 502(b)(3)(B)(i). Some members of the public opposed the proposed GHG exemption for reasons including that it may limit permitting authorities’ ability to charge sufficient fees to cover the cost of GHG permitting 506 if the state is barred from exceeding minimum requirements set by the EPA. Despite this adverse
506 We use the term “ GHG permitting ” in this section of the notice to refer to measures undertaken by permitting authorities to ensure that GHGs and any applicable requirements rela ted to GHGs are appropriately addressed in title V permitting.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **625** of **684** comment, the EPA believes it is appropriate to finalize the GHG exemption because we are not finalizing any requirements that would require states to charge any particular fees to any particular sources. The changes we are finalizing to part 70 concern the presumptive minimum approach, which sets a minimum fee ta rget for states that have decided to follow the presumptive minimum approach. Neither the statute nor the final rule require any state following the presumptive minimum approach (or any other approach) to charge fees to sources using any particular method. Thus, the GHG exemption will not limit states’ ability to structure their individual fee programs however they see fit in order to meet the requirement that they collect revenue sufficient to cover all reasonable costs of their permitting program. See CAA section 502(b)(3); 40 CFR 70.9(b)(3). b. The GHG adjustment option 1 . The EPA is finalizing GHG adjustment option 1 because we believe it will result in a system for the calculation of costs for part 70 and fees for part 71 that is most directly related to the costs of GHG permitting. The EPA has determined that some adjus tment to cost and fee accounting is important because the recent addition of GHG emissions to the operating permitting program does add new burdens for permitting authorities. Although GHG adjustment option 3 (no GHG permitting fee adjustments) was support ed by***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **626** of **684** many industrial commenters, the EPA rejected it because it is in tension with the statutory requirement that permitting authorities collect sufficient fees to cover all the reasonable costs of permitting. See CAA section 502(b)(3)(A). Some state and local permitting authorities provided comments supporting option 1, while other s support ed option 2, and some supported either option, stating no preference . Also, a few state and local permitting authorities supported finalizing no adjustment and a few others asked for flexibility to set fee adjustments not proposed by EPA, but that they believed would be appropriate for their program . The EPA is finalizing option 1 instead of option 2 because the option 1 adjustments are based on the actual costs for permitting authorities to process specific actions that require GHG reviews. The option 2 approach, which would have added a 7 percent surcharge to the $/ton rate used in the fee
- related calculations, may have been administratively easier to implement, but is tied to the emissions of non
- GHG air pollutants, which are not directly related to the costs of GHG permitting. Consistent with CAA section 502(b)(3)(B)(i), the Administrator has determined that the final rule’s approach of exempting GHG emissions from fee
- related calculations and accounting for the GHG permitting costs through option 1 will***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **627** of **684** result in fees that will cover the reasonable costs of the permitting programs. The EPA is revising the part 70 regulations through this final action, specifically 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2), to modify the presumptive minimum approach to add the activity
-based cost of GHG permitting activities, outlined in the revised 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(v), to the emissions
-based calculation of 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i), which is being revised to now exclude GHG emissions. To determine the activity
-based GHG adjustment under 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(v), the permitting authority will multiply the burden hours for each activity (set forth in the regulation) by the cost of staff time (in $ per hour), including wages, benefits, and overhead, as determined by the state, for the particular activities undertaken during the particular time period. States that implement the presumptive minimum approach will need to follow the final rule’s option 1 approach. 507 States that use the detailed accounting approach are not directly affected by this rulemaking, but they must ensure that their fee

507 A presumptive minimum state may require various changes to its approved operating permit program before it may begin to implement the option 1 approach. For example, its regulations, and/or program procedures and practices, may need to be revised, depending on the structure of the fee provisions in the state’s program; thus, the exact response necessary to address this final action may vary from state to state .***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **628** of **684** collection programs are sufficient to fully fund all reasonable costs of the operating permit program, including costs attributable to GHG
- related permitting. The EPA suggests states that use the detailed accounting approach consider the 7 percent assumption for the costs of GHG permitting in any such analysis, consistent with the EPA analysis of options 1 and 2 in the proposal. Consistent with 40 CFR 70.4(i), a state that wishes to change its operating permit program as a result of this final rule must apprise the EPA. The EPA will review the materials submitted concerning the change and decide if a formal program revision process is needed and will inform the state of next steps. The communication apprising the EPA of any such changes should include at least a narrative description of the change and any other information that will assist the EPA in its assessment of the significance of the changes. Certain changes, such as switching from the presumptive minimum method to a detailed accounting method, will be considered substantial program revisions and be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2). With respect to the part 71 program, in this final action the EPA is revising 40 CFR 71.9(c) to require each part 71 source to pay an annual fee which is the sum of the a ctivity
based fee of 40 CFR 71.9(c)(8) and the emissions
-based fee of 40***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **629** of **684** CFR 71.9(c)(1)
- (4) 508 , which excludes GHG emissions. To determine the activity
-based fee, the revised 40 CFR 71.9(c)(8) requires the source to pay a “set fee” for each listed activity that has been initiated since the fee was last paid. Under part 71, fees are typically paid at the time of initial application submittal, and thereafter, annually on the anniversary of the initial fee payment, or on any other dates that may be established i n the permit. These set fees would not change until such time as we may revise our part 71 rule to change the set fees. The final rule implements the option 1 approach by listing three activities performed by permitting authorities that involve GHG reviews. The following describes the activities as described in our proposal and certain clarifications we are making in the final rule to ensure consistent implementation. The EPA is finalizing that the first listed activity under option 1 is “GHG completenes s determination (for initial permit or updated application).” This activity must be counted for each new initial permit application, even for applications that do not include GHGs emissions or applicable requirements, since an important part of any complet eness determination will be to

