1 | P a g e

December 1, 2014

U.S. EPA Headquarters

1201 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: AWEA Comments on EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Stationary Sources and Supplemental Proposed Rule

Submitted via regulations.gov: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-

21640; and email: mailto:A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov

Power plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide pollution that drives 

catastrophic climate change, and there are currently no federal limits on their emissions. In his 

June 25, 2013, Climate Action Plan and an accompanying memorandum, President Obama 

directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use Section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to curb carbon dioxide pollution from existing power plants, as well as new such 

facilities.

1

 In response, EPA proposed regulation of carbon emissions (Clean Power Plan) from 

 

1 The President’s Climate Action Plan (June 25, 2013), available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.Pdf; Power Sector Carbon Pollution 

Standards, presidential memorandum, June 25, 2013, www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/

presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards. Carbon dioxide regulations of the electric 

power sector were required in order to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA, 

finding that such action would be required if EPA determines, as it did in 2009, that carbon dioxide pollution 

endangers public health or welfare, per the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Massachusetts v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf; see 

also Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air 

Act, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf.
2 | P a g e

existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the CAA in June 2014.

2

 EPA subsequently issued 

a notice of data availability (NODA) in October 2014 that provides additional information on 

certain issues that have been consistently raised by a diverse set of stakeholders concerning the 

Clean Power Plan.3

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)4applauds the Clean Power Plan for

allowing states to meet the proposed required reductions through the use of system-wide 

programs and policies, which will allow states to build on existing programs, such as renewable 

energy measures, to serve as compliance tools in state plans. Renewable energy, such as wind 

generation, is an effective, widely available, affordable, reliable, and rapidly scalable method for 

reducing carbon emissions in the power sector and complying with the final Clean Power Plan.

5

 

In the proposed rule, EPA correctly recognizes the value of incorporating renewable energy as a 

component of its “best system of emissions reduction” (BSER). The emission reduction 

strategies from renewable energy are already being deployed today to cost-effectively secure 

significant reductions in carbon pollution, fulfilling the CAA’s requirement that the emission 

limitations be “achievable through the best system of emission reduction . . . taking into 

account . . . cost . . . [that] has been adequately demonstrated.”6 

With compliance options like renewable energy, states will be able to meet their goals 

easily and at low cost, while also providing new options for consumers. Indeed, state and local 

 

2 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (June 18, 

2014), available at http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards.

3 Clean Power Plan Clean Power Plan Notice of Data Availability (Oct. 28, 2014), available 

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule-notice-data-availability.

4 AWEA is a national trade association representing a broad range of entities with a common interest in encouraging 

the expansion and facilitation of wind energy resources in the United States. AWEA members include wind turbine 

manufacturers, component suppliers, project developers, project owners and operators, financiers, researchers, 

renewable energy supporters, utilities, marketers, customers, and their advocates. 

5

See AWEA, “The Clean Air Benefits of Wind Energy”, May 2014, available at: http://awea.files.cmsplus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/AWEA_Clean_Air_Benefits_WhitePaper%20Final.pdf

6

See Clean Air Act § 111(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1).
3 | P a g e

governments have already increased their adoption of renewable energy policies and programs,

and these policies can provide appreciable carbon reduction benefits that state and local air 

planners can capture in state plans to meet the forthcoming Section 111(d) carbon reduction 

targets. By driving investment in renewable energy, the Clean Power Plan will accelerate the 

country’s transition to a power system that is efficient, reliable, resilient, flexible, clean, 

affordable, and consumer-focused.

The proposed rule establishes emission goals that states are required to meet, including an 

interim goal, which would apply between 2020 and 2029, and a final goal, which must be 

achieved starting in 2030. Based on EPA’s method of calculation, state emission goals are not 

uniform; this means that some states will be required to reduce emissions rates significantly, 

while others will be required to make smaller reductions. Nevertheless, AWEA believes that 

states with even the most significant reduction goals will be able to meet their targets with 

relative ease given EPA’s conservative assumptions used in setting emission performance 

standards and the range of carbon emission reduction options available for compliance, such as 

renewable energy. 

As a result of certain assumptions and provisions, we believe the proposed rule 

significantly underestimates the degree to which renewable energy, in particular, wind energy 

can help states cost-effectively meet their carbon reduction goals. As an example, Texas has one 

of the largest state emission reduction targets at 38 percent reductions from 2012 levels by 2030, 

but EPA assumes that the state’s renewable energy generation growth rate over the 8-year period 

from 2012 to 2020 would only be 1/6th of the growth rate the state achieved in the prior 8-year 

period (2004 to 2012), and roughly equivalent to the total increase in renewable generation that 
4 | P a g e

occurred from 2004 to 2012.

7

 At the same time, some aspects of the proposed rule need to be 

revised to provide more certainty on specific topics, such as the crediting of interstate effects of 

carbon emission reductions from renewable energy. 

AWEA strongly supports President Obama’s and EPA’s commitment to curb power plant 

carbon pollution and welcomes the opportunity to offer these comments on how to build on the 

solid foundation provided in the proposed rule to create a strong program for reducing carbon 

pollution from existing power plants under Section 111(d). We hope our comments will help 

EPA and the states develop smart, cost-effective programs for existing power plants that will 

result in real cuts of carbon pollution and, in turn, drive the expansion and use of clean, nonpolluting energy sources, such as renewable energy. 

As EPA continues to finalize the carbon emissions standards, carbon reductions from 

renewable energy policies and programs are likely to become increasingly important for 

jurisdictions to meet those standards as renewable energy is often the least cost, most rapidly 

deployable way of reducing carbon pollution and lowering energy costs. In order for states to 

fully leverage renewable energy as a compliance tool, the final rule should build on the solid 

foundation provided in the Clean Power Plan by addressing the following key issues, among 

others addressed in these comments:

 Strengthen the targets for renewable energy by adopting the proposed regionalized

technical and economic renewable energy approach, as initially set forth in a

technical support document (TSD) that describes EPA's Alternative Renewable 

Energy Approach and modified in the NODA to take on a regionalized approach,

for calculation of the renewable energy component of building block 3 of the 

 

7 The Texas renewable energy generation target in 2020 is 68,273,785 MWh. Texas renewable energy generation 

was 4,991,243 MWh in 2004, growing 593 percent by 2012. Available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
5 | P a g e

BSER, but modify it to better reflect what levels of increased generation from 

renewable energy are cost-effectively achievable;

 Adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating building block 3 of the BSER to 

reflect the reduced utilization of affected electric generating units (EGUs) through 

displacement by renewable energy;

 Allow the “banking” of new carbon emission reduction actions, measures and 

programs taken after January 1, 2017, to be used for compliance with targets 

during the compliance period (after January 1, 2020); and

 Provide clearer guidance on the crediting of out-of-state renewables to ensure that 

that the states in which the environmental attributes of renewable energy are 

retired are able to claim the full credit for the emissions reductions.
6 | P a g e

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... 6

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 10

A. Suggested improvements to EPA’s Alternative Renewable Energy Approach and the NODA 

Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach to make sure the Clean Power Plan accurately 

reflects the cost-effective level of renewable energy deployment that can be achieved..................10

B. A “system-wide” framework for establishing the BSER and complying with the performance 

standards established thereunder can drive significant carbon emission reductions at the least 

cost. ........................................................................................................................................................13

C. EPA correctly includes wind energy in the calculation of the BSER.......................................14

D. EPA should reevaluate the BSER periodically and increase the stringency, as appropriate, 

and ensure compliance timing.............................................................................................................15

E. EPA should provide further clarification on the crediting of emission reductions from outof-state renewable energy to ensure that the state that retires the environmental attributes of 

renewable energy gets to claim the full credit....................................................................................16

F. EPA should explicitly allow states to use the “state commitment approach” in their 

compliance plans...................................................................................................................................19

G. Emissions changes under a rate-based plan from substitution of new gas facilities. .............19

H. EPA should provide limited banking for carbon reduction actions taken after January 1, 

2017, and before the plan performance period begins. .....................................................................20

I. If a state opts to convert to a mass-based target, EPA should require a subsequent true-up of 

the emissions reduction requirement during the compliance time frame based on actual load 

growth. Otherwise, the rate-based performance standard may not be met, and it also creates an 

incentive for states to use high load growth projections for use in the mass-based conversion. ...20

III. DETAILED COMMENTS......................................................................................... 21

A. Comments related to setting the best system of emission reductions—building blocks.........21

i. Building block 3: the Clean Power Plan’s BSER methodology underestimates the 

contributions from renewable energy regarding what is feasible, cost-effective, and adequately 

demonstrated. .....................................................................................................................................21

ii. Necessary improvements to the technical and economic Approaches – NODA Regionalized 

Approach and the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach.............................................................30

iii. EPA should remove the “technical resource” step in which it imposes an arbitrary cap on the 

percentage of the technical renewable resource that can be developed in a state or region...............32

iv. In quantifying which renewable energy resources are economic, EPA should begin with 

current, real-world data on the cost of renewable energy technologies. ............................................36
7 | P a g e

v. For projecting changes in the economics and performance of renewable energy through the 

year 2030, EPA should rely on the detailed and thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and performance 

projections developed by the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

...................................................................................................................................................37

vi. In its economic modeling, EPA should not impose a firm cap on the percentage of variable 

renewable energy that can be deployed in a state or region, but rather should economically model the 

cost of renewable curtailment that could occur at extremely high renewable energy penetrations, or 

rely on such modeling that has already been conducted by others.....................................................39

vii. Changes to the generation mix, changes in fuel prices, and other power system changes that 

are expected to occur between now and 2030 should also be included in the analysis of the 

economics and reliability of higher renewable penetrations. .............................................................41

viii. Because many planned transmission lines will have been placed in service by 2020, and 

others will occur during the compliance period, they should also be included in EPA’s analysis. ...42

ix. Regarding EPA’s question about how regions should be drawn for purposes of establishing the 

regions used for setting the NODA Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach, we offer the 

following guidance to ensure the regions are consistent with important policy, economic, and 

technical boundaries...........................................................................................................................44

x. The reserve margin contribution of wind energy in ERCOT in EPA’s IPM modeling should be 

updated to account for updates ERCOT has made to its reserve calculation based on new data.......49

xi. In response to EPA’s question in the NODA, once the regional renewable MWh total is 

calculated, this should be pro-rata allocated to states based on the amount of total generation in each 

state. ...................................................................................................................................................50

xii. Regarding EPA’s question in the NODA about how to treat a state in which the incremental 

renewable energy and energy efficiency exceeds historical fossil steam generation levels, EPA 

should credit this excess renewable energy based on the regional steam fossil emissions rate. ........50

xiii. EPA should include load growth when economically modeling renewable energy growth 

and examining the reliability of higher renewable penetrations. .......................................................50

xiv. If EPA decides to use a method in which the resource potential calculation is based to some 

extent on existing renewable energy generation, EPA should allocate existing renewable generation 

to states by looking at power purchase agreements for that generation, not the geographic location of 

the renewable generation....................................................................................................................51

xv. As outlined in the NODA, EPA should adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating 

building block three to reflect the reduced emissions from affected EGUs from displacement by 

renewable energy................................................................................................................................51

xvi. The ERCOT IPM region incorrectly does not appear to include wind resources in the Texas 

