From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:03 AM 

To: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; Vasu, Amy; Owens, Nicole 

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea 

Subject: Summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Carbon Pollution 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 on EPA’s 

Response to Summary of Interagency Working Comments and Revised Preamble for the EPA 

draft final rule Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units. 

 

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 

<< SummaryofinteragencycommentsunderEO12866_13563_EO 12866_CPP 2060 AR33 

Final_2015_7_10.docx >> 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Final Rule 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

RIN 2060-AR33 

Comments on EPA’s Response to Summary of Interagency Working Comments and 

Revised Preamble 

General Comments 

Trading 

1) Reviewer recommends that the response to interagency comment number #17 (trading) 

include new and incremental nuclear generation in a mass-based state as a measure 

eligible for ERC issuance in a rate-based state so long as this generation meets the criteria 

set out in EPA response #17. 

a. Reviewer recommends removing the limitation that only RE measures could be 

eligible. Reviewer recommends that any zero emissions generation or efficiency 

provider could meet the same requirement. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying EPA’s approach in trading comment number #25 of 

restricting rate-based states from issuing ERCs for savings from EE programs 

implemented in a mass-based state. Reviewer suggests that this could take away an 

important compliance option and that it should be allowed as long as states can 

demonstrate that leakage has been addressed. 

3) Reviewer recommends that states choosing to apply the two subcategory rates to EGUs 

also be required to include a demonstration indicating that this will result in emissions 

reductions equivalent to either that statewide rate-based goal or a statewide mass-based 

goal. Pages 882 and 976 currently state that a state plan establishing emissions standards 

at or below the performance rates in the emissions guidelines does not have to submit any 

projection of CO2 emissions performance. 

4) Reviewer recommends striking the following language from page 1229: “Under this 

adjustment, such allowances must be issued by a state with an emission budget trading 

program that only applies to affected EGUs”. This deletion would allow mass based 

states to count as net imports any allowances from states that have mass-based policies 

covering unaffected EGUs. 

a. Reviewer notes that states that submit plans that include a mass-based policy to 

cover affected and unaffected sources must demonstrate that their plan will result 

in compliance with the mass goals for affected sources, and after this 

demonstration is approved, allowances from such a program should be allowed to 

be traded and counted toward compliance in any mass based state that uses 

approved allowance tracking systems. 

5) Reviewer recommends additional clarification on pages 1375-79 about “equivalency with 

a rate-based approach” in the discussion on leakage. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2 

a. Reviewer suggests that this could mean the modelled emissions outcome from all 

sources if a statewide emissions rate target was applied, or alternatively, if a mass 

target for all sources was applied. 

6) Reviewer notes that the draft rule would allow ERCs to be awarded for any RE, EE, or 

incremental NGCC under the assumption that fossil steam will be displaced somewhere. 

This assumption may not hold where large nuclear units require. 

a. Reviewer recommends requiring states in a trading arrangement to adjust the ERC 

supple in the event of a nuclear retirement and giving states the flexibility to 

design this adjustment process. Comment count be taken on these approaches in 

the FIP. 

7) Reviewer recommends removing the .09 value from the rule with relation to NGCC 

ERCs. Reviewer recommends instead referring generically to a discounted value that 

would reflect BSER at the actual or expected redispatch rate and refer the reader to the 

FIP where EPA can take comment on this issue. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 899 that when calculating allowances earned 

by entities that implement early action, the formula be changed to eliminate any siting 

distortions associated with differential state rate goals. 

a. Reviewer recommends, consistent with BSER and the interconnected nature of 

the electricity grid, that issued early action allowances are equal to “a number of 

allowances equivalent to the quantified and verified MWhs realized during the 

period... divided by two and multiplied by the average rate of the interconnect”. 

9) Reviewer recommends clarifying on pages 906-910 which of these flexibilities preclude 

the state from trading with other rate-based states (in line with the new language on pages 

1361-62). 

10) Reviewer recommends allowing NGCC ERCs to be used to satisfy NGCC compliance 

and steam compliance instead of just steam. Reviewer notes that having two types of 

ERCs makes the program more complicated with limited potential benefits, because BB2 

ERCs are fungible with general ERCs for steam compliance. 

11) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 1310 that there is no borrowing in the program 

from future compliance periods. Reviewer recognizes that averaging within a compliance 

period implicitly allows for borrowing within that period, but encourages EPA to prohibit 

borrowing outside the compliance period due to potential reduction in benefits. 

