### 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**  **Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units**  **RIN 2060**
**- AQ91** 
**General Comments** 1) Reviewer recommends revising the format of the federal register notice to divide sections by what was proposed, what the significant comments were, how EPA is responding to them, and how it affects the final rule. Currently , it is unclear what the comments are on, what EPA’s stance is on the comment, and how, if any , the comment affected the proposed rule. 2) Reviewer recommends providing clarification whether brownfield construction qualifies as reconstruction if the 50% capital cost threshold is met and it is technologically and economicall y feasible to meet the applicable standards. Could mothballed units be treated differentl y than the affected units identified within the rule? 3) Reviewer recommends making the statement that natural gas co

- firing provides an alternative compli ance pathway for steam turbines be made consistent throughout. Currently the preamble say s “may” be available in some places and is unequivocal elsewhere. 4) Commenter notes that there is new cost information for affected units that is in draft format and may be finalized before the completion of this rule. Commenter recommends considering whether this new information should be included in the preamble for the final rule. 5) Commenter notes that combining a continuous emission standard with a tighter “efficie ncy” standard that must be met once each y ear under specified conditions would seem to provide the appropriate technology

- forcing incentive and be responsive to the effects of utilization on emission rate, ensuring that plants are as low

- emitting as possib le and are maintained to retain their efficiency even if the continuous standard is not binding

. Would this be possible for gas plants? 6) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification as to why co - firing natural gas is not considered Best Sy stem of Emission Reduction (BSER) as it has a lower Levelized Cost of Electricity

(L COE) than partial

- carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) and the effects of determining how providing co

- firing natural gas as an acceptable way for meeting BSER and not B SER itself. 7) Reviewer recommends clarifying why international and national CCS projects provided within the FRN are provided in overall capture levels and not in lb CO 2 /MWh. 8) Reviewer recommends considering whether the final standards of performance should apply to sources that commenced construction on or after the date of publication of the proposed standards, January 8, 2014, or if it should apply to sources as of the date of promulgation of the final rule. Regardless of the compliance date, EPA should p rovide additional clarification why that date was chosen.

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 2

- 9) Reviewer recommends ensuring that the discussion of “technology” in the BSER context should instead refer to “sy stems of emission reduction” to parallel with the language in §111 on sy stems rather than technologies. 10) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for the use of calculating emissions on a gross approach and not a net approach. What is the nexus between the choice of approach in this rule to the §111(d) rule? Specifically sinc e a net approach provides potential benefits such as: (1) better reflecting environmental objectives of a policy as it relates to each MWh of electricity produced, (2) motivates operators to pursues more efficient auxiliary

equipment and unit designs and t o choose fuels that require less emissions controls, (3) provides a level field across fossil steam generating technologies, including a more appropriate comparison between IGCC and PC, and (4) would result in CO 2 capture requirements that are similar for IGC C and PC units. 11) Commenter notes that the preamble condenses the case low on consideration of costs under §111 to require that costs be “reasonable” that is not fully reflective of the law that costs not be “excessive,” “greater than the industry could b ear and survive,” or “exorbitant.” Commenter recommends revising the case law discussion to reflect the above. 12) Commenter recommends providing additional explanation why oil

- fired turbines are exempt from this rule. Exemptions 1) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether a new combustion turbine generator with a design efficiency

greater than 40% that obtains a federall y enforceable permit restriction that restricts the generator’s output to less than 40% of the generator’s potential electric output be exempt from regulation under this rule. If so, would this exemption also be applicable for exi sting sources regulated under § 111(d)? What are the implications of revising the exemptions to not allow exemptions from units with design ef ficiencies greater than 40%? 2) Reviewer recommends clarifying that if an area lacks access to a natural gas pipeline (see Page 22) such that it cannot practicall y build new combustion turbines, why would the unit need to be exempt from the standard for combu stion turbines? If an area has onl y limited access to gas, it appears that there would be an incentive to build the most efficient unit possible. 3) Commenter recommends providing additional clarification on the implications of the “sliding scale” exemption for peaking units and the relation to the §111(d) rule. Could the sliding scale limitation on operating hours be the §111(b) standard for those sources to eliminate that problem potentially as a work practice standard?
Emission Rates
New Sources 1) Reviewers recommend expanding on the justification for EPA finalizing an emission rate of 1,400 lb C O 2 /MWh