Panhandle. ..........................................................................................................................................54
8 | P a g e

xvii. EPA should review the wheeling charges described in Table 3.4 on pages 6-12 of Chapter 3 

of the IPM documentation, as many appear to be higher than current and future wheeling charges. 54

xviii. EPA should check the regional transfer limits listed in Table 3.4 on pages 6-12 of Chapter 3 

of the IPM documentation to verify that the MW transfer limits are an accurate reflection of current 

reality. ...............................................................................................................................................55

xix. IPM’s assumption of 2.8% inter-regional transmission losses is much higher than reality..59

xx. IPM’s modeling assumption of “perfect foresight” biases generation investment decisions 

against stably-priced renewable energy. ............................................................................................59

xxi. EPA should not use the Proposed RPS Approach, though if it does it should improve it using 

the following adjustments. .................................................................................................................62

xxii. The Proposed RPS Approach is flawed because state RPSs, which are policy commitments, 

are not necessarily based on the amount of cost-effective, achievable renewable energy within a 

given state’s or region’s borders. .......................................................................................................63

B. Building block 1—using only heat rate improvements would not represent the “best” system 

of emissions reductions.........................................................................................................................72

i. Building blocks 1 and 2—EPA should not limit the BSER to only those blocks to calculate the 

BSER..................................................................................................................................................72

ii. The proposed alternate set of state goals reflects an overly conservative approach..................74

iii. State-specific emission goals should not be adjusted after the final rule is issued absent 

extraordinary circumstances...............................................................................................................75

iv. Creation of the BSER: The proposed BSER framework appropriately recognizes renewable 

energy as a means of emissions reduction..........................................................................................75

v. The BSER’s stringency should be increased over time.............................................................80

vi. Permanent Reductions: EPA should establish BSER-based state emission performance goals 

for affected EGUs that extend beyond the proposed planning period................................................81

vii. The Clean Power Plan correctly concludes that wind energy is an appropriate “outside of the 

fence line” compliance option that satisfies the “best system of emission reduction requirements” 

and should be factored into determining state emission targets. ........................................................82

B. Comments related to compliance issues. ..................................................................................109

i. The crediting treatment of the interstate effects of renewable energy.....................................109

ii. Timing issues related to state compliance. ..............................................................................126

iii. State compliance considerations..............................................................................................130
9 | P a g e

iv. EPA should clarify what the term renewable energy “measures” encompasses. ....................131

v. Incorporating renewable energy measures under a rate-based approach. ...............................132

vi. States should be able to comply under either a rate-based or mass-based plan approach as long 

as equivalency is ensured. ................................................................................................................133

vii. EPA should issue guidelines for states................................................................................134

viii. EPA should permit and encourage multi-state/regional plans. ...........................................135

ix. State plans should specify reporting requirements. .................................................................136

x. Alternative compliance payments (ACPs) should not be a compliance tool...........................136

xi. EPA should explicitly allow for carbon pricing as a compliance option.................................137

xii. Banking: EPA should give credit to new emission reductions from actions taken after 

January 1, 2014, as long as they are part of a submitted compliance plan.......................................139

C. Comments related to enforcement issues. ................................................................................142

i. States should be able to choose approaches in their compliance plans under which 

responsibility for actions achieving reductions is not placed entirely upon emitting EGUs............142

D. Comments related to miscellaneous issues. ..............................................................................143

i. EPA should combine the two existing 111(d) categories and codify in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.......................................................................................................................................143

ii. Accounting for emissions changes from the substitution of new natural gas generation........144

E. Comments related to legal issues...............................................................................................145

i. EPA’s Legal Authority to Issue the Rule and to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions. .........145

IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 153

V. APPENDIX: EPA’s SPECIFC QUESTIONS AND AWEA’S ANSWERS................... 155
10 | P a g e

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Below is a summary of our main points and concerns regarding the design considerations 

that we feel should be addressed in the forthcoming final Clean Power Plan in order for EPA and 

the states to achieve the goal of significant de-carbonization of the electric power system at low 

cost. We provide additional detail and supporting evidence for these recommendations, as well 

as other points, in the subsequent section, “Detailed Comments.” 

A. Suggested improvements to EPA’s Alternative Renewable Energy Approach and 

the NODA Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach to make sure the Clean 

Power Plan accurately reflects the cost-effective level of renewable energy 

deployment that can be achieved.

AWEA generally supports the alternative (technical and economic) renewable energy 

building block 3 approach included in the June 2 Technical Supporting Documents (Alternative 

Renewable Energy Approach or TSD Approach),

8 with the modification detailed in the NODA to 

calculate the economic renewable resource on a regional instead of a state-by-state basis (NODA 

Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach or NODA Approach), as well as other revisions 

discussed herein. The combination of these two approaches is vastly superior to approach based 

on renewable portfolio standard (RPS Based Approach) that is set forth in the preamble to the 

proposed Clean Power Plan. Our comments are primarily focused on suggesting improvements 

to our preferred alternative—a regionalized version of a technical and economic approach—to 

 

8 The June 2014 proposed rule included two approaches for renewable energy target-setting. The approach that the 

EPA proposed established state renewable targets premised upon an average of state RPS requirements across states 

in certain regions (see 79 FR 34866-34869 and Chapter 4 of the technical support document (TSD) titled “GHG 

Abatement Methods,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013- 0602-17180) (Proposed RPS Approach). The EPA also 

requested comment on an alternative approach that used a state-by-state determination of RE targets, based on 

technical and market potential (see 79 FR 34869-34870 and “Alternative RE Approach Technical Support

Document,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0458) (Alternative Renewable Energy Approach).
11 | P a g e

make sure it best reflects the cost-effective level of renewable energy deployment that can be 

achieved under the BSER.9

Below is a summary of the specific modifications to the TSD Alternative Renewable 

Energy Approach and NODA Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach that we discuss at 

greater length in our detailed comments: 

1) EPA should remove the “technical resource” step in which it imposes an arbitrary cap 

on the percentage of the technical renewable resource that can be developed in a state or 

region. 

2) In quantifying which renewable energy resources are economic, EPA should begin with 

current, real-world data on the cost of renewable energy technologies. 

3) For projecting changes in the economics and performance of renewable energy through 

the year 2030, EPA should rely on the detailed and thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and 

performance projections developed by the Department of Energy and the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 

 

4) In its economic modeling, EPA should not impose a firm cap on the percentage of 

variable (wind and solar) renewable energy that can be deployed in a state or region, but 

rather should economically model the cost of curtailment of renewable generation that 

could occur at extremely high renewable energy penetrations, or rely on such modeling 

that has already been conducted by others. In the alternative, if EPA does impose a cap, 

it should rely on the results of renewable integration studies done by NREL, grid 

operators, and others, all of which have found penetrations of variable renewable energy 

resources of 40-50% are achievable and can be accommodated with an integration cost 

lower than that associated with accommodating the variability of conventional 

generators. 

5) Changes to the generation mix, changes in fuel prices, and other power system changes 

that are expected to occur between now and 2030, including those that are triggered by 

the provisions of 111(d) itself, should also be included in the analysis of the economics 

and reliability of higher renewable penetrations. 

6) Because many planned transmission lines will have been placed in service by 2020, they 

should also be included in EPA’s analysis. Moreover, EPA should account for the fact 

 

9

If EPA decides to ultimately pursue the RPS Based Approach in the final plan, we offer a number of suggestions 

for improvement in our detailed comments. If EPA decides to pursue the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach

(TSD Approach) instead of the Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach (NODA Approach), all of our suggested 

improvements except numbers 7 and 10 apply to that approach as well.
12 | P a g e

that many additional transmission lines, including those that have not yet been approved, 

will be planned, built, and placed in service during the compliance time period. 

7) Regarding EPA’s question about how regions should be drawn for purposes of 

establishing the regions used for setting the NODA regionalized technical and economic 

renewable resource quantities, we offer detailed guidance to ensure the regions are 

consistent with important policy, economic, and technical boundaries and suggest 

adjustments that are necessary to maintain consistency with existing RPS requirements 

and accurately represent current renewable energy exchanges.

8) The adequately demonstrated ability of Southeastern utilities to import wind energy 

generation from MISO and SPP should be accounted for in the regional or state

calculations of economically available renewable energy resources.

9) The reserve margin contribution of wind energy in ERCOT in EPA’s IPM modeling 

should be updated to account for updates ERCOT has made to its reserve calculation 

based on new data. 

10) In response to EPA’s question in the NODA, once the regional renewable MWh total is 

calculated, this should be pro-rata allocated to states based on the amount of total 

generation in each state. 

11) Regarding EPA’s question in the NODA about how to treat a state in which the 

incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency exceeds historical fossil steam 

generation levels, EPA should credit this excess renewable energy based on the regional 

steam fossil emissions rate. 

12) EPA should include load growth when economically modeling renewable energy growth 

and examining the reliability of higher renewable penetrations. 

13) If EPA decides to use a method in which the resource potential calculation is based to 

some extent on existing renewable energy generation, EPA should allocate existing 

renewable generation to states by looking at power purchase agreements for that 

generation, not the geographic location of the renewable generation. 

14) As outlined in the NODA, EPA should adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating 

building block three to reflect the reduced emissions from affected EGUs from 

displacement by renewable energy.

15) As outlined in the NODA, EPA should adjust the goal-setting formula for calculating 

building block three to reflect the reduced emissions from affected EGUs from 

displacement by renewable energy.

16) EPA should review the wheeling charges described in Table 3.4 on pages 6-12 of Chapter 

3 of the IPM documentation, as many appear to be higher than current and future 

wheeling charges. 
13 | P a g e

17) EPA should check the regional transfer limits listed in Table 3.4 on pages 6-12 of 

Chapter 3 of the IPM documentation to verify that the MW transfer limits are an accurate 

reflection of current reality. 

18) IPM’s assumption of 2.8% inter-regional transmission losses is much higher than reality. 

19) IPM’s modeling assumption of “perfect foresight” biases generation investment decisions 

against stably-priced renewable energy.

20) IPM underestimates the wind plant availability factor. 

21) EPA should verify that IPM’s Turn Down/Area Protection Constraints properly account 

for the actual and future capabilities of conventional generators to cycle and provide 

power system flexibility.

B. A “system-wide” framework for establishing the BSER and complying with the 

performance standards established thereunder can drive significant carbon 

emission reductions at the least cost.

AWEA supports EPA’s finding that the BSER is not limited to emission reduction 

measures that may be undertaken at existing EGUs, and instead is a “system” that includes other 

measures from the electric power system that are beyond the “fence line” of those individual 

units. We also applaud EPA for allowing "beyond-the-unit" measures to be eligible as

compliance tools with the emission performance standards established based on the BSER. 

EPA’s determination of the level of emission reductions that have been adequately 

demonstrated through the application of the four building blocks and, in particular, the third one 

(block 3—addressing renewables) based on the broader electric power system is consistent with 

its legal authority under the CAA and common sense. The language of Section 111 of the 

CAA— directing EPA to identify the system of emission reduction best able to secure rigorous 

carbon emission reductions considering cost and impacts on energy use and other environmental 

considerations—virtually compels that a system-based approach be permitted to satisfy the 

statutory requirement to consider costs.
14 | P a g e

A system-wide approach is also justifiable because an at-the-unit/beyond-the-unit 

distinction is not a meaningful one given the interconnected nature of the electric system. 

Indeed, such an approach would permit states and regulated sources to take full advantage of the 

inherent flexibility of the current regionally-integrated electricity system to achieve the carbon 

reduction goals in a reliable and cost-effective manner. The operations of the electricity system 

itself rely on the flexibility made available and achieved through dispatching between and among 

multiple interconnected EGUs and other energy resources, including renewable energy, across 

state lines. 