12) Reviewer recommends allowing performance upgrades at existing renewable energy 

facilities to qualify for ERC generation if the performance upgrades can be tied to a 

specific technology improvement and can be verified by proper EM&V methods. 

13) Reviewer recommends that the text on page 1255 be edited to read as follows “For RE or 

NGCC measures to have some or all of its generation counted under a rate-based plan, it 

must be demonstrated that the generation was delivered to the grid to meet electricity 

load in the same state or in another state with the same rate(s). 

a. Emissions do not depend on the location of the measure but on the location of the 

EGU that decreases the emissions. If a measure in a blended rate state substitutes 

solely for generation in a uniform rate state, the generator should not be awarded 

ERCs (at least not at the same ratio) since the incremental CO2 emission 

reductions would be less than credited. EPA acknowledged this issue when it 

prohibited ERC trading between states with different rates. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying how access to sufficient credits will be assured for 

states choosing a 2 rate approach. 

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying how investments in natural gas or renewable generation 

would facilitate compliance for those sources in implementation outside of a credit 

trading context (pages 361, 639-646, 782) 

16) Reviewer recommend adjusting the formula for BB2 ERC generation to reflect actual 

NGCC capacity factor after BSER building blocks application (lower than 75% net 

summer due to NGCC displacement by RE) 

Start Date/ Early Action/ Compliance Path/ Interim Goals 

1) Reviewer recommends that in order to increase emissions reductions in 2020 and jump 

start efforts in incentivizing technology, the final rule should include a structured early 

crediting program. Reviewer also recommends that this be addressed in the final rule 

rather than subsequent rule makings. 

a. Reviewer recommends that projects starting in 2015-2020 can generate credits in 

2020 and 2021 and that this should be inclusive of all zero and low emissions 

technologies. 

b. Reviewer only recommends early action if additional BSER stringency options 

are incorporated. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether time extensions are available to all states and 

whether they are conditional. 

3) Reviewer recommends providing an initial extension of 12 months at which time states 

must fulfill the same requirements as at the 13 month initial plan to receive an additional 

extension. 

BSER 

1) Reviewer recommends incorporating an interim review and update of what constitutes 

BSER in 2023. Reviewer recommends that, akin to GHG standards for light duty 

vehicles, EPA commit to performing an interim review to enable strengthening the 

targets based on new information on power markets, technologies, energy policies and 

climate damages. 

Treatment of new NGCC 

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA is prohibiting certain non-BSER options from 

being made available for compliance based solely on the presumption of leakage (see 

NGCC EPA response #3). Reviewer recommends that a state should be allowed to rebut 

a presumption or leakage or demonstrate that it has been addressed. If this rebuttal or 

showing is made, reviewer recommends including the use of new NGCC for generating 

ERCs. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying the treatment of natural gas in BSER in pages 350 to 

354 of the preamble. Reviewer suggests that cost numbers for CO2 emission reductions 

from new NGCC are comparable with those from the other building blocks and notes that 

new NGCC has been shown to be a cost-effective CO2 abatement opportunity. New 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

4 

NGCC is widely available across all major regions and inclusion of new NGCC in BSER 

and compliance would improve economic efficiency an decrease complexity while 

lowing emission leakage. 

3) Reviewer recommends EPA clarify the statement indicating that natural gas prices would 

increase if new NGCC were included in the program. Reviewer suggests that any price 

increases would not be significant and would be the same whether an increase in demand 

was met by new plants of increased utilization of existing plants. Reviewer recommends 

striking the language on page 352 on this topic. 

4) Reviewer recommends removing the assertion that construction of new NGCC units is 

“inconsistent with the long-term need to continue reducing CO2 emissions”. Reviewer 

notes that burning natural gas is about half as carbon intensive as coal and that the 

Climate Action Plan describes natural gas as a critical bridge fuel. 

5) Reviewer recommends removing the statement that there are “long term policy concerns 

about construction of additional CO2 emitting generating capacity”. Reviewer notes that 

future regulations are unlikely to strand new NGCC because they are less capitalintensive than other EGUs and CCS can be added to a new NGCC unit in the future if 

necessary. 

6) Reviewer recommends removing the statement that “including new NGCC capacity in 

BSER would distort market incentives to build new NGCC units”. Reviewer notes that 

the opposite is likely to be true- excluding new NGCC could create market distortions. 

7) Reviewer recommends removing the statement that including new NGCC creates “unfair 

disparities in the compliance opportunities afforded different states”. New NGCC are 

broadly available and this option is at least as broadly available as the other options. 