508 Note that the emissions
-based fee calculation differs somewhat depending on whether the part 71 program is being implemented by the EPA [see 40 CFR §71.9(c)(1)] ; a state, local or tribal agency with delegated authority from the EPA [see §71.9(c)(2)] ; the EPA with contractor assistance [see §71.9(c)(3)] ; or an agency with partial delegat ion authority [ see § 71.9(c)(4 ) ].***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **630** of **684** determine that GHG emissions and applicable requirements have been properly addressed, as needed, in the application. The fee for this activity is a one
- time charge that covers the initial application and any supplements or updates. The EPA believes that a single charge for a GHG completeness determination will be adequate to cover the reasonable costs for a permitting authority to review an initial application and any subsequent application updates related to initial permit i ssuance; thus, any updates to an initial application are included in a single “GHG completeness determination,” rather than as a separate activity for which the source would be charged in addition to the completeness determination for the initial applicati on. This is an important distinction because many sources submit multiple permit application updates, either voluntarily or as required by the permitting authority, during application review, many of which do not require a separate or comprehensive complet eness determination. The EPA is finalizing regulatory text that would describe the second listed activity as “GHG evaluation for a permit modification or related permit action .” 509 The EPA had proposed

509 The EPA notes that the term “permit modification” in this context refers to all significant permit modifications and minor permit modifications under operating permit rules, but not to “administrative permit amendments,” as such amendments are not***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **631** of **684** that the second listed activity under option 1 would be “GHG evaluation for a modification or related permit action.” For the final rule, we are clarifying that we are adding a cost for a “permit modification” rather than for a “modification.” The term “mo dification” may be interpreted to refer to any change at a source, even a change that would not be required to be processed as a “permit modification,” while “permit modification” refers to any revision to an operating permit that cannot be processed
as an administrative permit amendment and thus requires a review by a permitting authority as either a significant or minor permit modification. The EPA is finalizing the third activity as “GHG evaluation at permit renewal.” This activity covers the processing of all permit renewal applications and will involve evaluations of whether any GHG applicable requirements are properly included. Some members of the public commented that finalizing a GHG adjustment would inappropriately increase sources’ financial burdens. The EPA has explained, both in the proposal notice and elsewhere in this preamble, the importance of the fee
- related revisions to account for the costs associated with GHG
- related permitting. The EPA believes that the revisions being finalized defined as “permit modifications” in the permit rules. See, e.g., 40 CFR §§70.7(d), (e), and (f).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **632** of **684** will re sult in modest and reasonable fee increases necessary to cover states' increased costs. 510 To the extent that commenters intended to argue that the adjustments we proposed would exceed the actual costs of GHG permitting, no commenters provided any information or analysis to support that position. Some commenters did state that the costs associa ted with GHG
- related permitting should be minimal because few applicable requirements will apply to GHGs. As stated earlier in this notice, EPA’s cost estimate for the proposal concerned the incremental costs of GHG permitting for any source, not just thos e that would have, at the time of the analysis, triggered the requirement to get a permit based on GHG emissions or applicable requirements. Despite some comments received to the contrary, the EPA does not believe it is appropriate to delay the finaliza tion of the GHG adjustment. The EPA does not believe such delays would be consistent with CAA section 502(b)(3)(A) because states have been incurring costs attributable to GHG permitting for several years now and increased fees must be collected to cover the increased costs. The regulatory changes being finalized in this action provide the states with optimal flexibility and sufficient funding to implement their GHG permitting programs.
510 The EPA estimated in the proposal that option 1 would result in about a 7 percent overall increase in the annual part 70 fees that are co llected by all permitting authorities nationally. See 79 FR at 1494.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **633** of **684** Some commenters had specifically stated that the EPA should delay final ization of this rule until the completion of the next ICR renewal process. While we do not believe delaying this rule is appropriate, as explained above, the EPA notes that we remain committed to collecting and analyzing additional data on costs attributab le to GHG permitting for operating permit programs. We may adjust the GHG cost adjustments in future rulemakings if necessary to comply with the requirements of the Act. As an alternative to the options proposed by the EPA, some commenters asserted that the EPA should make a GHG cost adjustment using a separate, but reduced fee rate ($/ton) for GHGs. We, however, believe that the option 1 approach of the final rule will be more equitable for sources and more representative of actual costs because option 1 considers the costs of the actual permitting activities performed by a particular permitting authority, while any emissions
-based approach would not be as directly related to actual costs incurred by permitting authorities. Some commenters alleged that EPA’s proposal on adjustments to the operating permit programs was vague. The EPA provided a thorough discussion of our rationale in the proposal, including the basis for the GHG adjustments, and we proposed regulatory text to implement our proposal. We expl ained in the proposal that support for the cost adjustment for GHGs under option 1 is***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **634** of **684** contained in several analyses performed by the EPA and approved by the OMB related to the effect of the addressing GHG requirements in operating permits. These analyses have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The analyses include: the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the Tailoring Rule (see Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, Final Report, May 2010); the part 70 ICR change request for the Tailoring Rule (which was based on the RIA for the Tailoring Rule); and the current ICR for part 70 (EPA ICR number 1587.12; OMB control number 2060

– 0243). Several commenters asked that we make changes to the option 1 approach that we proposed, such as adding new activities or decreasing the costs we assumed for the proposal. In response to these comments, we note that we received no quantitative data or other information from commenters that we believe demonstrates the need to revise the list of activities we incl uded under option 1 or the burden hour assumptions under option 1 for the activities. Note that to promote consistent implementation of the final option 1 approach, the preamble describes elsewhere a few clarifications concerning the activities under option 1 and one minor revision to the regulatory text of one of the activities.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **635** of **684** Since the EPA’s proposed rulemaking, the Supreme Court decided in UARG v. EPA that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a title V operating permit. 511 The EPA’s review of the effect of the Supreme Court decision on the burden hour assumptions for the GHG review activities under proposed option 1 is that the effects are not significant enough to warrant revision of the burden hour assumptions in the final rule . Proposed option 1 was based on the assumption that permitting authorities would need to evaluate all permit applications for initial permit issuance, significant and minor permit modifications , and permit renewals for GHG issues (even if there are no applicable GHG requirements) . Even after the UARG v. EPA decision, permitting authorities will continue to need to evaluate GHG issues for sources applying for a title V permit and for permit modifications and renewals for existing permits , and we do not anticipate that the decision will