The utilization and ultimate emissions of individual EGUs operating within this system 

thus are a function of the performance of the entire system and should not, and need not be, 

artificially viewed in isolation. For example, the addition of renewable generation permits EGUs 

to reduce their own output and emissions, thereby displacing high-emission generation with zeroemission generation. Moreover, many achievable and cost effective emission reduction 

opportunities, such as renewable energy, are only found outside the fence line of existing EGUs. 

In fact, these existing beyond-the-fence emission reduction opportunities are well established and 

are already contributing to emission reductions at affected EGUs, and if these opportunities are 

accounted for in assessing the reasonableness of the costs of state-specific goals, as they should 

be, the resulting performance standards can reduce even more carbon emissions and at lower 

costs. 

C. EPA correctly includes wind energy in the calculation of the BSER.

The statutory directives of Section 111(d) establish the principle that any achievable and 

adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction available for compliance with a 

performance standard must also drive the standard’s stringency. The Clean Power Plan
15 | P a g e

determines that states can ramp up renewable electricity generation and, in particular, wind 

energy as a cost-effective and adequately demonstrated means of reducing emissions from 

affected EGUs under a system-based approach. Wind energy is undoubtedly an effective, widely 

available, affordable, reliable, and rapidly scalable method for reducing carbon emissions in the 

power sector and, in turn, complying with the final Clean Power Plan. Indeed, the Clean Power 

Plan would fall far short of delivering the maximum emission reductions existing plants can 

achieve at a reasonable cost, as required by the statute, if did not include wind energy in that 

calculation. 

D. EPA should reevaluate the BSER periodically and increase the stringency, as 

appropriate, and ensure compliance timing.

Section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for EPA, at least every eight years, to review and, if 

appropriate, revise federal standards of performance for new sources. This requirement provides 

for regular updating of performance standards for new sources as advances provide technologies 

that are cleaner or less costly. While Section 111(d) does not require regular review and 

revision, as it is silent on the issue, there is nothing preventing EPA from instituting such a 

review of the standards thereunder. In fact, it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to 

set a weak standard that adequately demonstrated systems achieve and exceed in practice without 

updating them. In addition, updating would be consistent with the “no backsliding” policy that is 

appropriately emphasized in the Clean Power Plan10 that ensures the standards sustain or 

increase the stringency of the goals.

In order to ensure that the BSER does not ultimately outpace requirements in the 111(d) 

context as well, EPA should review and revise the Section 111(d) standards to capture 

technological advances and changing economics (i.e., new, innovative, or improved compliance 

 

10 Clean Power Plan at 34,917.
16 | P a g e

tools that have been adequately demonstrated). To that end, AWEA recommends that EPA treat 

the 2030 final goals as a default, and further commit to reviewing, and if appropriate revising, 

the 2030 final goals by no later than 2024 (giving states time to revise their plans by the 2025 

update deadline and eight years after state plans are to be approved by EPA). 

E. EPA should provide further clarification on the crediting of emission reductions 

from out-of-state renewable energy to ensure that the state that retires the 

environmental attributes of renewable energy gets to claim the full credit. 

We agree with EPA’s proposal that a state should be able take into account all of the 

carbon emission reductions from renewable energy measures implemented by the state, whether 

they occur in the state or in other states. The Clean Power Plan offers states a number of options 

for the treatment of these emission reduction activities. In general, consistent with one of the 

options set forth in the proposed rule, the implementing state or entity (i.e., created the measure 

that led to the production of the energy) should be able to claim the environmental attributes of 

purchased renewable electricity from out-of-state generation, regardless of where the emissions 

reductions occur, in its state compliance plan. 

With respect to a multi-state or regional compliance plans, we also agree that states 

should be able to address the crediting of the interstate effects of renewable energy through 

cooperative agreements between states and regional determinations. This gives flexibility to 

states to choose from a variety of pathways to credit emission reductions in a manner that best 

addresses how they want to distribute credits, and likely will encourage multi-state/regional 

compliance approaches. 

We encourage EPA to provide further guidance in the final rule on the crediting of the 

interstate effects of emission reductions. In particular, clarification should be provided on how 

states should avoid double counting in instances in which one state claims credit for emissions 
17 | P a g e

reductions caused by renewable generation and another state that holds the environmental 

attributes of the same energy also claims credit. To that end, EPA should provide guidance that 

every state using renewable energy MWhs to comply with its state goal demonstrate that the 

zero-carbon attributes of that renewable energy are dedicated to that state. Doing so will avoid 

conflicts between states seeking to count the same renewable electricity as part of their 

compliance plans, minimize double counting concerns, and avoid disruptive uncertainty in the

underlying commercial markets. EPA should strongly encourage states to do so through an 

environmental attribute accounting system, whereby the state gets credit from EPA for each unit 

(e.g., MWh) of renewable energy by retiring the environmental attribute credit associated with 

that unit of renewable energy or showing that an environmental attribute credit has been retired 

by a regulated entity (e.g., EGU or distribution utility) within that state. Under any such 

accounting framework, the environmental attributes would start with the renewable energy 

generator for each unit of renewable energy generated. Environmental attributes could then be 

transferred using any instrument—e.g., bundled with power in a bilateral contract, unbundled 

and sold separately from power, kept and retired by the owner of the renewable facility—

consistent with the law of the state where the generator was located. 

If a state chooses not to develop or participate in such an environmental crediting 

accounting system for renewable energy, EPA should only allow a state to include renewable 

energy MWhs in its compliance plan if it can demonstrate entities in the state have submitted 

environmental attributes (i.e., credits) for those MWhs. EPA should provide an accounting 

option for those states that decline to adopt a credit policy so that they can nonetheless use 

renewable power to comply with their target. 
18 | P a g e

Because nearly every state experiences significant interstate power flows that cause a 

large share of the emissions reductions associated with the use of any low- or zero-carbon 

resource to occur in other states, accounting measures will be necessary during both the plan 

development and approval phase and in the compliance demonstration phase to ensure that the 

full emissions reductions associated with low- or zero-carbon resources are credited back to the 

entity making the investment and that other states cannot “free-ride” on the emissions reductions 

that occur in their state due to the compliance actions of another state. This concern and need for 

rigorous interstate accounting exists under either a rate-based or mass-based compliance 

approach, and applies to all low- and zero-emission carbon reduction solutions. Depending on 

the formula used by states and EPA, the credit received by the state taking the action should 

include both the MWh and emissions reductions associated with the renewable generation. 

Fortunately, accounting measures, including marginal emissions calculations and power system 

modeling, provide sufficient accuracy to make these accounting adjustments during both the plan 

development and approval phase and the compliance demonstration phase.

EPA should not dictate the form of acceptable environmental attribute credits. State 

plans could use RECs generated as part of new or existing RPS program, or RECs generated as 

part of the voluntary REC market, so long as those RECs include the zero-carbon attributes of 

the generation. Alternatively, a state plan could use environmental attribute credits that have 

been unbundled from the renewable attributes of a REC, such as those created as part of existing 

voluntary GHG reduction programs, or those developed specifically as part of a Clean Power 

Plan state plan or multi-state agreement. However, EPA should be clear that existing REC and 

environmental attribute crediting platforms—including voluntary REC tracking systems—are 

acceptable tools for approvable state plans to use, and that for any existing or newly developed 
19 | P a g e

system to be approvable it must ensure that the same renewable MWhs do not generate or use 

credits that can be double counted. 

AWEA believes that these modifications and clarifications should resolve the uncertainty 

created by the proposed rule and provide a strong signal to renewable energy developers and 

purchasers that their existing and future contracts for the environmental attributes of the energy 

will be honored. 

F. EPA should explicitly allow states to use the “state commitment approach” in 

their compliance plans.

States should be able to choose approaches in their compliance plans under which full 

responsibility for actions achieving reductions is not placed entirely upon emitting EGUs. 

Instead, state plans should be able to include measures and policies (e.g., RPSs) for which the 

state itself is responsible. To facilitate this outcome, we support the proposed “state commitment 

approach,” under which the state requirements would not be components of the state plan and,

therefore, would not be federally enforceable. Rather, the state plan would include an 

enforceable commitment by the state itself to implement state enforceable (but not federally 

enforceable) measures that would achieve a specified portion of the required emission 

performance level on behalf of affected EGUs. This flexible approach should serve to 

incentivize more states to embrace renewable energy programs and measures as compliance tools

if they are concerned about making their renewable energy programs and policies federally 

enforceable. 

G. Emissions changes under a rate-based plan from substitution of new gas 

facilities.

Emissions from new gas generation under a rate-based plan resulting from the 

substitution of new natural gas generation for affected EGUs should be calculated toward a 
20 | P a g e

required emission performance level for affected EGUs. If new gas generators are used for 

compliance purposes, they should be factored into the establishment of performance standards to 

ensure symmetry between the resources considered in setting the target and resources allowed for 

compliance. A failure to account for emissions from new gas generators would make it 

misleadingly seem like new gas generation is a non-emitting resource for purposes of Section 

111(d) compliance, when in reality it would continue emitting carbon dioxide, undermining the 

goal of reducing electric sector carbon emissions. Further, not counting these emissions would

greatly skew incentives for investment and dispatch decisions towards new gas generation and 

away from true zero-carbon alternatives and existing gas generation.

H. EPA should provide limited banking for carbon reduction actions taken after 

January 1, 2017, and before the plan performance period begins.

EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction actions (i.e., increasing existing 

policies, adopting new programs, and building new qualifying facilities), taken after January 1, 

2017, and before the beginning of the plan performance period (2020) to count toward 

achievement of the state's emissions goals. This would help ensure that states have an incentive 

to engage in carbon reduction measures prior to that period, achieving emissions reductions more 

cost-effectively and making states better positioned to achieve their final compliance goals. 

I. If a state opts to convert to a mass-based target, EPA should require a 

subsequent true-up of the emissions reduction requirement during the 

compliance time frame based on actual load growth. Otherwise, the rate-based 

performance standard may not be met, and it also creates an incentive for states 

to use high load growth projections for use in the mass-based conversion.

The conversion of a rate-based standard to a mass-based standard is highly sensitive to 

the assumed rate of load growth. This creates a strong incentive for states to try to minimize 

their emissions reduction requirement by adopting a mass-based approach and using unjustifiably 

high assumptions for the rate of future load growth, thereby, in effect, setting a less stringent 
21 | P a g e

requirement that allows for higher level of emissions. By requiring a “true-up” during the 

compliance period to account for the actual rate of load growth, EPA can ensure that states 

achieve the level of emissions reductions specified in their rate-based standard. 

III. DETAILED COMMENTS

A. Comments related to setting the best system of emission reductions—building 

blocks.

i. Building block 3: the Clean Power Plan’s BSER methodology 

underestimates the contributions from renewable energy regarding what 

is feasible, cost-effective, and adequately demonstrated.

AWEA supports EPA’s general building block-based approach to the BSER and believes 

that the overall targets EPA has set through those blocks are achievable. However, particular 

features of the Clean Power Plan’s BSER methodology have resulted in estimated contributions 

from various technologies, including renewable energy, that underestimate what is feasible, costeffective, and adequately demonstrated. As a result, the state goals in the proposed rule reflect a 

feasible system of emission reduction, but not necessarily the “best” system of emission 

reduction. Each individual BSER building block, and the combination of the four together, can 

and should better reflect the true potential emission reduction contribution from the cost-effective 

resources in each state and region. AWEA provides recommendations below to make the 

renewable energy BSER methodology a more accurate analysis of the technically feasible, 

demonstrated, and cost-effective renewable energy resources under available to a state under 

building block 3.