Similarly, reviewer notes that new NGCC builds are as easy to predict as any other new 

builds. 

Technical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rule the definition of the term “leakage”. 

Reviewer suggests clarifying leakage “from affected to non-affected sources” (see pages 

878-881, 1283-4).

a. Reviewer notes that in other places, the rule appears to use the term “leakage” to 

refer to a broader set of issues (pages 1358-1360, 1374).

2) Reviewer recommends requiring any state deviating from the uniform rates provide an 

emissions projection (including mass and rate states). Reviewer also recommends 

specifying that the provided mass caps and blended state rates are conditionally 

approvable, but that given potential leakage issues associated with state plan deviations, 

states must provide an emissions projection to demonstrate equivalence with the uniform 

rates approach.

a. Reviewer also recommends further requiring that such projections reflect 

interactions with interconnected states and trading partners, using assumptions 

about other states’ plan types that reflect best available information at the time. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying between pages 29, 1499, 82, and 1156-57 whether the 

reliability consultation in state plans is required or optional (some list it as a requirement, 

and some say that a state can consult with relevant ISOs/RTOs, or that such consultation 

is an “effective way” to demonstrate reliability. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

5 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying the preamble as to whether use of the RSV will count 

against the state goal and notes conflicting language between pages 1162, 1163-64, and 

1108 (which still retains deleted language from the other sections).

5) Reviewer recommends that the EM&V framework enable independent payment for 

verifiers, rather than payment by projects seeking credit verification.

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying how state plans will avoid forum shopping for EM&V.

7) Reviewer recommends that the link on page 1196 of the preamble between sustainable 

land management and carbon reductions has not been made, and that this inclusion 

appears to make biomass fuels subject to additional criteria, since there is no 

sustainability criteria for the derivation of natural gas or nuclear materials. 

a. Reviewer notes that the language on page 1202 of the preamble about monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for verifying feedstock type, origin, 

and associated benefits similarly appears to potentially restrict investment in 

biomass due to increased oversight and investment uncertainty.

8) Reviewer recommends expanding the response to general interagency comment #18 to 

include new and incremental nuclear to be eligible as a compliance option. This would be 

consistent with language elsewhere in the preamble that allows the use of new and 

incremental nuclear for compliance. 

9) Reviewer recommends editing the text on page 1313 and 1314 on EM&V to read 

“...M&V reports (and associated EM&V activities), emissions leakage, and state 

issuance of ERCs...including the quality of verifier reviews. The EM&V review must 

include a quantitative comparison of actual electricity consumption following EE 

projects with a valid control group and using a rigorous methodology such as 

randomized control trials. Where significant problems...”

a. This bolsters the review and demonstrates to rate states, as they prepare their 

SIPs, the need to accurately estimate savings ex ante.

10) Reviewer recommends adding the following language after “all biogenic feedstocks are 

“carbon neutral” on page 1199: “nor is it scientifically valid to equate full stack emissions 

from biomass combustion with fossil sources. The production and use of biogenic 

feedstocks and subsequent biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources will not 

inevitably result in an increased net flux of biogenic CO2 to the atmosphere within 

relevant time scales”. This edit is taken from page 6 of the Framework. 

11) Reviewer recommends that on page 1199, EPA recognize some of the benefits from 

biomass feedstocks from the Framework, such as greater levels of carbon sequestration 

and other environmental benefits. 

12) Reviewer recommends moving some of the discussion of responses to various reliability 

studies from the preamble to the response to comments document.

13) Reviewer recommends that EPA clarify the decision not to include “under construction” 

nuclear in BSER due to delays and risks of non-completion of new plants. Reviewer 

notes that of the 5 units currently under construction, one is set to begin operation by the 

end of 2015 and 2 by 2019. Further, the Vogtle plants are fully financed. 

a. Reviewer continues to recommend treating under construction nuclear consistent 

with renewables. 

b. Reviewer notes that if you assume that costs incurred to date for “under 

construction” (capital and financing costs) of these units are “sunk”; then as of 

2012, under construction expenditures (for total project capital costs) were 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

6 

roughly 1/3 completed. For example, a new estimate for Levelized Cost of 

Energy (LCOE) of these units assuming the 1/3 project completion is $72 per 

MWh. If we assume the LCOE of new NGCC is $60 per MWh; this is a $12 per 

MWh difference compared to under construction which equals roughly a $33 per 

metric ton of avoid CO2. 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether a state could use a fee-based approach in the 

state measures framework, per feedback from stakeholders that such an approach could 

ensure preservation of zero-carbon generation resources. 