511 The EPA does not, however, read the UARG decision to affect other grounds on which a title V permit may be required or the applicable requirements that must be addressed in title V permits. See Memorandum from Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, and Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1
- 10, Next Steps and Prel iminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Utility Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (July 24, 2014) at 5.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **636** of **684** significantly affect the total number of such evaluations that will occur in any given year compared to the assumptions in our analysis, which as explained above, were based on the incremental costs of GHG permitting for any source . Thus , we are finalizing the burden hour assumptions as they were proposed. See NSPS proposal at 1494 and the supporting statement for the 2012 part 70 ICR renewal . Also, as discussed previously, we remain committed to collecting and analyzing additional data on costs and we may adjust the burden hour assumptions or other aspects of option 1 in a future rulemaking, if needed.
c. The fee pollutant clarification . We are also finalizing the proposed addition of text within 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, to clarify that the fee pollutant for operating permit purposes is GHG (as defined in 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2). We are finalizing these provisions to add clarity to our regulations and to avoid the potential need for possible future rulemaking s to adjust the title V fee regulations if any constituent of GHG, other than CO 2 , becomes subject to regulation under section 111 for the first time. The proposal was to add this clarifying text to 40 CFR pa rt 60, s ubparts Da, KKKK and TTTT. The final rule adds the clarification text only to subpart TTTT because the EPA is codifying all of the requirements for the affected EGUs in a new subpart TTTT and including all CO 2 emission standards for the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **637** of **684** affected sources (electric utility steam generating units, as well as natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines) in that newly created subpart. See S ection III.B of this preamble for more on this subject. d. The GHG clarification . The EPA is taking no action at this time on the proposal to move the definitions of “Greenhouse gases (GHG)” within the definition of “Subject to regulation” in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. No public comment s were received on this proposed clarification; however, subsequent to the proposal, on June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court in UARG v . EPA decided that GHG emissions could not be used in making certain applicability determinations under the operating permit rules. More specifically with respect to title V, as described above, the Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a title V operating permit. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 09
- 1322, 10
- 073, 10
- 1092 and 10
- 1167 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015), which, among other things, vacated the title V regulations under review in that case to the exten t that they require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **638** of **684** the applicable major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit also directed the EPA to consider whether any further revisi ons to its regulations are appropriate in light of UARG v. EPA, and, if so, to undertake to make such revisions. In response to the Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment, the EPA intends to conduct future rulemaking action to make the appropriate revisions to the operating permit rules. As part of any such future rulemaking action, the EPA may consider finalizing the proposal to move the definitions of GHGs within the operating permit rules. F. Interactions with Other EPA Rules Fossil fuel
- fired EGUs are, or potentially will be, impacted by several other recently finalized or proposed EPA rules. 512 Many of the rules that impact fossil fuel
- fired EGUs apply to existing facilities as well as newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed facilities . In fact, the rules described below are more applicable to existing EGUs than to
newly constructed , modified, or reconstructed EGUs. Although those rules will affect EGUs as existing sources, because we expect that there will be few NSPS modifications or

512 We discuss other rulemakings solely for background purposes. The effort to coordinate rulemakings is not a defense to a violation of the CAA. Sources cannot defer compliance with existing requirements because of other upcoming regulations.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **639** of **684** reconstructions , we don’t anticipate those rules affect ing EGUs as modified or reconstructed sources . In constructing new EGUs, sources can take all applicable requirements of the various rules into consideration. 1. Mercury and Ai r Toxics Standards (MATS) On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the MATS rule (77 FR 9304) to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal
- and oil
- fired EGUs. The MATS rule will reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni); and acid gases, including hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrofluoric acid (HF). These toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known to cause, or suspected of causing, damage nervous system damage, cancer, and other serious health effects. The MATS rule will also reduce SO 2 and fine particle pollution, which will reduce particle concentrations in the air and prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases and asthma episodes. New or reconstructed EGUs (i.e., sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2011) subject to the MATS rule are required to comply by April 16, 2012 or upon startup, whichever is later. Existing sources subject to the MATS rule were required to begin meeting the rule’s requirements on April 16, 2015.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **640** of **684** Controls that will achieve the MATS performance standards are being installed on many units. Certain units, especially those that operate infrequently, may be considered not worth investing in given today’s electricity market, and are closing. The final MATS rule provided a foundation on which states and other permitting authorities could rely in granting an additional, fourth year for compliance provided for by the CAA. States report that these fourth year extensions are being granted. In addition, the EPA issued an enforcement policy that provides a clear pathway for reliability
- critical units to receive an administrative order that includes a compliance schedule of up to an additional year, if it is needed to ensure electricity reliability. 2. Cross - State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) The CSAPR requires states to take action to improve air quality by reducing SO 2 and nitrogen oxide (NOX ) emissions that cross state lines. These pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground
- level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The first phase of CSAPR became effective on January 1, 2015, for SO 2 and annual NOx , and May 1, 2015, for ozone season NOX . The second phase will become effective on January 1, 2017, for SO 2 and annual NOx , and May 1,***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **641** of **684** 2017, for ozone season NOx . Many of the power plants participating in CSAPR have taken actions to reduce hazardous air pollutants for MATS compliance that will also reduce SO 2 and/or NOx . In this way these two rules are complementary. Compliance with one helps facilities comply with the other. 3. Requirement s for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Power Plants (316(b) Rule) On May 19, 2014, the EPA issued a final rule under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code section 1326(b)) (referred to hereinafter as the 316(b) rule.) The rule was published on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48300; August 15, 2014), and became effective October 14, 2014. The 316(b) rule establishes new standards to reduce injury and death of fish and other aquatic life caused by cooling water intake structures at existing power plant s and manufacturing facilities. 513 The 316(b) rule subjects existing power plants and manufacturing facilities that withdraw in excess of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) of cooling water, and use at least 25 percent of that water for cooling purposes, to a national standard designed to reduce the number of fish destroyed through impingement and entrainment.