The Clean Power Plan lays out three primary methodological options for calculating the 

feasible, demonstrated, and cost-effective contribution of renewable energy to reducing 

emissions under the BSER. Under the proposed approach (Proposed RPS Approach), the draft 
22 | P a g e

rule uses state RPS policies as the benchmark for achievable renewable energy generation. 

Under an alternative approach described in a technical support document to the proposed rule 

(Alternative Renewable Energy Approach),11 the Clean Power Plan sets forth a state-based 

technical and economic approach to determine renewable potential within state borders. In 

addition, under a further alternative approach, detailed in the NODA (“NODA Regionalized 

Renewable Approach), EPA lays out a regionalized version of the Alternative Renewable Energy 

Approach for calculating each state’s renewable target based on the renewable potential available 

across a multi-state region in which the state is located. 

AWEA supports EPA’s inclusion of renewable energy into the BSER as part of building 

block 3, but proposes herein a number of revisions to all three of EPA’s proposed 

methodologies. In particular, we propose revisions to the NODA Regionalized Renewable 

Energy Approach that we think would best ensure that the final plan correctly captures the 

achievable, cost-effective, and adequately demonstrated growth of renewable energy. 

While we strongly recommend that EPA strengthen the targets for renewable energy by 

adopting the NODA Regionalized Energy Approach for calculation of building block 3 of the 

BSER, subject to the modifications detailed herein, if EPA declines to adopt that approach in the 

final rule, we recommend, in the alternative, that it adopt the state-based technical and economic 

approach, as outlined in the TSD Alternative Renewable Energy Approach, subject to the 

modifications proposed below.

12

 And, if EPA fails to embrace either our preferred NODA 

approach or the TSD Alternative Renewable Energy Approach in the final rule, but instead 

 

11 Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602tsd-alternative-reapproach.pdf.

12 All of our suggested improvements below, except numbers 7 and 10, also apply to the TSD Approach, while all 

apply to the NODA Approach.
23 | P a g e

adopts the Proposed RPS Approach for calculating building block 3, we propose numerous 

revisions thereto to help ensure that it more accurately captures renewable energy potential.

Although EPA is right to include renewable energy generation as part of its evaluation 

and application of the BSER, the Proposed RPS Approach significantly underestimates the 

amount of electricity that can be cost-effectively generated by renewables over the 2020-2030 

compliance period. As explained in more detail below, the Proposed RPS Approach fails to 

reflect current deployment rates, continued growth, the economics of renewable energy 

technologies, and the falling costs of renewable energy projects. As such, AWEA believes that

EPA should adjust its methodology for calculating state and regional emission reductions targets 

in the final Clean Power Plan. 

A methodology based directly on renewable resource economics and demonstrated and 

future cost, such as the methodology set forth in the TSD, is a more appropriate measure of 

achievable and cost-effective renewable energy than an approach based on historical state 

policies, such as the Proposed RPS Approach. In addition, the regionalized approach set forth in 

the NODA, is an improvement to the state-by-state TSD approach, as it correctly evaluates the 

achievable renewable potential of each state based on the quantity and cost of the regional 

renewable energy resource. Based on extensive historical experience of utilities procuring 

renewable energy from other states in their region, through bundled RECs or other measures, this 

is a much more realistic metric of the quantity of renewable energy that is technically feasible, 

demonstrated, and cost-effective for a particular state to procure for purposes of Section 111(d) 

compliance. Therefore, consistent with the NODA approach, each state’s emission reduction 

goals from renewable energy should be adjusted based on the total renewable energy potential 
24 | P a g e

available across a multi-state region. In other words, a state’s goal should be informed by the 

opportunity to develop out-of-state renewable resources as part of its state plan.

Power system modeling conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council13 and the 

Union of Concerned Scientists,

14 respectively using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and 

Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models that are regularly employed by the EPA, 

confirms that larger quantities of renewable energy than assumed by EPA are technically 

feasible, demonstrated, and cost-effective. UCS’s analysis found that the nation’s renewable 

electricity generation could approximately double the level assumed in EPA’s proposed 

approach by 2020, increasing from 7 percent of total U.S. electricity to 14 percent. By 2030, 

UCS’s analysis found 23 percent of generation could come from renewable energy, versus the 12 

percent level assumed by EPA.

The UCS analysis found this greater use of renewable energy would result in faster and 

more economic decreases in carbon emissions through 2030. Total carbon reductions achieved 

by the Clean Power Plan could increase from 30 percent below 2005 levels to nearly 40 percent.

These numbers conservatively assume that the additional renewable generation replaces natural 

gas generation; if coal generation were replaced, the figures would be even higher. These 

emission reductions could also be further increased if improvements are made to other Clean 

Power Plan building blocks. By adopting our recommended modifications to building block 3, 

EPA would better represent the cost-effectively achievable level of renewable energy 

deployment and thereby cost-effectively increase the total emissions reductions achieved by the 

Clean Power Plan. 

 

13 Available at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-energy-savings.asp.

14 Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/Strengthening-the-EPA-Clean-PowerPlan.pdf.
25 | P a g e

By using more recent data on the cost and performance of renewable energy and energy 

efficiency than was employed in EPA’s development of the BSER, NRDC found that EPA's 

proposed state targets could be met at a total savings of $1.8 billion to $4.3 billion in 2020, 

instead of EPA's estimated costs of $5.5 billion and $7.5 billion. Total savings would reach $6.4 

billion to $9.4 billion in 2030, instead of the EPA's estimated costs of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion. 

The updated cost and performance data also resulted in a nearly 50 percent higher level of 

renewable energy deployment than EPA assumed in the BSER for building block three.

Even these levels of renewable energy growth are conservative relative to the findings of 

two Department of Energy reports which have concluded that wind energy alone could costeffectively provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2030. The Department of Energy’s 

2008 report “20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030”15 and its forthcoming “Wind Vision”16 report 

both found large societal net benefits, including very large reductions in carbon dioxide 

emissions and minimal impact on consumer electricity costs, from reaching 20 percent wind 

energy by 2030. 

DOE’s forthcoming Wind Vision report confirms that greater amounts of wind energy 

can be deployed at little to no cost to consumers. It found that under the 20 percent wind by 

2030 scenario, electric rates would increase just under 1%, but that by 2050 rates are expected to 

drop by $3/MWh, a 2% savings for ratepayers.17 UCS’s analysis similarly found that with 23 

percent of U.S. electricity provided by renewable energy in 2030, average consumer electricity 

prices would be at maximum only 0.3 percent higher (about 18 cents for a typical household’s 

 

15 Available at http://energy.gov/eere/wind/20-wind-energy-2030-increasing-wind-energys-contribution-uselectricity-supply.

16 Available at http://energy.gov/eere/wind/new-vision-united-states-wind-power.

17 Available at http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-the-us-will-get-a-third-of-its-energy-from-wind-bymidcentury/335423/.
26 | P a g e

utility bill) than business as usual.18 This does not even account for the benefit provided to 

natural gas users outside the electric sector from reducing natural gas prices by nearly 10 percent. 

DOE’s Wind Vision scenario found that reaching 35 percent wind energy by 2050 would make 

the power system 20% less sensitive to natural gas price fluctuations, resulting in $280 billion in 

cumulative benefits for electricity consumers alone.19

Greater use of wind energy provides numerous other benefits. By reducing air pollution, 

the 35 percent wind energy by 2050 Wind Vision scenario saved a cumulative $108 billion in 

avoided health and economic damages. The Wind Vision analysis also found power system 

water consumption is reduced 4% by 2020, 11% by 2030 and 23% by 2050.

The incremental cost impacts of increasing renewable generation as proposed under our 

revised approach fall well within the range that EPA identifies as meeting the BSER cost criteria 

under the Clean Power Plan, thanks largely to advances in technology and decreases in 

renewable energy costs. The average cost of wind energy has dropped by around 60 percent

since 2009, making it cost competitive with new fossil fuel plants in many regions.20 These 

trends in improved technology and reduced costs for renewable generation are expected to 

continue into the future, yet as proposed, the Clean Power Plan does not adequately account for 

this progress.

a. EPA should adopt the Alternative Renewable Approach, 

subject to using the NODA Regionalized Approach and the 

modification proposed herein.

 

18 http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/Strengthening-the-EPA-Clean-Power-Plan.pdf, page 5

19 http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-the-us-will-get-a-third-of-its-energy-from-wind-by-midcentury/335423/

20 Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, available at 

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf; DOE 2013 Wind 

Technologies Market Report, available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6809e.pdf, page 59
27 | P a g e

AWEA and others have expressed concern regarding the renewable energy target-setting 

component of building block 3, explaining that there is as a potential misalignment between 

estimating each state’s target based on in-state renewables while allowing use of out-of-state 

renewables for compliance with state goals, under the previously discussed methodologies. The 

NODA Regionalized Approach provides a third methodological option for renewable targets 

(beyond the RPS and alternative techno-economic that were in the proposed rule) that would be 

based on a regionalized approach and remedy this issue. 

The NODA Regionalized Approach adjusts each state’s renewable target based on the 

renewable potential available across a multi-state region in which a state is located. Under this 

approach, a state’s goal would be informed by the opportunity to develop out-of-state renewable

resources as part of its state plan, and thus would better align renewable targets with the proposal 

to allow the use of certain out-of-state renewables for compliance. The NODA states this 

regionalized approach could group states into regions, then aggregate renewable generation 

potential across the states in each region, and then reapportion the aggregate identified renewable

generation to individual states on a pro-rata load- or generation-weighted basis, regardless of the 

specific state where the generation would likely occur. EPA also states that the regional 

structures could be informed by NERC regions, FERC Planning Regions, RTOs, current regional 

renewable energy credit tracking systems, or some other approach. EPA seeks comment on the 

regional structure considerations and the criteria that should be used for reapportioning state 

renewable targets within given regions, as well as a justification for those criteria. 

The NODA Regionalized Approach’s target-setting methodology takes into account 

interstate exchanges of renewables in the calculation of state goals and, therefore, is better 

aligned with existing state renewable policies and potential claims on a given state’s renewable 
28 | P a g e

generation by parties from other states (such as renewable energy certificates and power purchase 

agreements (PPAs). Specially, it correctly provides a direct evaluation, by EPA, of the 

technically and cost-effectively recoverable level of renewable energy that each region can 

provide. This approach, if implemented as an improvement to the Alternative Renewable Energy 

Approach and subject to some modifications discussed herein, is our preferred approach as it will 

accurately reflect the appropriate level of the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of

renewable energy generation, based on technology and market trends, that should be reflected in 

state targets. We think that better aligning goal-setting to probable compliance approaches may 

mitigate some of these potential concerns.

Below we provide responses to various questions posed by EPA in the NODA regarding 

how to calculate building block 3 for renewables and propose suggested improvements to this 

approach. 

b. The NODA correctly takes a regional approach. 