- gross instead of the proposed emission rate of 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh

- gross. Including a discussions relating to:

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 3

- a. whether an y IGCC unit without any CCS or natural gas co

- firing can potentially comply with the finalized standard; b. how the LC OE relates to this determination, including the revenue derived from enhanced oil recovery

(EOR) referenced on page 231 that, according to the preamble,

“ can significantly lower the net cost of implementing CCS” ; c. any other emission rates , both net and gross, between 1,100 lb CO 2 /MWh and 1,400 lb CO 2 /MWh that were considered and any data points; and d. that the state standards for California, New York, Oregon, and Washington pr ovided within the Regulatory

Impact Anal ys is (RIA) are all below 1,400 lb C O 2 /MWh. 2) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for finalizing 1,080 lb CO 2 /MWh

- net (1,000 b CO 2 /MWh

- gross) for Natural Gas Combined Cy cle (NGCC )

. EPA’s Continuing Emissions Monitoring Sy stem (CEMS) provides an average intensit y of the NGCC fleet as of 2012 at approximately 900 lb/CO 2 MWh

- net. Also over 50 existing NGCC units have an emission rate below 800 lb CO 2 /MWh

- net and over 400 existing NGCC units have an emi ssion rate below 900 lb CO 2 /MWh

- net.
Modified Sources 1) Reviewer requests additional explanation for the 10% trigger threshold for modified sources, including data and anal ys is (including costs) supporting the 10% threshold. What consideration was given to setting higher modification trigger thresholds to dissuad e units from modifying out of § 111(d) requirements to §111(b) requirements? 2) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification where the historical emissions data for before 2009 would be obt ained from for sources as Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases rule was not finalized until 2009. What recordkeeping requirements were required before 2009 that ensures that the information provided b y sources is reliable and accurate? I f a unit is mi ssing y ear(s) of emissions data, what is the requirement for that unit? 3) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification on why a source that has increased their emission rate b y at least 10 percent, but was still below 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh

- gross (for a source with a heat input > 2,000 MMBtu/h) would not be required to continue to meet that rate. 4) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification as to why EPA is not finalizing the 2% emissions reduction and is finalizing the historical performance

. 5) Reviewer recommends providing a discussion between the 4% heat rate improvement and the expected delta between a unit’s emission rate post

- modification (including at different capacity

factors) and its best historical performance. 6) Reviewers recommend provi ding additional clarification of the word “potential” (see on page 154, for example) in relation to “potential hourly increases in CO 2 emissions”. Can modifications be made to increase the capacit y of a unit that the “potential” emissions trigger §111(b) even if the new capacity is not utilized? Reviewer recommends adding a requirement that modification must result in an actual hourly CO 2 emissions increase. 7) Commenter recommends clarifying whether EPA could consider not finalizing standards for those sour ces that conduct modifications resulting in a potential hourl y i ncrease in CO 2 emissions (mass per hour) of more than ten percent (similar to the decision EPA

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 4

- made not to finalize standards for sources that conduct modifications resulting in a potential ho urly

increase in CO 2 emis sions of less than ten percent).
Reconstructed Sources 1) Reviewer recommends clarifying the choice of the 1,800 lb CO 2 /MWh

- gross emission rate and how it relates to historical data on supercritical units. 2) Commenter recommends clari fication i f a reconstructed unit is not required to meet the standards if doing so is “technologicall y and economically” infeasible, wh y wouldn’t BSER be partial CCS (or IGCC) with units that cannot meet the standard due to space constraints, etc. remainin g (d) sources?
Interaction between Clean Air Act (CAA) §111(b) and §111(d) Rules 1) Reviewers recommend providing additional clarification on how new, modified, and reconstructed sources (§111(b) sources) interact with the §1 11(d) rule on existing sources. What actions has EPA considered or implemented to ensure the prevention of developing detrimental incentives? 2) Reviewers recommend providing clarification how state targets under the §111(d) rule would be affected b y modified or reconstructed sources.
Bi omass 1) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification if biomass that is co

