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 

economically feasible to meet the applicable standards. Could mothballed units be treated 

differently than the affected units identified within the rule?

3) Reviewer recommends making the statement that natural gas co-firing provides an 

alternative compliance pathway for steam turbines be made consistent throughout. 

Currently the preamble says “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 

“efficiency” standard that must be met once each year 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 possible 

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 System of Emission Reduction (BSER) as it has a lower Levelized 

Cost of Electricity (LCOE) 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 BSER 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 CO2/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 provide 

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 “systems of emission reduction” to parallel with the language in 

§111 on systems 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 since 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 to 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 

CO2 capture requirements that are similar for IGCC 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 bear 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 federally 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 existing sources regulated under §111(d)? What are the implications of 

revising the exemptions to not allow exemptions from units with design efficiencies 

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 practically build new combustion turbines, why would the 

unit need to be exempt from the standard for combustion turbines? If an area has only 

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 CO2/MWh-gross instead of the proposed emission rate of 1,100 lb 

CO2/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 any IGCC unit without any CCS or natural gas co-firing can potentially

comply with the finalized standard;

b. how the LCOE 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 CO2/MWh and 1,400 

lb CO2/MWh that were considered and any data points; and

d. that the state standards for California, New York, Oregon, and Washington provided 

within the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) are all below 1,400 lb CO2/MWh.

2) Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification for finalizing 1,080 lb 

CO2/MWh-net (1,000 b CO2/MWh-gross) for Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC). 

EPA’s Continuing Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) provides an average intensity 

of the NGCC fleet as of 2012 at approximately 900 lb/CO2 MWh-net. Also over 50 

existing NGCC units have an emission rate below 800 lb CO2/MWh-net and over 400 

existing NGCC units have an emission rate below 900 lb CO2/MWh-net. 

Modified Sources

1) Reviewer requests additional explanation for the 10% trigger threshold for modified 

sources, including data and analysis (including costs) supporting the 10% threshold.

What consideration was given to setting higher modification trigger thresholds to 

dissuade 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 obtained 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 by sources is 

reliable and accurate? If a unit is missing year(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 by at least 10 percent, but was still below 1,800 lb 

CO2/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 providing additional clarification of the word “potential” (see on 

page 154, for example) in relation to “potential hourly increases in CO2 emissions”. Can 

modifications be made to increase the capacity 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 CO2 emissions increase.

7) Commenter recommends clarifying whether EPA could consider not finalizing standards 

for those sources that conduct modifications resulting in a potential hourly increase in 

CO2 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 hourly increase in CO2 emissions of less than ten percent).

Reconstructed Sources

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying the choice of the 1,800 lb CO2/MWh-gross emission 

rate and how it relates to historical data on supercritical units.

2) Commenter recommends clarification if a reconstructed unit is not required to meet the 

standards if doing so is “technologically and economically” infeasible, why wouldn’t 

BSER be partial CCS (or IGCC) with units that cannot meet the standard due to space 

constraints, etc. remaining (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 §111(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 by modified or reconstructed sources.

Biomass

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 CO2 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 capacity on an annual basis, would be regulated under this rule or the §111(d) rule.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Applicability

1) Reviewer recommends providing further clarification on what “technically capable” of 

selling electricity on Page 111. Does this mean the total electricity that can be produced 

on an hourly basis that is not required by onsite electricity loads? If 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 systems since more efficient 

designs would be able to have higher permitted electric sales while not 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 correcting a typo 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 hydro and geothermal were 

derived from AEO 2015 Table 16 – Renewable Generation and Capacity 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. “Specifically, the AEO 2015 projects the need for 30.3 GW of additional base load or 

intermediate load generation capacity through 2020 (this includes projects that are 

under development –- i.e., being constructed or in advance planning -- and modelprojected 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 impacted by

this notice). The AEO 2015 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).”

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 “The 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 determined. The clarification should include 

how the calculation would be performed and specifically how capacity 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-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 burned, provides sufficient 

flexibility for dedicated non-fossil fuel-fired units to combust fossil fuels for flame 

stabilization and other ancillary purposes.”

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying on Page 107 the sentence below. Specifically, is this 

sentence saying that a 3-year 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-year exemption based on capacity 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 federally 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 by about 5 times from the amine 

process ...”