AWEA agrees with EPA that:

Achievable renewable energy potential exists at significant and comparable levels 

in all regions of the country. While varied regional characteristics (e.g., the extent 

of renewable resources available, cost of competing sources of power, and level 

of past renewable energy development) affect estimates of achievable potential, 

ongoing improvements in technologies and practices, and continually improving 

strategies for renewable energy development are increasing the extent of 

economically utilized renewable resources across all regions of the United 

States.21 

In light of EPA’s acceptance of the feasibility of significant achievable levels of 

renewable energy in all regions, as quoted, AWEA believes that EPA correctly proposes in the 

NODA to look at the renewable resources available in a region to inform state targets. Such a

 

21
29 | P a g e

regional approach would take into consideration the variation of renewable generation potential 

while accounting for the interconnected nature of the power system and the manner in which 

utilities have been purchasing renewable energy thus far. 

A regional technical and market potential for renewable energy deployment would best 

reflect the real operation of the electricity system, relying on the flexibility made available and 

achieved through dispatching among multiple interconnected EGUs and other energy sources, 

including renewable energy, across state lines. A regional approach to quantification also gives a 

more complete picture of the use of renewable energy as well as the nature of carbon pollution. 

The global nature of the dispersion and impacts of carbon pollution supports a regional approach,

since the location of emissions or emission reductions does not affect the impact of such 

emissions. In short, in recognition of the global nature of carbon emissions and the interstate 

nature of the electrical system, the NODA rightly relies on a region-by-region assessment of 

renewable energy technical and market potential when determining the target for a particular 

state.

States may differ in important ways, including in their mix of existing EGUs and policy 

priorities, but taking interstate renewable energy opportunities into account will create more 

achievable and equitable emission reduction goals. The very functioning of the electricity 

system itself relies on the inherent flexibility made available and achieved through dispatching 

between and among multiple EGUs and other energy resources, including renewable energy, 

interconnected across the broader bulk electric grid and over state lines. 

Giving greater consideration to interstate opportunities in the goal-setting process would 

allow also potential cost savings to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the costs of 

state-specific goals. In other words, using regional evaluations allows the recognition of 
30 | P a g e

additional emission reduction opportunities from renewable energy that would be available at 

reasonable costs based on a more complete representation of the capabilities of existing 

infrastructure to accommodate shifts in generation among EGUs in multiple states. As such, if 

interstate renewable opportunities are accounted for, state-specific goals can likely reduce more 

carbon, as they will be based on an assessment of the amount of emissions that can be reduced 

through the application of a broader base for the BSER. 

Interstate purchases of renewable energy are adequately demonstrated and in fact, are 

quite widespread. AWEA’s analysis of publicly available PPA data finds that nearly 13,000 

MW, or more than 20% of the nation’s installed wind generating capacity, is currently under 

contract with a utility in a state other than the one in which the generation is located. This 

includes significant purchases of wind energy across relatively large distances, such as utilities in 

the Southeast purchasing and receiving physical delivery of wind energy from the Midwest, and 

utilities in California purchasing wind energy from the Pacific Northwest.

In sum, our analysis shows that the Clean Power Plan would better take into account the 

full value of renewable energy that is achievable and adequately demonstrated for deployment in 

states, while preserving reliability, ensuring reasonable costs, and delivering much deeper 

reductions in emissions, if it adopts in the final rule based on the regionalized version of its 

Alternative Renewable Energy Approach set forth in the NODA, subject to the proposed 

modifications proposed below. 

ii. Necessary improvements to the technical and economic Approaches –

NODA Regionalized Approach and the Alternative Renewable Energy 

Approach.

A direct evaluation by EPA of the most technically and cost-effectively deployable level 

of renewable energy in each state can provide a more accurate and conceptually appropriate 
31 | P a g e

estimate of the contribution of renewable energy to the BSER. EPA has proposed such a 

methodology in its Alternative Renewable Energy Approach and in the NODA Regionalized 

Renewable Energy Approach. Unlike EPA’s primary proposed renewable energy scenario that 

relies upon an application of state RPS commitments, the alternative methodology correctly 

relies upon an assessment of renewable energy technical and economic potential. Specifically, 

the TSD and NODA approaches present a more accurate evaluation of the level of achievable, 

cost-effective renewable energy in a state than the Proposed RPS Approach, as it would directly 

consider the renewable resources that will be available to the state at reasonable cost during the 

compliance period. As discussed in the previous section, AWEA supports the use of the 

NODA’s regionalized approach, but believes it must be modified to better represent the current 

and future cost and performance of renewable energy, and a number of features of the power 

system.

The Alternative Renewable Energy Approach calculates the renewable energy target for a 

state by taking, for each energy resource type (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydro), the 

lower of: (1) a resource availability (or “benchmark generation”) measure—based largely on a 

NREL GIS-based study; and (2) the amount of generation from that renewable resource projected 

through the use of EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (IPM- projected generation).22 The 

level calculated for each renewable resource type in a state is then summed for determining the 

total renewable target for that state. As explained above, the NODA approach, which is 

AWEA’s preferred approach (with the modifications discussed herein), takes this method one 

 

22 On page 7, in the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach from the TSD, EPA also proposes an alternative to this 

second step of the alternative approach that would use an avoided cost calculation instead of an IPM model run. 

Such an approach should produce a similar outcome as the IPM modeling. Should EPA decide to pursue the 

avoided cost methodology, it should also adopt all of the relevant modifications from the list below. 
32 | P a g e

step further by finding the total regional economic resource, and then allocating that resource out 

to the states.

The TSD and NODA approaches are indeed an improvement over the RPS-based 

approach, but they still significantly underestimate the actual renewable energy potential for 

states today, let alone expected cost reductions and other changes through 2030. If EPA 

ultimately adopts this approach, it should modify the methodology to set targets based on what 

will actually be achievable and cost-effective during the compliance period. Because of 

shortcomings in some of the methodology and assumptions employed, which are outlined below, 

the TSD and NODA approaches significantly underestimate the level of cost-effective renewable 

energy that each state can achieve by 2030. Therefore, if EPA adopts the combination of these 

approaches in the final rule, AWEA recommends that the agency adopt a revised version that 

corrects these shortcomings. In this section, we recommend a number of modifications that need 

to be made to such an approach to ensure that it is a more accurate reflection of the technically 

feasible, cost-effective level of renewable energy generation based on accurate technology and 

market trends. 

iii. EPA should remove the “technical resource” step in which it imposes an 

arbitrary cap on the percentage of the technical renewable resource that 

can be developed in a state or region. 

In the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach, EPA takes the lesser of this technical cap 

or the economic quantification of the renewable resource. This technical resource step is 

redundant, as the economic analysis step already accounts for the quantity and quality of the 

resource. Moreover, experience shows that such a cap is not binding as many states have already 

significantly exceeded the cap proposed by EPA. Imposing any technical resource limit that is 

less than 100% of the total technical resource would be redundant and an inaccurate 
33 | P a g e

representation of the economic factors that drive and limit renewable energy development. In the 

alternative, the cap should be raised to account for the fact that larger wind turbines, higher hub 

heights, and declining costs have expanded the viable wind resource in many states, enabling 

many states to greatly exceed the MW cap that EPA has proposed. 

The Alternative Renewable Energy Approach caps the amount of generation expected 

from each evaluated technology type for each state based on the development rate of that 

technology in the top states in 2012 (deemed “benchmark generation”). That is, the estimated 

2030 benchmark generation for each technology type is driven primarily by the amount of 

generation from that technology in 2012, rather than from a projection of the technically and 

economically feasible generation from that source in 2030. 

In reality, the amount of generation from most renewable technologies increases each 

year—often significantly. For example, since the end of 2005, the U.S. wind energy industry has 

doubled its installed capacity, on average, every 36 months. Over the last decade, the industry 

has gone from a low mark of installing 396 MW in 2004 to a high of more than 13,000 MW in 

2012, and as of earlier this year there were more wind projects under construction in the U.S. 

than at any point in U.S. history. U.S. wind energy’s five year average annual growth rate is 19.5 

percent from 2009-2013. 

In addition, because each state’s target generation from a particular resource type is 

capped at the proportion of 2012 generation to technical potential for the top states for all 

compliance years, this underestimation will only increase over time, as continuous improvements 

in renewable technology drive increasing deployment. As noted in the previous section, the 

amount of generation in a state from a particular technology in 2012 is largely a reflection of 

state policy, rather than a reflection of resource availability or technological capability.
34 | P a g e

Technological progress for renewable energy has been rapid. For example, the U.S. 

Department of Energy reported several months ago that “[t]he average nameplate capacity of 

newly installed wind turbines in the United States in 2013 was 1.87 MW, up 162% since 1998–

1999. The average hub height in 2013 was 80 meters, up 45% since 1998-1999, while the 

average rotor diameter was 97 meters, up 103% since 1998–1999.”23 The hub height data is 

particularly relevant as EPA’s proposed technical cap for all states is based on NREL’s 

assessment of the wind resource at 80 meters above the earth’s surface. While 80 meters was the 

national average hub height in 2013, in all but the best wind resource regions hub heights of 90-

100 meters or more have become the standard. These taller wind turbines offer access to 

significantly greater wind resources than can be found at 80 meters, greatly expanding the 

available resource beyond the limit arbitrarily imposed by the technical resource cap. This is 

further confirmation that the technical resource limit places an inaccurate and unnecessary cap on 

the potential for wind energy deployment in many states. AWEA data confirm that 31% of the 

turbines installed in 2012 had hub heights higher than 80 meters.

Further evidence that the technical resource cap is an arbitrary and unrealistic limit is 

demonstrated by the fact, acknowledged in EPA’s TSD document, that many states have already 

greatly exceeded the technical resource cap that EPA seeks to impose. In calculating the 

benchmark development rate for onshore wind, the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach 

takes the average development rate of the 16 states with the highest penetration of that 

technology. Inherent in taking an average is the fact that a sizeable proportion of the states will 

have a penetration rate that exceeds the technical resource cap. For example, renewable 

 

23 Available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6809e.pdf.
35 | P a g e

penetration levels as a share of the technical resource in Washington (14%), California (11%), 

West Virginia (25%), and Pennsylvania (25%) already exceed the 9% resource cap.

Moreover, the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach does not justify why it is 

appropriate to deem the top third as the “best” performers. In fact, other portions of the Clean 

Power Plan utilize smaller numbers of states to more accurately establish technically feasible 

best practice. In addition, when determining the appropriate best-practices level of achievable 

annual incremental energy efficiency, the Clean Power Plan deems an incremental savings rate of 

1.5 percent as achievable based on the practices of three states and the anticipated achievement 

of an additional nine states.

The technical resource cap is entirely redundant with the quantification of the 

economically viable renewable resource that is already conducted in the IPM modeling. That 

modeling begins with the quantification of renewable resources in each state, and the economic 

model determines how much of that can be economically deployed. Imposing any technical 

resource limit of less than 100% would be redundant and an inaccurate representation of the 

economic factors that actually drive renewable energy development. 

For all these reasons, it makes little sense to cap 2030 renewable generation based on the 

2012 level of deployment, even in the top states. While top states are likely capturing an 

achievable and cost-effective portion of technical potential renewable generation based on 2012 

costs and technological development, that portion will surely increase over time as technology 

cost and performance continue to improve, particularly for states with lower quality wind 

resources that are disproportionately benefiting from taller towers and other low-wind-speed 

turbine technologies. Building block 3 should capture predictable improvements based on 

established trends when determining the level of renewable generation that is feasible in each 
36 | P a g e

state. Technical potential is simply not a realistic or useful number to use in setting a 

benchmark. 

