UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D . C . 20460

OFFICE OF AIR A N D RAD I AT IO N MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM: THRU:

TO: Correction of Inadvertent Errors in the Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Janet G. McCabe

### ~G(._(....Q..._ Acting Assistant Administrator (6101A) Lorie Schmidt ;//

# ~# Associate General Counsel Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A) Joel Beauvais 

# Je/2**~** Associate Admimstrator 

# 0 Office of Policy (1804 Gina McCarthy Administrator (11 01A Several inadvertent errors were made in the process of preparing the signature package for the proposal titled "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Exis ting Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units" signed on June 2, 2014. The attached proposal is a redline and strikeout version that identifies these errors and shows th e corrected text. All of the significant corrections are lis ted below, with page numbers cited to the attached redline and strikeout version. First, it is important to hi ghlight a key correction that is needed. Much of section X. G., titled "What are the benefits of the proposed goals?" was inadvertently omitted. This section describes the methods used to estimate the monetized climate benefits and health co-benefits of the proposed g uidelines and provides the results, including 6 table s ofbenefits information, and is shown on pages 551-572 ofthe attachment. The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) also provides this and more extens ive information . Second, edits are needed (on page 128) to correctly reflect that the EPA intend s to: 1) publish a s upp lemental proposal that establishes goals for areas of Indian country with affected EGUs and for U.S. territories rather than plans, and 2) take final action on the proposal by Ju ne 2015. Conforming edits are needed (on pages 115 and 375) to reflect that "ifthe EPA determines that a CAA section 111 (d) plan i s necessary or appropriate, " the EPA has the responsibility to establish a CAA section 1 1 1 (d) plan for that area of Indian country where affected sources are located unless the tribe on whose lands an affected source (or sources) is loc ated seeks and obtains authority from the EPA to establish a plan itself, pursuant to the Tribal Authority Rule. I nternet Ad d ress ( U R L) • h ltp"//www epa gov Recycled/ Re c y c labl e • P nnted w 1l h Vegeta b l e O il Based I n ks on 1 00 % Postconsume r. Process Ch l o ri n e Fre e Recycl ed PaperThird , the addition of text (on page 407) to better represent Congress' possible intention regarding the permanence of emission performance of improvements would include that, through silence, Congre s s authorized the EPA to reasonably require permane nce. Fourth, the addition of a foo tnote (#249 on p. 322) that is included in the Legal Memo , which describe s an alternative way to justify why the emission standards that the states include their 111(d) state plans meet the CAA requirements as "standards of performance." Other corrections to the preamble and the regulatory text are listed below. Preamble • Page 2- Revised to reflect public hearing information for Washington, DC. • Pages 3-4- Revised to reflect that the REAL ID Act will be effective (beginning July 21, 2014) and to specify valid forms of identification for entering federal buildings. • Pages 4 and 49 (footnote 11)- Corrected website address to "www2.epa.gov /cleanpowerplan/" • Pages 43 & 44- Changes to reflect proposed annual reporting (while we are requesting comment on biennial reporting). • Page 58 - Made a correction from "78,000jobs " to "78 , 800 jobs" • Page 110 - Edited to conform with the building block descriptions throughout preamble. • Page 112 - Removed inaccurate information about an April 2016 letter of intent replaced with accurate information about the June 2016 submittal that conforms with information elsewhere in the preamble. • Page 117 - Added "already been" to"... the EPA is proposing two alternative BSER for fossil fuelfired EGUs, each of which i s based on methods that have already been employed ... " • Pages 122-123 -Adding missing sentence in, to also reflect House version of amendment CAA section 111(d) ( 1 )(A)(i) ( in addition to the Senate version) and to correctly relocate to the footnote (footnote 87) to this sentence. • Page 128- Added text to clarify that we will propose goals for territories (instead ofplans) by June 20 15; the territory will establish the plan. • Page 164- Corrected