513 CWA section 3 16(b) provides that standards applicable to point sources under sections 301 and 306 of the Act must require that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing advers e environmental impacts.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **642** of **684** Existing sources subject to the 316(b) rule are required to comply with the impingement requirements as soon as practicable after the entrainment requirements are determined. They must comply with applicable site
- specific entrainment reduction controls based on the schedule of requirements established by the permitting authority. Additional information regarding the 316(b) rule for existing sources i s included in section IX.C of the preamble to the CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing EGUs that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule. Although the recently issued 316(b) rule discussed here applies to existing sources, there are also 316(b) technology-based standards for new sources with cooling water intake structures. 4. Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (CCR Rule) On December 19, 2014, the EPA issued the final rule for the disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. The rule provides a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal - fired power plants. The CCR rule establi shes technical requirements for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA ) , the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste. New CCR landfills and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **643** of **684** surface impoundments are required to meet the technical criteria before any CCR is placed into the unit. Existing CCR surface impoundments and landfills are subject to implementa tion timeframes established in the rule for the individual technical criteria. For additional information regarding the CCR rule, see section IX.C of the preamble to the CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing EGUs that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule . 5. Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards (SE ELG Rule) The EPA is reviewing public comments and working to finalize the proposed SE ELG rule which will impact fossil fuel
fired EGUs. In 2013, the EPA p roposed the SE ELG rule ( 78 FR 34432 ; June 7, 2013) to strengthen the controls on discharges from certain steam electric power plants by revising technology
based effluent limitations gui delines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category. The proposed regulation, which includes new requirements for both existing and new generating units, would reduce impacts to human health and the environment by reducing the amount of toxic metals and other pollutants currently discharged to surface waters from power plants. The EPA intends to take final action on the proposed rule by September 30, 2015. Section IX.C of the preamble to the CAA section 111(d) emission guidel ines for***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **644** of **684** existing EGUs that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule includes additional information regarding the SE ELG rule . The EPA recognizes the importance of assuring that each of the rules described above can achieve its intended environmental objectives in a commonsense, cost
- effective manner, consistent with underlying statutory requirements, and while assuring a reliable power system. Executive Order (EO) 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued on January 18, 2011 , states that “[i]n developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote... coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.” Within the EPA, we are paying careful attention to the interrelatedness and potential impacts on the industry, reliability and cost that these various rulemakings can have. As discussed in earlier sections of this preamble, the EPA has identified potential alternative compliance pathways for affected newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel - fired steam generating units. We are finalizing an emission standard for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units that can be met by capturing and storing approximately 16 to 23 percent of the CO 2 produced from the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **645** of **684** facility or by utilizing other technologies such as natural gas
co - firing . For a subcategory of steam generating units that conduct “large” modifications according to definitions in this final rule, we are finalizing an emission standard that is based
on a unit
- specific emission limitation consistent with each modified unit’s best one
- year historical performance and can be met through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades. For reconstructed steam generating units, the EPA is fina lizing standards of performance based on the performance of the most efficient generation technology available, which we concluded is the use of the best available subcritical steam conditions for small units and the use of supercritical steam conditions for large units. The standards can also be met through other technology options such as natural gas co - firing. In light of these potential alternative compliance pathways, we believe that sources will have ample opportunity to coordinate their response to this rule with any obligations that may be applicable to affected EGUs as a result of the MATS, CSAPR, 316(b), SE ELG and CCR rules, all of which are or soon will be final rules

— and to do so in a manner that will help reduce cost and ensure reliability, while also***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **646** of **684** ensuring that all applicable environmental requirements are met . 514 The EPA is also endeavoring to enable EGUs to comply with applicable obligations under other power sector rules as efficiently as possible (e.g., by facilitating their ability to
c oordinate planning and investment decisions with respect to those rules) and, where possible, implement integrated compliance strategies. Section IX.C of the preamble to the CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing EGUs that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with this rule describes such an example with respect to the SE ELG and CCR rules . In light of the compliance flexibilities we are offering in this action, we believe that sources will have ample opportunity to use cost - effective regulato ry strategies and build on their longstanding, successful records of complying with multiple CAA, CWA, and other environmental requirements, while assuring an adequate, affordable, and reliable supply of electricity. **XII I**  **. Impacts of this Action** As explained in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New,
514 It should be noted that regulatory obligations imposed upon states and sources operate independently under different statutes and sections of statutes; the EPA expects that states and sources will take advantage of available flex ibilities as appropriate, but will comply with all relevant legal requirements.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **647** of **684** Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA
- 452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015) (RIA), available data indicate that, even in the absence of the standards of performance for newly constructed EGUs, existing and anticipated economic conditions will lead electricity generators to choose new generation technologies that will meet the standards without installati on of additional controls. Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 4 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this final rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs on owners and operators of newly constructed EGUs by 2022. 515 This conclusion is based on the EPA’s own modeling as well as projections by EIA. While the primary conclusion of the analysis presented in the RIA is that the standards for newly constructed EGUs will result in negligible costs and benefit s, the EPA has also performed several illustrative analyses that show the potential impacts of the rule if certain key assumptions were to change. This includes an analysis of the impacts under a range of natural gas prices and the costs and benefits associated with building an illustrative coal
- fired EGU with CCS. These are presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA.

515 Conditions in the analysis year of 2022 are represented by a model year of 2020.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **648** of **684** As also explained in the RIA for this final rule, the EPA also expects that few sources will trigger either the NSPS modification or reconstructi on provisions that we are finalizing today. In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discuss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. A. What are the air impacts? As explained immediately above, the EPA does not anticipate that this final rule will result in notable CO 2 emission changes by 2022 as a result of the standards of performance for newly constructed EGUs. The owners of newly constructed EGUs will likely choose technologies, prima rily NGCC, which meet the standards even in the absence of this rule due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. As also explained immediately above, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provision s in the period of analysis. B. Endangered Species Act Consistent with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the EPA has also considered the effects of this rule and has reviewed applicable ESA regulations, case law, and guidance to determine what, if any, impact there may be to listed endangered or threatened species
or the designated critical habitat of such species and whether***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **649** of **684** consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) is required by the ESA . Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the Service(s), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species o r result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. 16 U.S.C. 1536 (a)(2). Under relevant implementing regulations, ESA section 7(a)(2) applies only to actions where there is discretionary federal involvement or control. 50 CFR 402.03 . Furthe r, under the regulations consultation is required only for actions that “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. 50 CFR 402.14. Consultation is not required where the action has no effect on such species or habitat. Under this standard, it is the federal agency taking the action that evaluates the action and determines whether consultation is required. See 51 FR 19926, 19949 (June 3, 1986). Effects of an action include both the direct and indirect effects that will be added to the environmental baseline. 50 CFR 402.02 . Direct effects are the direct or immediate effects of an action on a listed species or its habitat. 516 Indirect effects are those that are “ caused by