EPA should, therefore, just exclude the technical potential benchmark from the 

alternative approach and rely solely on the IPM model results, which would produce a more 

accurate representation of likely future development. As noted by EPA, the IPM model takes 

into account the cost of building renewable generation, but the model also takes into account grid 

conditions in a state and a number of other factors. EPA uses the IPM model to analyze the 

impact of air emissions policies on the U.S. electric power sector such as the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), 

and the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants. Therefore, there is 

precedent to rely solely on the IPM model for setting the renewable targets in each state under 

the alternative approach. Another option would be to use the demonstrated recent growth rates 

of renewable energy technology as the basis for the benchmark element of the approach rather 

than absolute 2012 development rates. As a third alternative, EPA could increase the technical 

cap to account for technological improvements and cost reductions that have expanded the 

quantity of the renewable resource available, particularly in states and regions that appear to have 

lower quality wind resources at 80 meter hub heights but actually have significant resources at 

the higher hub heights that are being used in those regions today.

iv. In quantifying which renewable energy resources are economic, EPA 

should begin with current, real-world data on the cost of renewable 

energy technologies. 

The wind capital cost assumption for the year 2016 that is used in EPA’s IPM run, 

$2,258/kW in 2011 dollars,24 is 39% too high relative to current installed wind costs, 

documented to be at $1,630/kW for installed wind project costs in 2013 by the Department of 

 

24 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_4.pdf, page 29.
37 | P a g e

Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s dataset.25 While wind costs have rapidly 

declined and continue to decline, with wind purchase prices falling by more than half over the 

last five years, the DOE/LBNL report estimates wind projects slated for installation in 2014 are 

likely to see an average installed cost of $1,750/kW. This is because the 2013 projects were 

heavily concentrated in the interior regions of the U.S., which has below average costs for wind 

plant installation relative to other regions. Thus, LBNL concludes that $1,750/kW may be a 

more representative indication of wind’s current installed costs on a national basis. Regardless, 

even in this case, the capital cost figure used in EPA’s IPM run for 2016 is 29% too high.

As a secondary matter, IPM’s wind O&M costs are also significantly too high relative to 

current costs. IPM assumes fixed O&M costs of $38.86/kW/year, while the DOE/LBNL report 

indicates costs of $28/kW/year in 2013, as indicated by a Bloomberg analysis of the pricing of 5-

year full-service O&M contracts. Before beginning the more difficult task of estimating how 

renewable energy costs will decline in the future, EPA should ensure that its current year 

assumptions for renewable energy costs are brought in line with reality. 

v. For projecting changes in the economics and performance of renewable 

energy through the year 2030, EPA should rely on the detailed and 

thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and performance projections developed by

the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. 

Building block 3’s economic modeling should reflect expected cost reductions from 

renewable technologies over time. In addition to technological advances, “technology learning”

through deployment has been shown to consistently drive down cost as the volume of technology 

deployed rises. Section 111(d) state compliance plans are likely to encourage additional 

 

25 Available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6809e.pdf, page 50.
38 | P a g e

renewable capacity installation and therefore cost reductions, on top of the cost reductions driven 

by ongoing renewable energy growth. 

The current IPM modeling conducted by EPA assumes minimal capital cost reductions 

for wind and solar energy through 2030, with wind costs declining from $2,258/kW in 2016 to 

$2,250/kW in 2018, $2,220/kW in 2020, $2,123/kW in 2025, and $2,039/kW in 2030.26 In 

contrast, the Department of Energy report found that the current installed cost of wind energy in 

2013 was $1,630/kW, as noted above. It is deeply concerning that under the current IPM 

modeling inputs, even though the model assumes continued cost reductions, the wind cost in 

2030 is still 15-25% higher than the wind cost seen today. 

In the case of wind energy, EPA should rely on the cost reduction projections included in 

the forthcoming Wind Vision report, which NREL has provided to EPA. In addition to capital 

costs, EPA should also incorporate these documents’ projections for reductions in O&M costs, 

which are listed as “OpEx” in the Wind Vision document. The Wind Vision document also 

contain the necessary data for assessing current and future wind performance, i.e., capacity 

factor. The ReEDS model that was used for the Wind Vision analysis contains a detailed 

representation of hourly renewable plant output in 17 time slices,27 which can be readily mapped 

to the hourly wind generation profiles employed in the IPM. Wind Vision contains detailed data 

on expected wind plant capacity factor improvements, broken down by wind resource class. 

These wind resource classes can be readily translated to the resource classes in the IPM, and used 

to modify the region and class-specific hourly wind generation profiles employed in the IPM. 

 

26 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_4.pdf, page 29. 

27 In ReEDS there are four diurnal time slices (morning, afternoon, evening, night) for each of the four seasons 

(winter, spring, summer, fall) and a summer peaking time slice.
39 | P a g e

In addition, Wind Vision’s extensive dataset of regional wind supply curve information 

should be used by EPA to characterize the economically viable renewable energy resource in 

each region. EPA should take care not to double count transmission interconnection costs, 

regional cost multipliers, and other factors that are already included in both the IPM and the 

Wind Vision cost numbers.

Finally, the Alternative Renewable Energy Approach and the NODA Renewable Energy 

Approach do not include estimates of offshore wind generation that is likely to be deployed. 

While offshore wind is relatively new to the United States, it is well established globally with a

market that added over 1,700 MW in 2013, bringing total installed capacity to 7,031 MW.28 In 

the U.S., there are 4,900 MW of proposed offshore wind projects in advanced stages of planning, 

with some projects likely to begin construction in the near future.

29

 

vi. In its economic modeling, EPA should not impose a firm cap on the 

percentage of variable renewable energy that can be deployed in a state 

or region, but rather should economically model the cost of renewable 

curtailment that could occur at extremely high renewable energy 

penetrations, or rely on such modeling that has already been conducted 

by others. 

A number of technical studies by independent grid operators, utilities, and national 

laboratories have demonstrated the feasibility of wind penetrations of 40% and higher. For 

example, NREL’s Renewable Energy Futures found no reliability problems for a case in which 

 

28 U.S. Department of Energy, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis: 2014 Annual Market Assessment, 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, DE-EE0005360 (September 8, 2014), 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/2014 percent20Navigant percent20Offshore percent20Wind 

percent20Market percent20 percent2

6 percent20Economic percent20Analysis.pdf. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis: 2014 Annual Market

Assessment, Prepared by Navigant Consulting, DE-EE0005360 (September 8, 2014), 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/09/f18/2014%20Navigant%20Offshore%20Wind%20Market%20%2

6%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf.
40 | P a g e

wind and solar provide nearly 50% of total electricity.30 The Nebraska Power Association wind 

integration study found minimal integration costs and no reliability concerns associated with 

wind providing 40% of electricity in the Southwest Power Pool.31 The Minnesota Department of 

Commerce just released a comprehensive study that found no challenges to integrating 40% wind 

and solar energy in Minnesota, including a detailed examination of power system dynamics and 

other essential reliability services. The study also found no challenges for accommodating the 

variability associated with wind and solar providing 50% of electricity in the state, though due to 

time constraints the study did not include a full analysis of power system dynamics in that case.32 

NREL’s analysis of 30+% renewable energy penetrations in the Eastern and Western U.S. also 

found no reliability problems or economic barriers.

33

 PJM, the grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic 

region issued a report in March 2014 that found “no insurmountable operating issues” to 

integrating up to 30% wind and solar energy, with each of the scenarios resulting in lower fuel 

and O&M costs.34 If EPA does decide to impose such a cap, non-variable renewables, such as 

biomass and geothermal, should not count towards it. 

As explained later in our comments, the cost associated with integrating variable 

renewable energy onto the grid is typically lower than or comparable to the cost of integrating 

conventional resources. Even at 40% wind penetration across SPP, the Nebraska wind 

integration study found wind’s total integration cost to be around $2/MWh of wind energy. For 

comparison, the cost of accommodating conventional generator forced outages on a real U.S. 

 

30 http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/.

31 Available at http://www.nepower.org/Wind_Study/final_report.pdf .

32 Available at

https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId=%7bD6

07FB96-F80C-49EE-A719-39C411D5D7C3%7d&documentTitle=201411-104466-01.

33 Available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47078.pdf, 

http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western_wind.html. 

34 Available at: http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/task-forces/irtf/pris.aspx. 
41 | P a g e

power system was calculated to be $2 per MWh of all load served on that power system.35 Data 

from the ERCOT grid operator confirm that wind’s integration cost is significantly lower than 

that of conventional generators’ integration cost, on both a per-MWh of generation basis and a 

total basis.36

vii. Changes to the generation mix, changes in fuel prices, and other power 

system changes that are expected to occur between now and 2030 should 

also be included in the analysis of the economics and reliability of higher 

renewable penetrations. 

Expected increases in fuel prices, such as those forecast in DOE’s Annual Energy 

Outlook, should also be accounted for in EPA’s analysis of the economics of renewable energy 

additions. The expected retirement of large amounts of inflexible generation and the addition of 

new flexible resources, such as new gas generation, demand response, and energy efficiency, 

should also be accounted for as it can facilitate the integration of increased amounts of renewable 

generation These and other expected changes should be included in EPA’s analysis of the 

economic and reliability feasibility of higher levels of renewable generation, as EPA is 

attempting to determine how renewable energy will be integrated into the future power system, 

not the power system of today. It would be unreasonable for EPA to estimate future renewable 

energy deployment patterns through the year 2030 based on the generation mix and power 

system that existed in 2012.

EPA’s modeling approach should also account for the changes to the generation and 

capacity mix that are likely to be caused by the Clean Power Plan itself. EPA should also 

include an iterative modeling approach that includes the impact of increased renewable 

 

35 Available at http://www.consultkirby.com/files/Tm2003-152_Allocate_Res_Reg_Cost.pdf. 

36 Available at http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-winds-integration-costs-are-lower-than-those-for-otherenergy-sources, http://variablegen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MaggioReserve_Calculation_Methodology_Discussion.pdf.
42 | P a g e

generation on decisions about generator additions, retirements, commitment, and dispatch. This 

should even include accounting for how increased renewable generation may encourage more 

generators to take planned outages during periods of high renewable generation. If such analysis 

is beyond the scope of IPM’s capabilities, EPA should rely on the results of similar analysis 

described above that has been conducted by DOE, NREL, and grid operators, and use those 

results as inputs into EPA’s modeling. 

Given that enhanced inter-regional grid operating coordination and other reforms can be 

and are likely to be implemented by 2020, and are likely to be even more extensively 

implemented by 2030, these reforms should also be assumed in analyzing the economics and 

reliability of higher renewable penetrations. For example, many ISOs are moving towards faster 

and more coordinated generation and transmission scheduling with their neighbors,37 while in the 

non-RTO Western U.S. the use of Energy Imbalance Markets38 or comparable regional markets39

are making the power system more flexible and helping to facilitate very high penetrations of 

renewable energy. These reforms include fast (5-minute interval) generator dispatch and the 

setting of generation schedules at 10 minutes or less before the operating hour in areas of the 

country that currently use hourly generator dispatch, to account for the fact that these regions are 

moving towards these more efficient operating procedures. 

viii. Because many planned transmission lines will have been placed in service 

by 2020, and others will occur during the compliance period, they should 

also be included in EPA’s analysis. 

 

37 Available at http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/newsroom/2014-releases/20141105-nyiso-and-pjmimplement-cts.ashx.