- fired at a rate less than 90% of the unit’s heat input capacity on an annual basis would be covered under this rule. 2) Reviewer recommends clarifying how CO 2 emissions from biomass combustion are treated for a unit that is covered under this rule. Additionally , will this rule utilize EPA’s forthcoming biogenic guidance to quantify the CO2 emissions with biomass combustion? 3) Reviewer recommends providing discussion on how a co - firing unit with biomass combustion retrofits to a near, but not equal to or greater than, 90% rate of the unit’s heat input capacit y on an annual basis, would be regulated under this rule or the §111(d) rule. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Applicabilit y 1) Reviewer recommends providing further clarification on what “technically capable” of selling electricity

on Page 111. Does this mean the total electricit y that can be produced on an hourl y basis that is not required b y onsite electricity loads? I f so, please produce a description; if not, please specify how it is different. 2) Reviewer recommends that EPA reconcile the descriptions of CHP applicability on Pages 111, 149, and 574

- 575 in support of the intended applicability described on pages 111

- 112 shown below: a. “This approach both limits applicability to the intended [utility] CHP units and encourages the installation of the most efficient CHP sy stems since more efficient designs would be able to have higher permitted electric sales while no t being subject to the GHG standards included in this rulemaking.”

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 5

- 3) Commenter recommends clarifying why 100% of the thermal output is included in the denominator of the CHP and how this impacts the §111(d) rule. **Technical Comments** 1) Reviewer recommends corre cting a t ypo and including planned geothermal, unplanned geothermal, and unplanned hydro base load generation in the discussion of the AEO 2015 projection on Page 73. he unplanned capacity additions for hy dro and geothermal were derived from AEO 2015 Tab le 16

– Renewable Generation and Capacit y and the remainder of the traditional capacity additions can be found in the AEO 2015 Table 9

– Electric Generating Capacity . The reviewer recommends the following text: a. “Specificall y, the AEO 2015 projects the nee d for **30.3** GW of additional base load or intermediate load generation capacit y through 2020 (this includes projects that are under development

– - i.e., being constructed or in advance planning

-- and model

projected nuclear, coal, and NGCC projects). The v ast 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 capacit y, 5.5 GW of new nuclear capacity , and 14.2 GW of new NGCC capacity . The EPA b elieves that most current fossil fuel

- fired projects are alread y designed to meet limits consistent with this rule (or they

have already

commenced construction and are thus not impacted by this notice). The AEO 2015 also projects an additional **9.9** GW of ne w base load capacity additions, which are model

- projected (unplanned). This consists of 7.7 GW of new NGCC capacit y, **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 g overnment funding).” 2) Reviewer recommends citing to the Quadrennial Energy Review ( http://energy .gov/epsa/quadrennial

- energy - review

- qer ) on Page 63

- 64 to support the paragraph beginning “T he change in the resource mix...” as it discusses power sector infrastructure and the need for modernization and investment. 3) Reviewer recommends clarifying on Page 107 the paragraph below how the capacity factor to calculate the percent of fuel use is determ ined. The clarification should include how the calculation would be performed and specifically how capacit y factor would be used in place of percent of fossil fuel burned. a. “We considered the fossil use restriction on both an annual and 3

- ye ar average. We have concluded that the single ye ar average fossil

- fuel use based on the annual capacity factor, and not the actual percent of fossil burned, provides sufficient flexibility for dedicated non

- fossil fuel

- fired units to combust fossil fuels for flame stabil ization and other ancillary purposes.” 4) Reviewer recommends clarifying on Page 107 the sentence below. Specifically , is this sentence saying that a 3

- ye ar average fossil use restriction would not exempt limited use fossil fuel EGUs and that the intent of the provision is to exempt the limited use fossil fuel EGUs? a. “A 3

- ye ar exemption based on capacit y factor would not cover limited use fossil fuel EGUs, which is not the intent of the provision.” 5) Reviewer recommends clarifying the following sentence found on Page 149 in relation to the use of “or”:

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 6

- a. "...that are not subject to a federall y enforceable permit limiting annual net electric sales to this amount (design efficiency times potential electric output) **or** 219,000 MWh (whichever is greater) **or** less." (emphasis added). 6) Reviewer recommends clarifying what “reduced by 5 times” means in the sentence provided below found on Page 172 : a. “For example the heat duty ...has been reduced b y about 5 times from the amine process ...” 7) Reviewer recommends providing clarifyi ng the weight that EPA provides in relation to capital costs, L COE, and overall costs on Page 209. How does this weight relate to previous rulemakings? 8) Reviewer recommends noting that the initial uncontrolled units are not on cost parity in the sentence o n Page 213 as uncontrolled IGCC has costs significantl y greater than that of an uncontrolled SCPC. a. “Incremental capital costs of control for a new IGCC unit would be even less.” 9) Reviewer recommends adding a sentence on Page 240 as the EIA’s LCOE projectio n for geothermal from AEO 2014 reflects only the lowest cost possible form the best resources. New geothermal projects are estimated to have LCOE’s higher than EIA’s range. Therefore, the following is recommended: a. “ The range presented for the EIA AEO2014 LCOE values is intended to represent regional variation for new generating sources (reflecting regional differences in construction labor costs, capital costs, and resource availability). Overall, as can be seen from the results in Table 10, the range of LC OE estimates from the different groups are in reasonable agreement. **Note that AEO2014 geothermal LCOE value represents the lowest cost from the best resource and is not directly comparable**  **to the EPRI and EPA numbers.** ” 10) Reviewer recommends discussing how the conclusion of the Summit Power study on page 243 that CCS can be competitive with NGCC raises an y concerns about the validity of the study

and EPA reliance on the study

. 11) Reviewer recommends adding modifying the text and adding a footnote on Page 246

- 24 7 within the paragraph provided below as the difference between the AEO 2013 and AEO 2014 geothermal LCOE reflects a change in interest rates rather than a change in estimated capital costs. a. “The estimated cost for all of these technologies decreased from AEO2013 to AEO2014. This was primarily due to changes in interest rates that resulted in lower financing costs in AEO2014 relative to the AEO2013. **[INSERT FOOTNOTE]** The EIA did not make an y major updates to the initial cost inputs for most technologies, inc luding nuclear. **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 each edition of the Annual Energy Outlook** .” b. Footnote: **The lower geother mal LCOE for AEO 2014 as compared to AEO 2013**  **is due largely to a methodological change: the AEO 2014 number represents the least** 
**- cost geothermal plant that could be built and does not reflect the cost of**  **future greenfield resources developed through enhan ced geothermal**  **technologies.**

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 7

- 12) Reviewer recommends clarifying the definition of “geologic timeframe” provided below on Page 294, Section V. a. “In 2010, the EPA finalized an effective and coherent regulatory framework to ensure that CO2 is safely

sequestered

-- that is, that CO2 can be injected and remain securel y underground for geologic timeframes.” 13) Reviewer recommends providing clarification if EPA considered an ultra

- supercritical unit as discussed on Page 368. If so, EPA should provide additional discussio n. a. “...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.” 14) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether “s ys tem emergency” (appears on Pages 37 8, 395) and “grid emergency” (appears on Page 385) are referring to the same thing. If they are not referring to the same thing, reviewer recommends providing clarification as to the differences between the two. 15) Reviewer recommends providing additional ev idence to support the statement on Page 361 provided below: a. “ EPA expects that, to the extent actions undertaken by existing steam generating units in response to 111(d) requirements trigger modifications, the magnitude of the increases in potential hourly CO2 emissions associated with such modifications would generall y 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 potential hourly

CO2 emissions. ” 16) Reviewer recommends explaining how advanced and conventional NGCC facilities are defined and provide data sources that were used to quantify the 8% lower emissions rates provided on page 401, Section IX. 17) Reviewer recomm ends clarifying the sentence on Page 402 provided below. Does the sentence mean that high efficiency simple cy cle turbines that are not exempt from §111(b) were found to have the same BSER (i.e., efficient combined cycle technology) as combined cy cle unit s? a. “Furthermore, we have concluded that high efficiency simple cy cle turbine technology

is a sub

- component of the selected BSER.” 18) Reviewer recommends modifying the sentences on Page 403 as provided below: a. **“** The EPA has reviewed the comments on the use of CCS for combined cy cle facilities and has concluded that even if CCS is demonstrated as a technical and reasonable cost option for combined cy cle units on an individual basis, **the record does not support a**  **conclusion that it would qualify as BSER** it would not qualify as BSER based on the nationwide economic impacts