516 See Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, U.S. Fish &***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **650** of **684** the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur .” Id. To trigger the consultation requirement, there must thus be a causal connection between the federal action, the effect in question, and the listed species, and if the effect is indirect, it must be reasonably certain to
occur. The EPA notes that the p rojected environmental effects of this final action are positive: reductions in overall GHG emissions, and reductions in PM and ozone
-precursor emissions (SOX and NOX ). However, the EPA’s assessment that the rule will have an overall net positive environme ntal effect by virtue of reducing emissions of certain air pollutants does not address whether the rule may affect any listed species or designated critical habitat for ESA section 7(a)(2) purposes and does not constitute any finding of effects for that pu rpose. The fact that the rule will have overall positive effects on the national and global environment does not mean that the rule may affect any listed species in its habitat or the designated critical habitat of such species within the meaning of ESA se ction

Wildlife Service and National Mar ine Fisheries Service at 4
- 25 (March 1998) (providing examples of direct effects: e.g. , driving an off road vehicle through the nesting habitat of a listed species of bird and destroying a ground nest; building a housing unit and destroying the habitat of a listed species).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **651** of **684** 7(a)(2) or the implementing regulations or require ESA consultation. The EPA notes that the emission reductions achieved by the rule are projected to be minor. See section XII. F. and G. below, and RIA chapter 4. Although the final rule imposes sub stantial controls on CO 2 emissions, we project few if any new fossil fuel
- fired steam generating units to be built. Emissions reductions from turbines are likewise projected to be minimal. Moreover, we reasonably project that capacity additions during the analysis period out to 2022 would already be compliant with the rule’s requirements (e.g., natural gas combined cycle units, low capacity factor natural gas combustion turbines, and small amounts of coal
-fired units with CCS supported by Federal and State funding). See RIA chapter 4. With respect to the projected GHG emission reductions, the EPA does not believe that such minor reductions trigger ESA consultation requirements under section 7(a)(2). In reaching this conclusion, the EPA is mindful of sign ificant legal and technical analysis undertaken by FWS and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in the context of listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA. In that context, in 2008, FWS and DOI expressed the view that the best scie ntific data available were insufficient to draw a causal connection between***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **652** of **684** GHG emissions and effects on the species in its habitat. 517 The DOI Solicitor concluded that where the effect at issue is climate change, proposed actions involving GHG emissions cannot pass the “may affect” test of the section 7 regulations and thus are not subject to ESA consultation. The EPA has also previously considered issues relating to GHG emissions in connection with the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) and has supplemented DOI’s analysis with additional consideration of GHG modeling tools and data regarding listed species. The EPA evaluated this same issue in the context of the light duty vehicle GHG emission standards for model years 2012
- 2016 and 2017
- 2025. There the agency projected GHG emission reductions many orders of magnitude greater over the lifetimes of the model yea rs in question 518 and, based on air quality modeling of potential environmental effects, concluded that “EPA knows of no modeling tool which can link these small, time
attenuated changes in global metrics to particular effects on listed species in particular areas. Extrapolating from global

517 See, e.g., 73 FR 28212, 28300 (May 15, 2008); Memorandum from David Longly Bernhardt, Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior re: ‘‘Guidance on the Applicability of the Endangered Species Act’s Consultation Requirements to Proposed Actions Involving the Emission of Greenhouse Gases’’ (Oct. 3, 2008).

518 See 75 FR at 25438 Table I.C 2

– 4 (May 7, 2010); 77 FR at 62894 Table III

– 68 (Oct. 15, 2012).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **653** of **684** metric to local effect with such small numbers, and accounting for further links in a causative chain, remain beyond current modeling capabilities.” EPA, Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards and Corporate Average Fu el Economy Standards, Response to Comment Document for Joint Rulemaking at 4
- 102 (Docket EPA
OAR- HQ - 2009
- 4782). The EPA reached this conclusion after evaluating issues relating to potential improvements relevant to both temperature and oceanographic pH outputs. The EPA's ultimate finding was that “any potential for a specific impact on listed species in their habitats associated with these very small changes in average global temperature and ocean pH is too remote to trigger the threshold for ESA section 7 (a)(2).” Id. The EPA believes that the same conclusions apply to the present action, given that the projected CO 2 emission reductions are far less than those projected for either of the light duty vehicle rules. See, e.g., Ground Zero Center for Non - Violent Action v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 383 F. 3d 1082, 1091
- 92 (9th Cir. 2004) (where the likelihood of jeopardy to a species from a federal action is extremely remote, ESA does not require consultation). The EPA’s conclusion is entirely consistent with DOI’s anal ysis regarding ESA requirements in the context of federal actions involving GHG emissions. 519

519 The EPA has received correspondence from a U.S. Senator and a***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **654** of **684** The EPA received a comment on the proposal referencing a prior letter sent to EPA by three U.S. Senators, 520 which asserted that the rule will cause a shift to alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar and that such facilities may have impacts on listed species. The comment inquired regarding ESA consultation in connection with the rule. We reiterate that no consultation is required for a rule without potential for a specific impact on listed species in their habitats.

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives noting that the Services have identified several listed species affected by global climate change. See Letter from Rob Bishop, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated June 1 1 , 2015 ; Letter from Rob Bishop, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, and James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dat ed June 15, 2015. EPA’s assessment of ESA requirements in connection with the present rule does not address whether global climate change may, as a general matter, be a relevant consideration in the status of certain listed species. Rather, the requirement s of ESA section 7(a)(2) must be considered and applied to the specific action at issue. As explained above, EPA’s conclusion that ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation is not required here is premised on the specific facts and circumstances of the present rule and is fully consistent with prior relevant analyses conducted by DOI, FWS, and EPA. 520 See Letter from David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, and Mike Crapo, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 6, 2014.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **655** of **684**

