Performance Standards: We understand that EPA is considering a hybrid approach in its 

CAIR replacement rule involving regional emissions trading and unit-specific performance 

standards (cite: July 9, 2009, testimony by Regina McCarthy before the Subcommittee on 

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate). 

As discussed in the September 2, 2009, joint letter, we strongly support and encourage EPA 

to include regional emissions trading to the fullest extent allowed under the Clean Air Act. 

We believe, however, that unit-specific performance standards go beyond the requirements 

of section 110 and the scope of a CAIR replacement rule; inhibit trading; and that 

performance standards with a near-term compliance timeframe, such as 2017, are not 

practical for all EGUs. Although we firmly believe that it is not appropriate to include 

performance standards in a CAIR replacement rule, if EPA decides to consider including 

performance standards, then EPA should work with the states to take into account the basis 

and timing of the requirements identified in the September 2, 2009, joint letter, cost 

effectiveness, site specific factors (such as space limitations) and the pollution control 

equipment already in place on the existing fleet of EGUs. Specifically, on this last point, we 

believe that EPA should not require replacement or repowering of units or control systems 

that are sound technology and operating at a reasonable effectiveness. 

LADCO Recommendation 2 

B. State- Led Attainment Planning 

We recommend the use of a state-led attainment planning process concurrent with developing 

the transport SIP to address areas of interest that are not expected to attain after 

implementation of the national/regional control program. The advantages of this state-led 

planning effort include: 

 A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot provide the most appropriate and cost-effective 

solution for each area; 

 Attainment planning is more effective and more likely to succeed if it is done on a nonattainment area basis with a limited number of states; 

 Additional controls are identified where they are needed; and 

 States maintain their responsibility under the Clean Air Act to establish state 

implementation plans. 

A major contributing state (i.e., a state which contributes at least 4% to a downwind area of 

interest that is not expected to attain after implementation of the national/regional program) 

must also either: 

1. In conjunction with other major contributing states, develop, adopt, and implement an 

appropriate attainment strategy for the area of interest, as follows:

a. An upwind state’s responsibility for achieving air quality benefits in a downwind area 

should be commensurate with the magnitude of the upwind state’s contribution to the 

downwind air quality problem. 

b. To facilitate flexibility in developing control programs and reduce control costs, state 

planning efforts should accommodate interstate emissions trading to the fullest extent 

allowed by the Clean Air Act. 

c. Photochemical modeling, performed in accordance with EPA modeling guidance, 

should be conducted to determine the amount of emission reduction needed to provide 
2. In th

be a

emis

com

Thes

cate

cont

Enclosed

If you wis

Air Direc

Sincerely

Douglas 

Director, 

Protectio

Steven E

Director, 

Environm

Matthew 

Secretary

Natural R

Enclosur

c: Regin

 Bhara

 Chery

for attainme

sectors, and

e event that

able to satisfy

ssion reducti

mensurate w

se measures

gories that c

trol measure

d please find

sh clarificatio

tors Consort

y, 

P. Scott 

Illinois Envi

on Agency 

E. Chester 

Michigan D

mental Qualit

J. Frank 

y, Wisconsin

Resources 

re 

na McCarthy

at Mathur, Ac

yl Newton, D

ent and the r

d to assess c

t the multi-st

y its section 

ions measur

with a Reaso

s should be 

contribute to

es for the con

d supporting 

on of these c

tium. 

 

ronmental 

 

 

epartment o

ty 

n Departmen

, Assistant A

cting Region

Director, Air a

relative contr

candidate co

tate planning

110(a)(2)(D

res for signif

onably Avail

determined 

o the air qual

ntributing so

materials fo

comments, t

of

nt of 

Administrato

nal Administ

and Radiatio

ributions of t

ontrol measu

g effort is un

D) obligation 

ficantly contr

able Contro

by first iden

lity problem,

ource catego

or these reco

then please 

 Tho

 Com

 of E

 Chri

 Dire

Age

or, Office of A

rator, U.S. E

on Division, 

the participa

ures. 

successful, 

if it can dem

ributing sour

l Measure a

tifying key p

 and then id

ories. 

ommendatio

contact Mic

mas Easterl

mmissioner, 

nvironmenta

istopher Kor

ector, Ohio E

ency 

Air and Radi

EPA, Region

U.S EPA, Re

ating states a

then each 4

monstrate to 

rce categorie

nalysis for th

pollutants an

dentifying an

ns. 

hael Koerbe

y 

Indiana Dep

al Managem

rleski 

Environmenta

ation, U.S. E

n V 

egion V 

and source 

4% state may

EPA that it 

es that are 

he affected a

d source 

d evaluating

er, Lake Mich

partment 

ment 

al Protection

EPA

y still 

has

area. 

g

higan 

n