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying how to treat lost generation from large “carbon free” 

energy sources. Reviewer suggests clarifying that the purpose for accounting for lost 

generation in the denominator is to incentivize the continued operation of existing largescale zero emissions generators. This would created a compliance penalty for states that 

lost existing carbon-free power plants, thus encouraging continued operation. The lost 

generation should be subtracted from the denominator of the compliance calculation for 

the state beginning in the year that the EGU goes offline. 

16) Reviewer recommends clarifying section VIII of the preamble to include small modular 

reactors. This would be consistent with the listing of various renewable technologies 

already included. 

17) Reviewer recommends using the maximum five year growth for the initial compliance 

years in determining BB3 target generation and using an accelerated growth case for the 

final years on page 803. 

18) Reviewer recommends clarifying a response to stakeholder comments arguing that 

existing generation limits in permits will limit the feasibility of BB2.

19) Reviewer recommends using a RE growth rate multiplier of 1.05 starting in 2024. This is 

a conservative growth rate given the growth in RE deployment seen over recent years. 

20) Reviewer recommends removing the technology specific limitation in the IPM model 

used to determine the regional allocation for BB3 (page 805). Several IPM subregions 

already exceed 20% wind today. 

21) Reviewer recommends cross-referencing the endangerment and contribution findings 

from the (b) standards. 

22) Reviewer notes that while stringency has decreased by approximately 20% for the interim 

years and 10% for 2030 relative to the NPRM, the aggregate cost estimates have changed 

significantly more from the NPRM. Reviewer recommends clarifying in the RIA how 

and why these estimates changed so much.

23) Reviewer recommends indicating whether state measures such as RPS and EERS, which 

are explicitly mentioned for a state-measures based approach (section VIII.C.3) are 

acceptable to include as supporting measures in an emissions approach.

24) Reviewer notes that the updated costs for renewable energy used in IPM are noted on 

page 798 (under V.E.6 “Quantification of Renewable Energy Generation Potential for 

BSER and Major Comments”) but the IPM cost results are not reported here. Reviewer 

recommends noting on page 798 that future cost projections are not used in setting the 

BSER directly, only in determining the business as usual generation in 2021 and 

interconnect apportionment of the BB3 generation.

25) Reviewer recommends clarifying (in the RIA) how EPA arrived at the demand-side 

energy efficiency employment impacts. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

7 

26) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the section VIII.G.5.(f)(1) be amended to read “(1) 

EM&V requirements that apply to incremental hydroelectric power RE and nuclear 

power” with similar changes to the text to reflect that incremental RE and nuclear 

capacity upgrades are all compliance methods and use the same methodology as indicated 

at the end of this section and at VIII.G.1.(b)(3) “RE and demand-side EE.” 

27) Reviewer recommends editing the text in section VE3 to clarify that the new BB3 

methodology relies primarily on historical deployment of RE rather than economic 

potential. 

28) Reviewer recommends editing the test on page 1367 to read: “To address the risk of 

leakage to new units in a mass based approach and ensure equivalency of the approaches, 

the EPA is requiring... that they have addressed the risk of leakage to new units (either 

within the state or interconnected new units in other states) in their mass-based state 

plan...” 

a. Reviewer also recommends further clarifying that option 1 (including new nonaffected fossil EGUs under a state measures plan) may not fully address interstate 

leakage to new units. Accordingly, if there is a risk of interstate leakage, 

encourage or require states to use output based allocation to address interstate 

leakage. 

b. For states choosing output based allocation, reviewer recommends clarifying that 

the state needs to demonstrate that the chosen allocation rules address both intra 

and interstate leakage. 

29) Reviewer recommends adding the word “privately” to the below language on page 1326 

of the preamble redline to allow a pathway for non-publicly funded or non-ratepayer 

funded projects or programs to submit their EM&V reporting every two or three years. 

This is important since industrial EE projects are often funded by the private companies 

themselves and can obtain energy savings verification over a multi-year period; these 

projects can then be aggregated by a third-party entity (not necessarily just a publiclyfunded or rate-payer funded entity). 

30) Reviewer recommends clarifying how statement on page 1163 regarding emissions 

during 90 day RSV period not being “counted against the state’s over (sic) goal” 

corresponds to the revisions on page 1554 (paragraph (d)) which indicate that “During 

that period of time, the EGU or EGUS will need to comply with the modified emissions 

standards under the [RSV]...”. Reviewer further recommends clarifying whether all or 

excess emissions during the RSV are not counted against the state’s overall 

goal. Reviewer also recommends clarifying when the short-term plan modification is 

required given that the “emergency” emissions are not counted against a state’s overall 

goal. 