C. What are the energy impacts? This final rule is not anticipated to have a notable effect on the supply, distribution, o r use of energy. As previously stated, the EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of this rule even in its absence, primarily NGCC units, because of existing and expected market conditions. As also previously stated, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis . D. What are the water and solid waste impacts? This final ru le is not anticipated to have notable impacts on water or solid waste. As we have noted , the EPA believes that utilities and project developers will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of this rule even in its absence , primarily through the construction of new NGCC units . As also previously stated, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **656** of **684** the period of analysis. Still there are expected to be a small number of coal plants with CCS and the use of CCS systems (espe cially post
- combustion system) will increase the amount of water used at the facility. If those plant utilize partial CCS to meet the final standard of performance (i.e., approximately 16 to 23 percent capture), the increased water use will not be signific ant. The EPA is unaware of any solid waste impact resulting from this rule. E. What are the compliance costs? The EPA believes the standards of performance for newly constructed EGUs will have no notable compliance costs, because electric power companies a re expected to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of this final rule even in the absence of the rule, primarily NGCC units, due to existing and expected market conditions . While the EPA’s analysis and projections from EIA continue to show that the rule is likely to result in negligible costs and benefits due to existing generation choices, the EPA recognizes that some companies may choose to construct coal or other fossil fuel fired units and has set standards for these units accordingly. For this reason, the RIA also analyzes project
- level costs of a unit with and without CCS, to quantify the potential cost for a fossil fuel
- fired unit with CCS.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **657** of **684** In addition, the EPA believes the standards of performance for modified and reconstructed EGUs will have minimal associated compliance costs, because, as previously stated, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisi ons in the period of analysis. F. What are the economic and employment impacts? The EPA does not anticipate that this final rule will result in notable CO 2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022 as a resu lt of the standards of performance for newly constructed EGUs. The owners of newly constructed EGUs will likely choose technologies that meet the standards even in the absence of this rule, due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. L ikewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy. See RIA chapter 4.6. As previously stated, the EPA anticipates few units will trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions. As with the new source standards, the EPA does not expect macroeconomic or employment impacts as a result of the standards. G. What are the benefits of the final standards ?***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **658** of **684** We are not projecting direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO 2 emission reductions associated with these standards of performance. This is because, as stated above, the EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regul atory requirements of this rule even in its absence, primarily NGCC units, because of existing and expected market conditions. See RIA chapter 4. Chapter 5 of the RIA contains analysis documenting that if new coal capacity is added, there are net quantif ied benefits, in the form of both CO2 reductions and reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants controlled incidentally by the standard. Moreover, a cost - reasonable standard is, in fact, what will drive new technology deployment and provide a path forward for new coal - fired capacity. . See section V.O.1.b above. As also previously stated, the EPA anticipates few units will trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions. In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discuss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. **XI V**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** Additional information about these Statutory and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws
regulations/laws - and- executive
- orders. A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **659** of **684** Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This final action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. It is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495 ( Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utili ty Generating Units) and Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0603 ( Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units) . The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is contained in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA
- 452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015), is available in both dockets. The EPA does not anticipate that this final action will result in any notable compliance costs. Specifically, we believe that the standards for newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (electric utilit y steam generating units and natural gas
- fired***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **660** of **684** stationary combustion turbines) will have negligible costs associated with it over a range of likely sensitivity conditions because electric power companies will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of this action even in the absence of the action, because of existing and expected market conditions. (See the RIA for further discussion of sensitivities). The EPA does not project any new coal
- fired steam generating units without CCS to be built in the absence of this action. However, because some companies may choose to construct coal or other fossil fuel
- fired EGUs, the RIA also analyzes project
- level costs of a unit with and without CCS, to quantify the potential cost for a fossi l fuel - fired EGU with CCS. The EPA also believes that the standards for modified and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs will result in minimal compliance costs, because, as previously stated, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis (through 2022). In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discuss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this final action have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **661** of **684** Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2465.03 . Separate ICR documents were prepared and submitted to OMB for the proposed standards for newly constructed EGUs (EPA ICR number 2465.02) and the proposed standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs (EPA ICR number 2506.0 1 ). Because the CO 2 standards for newly constru cted, modified, and reconstructed EGUs will be included in the same new subpart (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT) and are being finalized in the same action, the ICR document for this action includes estimates of the information collection burden
on owners and operators of newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs. Estimated cost burden is based on 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor cost data. Thus, all burden estimates are in 2013 dollars. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). You can find a copy of the ICR in the dockets for this action (Docket ID Numbers EPA
- HQ - OAR- 2013
- 0495 and EPA
- HQ OAR- 2013
- 0603), and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final action are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **662** of **684** confidentiality is made is sa feguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number f or the approved information collection activities contained in this final action. 1. Newly C onstructed EGUs This final action will impose minimal new information collection burden on owners and operators of affected newly constructed fossil fuel
- fired EGUs (steam generating units and natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines) beyond what those sources would already be subject to under the authorities of CAA parts 75 and 98. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing part 75 and 98 regulations (40 CFR part 75 and 40 CFR part 98) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060
- 0626 and 2060
- 0629, respectively. Apart from certain reporting costs based on requirements in the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **663** of **684** part 60, subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners/operators subject to CAA section 111 national emission standards, there are no new information collection costs, as the informat ion required by the standards for newly constructed EGUs is already collected and reported by other regulatory programs. The EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new EGUs that comply with the regulatory requirements of the rule because of existing and expected market conditions. The EPA does not project any newly constructed coal
- fired steam generating units that commenced construction after proposal (January 8, 2014) to commence operation over the 3
- year period covered by this ICR. We estimate that 17 affected newly constructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines will commence operation during that time period. As a result of this final action, owners or operators of those newly constructed units will be required to prepare a summary report, which includes reporting of emissions and downtime, every 3 months. 2. Modified and Reconstructe d EGUs This final action is not expected to impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA on owners and operators of affected modified and reconstructed fossil fuel
fired EGUs (steam generating units and natural gas
- fired stationa ry combustion turbines) . As previously stated, the EPA***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **664** of **684** expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. Specifically, the EPA believes it unlikely that fossil fuel
fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
fired stationary combustion turbines will take actions that would constitute modifications or reconstructions as defined under the EPA’s NSPS regulations. Accordingly, the standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs are not anti cipated to impose any information collection burden over the 3
- year period covered by this ICR. We have estimated, however, the information collection burden that would be imposed on an affected EGU if it was modified or reconstructed. Although not anticipated, if an EGU were to modify or reconstruct , this final action would impose minimal information collection burden on those affected sources beyond what they would already be subject to under the authorities of CAA 40 CFR parts 75 and 98. As described above, the OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing part 75 and 98 regulations. Apart from certain reporting costs, which are mandatory for all owners/operators subject to CAA section 111 national emission standards, there would be no new information collection costs, as the information required by the final rule is already collected and reported by other regulatory programs.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **665** of **684** As stated above, although the EPA expects few sources will trigger either the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions, if an EGU were to modify or reconstruct during the 3
- year period covered by this ICR , the owner or operator of the EGU will be required to prepare a summary report, which includes reporting of emissions and downtime, every 3 months . The annual reporting burden for such a unit is estimated to be $ 2,665 and 32 labor hours. There are no annualized capital costs or O&M costs associated with burden for modified or reconstructed EGUs. 3. Information Collection Burden The annual information collection burden for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs consists only of reporting burden as explained above. The annual reporting burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $ 32,886 and 395 labor hours. There are no annualized capital costs or O&M costs associated with burden for newly constructed EGUs. Average burden hours per response are estimated to be 8 hours. The total number of respondents over the 3
- year ICR period is estimated to be 37 . C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **666** of **684** of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. 1. Newly C onstructed EGUs The EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines that comply with the regulatory requirements of the final rule because of existing and expected market conditions. The EPA does not project any new coal
- fired steam generating unit s without CCS to be built. We expect that any newly constructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines will meet the standards. We do not include an analysis of the illustrative impacts on small entities that may result from implementation of the final rule because we anticipate negligible compliance costs over a range of likely sensitivity conditions as a result of the standards for newly constructed EGUs. Thus the cost - to - sales ratios for any affected small entity would be zero costs as compared to annual sales revenue for the entity. Accordingly, there are no anticipated economic impacts as a result of the standards for newly constructed EGUs. (See the “Regulatory***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **667** of **684** Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA
- 452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015) for further discussion of sensitivities.) We have therefore concluded that this final action will have no net regulatory burden for all di rectly regulated small entities. 2. Modified and Reconstructed EGUs The EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification provisions in the period of analysis. An NSPS modification is defined as a physical or operational change that increases the source’s maximum achievable hourly rate of emissions. The EPA does not believe that there are likely to be EGUs that will take actions that would constitute modifications as defined under the EPA’s NSPS regulations. In addition, the EPA expects few reconstructed fossil fuel
fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
fired stationary combustion turbines in the period of analysis. Reconstruction occurs when a single project replaces components or equipment in an existing facility and exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **668** of **6 84**  In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discu ss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. However, we do not anticipate that the rule would impose significant costs on those sources, including any that are owned by small entities. (See the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (EPA
- 452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015) . D. Unfunded Mandates Re form Act (UMRA) This final action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531