38Available at http://www.caiso.com/informed/pages/stakeholderprocesses/energyimbalancemarket.aspx. 

39 SNL Energy, November 03, 2014, “Northwest Power Pool moving full speed toward 5-minute energy market 

decision.”
43 | P a g e

The impact of future transmission additions could be modeled by at least assuming that 

the rate of transmission build over the last several years persists. A better option would be to use 

the projections made in reports such as NERC’s Long-Term Reliability Assessment,

40 which 

found transmission additions during the next 10 years are expected to include 7,400 circuit miles 

of lines currently under construction, 20,622 circuit miles of planned lines, and 7,360 miles of 

conceptual lines; the Department of Energy’s National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, 

to be finalized in 2015;

41 and the Edison Electric Institute’s (EEI) Transmission Projects: At a 

Glance,

42 which found EEI’s members (investor-owned utilities) alone plan to spend $60 billion 

on new transmission infrastructure over the next ten years. The assumption of an increased 

transmission build rate beyond that rate could also be justified, as the Clean Power Plan is likely 

to drive the construction of many new transmission lines, due in part to the fact that the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Order No. 1000 requires that intraregional and 

interregional transmission planning and cost allocation consider public policy requirements, such 

as the Clean Power Plan. 

Unfortunately, the IPM documentation appears to indicate that new transmission 

construction is not factored into the IPM model runs, noting that “[d]ue to uncertainty 

surrounding the building of new transmission lines in the U.S., EPA Base Case v5.13 does not 

exercise IPM’s capability to model the building of new transmission lines.”43 It is unreasonable 

for EPA to estimate future renewable energy deployment patterns through the year 2030 based 

on the transmission system that existed in 2012. If new transmission build is allowed in the IPM 

 

40 Available at http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2014LTRA_ERATTA.pdf, 

page 31.

41 Available at http://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/national-electric-transmission-congestion-study-draft-publiccomment-august-2014.

42 Available at http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/transmission/Pages/transmissionprojectsat.aspx. 

43 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_2.pdf , page 10.
44 | P a g e

modeling, the assumed cost of building new transmission should be validated against recent 

transmission cost data. 

ix. Regarding EPA’s question about how regions should be drawn for 

purposes of establishing the regions used for setting the NODA 

Regionalized Renewable Energy Approach, we offer the following 

guidance to ensure the regions are consistent with important policy, 

economic, and technical boundaries. 

With the following exceptions, AWEA generally supports using the regions from EPA’s 

June 2014 proposal.44 For the most part, we think that grouping of states reflects the manner in 

which they are currently involved in interstate renewable exchanges and are likely to be so in the 

future. However, we believe adjustments to the regions, or allowances for renewable energy

resources to serve another region, are necessary to maintain consistency with existing RPS 

requirements and accurately represent current renewable energy exchanges.

a. Illinois, or at least the renewable resources it has access to, 

should be counted as available to the PJM states (the “East 

Central” region in the grouping included in EPA’s June 2 

release) for purposes of setting the building block 3 standard 

under the regionalized NODA approach. 

Given that the northern Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison’s service territory is in 

PJM, and that this service territory accounts for around half of the total wind generation in PJM, 

this change is essential to accurately represent which renewable resources are available to which 

regions. This change is critical as many existing state RPS policies in the PJM states allow 

renewable energy delivered to anywhere in PJM’s footprint to count for purposes of RPS 

compliance. Because many states may choose to comply with Section 111(d) by simply using or 

increasing their existing RPS requirements while maintaining existing RPS rules for renewable 

eligibility and deliverability, the BSER should reflect the reality of those existing RPS 

 

44 79 Fed. Reg. 34866-34867.
45 | P a g e

provisions. Moreover, renewable resource areas in reasonable proximity to the PJM footprint 

should be counted towards the economic resource available to PJM states, reflecting the reality 

that renewable developers have frequently chosen to use generator tie lines and grid upgrades of 

dozens or even hundreds of miles to access desirable markets, including PJM’s RPS markets.

The map below shows, for example, that the PJM interconnection queue contains many 

proposed wind projects extending well into central Illinois.45 These projects have applied for 

interconnection to the PJM power system, and therefore their output would be eligible for 

meeting RPS requirements in many PJM states. The PJM interconnection queue includes 2,569 

MW of proposed wind projects in Illinois, a sizeable share of the PJM-wide total queue of 12,074 

MW of proposed wind projects. In contrast, the MISO interconnection queue for Illinois

contains 2,276.5 MW of proposed wind generation.46 There are also 2,651 MW of operating 

wind projects in the PJM portion of Illinois, nearly half of PJM’s installed wind capacity, and 

another 1,075 MW of wind projects that are under construction in the PJM portion of Illinois. 

 

45 Available at http://www.pjm.com/renewables/default.html http://www.pjm.com/renewables/default.html, as of 

11/20/2014.

46 Available at https://www.misoenergy.org/Planning/GeneratorInterconnection/Pages/InterconnectionQueue.aspx

https://www.misoenergy.org/Planning/GeneratorInterconnection/Pages/InterconnectionQueue.aspx, as of 

11/24/2014.
46 | P a g e

Moreover, the geographic boundaries of the ComEd region in IPM’s modeling should be 

validated against the actual PJM footprint map, which appears to show a significantly larger 

area.47

b. Some or all of the renewable resources in Indiana and 

Michigan should also be counted as available to PJM states 

(EPA’s East Central region) for purposes of setting the 

building block 3 standard under the NODA Regionalized 

Renewable Energy Approach, reflecting that a significant 

share of the wind resources in those states are located within or 

near the PJM footprint. 

As also indicated in the map above, a large number of proposed wind projects in Indiana, 

and several in southern Michigan, have applied for interconnection to the PJM power system. 

Indiana currently has 3,709 MW of proposed wind projects in the PJM interconnection queue, 

nearly a third of the PJM-wide total of 12,074. In contrast, the MISO queue for Indiana only 

contains 1,018.6 MW of proposed wind projects. The PJM portion of Indiana has 1,902 MW of 

wind projects in service, with an additional 500 MW under construction. The load/generation of 

Indiana and Michigan, or at least the vast majority of it, should remain in MISO to reflect that the 

vast majority of the load/generation in those states is in the MISO footprint.

c. North Carolina, or at least the load/generation that is in the 

PJM footprint and the renewable resources that are in and 

near the PJM footprint, should also be counted as being in 

PJM (EPA’s East Central region). 

As indicated in the map above, there is significant renewable development planned for 

the PJM portion of North Carolina, and output from these resources would be eligible for 

compliance with RPS requirements in many PJM states. The proposed wind projects in the PJM 

 

47 Available at http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/pjm-zones.ashx; in comparison, see, available at

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_3.pdf, page 2.
47 | P a g e

interconnection queue for North Carolina total 974 MW, an important share of the total of 12,074 

MW of wind projects in the PJM interconnection queue.

d. Kentucky’s load/generation and renewable resources should be 

grouped with MISO (EPA’s North Central region). 

In the alternative, Kentucky’s load/generation could be pro-rata apportioned, with the 

load/generation for the portion of Kentucky in the MISO footprint allocated to the North Central

region and the load/generation in the PJM footprint allocated to the East Central region. It 

should be relatively easy to adjust, on a load- or generation-weighted basis, the share of a state’s 

load or generation that falls in each region for purposes of setting the renewable energy 

component of the building block 3 targets. 

e. The adequately demonstrated ability of Southeastern utilities 

to import wind energy generation from MISO and SPP should 

be accounted for in the regional or state calculations of 

economically available renewable energy resources. 

This could be accomplished by grouping at least some Southeastern states in with MISO 

(North Central) or SPP (South Central), or making some share of the economically viable 

renewable energy resources in MISO and SPP available for meeting the Section 111(d) 

compliance needs of the Southeast. This would accurately reflect the fact that Southern 

Company48 and TVA49 are purchasing large amounts of wind energy, with physical delivery, 

from SPP and MISO. EPA should look at existing and new transmission into the Southeast and 

give at least some of those states a target that incorporates transmission-delivered renewable 

energy. 

 

48 http://www.alabamapower.com/environment/news/chisholm-view-project-provides-low-cost-power.asp, 

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/regulators-approve-georgia-powers-250-mw-wind-buy/265766/

49 http://www.tva.com/power/wind_purchases.htm
48 | P a g e

It is also important for EPA’s modeling to include the opportunity for new high-voltage 

direct current (HVDC) transmission lines, which have different cost and performance 

characteristics than AC transmission. This includes the capabilities of DC transmission voltage 

source converters to provide a variety of ancillary services, including rapid adjustments to real 

power output, allowing variability to be exported to the receiving region. The ability to use 

HVDC to provide capacity and reserve sharing should also be accounted for.

A number of studies have identified how HVDC transmission lines can play an important 

role in achieving cost-effective reductions of carbon emissions by allowing delivery of low-cost

renewable energy. The Department of Energy-funded Eastern Interconnection Planning 

Collaborative (EIPC) studied transmission needs under various scenarios, including a low carbon 

scenario which had a carbon emissions reduction goal just 12% higher than the rule proposed by 

EPA under Section 111(d).50 The low-carbon scenario deployed significant wind generation 

capacity in the MISO and SPP regions, and found six interregional HVDC lines, each capable of 

carrying 3,500 MW, to be an optimal solution to alleviate all transmission system constraints and 

achieve the required emissions reductions.

51

 Because many of these HVDC lines cross the 

boundaries of the regions delineated in EPA’s June 2014 proposal, some economic potential for 

inter-regional transfer using new HVDC lines should be accounted for in setting state targets 

under building block 3. 

Several new inter-regional HVDC transmission lines, similar in capacity and rationale to 

those found in EIPC results, are well under development and expected to be in service by 2018. 

EPA should include these new HVDC projects in its IPM modeling by adding the expected 

 

50 http://www.eipconline.com/Phase_II_Documents.html

51 U.S. DOE, Phase 2 Report: Interregional Transmission Development and Analysis for Three Stakeholder Selected 

Scenarios, Draft - December 22, 2012. 21. www.eipconline.com/uploads/20130103_Phase2Report_Part2_Final.pdf
49 | P a g e

incremental transmission capacity between the US Model Regions in EPA Base Case v.5.1352 as 

listed below. Because IPM uses wheeling charges to represent a real-time cost in order to 

determine the optimal path for energy transfer, the wheeling charge would be zero for these lines

as the wind generation would be directly connected to these lines and would not have another 

path for delivery.

From To

2018 

Incremental 

“Energy” with 

Project (MW)

New or Existing Path in 

IPM transmission 

assumptions

SPP_SPS S_C_TVA 3,500 New

SPP_SPS S_D_N_AR 500 New

SPP_N PJM_West 3,500 New

SPP_N MIS_MO 500 Existing

MIS_IA PJM_COMD 3,500 Existing

WECC_WY WECC_SNV 3,000 New

x. The reserve margin contribution of wind energy in ERCOT in EPA’s 

IPM modeling should be updated to account for updates ERCOT has 

made to its reserve calculation based on new data. 

ERCOT has recently updated its wind reserve margin contribution from 8.7% for all wind 

generation to a summer value of 12% for non-coastal wind resources, a winter value of 19% for 

non-coastal wind resources, a summer value of 56% for coastal (land-based but near the coast) 

wind resources, and a winter value of 36% for coastal resources.53

 

52 EPA. Power Sector Modeling. Chapter 3, Table 3-4 Annual Transmission Capabilities of U.S. Model Regions in

EPA Base Case v.5.13. http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_3.pdf.