31) Reviewer recommends on page 1338, that footnote about the reference rate used for 

assigning ERCs to CHP be the state’s statewide rate target, even if the state has chosen a 

rate target that assigns different rates to different technologies or entities. This will 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

8 

represents the most accurate credit for emissions reductions by reducing grid demand in 

the state. 

32) Reviewer notes on page 798 (V.E.6) that the hydropower cost and performance data 

comes from NREL’s forthcoming Renewable Economic Potential study and not DOE’s 

Hydropower Vision. 

33) Reviewer recommends removing summed capacity numbers given in Table 8. Capacity 

for utility-scale solar PV are shown in units of MWDC and not MWAC based on the SEIA 

source. It is not appropriate to sum the PV capacity with the other capacities shown. The 

capacity factor from NREL’s Annual Technology Baseline 

(http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/data_tech_baseline.html) includes a DC-to-AC conversion, 

so the resulting MWh are MWhAC and can be appropriately summed with the other 

technologies’ generation numbers. 

34) Reviewer recommends adding text to the RE supply chain discussion to indicate that the 

materials at highest risk are not used in current solar technologies (Page 817). “For solar, 

the global supply chain has a capacity that has significantly expanded over the past few 

years from 1.4 GW/yr in 2004 to 22.5 GW/yr in 2011. Current capacity exceeds these 

levels and is expected to grow. For PV systems, raw materials like tellurium and indium 

are at highest risk of supply shortage, but these materials are not used in the PV 

technologies currently being deployed at large-scale.” 

35) Reviewer recommends deleting the specific reference to vehicle electrification on page 

1285. It is our understanding that no CO2 emission reductions that occur in the 

transportation sector would count toward CO2 emission performance levels 

36) Reviewer recommends that the RIA be clarified to show how the rule is likely to affect 

regulated entities and the economy at large. Reviewer recommends providing relevant 

estimates and supporting documents so that the adequacy of the RIA and it’s 

comportment with the requirements with circular A-4 can be assessed. 

37) Reviewer recommends addressing the interaction between ERCs and RECs to 

acknowledge in state REC requirements where necessary. Reviewer recommends 

including the text below on page 1314 of revised draft: 

“However, as the requirements and definitions for RECs differ as established under 

individual state policies, individual states may need to determine how ERC certifications 

offered in a state plan interact with existing instruments authorized and defined in state 

law, particularly with respect to how the same MWh of RE generation or EE savings can 

be used for both state plan compliance and other state policies, such as RPSs.”

38) Reviewer recommends clarifying that CSP is now included as a building block 3 

technology, and this should be indicated in section V.E.8 “Cost of CO2 Emission 

Reductions from Renewable Energy Generation” where it lists CSP as a non-BSER 

compliance option. 

39) Reviewer recommends clarifying the meaning of the sentence on page 719 beginning 

“with the exception of emissions crediting (discussed further below).” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

9 

Typographical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends removing the “some” before “biomass-derived fuels” on page 469 

of the preamble. 

2) Reviewer recommends removing the word “also” before “anticipates that some states 

may consider the use of certain biomass” on page 1195 because it could be read to say 

that what follows is in addition to what was in the previous sentence. 

3) Reviewer recommends removing the word “policy” from “climate policy benefits” on 

page 1195 because the benefits are instead direct climate benefits. 

4) Reviewer recommends removing the “sustainably-derived” reference on page 1194 of the 

preamble, as the comments focused on the use of any agricultural or forest biomass 

feedstock. 

5) Reviewer recommends replacing the language on page 1195 reading “waste-derived 

biogenic feedstocks and certain forest and agriculture derived industrial byproduct 

feedstocks” with “an array of biogenic feedstocks”. The revised Framework for 

Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources determined significant carbon 

benefits from all of the case studies they examined. 

6) Reviewer recommends updating the language regarding nuclear in section V.A.3.c to 

avoid implying that government-supported projects will fail. 

7) Reviewer recommends harmonizing the language surrounding EM&V for EE, RE, and 

other measures under a state-measures plan. Under section VIII.C.1 “State Plan 

Approaches” it states that state-measures plans must use the state’s mass based target, but 

in section VIII.G.3 “EM&V requirements for RE, demand-side EE, and other measures 

used to adjust a CO2 rate” it states “In states implementing state measures type plans, 

quantified and verified MWh of RE, EE, and other eligible measures may be used to 

adjust an emission rate...”implying that state measures plans can be included in rate 

goals. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarification / reconsideration for using the word “inverter” on 

pages 1338-1339, as this limits the CHP prime mover technology and precludes CHP 

systems that are generators. 