– 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA believes the final rule will have negligible
c ompliance costs on owners and operators of newly constructed EGUs over a range of likely sensitivity conditions because electric power companies will choose to build new fossil fuel
fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
fired stationary combustion turbines that comply with the regulatory requirements of the rule because of existing and expected market conditions. The EPA does not project any new coal - fired steam generating units without CCS to be built and expects that any newly const ructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines will meet the standards. (See the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **669** of **684** “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Ge nerating Units” (EPA
452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015) for further discussion of sensitivities.) As previously stated, the EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. In Chapter 6 of the RIA, we discuss factors that limit our ability to quantify the costs and benefits of the standards for modified and reconstructed sources. However, we do not anti cipate that the rule would impose significant costs on those sources. (See the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Un its” (EPA
- 452/R
-XX- YYY, June 2015).) We have therefore concluded that the standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs do not impose enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector, that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. We have also concluded that this action does not have regulatory***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **670** of **684** requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The threshold amount established for determining whether regulatory requirements could significantly affect small governments is $100 million annually and, as stated above, we have concluded that the final action will not result i n expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. Specifically, the EPA does not project any new coal
- fired steam generating units without CCS to be built and expects that any newly constructed natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines will me et the standards. Further, the EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. E. Executi ve Order 13132, Federalism This final action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsib ilities among the various levels of government. The EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines that comply with the regul atory requirements of the final rule because of existing and expected***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **671** of **684** market conditions. In addition, as previously stated, the EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. We, therefore, anticipate that the final rule will impose minimal compliance costs. F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Government s This final action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 . The final rule will impose requirements on owners and operators of newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs. The EPA is aware of three facilities with c oal - fired steam generating units, as well as one facility with natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines, located in Indian Country, but is not aware of any EGUs owned or operated by tribal entities. We note that because the rule addresses CO 2 emissions from newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs, it will affect existing EGUs such as those located at the four facilities in Indian Country only if those EGUs were to take actions constituting modifications or reconstructions as define d under the EPA’s NSPS regulations . As previously stated, the EPA expects few EGUs to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. Thus, the rule will neither impose***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **672** of **684** substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor preempt Tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nevertheless, because the EPA is aware of Tribal interest in carbon pollution standards for the power sector and, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation with tribal officials during development of this rule. Prior to the April 13, 2012 proposal (77 FR 22392), the EPA sent consultation letters to the leaders of all federally reco gnized tribes. Although only newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs will be affected by this action, the EPA’s consultation regarded planned actions for new and existing sources. The letters provided information regarding the EPA’s development of NSPS and emission guidelines for EGUs and offered consultation. A consultation/outreach meeting was held on May 23, 2011, with the Forest County Potawatomi Community, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation, and the Leech Lake Band o f Ojibwe. A description of that consultation is included in the preamble to the proposed standards for new EGUs (79 FR 1501, January 8, 2014). The EPA also offered consultation to the leaders of all federally recognized tribes after the proposed action for newly constructed EGUs was signed on September, 20, 2013. On November***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **673** of **684** 1, 2013, the EPA sent letters to tribal leaders that provided information regarding the EPA’s development of carbon pollution standards for new, modified, reconstructed and existing EGU s and offered consultation. No tribes requested consultation regarding the standards for newly constructed EGUs. In addition to offering consultation, the EPA also conducted outreach to tribes during development of this rule. The EPA held a series of liste ning sessions prior to proposal of GHG standards for newly constructed EGUs. Tribes participated in a session on February 17, 2011, with the state agencies, as well as in a separate session with tribes on April 20, 2011. The EPA also held a series of liste ning sessions prior to proposal of GHG standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs and GHG emission guidelines for existing EGUs. Tribes participated in a session on September 9, 2013, together with the state agencies, as well as in a separate tribe
- only session on September 26, 2013. In addition, an outreach meeting was held on September 9, 2013, with tribal representatives from some of the federally recognized tribes. The EPA also met with tribal environmental staff with the National Tribal Air Associat ion, by teleconference, on July 25, 2013, and December 19, 2013. Additional detail regarding this stakeholder outreach is included in the preamble to the proposed emission guidelines for existing EGUs (79 FR 34830, June 18, 2014).***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **674** of **684** G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. While the action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, the agency has evaluated the environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on children. CO 2 is a potent GHG that contributes to climate change and is emitted in significant quantities by fossil fuel
- fired power plants. The EPA believes that the CO 2 emission reductions resulting from implementation of these final standards , as well as substantial ozone and PM2.5 emission reductions as a co
benefit, will further improve children’s health. The assessment literature cited in the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that certain populations and lifestages, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate
- related health effects. The assessment literature since 2009 strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed findings regarding these groups’ vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **675** of **684** Thes e assessments describe how children’s unique physiological and developmental factors contribute to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. Additional health concerns ma y arise in low income households, especially those with children, if climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within households. More detailed information on the impacts of climate change to human health and welfare is provided in Section II.A of this preamble. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This final action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely t o have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new fossil fuel - fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines that comply with the regulatory requirements of the final rule because of existing***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **676** of **684** and expected market conditions. In addition, as previously stated, the EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or natural gas
- fire d stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. Thus, this action is not anticipated to have notable impacts on emissions, costs or energy supply decisions for the affected electric utility industry. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This final action involves technical standards. The following voluntary consensus standards are used in the final rule: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods D388
- 12 (Standard Classification of Coals by Rank), D396
- 13c (Standard Specification for Fuel Oils), D975
- 14 (Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils), D3699
- 13b (Standard Specification for Kerosene), D6751
- 12 (Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels), D7467
- 13 (Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil, Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20)), and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard C12.20 (American National Standard for Electricity Meters
- 0.2 and 0.5 Accuracy Classes). The rule also requires use of Appendices A, B, D, F and G to 40 CFR part 75; these Appendices contain standards that have already been reviewed under the NTTAA.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **677** of **684** J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
- Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low
- income populations in the U.S. The EPA define s environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision
-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Leading up to this rulemaking the EPA summarized the public health and welfare effects of GHG emissions in its 2009 Endangerment Finding. As part of the Endangerment Finding, the***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **678** of **684** Administrator considered climate change risks to minority or low- income populations, finding that certain parts of the population may be especially vulnerable based on their circumstances. These include the poor, the elderly, the very young, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources. See Sections F and G, above, where EPA discusses Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments and Protection of Children. The Administrator placed weight on the fact that certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate
- related health effects. Strong scientific evidence that the potential impacts of climate change raise environmental justice issues is found in the majo r assessment reports by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, summarized in the record for the Endangerment Finding. Their conclusions include that poor communities can be especially vulnerable to climate change impacts because they tend to have more limited adaptive capacities and are more dependent on climate
- sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies. In addi tion, Native American tribal communities possess unique vulnerabilities to climate change, particularly those on established reservations that are restricted to***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **679** of **684** reservation boundaries and therefore have limited relocation options. Tribal communities whose health, economic well
-being, and cultural traditions depend upon the natural environment will likely be affected by the degradation of ecosystem goods and services associated with climate change. Southwest native cultures are especially vulnerable to
water quality and availability impacts. Native Alaskan communities are likely to experience disruptive impacts, including coastal erosion and shifts in the range or abundance of wild species crucial to their livelihoods and well
-being. The most recent assessments continue to strengthen scientific understanding of climate change risks to minority and low
- income populations in the United States. 521 The new assessment