to interpret that "the EPA estimated," as opposed to Sargent & Lundy or their study, as reflected in "Based on the study, the EPA est imated that ... " • Page 166- Edited footnote 124 on heat rate improvements for conformity with statements elsewhere in preamble by removing " ... because we have le ss data from which to estimate these improvements " and adding text to identify that we are requesting comment on that aspect of the proposal. • Page 189- Made a clarifying edit regard ing the degree ofemission reductions achievable through re-dispatch. • Pages 248-249- Ed ited for clarity and conformity with usage elsewhere in preamble, to read: " ... the combination of all four building blocks provides the basis for satisfying the legal criteria to be considered the BSER. " • Page 294 - Deleted "comp liance" from "in formulating their compliance plans," for consistency in terminology.• Pages 309 and 310 -Corrected to add "part of'' to read "reduced generation in specified amounts . . . is part of t he 'best' system ofemission reduction . .. " • Page 37 1 - Removed "directly;; from "requirements that apply directly to entit ies other than affected EGUs" to avoi d any confusion about direct/indirect measures. • Page 379 - Removed "once approved into a plan" and replaced wit h "if included in an approved plan" for clarification and to avoid confusion. • Page 390- Changed "regulated entity" to "affected ent ity" as a conforming edit. • Page 400- Edits to clarify that eligible rate adjus tments are not limited j ust to EE/RE (e .g . , could include adjustments related to incrementa l or "at risk" nuc lear). • Page 407- Added citation as footnote 280 - CAA section 411 (b). • Page 411 - Corrected "economic growth" to "electr icity demand" to read ''two options for address ing any perceived need for emissions flexibility in light of anticipated electr i city demand growth after 2029 . " • Page 411 - Removed the "new" from discussion about how states design their plans to achieve both the interim and final goals, as the reference to "new" is extraneous and may cause confusion . • Page 425 - Added clarifying text to make a distinction for self-correcting plans that reads "the EPA proposes that each plan must have the following twelve components, except as indicated otherwise for self -correcting plans . .. " • Page 440 - Deleted incorrect statement about request for comment in the CAA section 111 (b) new source proposal and retained correct statement about the request for comment in the CAA modified and recons t ructed source proposal. • Page 441 - Deleted duplicative sentence. • Page 447 - Deleted footnote 289, as it is already explained in the body ofthe text with whi ch it was associated. • Page 488- Replaced "the compliance period" with "a plan performance period . " • Page 488 - Added "under a mass -based approach," for clarification and accuracy, to read "under a mass-based approach , any measure that reduces affected EGU emissions- even ifnot included in the state plan -- will, if implemented during a plan performance period, help to achieve actual emissions performance that meets the required level." • Page 489 - For accuracy and consistency, replaced "a state compliance demonstration" with "a state plan demonstration of emission performance." • Pages 520-521 - Revised text to reflect that the proposed CW A section 316(b) rule has been finalized and to accurately reflect the final rule requirements. Regulatory text • Page 615 (60.5700) - Replaced "standards ofperformance" with "emission standard" to be consistent with the preamble and the CAA. • Page 622 (60.5745) - Rep laced "States may submit a multi - state plan that:" with" A multi-state plan, if submitted by a s tate, must:" The change clarifies the intent that a state that does elect to submit a multi-state plan "must" submit the element in the section. • Page 638 (60.5805) - Deleted "to the delegated authority" as it is redundant, not needed for this rule and could cause confusion.The redline and strikeout shown on pages of the preamble and rule identify all of the errors described above and show the corrected text. These preamble and rul e changes are shown o n the pages identifi ed above. Minor clarifica tion s to terms , and grammatical corrections, and corrections to table numbering, formatting , a nd citatio n s to preamble sections are a l so shown. We recomme nd correction of these inadvertent errors and approval of these changes by signing and dating below.

Gina McCarthy , Administrator. Attachment cc: Amy Hambrick/OA ( I lOlA) Dated