. **Nearly all new fossil fuel**
**- fired**  **EGUs being constructed today are using combined cycle technology for generating intermediate and base load powe**  **r.** Therefore, the EPA is not making a determination as to the technical availability or individual cost reasonableness of CCS for new combined cy cle units. Nearl y all new fossil fuel

- fired EGUs being constructed today

are using combined cy cle technology fo r generating intermediate

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 8

- and base load power and requiring partial CCS on these units would result in unreasonable nationwide impacts .” 19) Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 407 stated below whether the sentence is referencing a data set. A lso, the text in the paragraphs following this sentence suggest trends over the 2008 to 2014 timeframe. Therefore, should the sentence be modified to “2014” from “2012” and, if not, reviewer recommends clarifying in the preamble wh y and how trends are dis cussed through 2014. a. “Interstate flow of electricity is available from 2008 through 2012.” 20) Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 414 stated below as it was difficult to follow. Does the threshold refer to 1/3 electric sales threshold or to the maximum permit restriction for exemption mentioned in the next sentence? What does “it” refer to where rule say s “...threshold it is cost effective...”? Also, reviewer recommends clarifying whether adding the heat recovery to the turbine exhaust is the same as the LHV efficiency for the aeroderative designs mentioned on Page 413? a. “...for combustion turbines operation above this threshold it is cost effective and the BSER is the additional of heat recovery to the turbine exhaust.” 21) Reviewer recommends either d eleting the apparent duplicated sentences below on Page 419 or, if not duplicative, to provide additional language to clarify the differences. a. “Other commenters stated that since the standards were developed based 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. These commenters stated that since the standards were developed based on emission rates that are being achieved b y the majority of existin g units, the final standards should be the same for new, modified, and reconstructed units.” 22) Reviewer recommends clarifying “recentl y” in the sentence on Page 425 provided below to provide the range of years that were anal yz ed. a. “The EPA reviewed the GHG li mitations in recently issued construction permits for NGCC facilities.”
Tables 1) Reviewer recommends clarifying the asterisk in Table 6 on Page 155 whether compliance is determined on a rolling 12

- month compliance period or on a 12

- month operating complian ce period (e.g., on a calendar

- ye ar basis). On page 155

- 157, the description of the compliance period appears inconsistent. 2) Commenter notes that the basis of the information in Table 7 on Page 213 comes from an interpolation between 0% and 30% capture cas e in the 2011 NETLreport, “Cost of Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture,” updated by EPA to 2011 dollars. Commenter recommends identifying potential concerns with using this my

thological approach and how this could lead to inaccurate costs

. 3) Reviewer recommends revising Table 8 on P age 217 by adding concentrating solar power (CSP) with thermal energy storage as an additional non

- natural gas alternative base load dispatchable power generation source (see http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/data_tech_baseline.html for cost); that EPA note that purchase power agreements (PPAs) related to geothermal are in the $60

- 70 MWh range and that EIA LCOEs for geothermal are generall y for h ydrothermal resources, reflecting

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 9

- the cost of additional development at existing sites rather than greenfield development or the application of enhanced geothermal s ys tems; and adding a footnote that states the following: a. “The AEO 2014 geothermal cost estimate is representative of the costs from the best resource locations and does not reflect the cost of future greenfield resources developed through enhanced geothermal technologies.” 4) Commenter recommends revising Table 8 on P age 217 to use NETL’s cost estimates as the cost estimates in Table 8 likely used different methods (e.g., scope of the estimate, inclusions/exclusions, site assumptions). The commenter also notes that another issue related to the economic evaluation of g eneration technologies involves differential investment risks that may justify the use of varying financial assumptions across technologies. For example, the risk that further reductions in emissions will be imposed during the lifetime of generation proje cts being considered for development may lead to higher financing rates. Therefore, it may be appropriate for EPA to consider the financing assumptions, including the use of risk adjustments that vary with the emissions performance of specific technologie s. 5) Reviewer recommends revising Table 9 on Page 229 to clarify what the price of natural gas is for natural gas co