521 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1132 pp. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **680** of **684** literature provides more detailed findings regarding these populations’ vulnerabilities and proje cted impacts they may experience. In addition, the most recent assessment literature provides new information on how some communities of color may be uniquely vulnerable to climate change health impacts in the United States. These studies find that certain climate change related impacts

—including heat waves, degraded air quality, and extreme weather events

—have disproportionate effects on low
income and some communities of color, raising environmental justice concerns. Existing health disparities and other inequities in these communities increase their vulnerability to the health effects of climate change. In addition, the studies also find that climate change poses particular threats to health, wellbeing, and ways of life of indigenous peoples in the United States. As the scientific literature presented above and in the Endangerment Finding illustrates, low income communities and communities of color are especially vulnerable to the health and other adverse impacts of climate change.

Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken , P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 688 pp.***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **681** of **684** The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this final action will **not** have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low
- income or indigenous populations. The final rule limits GHG emissions from newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines by establishing national emission standards for CO 2 . The EPA has determined that the final rule wi ll not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low
- income or indigenous populations because the rule is not anticipated to notably affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA believes that electric power companies will choose to build new fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units and natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines that comply with the regulatory requirements of the final rule be cause of existing and expected market conditions. The EPA does not project any new coal
- fired steam generating units without CCS to be built and expects that any newly built natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines will meet the standards. In addit ion, as previously stated, the EPA expects few fossil fuel
- fired electric utility steam generating units or***EO 12866_Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **682** of **684** natural gas - fired stationary combustion turbines to trigger the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions in the period of analysis. This final rule will ensure that, to whatever extent there are newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs, they will use the best performing technologies to limit emissions of CO 2 . K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This final action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). **X V**  **. Statutory Authority** The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d)(1)(C) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d)(1)(C)). This action is also subject to section 307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)).*** E.O. 12866 Review
– Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

**Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility**  **Generating Units** Page **683** of **684 List of Subjects**  40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 70 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 71 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 98 Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases and monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: __________________.

________________________ Gina McCarthy, Administrator*** EO 12866 Review
- Draft
– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** Page **684** of **684**