7) Reviewer recommends providing clarifying the weight that EPA provides in relation to 

capital costs, LCOE, 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 on Page 213 as uncontrolled IGCC has costs significantly 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 projection 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 LCOE 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 any 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 246-247 

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 any major updates to the initial cost inputs for most technologies, including 

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 geothermal 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 enhanced 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 securely 

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 discussion.

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 “system emergency” (appears on Pages 378, 

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 evidence 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 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 

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 recommends clarifying the sentence on Page 402 provided below. Does the 

sentence mean that high efficiency simple cycle turbines that are not exempt from 

§111(b) were found to have the same BSER (i.e., efficient combined cycle technology) as 

combined cycle units?

a. “Furthermore, we have concluded that high efficiency simple cycle 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 cycle 

facilities and has concluded that even if CCS is demonstrated as a technical and 

reasonable cost option for combined cycle 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 power. Therefore, the EPA is not making a 

determination as to the technical availability or individual cost reasonableness of CCS 

for new combined cycle units. Nearly all new fossil fuel-fired EGUs being 

constructed today are using combined cycle technology for 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. Also, 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 why and how trends are discussed 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 says “...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 deleting 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 by the majority of existing units, the final standards should be the same for 

new, modified, and reconstructed units.”

22) Reviewer recommends clarifying “recently” in the sentence on Page 425 provided below 

to provide the range of years that were analyzed.

a. “The EPA reviewed the GHG limitations 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 

compliance period (e.g., on a calendar-year 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 case in the 2011 NETL report, “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 mythological approach and how this could lead to inaccurate costs. 

3) Reviewer recommends revising Table 8 on Page 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 generally for hydrothermal 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 systems; 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 Page 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 generation 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 projects 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 technologies.

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 IGCC units and include the other natural gas 

price (i.e., $6.11/mmBtu or $10.00/mmBtu) as the other end of the range. Also, 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 EPRI seems 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 technologies.

7) Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation as to why SCPC has a climate 

uncertainty adder to the cost of capital and not for the other forms of generation (e.g., 

nuclear) and how this could affect any decisions made by EPA. See Table 10 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 by January 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 Language

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 cycle 
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 

simple cycle technology alone is BSER for periods of peaking operation. 

a. Section 60.5520(d) should state: 

For combined cycle installations that allow the associated combustion turbine to 

operate in either combined cycle mode or simple cycle mode, the CO2 emission 

standard in Table 2 applies only for operation in combined cycle mode provided 

that the annual net sales during simple cycle 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 additional 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 106 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 affected EGU 

with a 100 MW (341 MMBtu/h) fossil-fuel heat input capacity would have a 310,000 

MWh 12 month potential electric output capacity).” (emphasis added).

3) Reviewer recommends providing a definition for “system emergency” status. Reviewer 

also recommends explaining that/whether/how the definition of “system emergency” 

relates to other definition (e.g., that the definition of “system 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 

system 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 provided below:

a. EPA proposal: 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. NERC definition (FERC approval March 16, 2007): Emergency or BES Emergency: 

Any abnormal system condition that requires automatic or immediate manual action 

to prevent or limit the failure of transmission facilities or generation supply that could 

adversely affect the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.

c. PJM Operating Agreement 1.10 Emergency: “Emergency” shall mean: (i) an 

abnormal system condition requiring manual or automatic action to maintain system 

frequency, or to prevent loss of firm load, equipment damage, or tripping of system 

elements that could adversely affect the reliability of an electric system or the safety 

of persons or property; or (ii) a fuel shortage requiring 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 definition 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 supply of electric energy which may result from the unexpected 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 reasonably 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

facilities. Actions under this authority are envisioned as meeting a specific inadequate 

power supply situation. Extended periods of insufficient power supply 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 where a shortage of electric energy is projected due solely to the failure of 

parties to agree to terms, conditions or other economic factors relating to service, 

generally will not be considered as emergencies unless the inability to supply electric 

service is imminent. Where an electricity 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 safety and good air pollution control practice[s]” as stated in §60.5525(c).

Typographical Comments

1) Reviewer recommends defining “SCPC” within the terms and acronyms table and after 

the first use.

2) Reviewer notes that the affected source category of newly 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 significantly more than completing competing technologies such as nuclearpowered 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 instead 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 geological 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 early warning mechanism for 

releases of CO2 to the atmosphere to air.”

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether the units described in the sentence below on 

Page 324, Section V are metric, short, or long tons.

a. “Injection rates in 2010 and 2011 were approximately 1 million tons per year.”

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.”