- firing in SCPC and I GCC units and include the other natural gas price (i.e., $6.11/mmBtu or $10.00/mmBtu) as the other end of the range. Als o, EPA should provide in the table (or footnote) what percent of co

- firing is used to derive the cost and emission data provided. 6) Reviewer recommends defining the term “nuclear” and “new nuclear” used throughout the preamble. Table 10 on Page 239 appears to be referring to the Westinghouse AP1000 whereas the dataset from EPRIseems to take a broader definition of what is considered nuclear. Reviewer also recommends indicating which technology is described here as the cost estimates vary

from different tec hnologies. 7) Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation as to why SCPC has a climate uncertaint y adder to the cost of capital and not for the other forms of generation (e.g., nuclear) and how this could affect an y decisions made b y EPA. See Table 1 0 on page 239. 8) Reviewer recommends providing the costs in Table 10 on page 239 in the same year or explain why

the information has not been normalized and how that affects any final calculations. Reviewer also recommends clarifying whether “MWh” refers to net, gross, or both. 9) Reviewer recommends modifying Table 12 on Page 246

- 247 to remove “Nuclear w/subsidy ” and to include concentrating solar power (CSP) with thermal energy storage as an additional non

- natural gas alternative base load dispatchable power generation source. Nuclear w/subsidy is for the nuclear energy

production tax credit (PTC) that requires construction commence b y J anuary 1, 2014 in order to be eligible for the subsidy . Since consideration of future projects would commence after January 1, 2014 cut

- off date, these projects are ineligible for the study and therefore are not relevant in cost estimates for future nuclear energy projects. Rule L anguage 1) Reviewer recommends revising §60.5520(d) and §60.5535. As the preamble states on page 402

- 403 that for bi

- modal combustion turbine units the use of combined cy cle

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 10

- technology

is BSER for periods of immediate and base load operation and that the use of simp le cy cle technology

alone is BSER for periods of peaking operation. a. Section 60.5520(d) should state: For combined cy cle installations that allow the associated combustion turbine to operate in either combined cy cle mode or simple cy cle mode, the CO 2 emis sion standard in Table 2 applies only for operation in combined cy cle mode provided that the annual net sales during simple cy cle operation is limited through a federally enforceable permit to the design efficiency of the combustion turbine times the potential electric output or less. b. Section 60.5535 should be amended to include compliance demonstration requirements for bi

- modal units for both modes of operation. 2) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether “or” is supposed to be “of” and if it is “or” whether ad ditional language should be added such as “whichever is greater ” on page 574

- 575 defining “potential electric output”. a. “Potential electric output means 33 percent **or** the design efficiency on a net output basis multiplied by

the base load rating (expressed in MMBtu/h) of the EGU, multiplied by

10 6 Btu/MMBtu, divided by 3,413 Btu/KWh, divided by 1,000 kWh/MWh, and multiplied by 8,760 h/ yr(e.g., a 35 percent efficient a ffected EGU with a 100 MW (341 MMBtu/h) fossil

- fuel heat input capacit y would have a 310,000 MWh 12 month potential electric output capacit y). ” (emphasis added). 3) Reviewer recommends providing a definition for “sy stem emergency” statu s. Reviewer also recommends explaining that/whether/how the definition of “sy stem emergency” relates to other definition (e.g., that the definition of “s ys tem emergency” may not consistute an emergency

under §202(c) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC §824a(c)). Finally , reviewer recommends that EPA consider developing a definition that requires sy stem operators to exhaust commonly available approaches for preventing such an emergency