9) Reviewer requests clarification for the term “generator bus bar” on page 1339. Reviewer 

is concerned that by limiting the adjustment to the generator bus bar, credit would not be 

granted for electricity sold to the grid. 

10) Reviewer requests clarification for why the avoided T&D losses is limited to small CHP 

systems only, by virtue of including in the second paragraph that begins with “For small 

systems.” Reviewer recommends breaking that sentence out as a stand-alone statement so 

its applicability is not limited to small systems. 

11) Reviewer requests replacing the term “uniform conversion method” on page 1240 with 

“(standard conversion of 3412 Btu/kWh)”. 

12) Reviewer recommends reiterating in this sentence what these revised findings are so it’s 

clearer on page 23. Reviewer also recommends deleting the word “energy,” because this 

is an environmental and emissions strategy. 

a. “Due to these revised findings, we expect the final guidelines will be more 

conducive to compliance, consistent with an energy strategy that allows for the 

cleanest generation and greater reductions in 2030 than the proposal.” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

10 

13) Reviewer suggests retaining the word “IGCC” on page 266 which had been struck from 

the following sentence: “For the emission guidelines, an affected EGU is any fossil fuelfired electric utility steam generating unit...” 

14) Reviewer recommends that when the preamble references the DOE analysis for RE that it 

refers instead to the DOE and NREL analysis (rather than just DOE analysis). On page 

810, 816. 

15) Reviewer recommends that pages 84 and 1165, on coordination among federal partners 

say that “staff” from the three agencies have coordinated, as described in the referenced 

document on those pages. 

16) Reviewer recommends adding language on page 68 where Plan Approaches are 

introduced describing that state measures plans may only be used to meet a state mass 

CO2 emissions goal. Reviewer also recommends making sure this reference is consistent 

across the text. See, for example, on page 984, says “Projections for a rate-based state 

measures plan.” 

17) Reviewer recommends on page 1292, 1294, and 1295 that EPA clarifies that not only 

incremental NGCC generation can earn ERCs, but all NGCC generation can earn ERCs, 

as stated later on page 1295: “This factor [0.09 ERCs/MWh] can be applied to every 

MWh of generation by an affected NGCC unit...” 

18) Reviewer recommends moving the sentence “However, the overall technical potential for 

RE development significantly exceeds any analysis EPA has conducted to quantify 

potential building block three generation levels” as it does not pertain to the ability to 

accommodate high levels of variable RE (page 813). Instead this sentence could be used 

at the top of page 812, before the paragraph that begins “Grid operators are reliably 

integrating large amounts...” 

19) Reviewer recommends clarifying the following text regarding comparing BB3 wind 

deployment to Wind Vision: "11.5 GW/yr exceeds building block three deployment 

levels for wind capacity over the compliance period." (Page 814) 

20) Reviewer recommends changing text on page 1151 to read “Sixth and finally we are 

committed to maintaining an ongoing relationship with FERC and DOE as this final rule 

is implemented to coordinate efforts to help ensure continued reliable electric generation 

and transmission. 

21) Reviewer recommends striking the language “as a proposal” on page 17. 

22) Reviewer recommends changing “existing gas” to “existing NGCC.” On page 54. 

23) Reviewer recommends editing language on page 163 to read “problems attaining the 

ozone NAAQS” rather than “ozone problems” 

24) Reviewer recommends editing language on page 272 to read “combining the listing of the 

sources into one location” rather than “combining the sources into one location”. Similar 

edit on page 271. 

25) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 755 and elsewhere whether EPA is describing 

“electric” or “gas” transmission. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

11 

26) Reviewer recommends editing on page 1148 that the compliance average period is 2022 

to 2029, not 2024. 

27) Reviewer recommends changing the sentence on page 1244 to say (change underlined): 

“ERCS or allowances distributed from the investment pool may also be used by affected 

EGUs to demonstrate compliance with an emission standard, and may be banked from 

the interim to final periods.” 

28) Reviewer requests clarification between two nearly duplicate paragraphs on pages 1339-

1340 both beginning with “for small systems”. 

29) Reviewer notes a sentence fragment on page 1362 including “states must all adopt as 

their goal the Cos emission performance rates...” 

30) Reviewer recommends defining the term equivalency in first reference in the preamble.