before approaching EPA. For information, EPA’s proposed definition and some other examples are p rovided below: a. EPA proposal: The definition of "sy stem emergency " presented in the proposal was "an y abnormal s ys tem condition that the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO), Independent S ys tem Operators (ISO) or control area Administrator determines r equires immediate automatic or manual action to prevent or limit loss of transmission facilities or generators that could adversel y affect the reliability of the power s ys tem and therefore call for maximum generation resources to operate in the affected ar ea, or for the specific affected facility to operate to avert loss of load." b. NERC definition (FERC approval March 16, 2007): Emergency or BES Emergency : Any abnormal s ys tem condition that requires automatic or immediate manual action to prevent or limit th e failure of transmission facilities or generation suppl y that could adversel y affect the reliability of the Bulk Electric Sy stem. c. PJM Operating Agreement 1.10 Emergency : “Emergency” shall mean: (i) an abnormal s ys tem condition requiring manual or automati c action to maintain sy stem frequency , or to prevent loss of firm load, equipment damage, or tripping of sy stem elements that could adversely affect the reliability of an electric s ys tem or the safet y of persons or propert y; or (ii) a fuel shortage requiri ng departure from normal operating procedures in order to minimize the use of such scarce fuel; or (iii) a

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 11

- condition that requires implementation of emergency procedures as defined in the PJM Manuals. d. DOE’s emergency

authority that uses the following defin ition of “emergency” which limits the events for which DOE can exercise its Federal Power Act §202(c) authority (10 CFR 205.371): “Emergency ,” as used herein, is defined as an unexpected inadequate suppl y of electric energy which may result from the unexpe cted outage or breakdown of facilities for the generation, transmission or distribution of electric power. Such events may

be the result of weather conditions, acts of God, or unforeseen occurrences not reasonabl y within the power of the affected “entity” to prevent. An emergency

also can result from a sudden increase in customer demand, an inability

to obtain adequate amounts of the necessary fuels to generate electricity , or a regulatory

action which prohibits the use of certain electric power supply faci lities. Actions under this authority are envisioned as meeting a specific inadequate power suppl y situation. Extended periods of insufficient power suppl y as a result of inadequate planning or the failure to construct necessary facilities can result in an emergency

as contemplated in these regulations. In such cases, the impacted “entity” will be expected to make firm arrangements to resolve the problem until new facilities become available, so that a continuing emergency order is not needed. Situations whe re a shortage of electric energy is projected due solel y to the failure of parties to agree to terms, conditions or other economic factors relating to service, generall y will not be considered as emergencies unless the inability to supply electric service is imminent. Where an electricit y outage or service inadequacy qualifies for a section 202(c) order, contractual difficulties alone will not be sufficient to preclude the issuance of an emergency order. 4) Reviewer recommends providing or referencing guidance within the preamble with respect to how an affected EGU can be operated and maintained “in a manner consistent with safet y and good air pollution control practice[s]” as stated in §60.5525(c). **Typographical Comments** 1) Reviewer recommends defining “SCPC” wi thin the terms and acron ym s table and after the first use. 2) Reviewer notes that the affected source category of newl y constructed fossil fuel

- fired steam generating units is defined to include IGCC units. This is clarified on p. 145, but would be useful to explain this earlier. 3) Reviewer recommends revising on Page 161, Section V as shown below: a. “...and significantl y more than completing **competing** technologies such as nuclear

powered generation.” 4) Reviewer recommends revising on Page 163, Section V as shown below: a. “The EPA notes that information from facilities that did not receive any DOE assistance standing alone is sufficient to support its BSER determination.” 5) Reviewer recommends revising on Page 255, Section V as shown below: a. “They contented **contended** in stead that it is the CCS

- based NSPS that would preclude such new generation.” 6) Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 293, Section V as shown below:

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

- 12

- a. “In addition, as discussed in the proposal, electricity demand in states that may not have geol ogical sequestration sites may be served by

coal

- fired electricity

generation built in nearby

areas with geological sequestration, which generation **and this electricity**  can be delivered through transmission lines.” 7) Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 318, Section V as shown below: a. “The safeguards that protect USDWs also serve as an earl y warning mechanism for releases **of CO 2**  **to the atmosphere** to air .” 8) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the units described in the sentence below on P age 324, Section V are metric, short, or long tons. a. “Injection rates in 2010 and 2011 were approximately 1 million tons per y ear.” 9) Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 394, Section IX as shown below: a. “...to a permit restriction limiting annual net electric sales to **the lesser of** the design efficiency of the unit **or 40 percent** times the potential electric output.”