53 Documentation of this change is available at http://www.ercot.com/content/mktrules/issues/nprr/601-

625/611/keydocs/611NPRR-09%20Board%20Report%20101414.doc, 

http://www.ercot.com/content/gridinfo/resource/2014/windsolar/CDR_PeakAveWindCapacityPercentages_11-03-

2014.xls, http://www.ercot.com/content/gridinfo/resource/2014/adequacy/cdr/CapacityDemandandReserveReportMay2014.pdf
50 | P a g e

xi. In response to EPA’s question in the NODA, once the regional renewable 

MWh total is calculated, this should be pro-rata allocated to states based 

on the amount of total generation in each state. 

This approach, rather than a load-based allocation, is better-aligned with the EGUfocused way in which 111d regulates emissions. This approach will also better ensure that a 

state’s renewable target is aligned with the total quantity of generation in that state.

xii. Regarding EPA’s question in the NODA about how to treat a state in 

which the incremental renewable energy and energy efficiency exceeds 

historical fossil steam generation levels, EPA should credit this excess 

renewable energy based on the regional steam fossil emissions rate. 

The regional average fossil steam generator emissions rate will accurately reflect the 

amount of emissions savings that would be produced by adding renewable energy, given how 

renewable resources displace fossil generation resources throughout the region due to the 

interconnected nature of the power system. If all regional steam fossil generation is exhausted, 

renewable generation should be credited at the region’s natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) 

emissions rate.

xiii. EPA should include load growth when economically modeling renewable 

energy growth and examining the reliability of higher renewable 

penetrations. 

Load growth is a critically important factor that drives generation expansion decisions, 

yet it was not accounted for in EPA’s proposed method for setting the renewable energy 

component of building block 3. If EPA moves to a technical and economic approach for setting 

the renewable energy target, as outlined here, EPA should make sure to include load growth in its 

economic modeling. This will ensure that the modeling of expanded renewable generation more 

accurately reflects the power system that will exist when the renewable generation is added, in 
51 | P a g e

addition to taking fuel price changes, generator additions and retirements, transmission upgrades, 

grid operating reforms, and other power changes into account, as outlined above.

xiv. If EPA decides to use a method in which the resource potential 

calculation is based to some extent on existing renewable energy 

generation, EPA should allocate existing renewable generation to states 

by looking at power purchase agreements for that generation, not the 

geographic location of the renewable generation. 

This change would better reflect where and how existing renewable energy is being used. 

AWEA has compiled data from FERC Form 920 and other sources quantifying such interstate 

PPAs, and can make this information available to EPA upon request. PPAs where the wind 

purchaser is located in a different state than where the wind generation is physically located 

account for nearly 13,000 MW, or more than 20% of currently installed wind capacity. As a 

result, accounting for existing renewable generation based on wind’s geographic location rather 

than where it is being purchased provides a distorted picture of where it is being used today.

xv. As outlined in the NODA, EPA should adjust the goal-setting formula for 

calculating building block three to reflect the reduced emissions from

affected EGUs from displacement by renewable energy.
52 | P a g e

In setting the building block 2 requirement, the Clean Power Plan treats the increased 

utilization of lower-emitting existing NGCC differently from how it treats increased generation 

from other low- and zero-carbon sources and from energy savings under building blocks 3 and 4. 

Building block 2 is calculated by explicitly re-dispatching certain fossil fuel-fired EGUs to 

NGCC. Consistent with how increased utilization of NGCC would occur in the electric system, 

the application of this block involves incorporating the MWhs of NGCC generation in the 

denominator and the associated emissions in the numerator of each state’s emission rate 

calculation and removing the MWhs and emissions of the coal- and oil-fired generation the 

NGCC is presumed to replace. This fully captures the impact that increased utilization of NGCC 

will have on a state’s emission rate.

Despite the fact that building block 3 similarly involves expanded use of generation with 

carbon intensity that is lower than the state’s average, the Clean Power Plan treats the expanded 

use of renewable energy differently. As proposed, the plan evaluates the impact of building 

block 3 on each state’s carbon intensity only by adding MWhs of expected renewable and 

nuclear generation to the denominator of the state’s 2012 adjusted rate. The calculation of the 

impact of increased generation under building block 3 does not reflect the displacement of 

emissions and generation from affected EGUs that would result. Consistent with EPA’s own 

description, the final Clean Power Plan should treat generation from renewable energy and 

existing NGCC in the same way. In calculating the impacts of building block 3 on the state 

emission rate goals, EPA should be consistent with the approach in building block 2. Emissions 

associated with affected EGUs should be removed from each state’s carbon emissions numerator. 

Affected EGU MWhs should be removed from the denominator and the equivalent number of 

MWhs should be added back based on low- and zero-carbon generation from building block 3.
53 | P a g e

The NODA addresses the issue discussed above regarding the calculation of state‐specific 

carbon reduction goals. Specifically, it acknowledges the concerns of some stakeholders that the 

formula for calculating each state's goal are not consistent across different resources between 

building blocks 2 and 3, and proposes to make the building block 3 calculation consistent with 

the building block 2 calculation. 

AWEA thinks that the proposal in the NODA is the correct approach, as it would 

correctly remove from each state’s carbon intensity numerator emission reductions from the 

reduction in fossil generation when renewables and energy efficiency increase. That is, affected 

EGU MWhs should be removed from the denominator and the equivalent number of MWhs 

should be added back based on low- and zero-carbon generation from block three, and emissions 

associated with affected EGUs should be removed from each state’s carbon intensity numerator. 

This approach would also be consistent with the approach in block two for calculating the 

impacts of block three on the state emission rate goals. 

In the NODA, EPA also requests comment on two different approaches for calculating 

emissions goals. The first would assume that renewables and energy efficiency would replace 

fossil fuel power plants on a pro-rata basis, adjusting the level of assumed fossil generation 

downward as the other resources increase in output. The second proposal is similar to the first, 

but instead of assuming that renewables and energy efficiency would replace all fossil 

generation, it would prioritize replacing dirtier fossil steam generation first. 

Renewable energy and energy should be used to remove emissions from the highest 

emitting resources first. This is consistent with how renewable energy would be used under a 

best system of emissions reductions, as displacing the highest-emitting resources first would be 

the most cost-effective option for achieving the maximum emissions reductions. Said another 
54 | P a g e

way, if carbon cost were accounted for in generation dispatch decisions, as it may be in some 

regions as part of implementation of building block 2, most gas units would be dispatched lower 

on the supply curve than many coal units, putting coal units onto the margin where they will be 

displaced by wind generation.

xvi. The ERCOT IPM region incorrectly does not appear to include wind 

resources in the Texas Panhandle. 

EPA should ensure that a large share if not all of the Texas Panhandle wind resources are 

available to the ERCOT IPM zone,54 in addition to being available to SPP West, to properly 

reflect that both RTOs have transmission facilities that allow significant deliverability of wind 

generation from the Texas Panhandle. 55 If EPA is absolutely unable to model both regions 

having access to those wind resources, EPA should either split the Texas Panhandle wind 

resources between the two regions or allocate them all to ERCOT, reflecting that with the 

completion of the CREZ lines ERCOT now has larger deliverability of those wind resources than 

SPP.

xvii. EPA should review the wheeling charges described in Table 3.4 on pages 

6-12 of Chapter 3 of the IPM documentation, as many appear to be 

higher than current and future wheeling charges. 

Many of the assumed wheeling charges appear to be quite high relative to current 

wheeling charges. 56 Moreover, EPA should account for the fact that these charges are likely to 

significantly decrease in the future as inter-regional coordination on grid operations improve and 

 

54 See map on page 2 here: http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_3.pdf

55 Available at http://awea.files.cmsplus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/3Q2014%20AWEA%20Market%20Report%20Public%20Version.pdf, 

http://www.ercot.com/content/committees/board/keydocs/2014/ERCOT_Monthly_Operational_Overview_201410.p

df.

56 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_3.pdf, see the right-most column 

entitled “Transmission Tariff (2011 mills/kWh).”
55 | P a g e

new transmission infrastructure is completed. The following charges appear to be particularly 

high relative to current wheeling costs:

1. The $6/MWh wheeling charge between both MIS_MAPP and MAP_WAUE and 

other parts of MISO. The vast majority of these two areas, and the vast majority 

of the wind resources that have been or are under development in those areas, are 

in the MISO footprint and therefore are not subject to any wheeling charges. The 

extent to which the ongoing integration of some of WAPA’s Balancing Authorities 

into SPP will reduce wheeling charges and improve transfer limits into with SPP 

should also be evaluated and incorporated into the IPM modeling assumptions. 

2. $8/MWh between LADWP (WEC_LADW) and the Imperial Irrigation District 

(WECC_IID), and another $8/MWh between these two areas and Southern 

California Edison (WECC_SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (WEC_SDGE). 

Combined with the $8/MWh wheeling charge from WECC_AZ to WECC_IID, a 

total pancaked wheeling charge of $16/MWh could exist for paths moving 

electricity across the Imperial Irrigation District between Arizona and San Diego 

Gas and Electric, which appears to be excessive relative to current practice. 

3. The assumed $8/MWh wheeling charges among most Western states are very high 

relative to reality.57 For example, the WECC_WY-WECC_UT wheeling charge of 

$8/MWh should be $0/MWh to reflect that most of both areas are within the 

footprint of PacifiCorp. The same is true for the $8/MWh wheeling charge 

between WECC_NNV and WECC_PNW, and the charge between WECC_SNV 

and WECC_UT, as a large share of all of those areas fall within service 

territories that are now owned by PacifiCorp

4. Also of concern are the total pancaked rates of $14/MWh for two wheeling 

charges moving electricity across S_D_REST between SPP and the TVA 

(S_C_TVA) and Southern Company (S_SOU) IPM regions. These costs seem 

higher than those that are imposed on existing transactions of wind generation 

between those regions. 

5. EPA should account for how the $3/MWh wheeling charge across the MISO-PJM 

seam, and among the other RTOs, will be reduced due to increased inter-regional 

coordination in transmission scheduling over time.

xviii. EPA should check the regional transfer limits listed in Table 3.4 on pages 

6-12 of Chapter 3 of the IPM documentation to verify that the MW 

transfer limits are an accurate reflection of current reality. 

 

57 A notable exception of a wheeling charge that is correctly represented is the Colstrip tie from MT to the PNW, 

which is correctly represented as $0/MWh.
56 | P a g e

EPA should check the regional transfer limits listed in Table 3.4 on pages 6-12 of Chapter 

3 of the IPM documentation to verify that the MW transfer limits are an accurate reflection of 

current reality, as well as the increased transfer limits that will be enabled by new transmission, 

as many appear to be lower than indicated in documentation provided by regional reliability 

entities. For many of the ties in the Western Interconnection, documentation of current transfer 

limits can be obtained from the WECC Path Rating Catalog.58 This document indicates that most 

ties in the Western Interconnection have a significantly higher transfer capability than is assumed 

in the IPM modeling. Another resource is the Grid Tracker Tool assembled by the Western 

Interstate Energy Board using publicly available transfer capacity information.59 We were 

unable to find access to a similar comprehensive listing of current transfer limits for the Eastern 

Interconnection and ERCOT, though based on the number and magnitude of concerns identified 

in WECC we suspect that there are similar inaccuracies in those lists as well. 

As examples outside of WECC, the assumed 10,555 MW transfer limit between 

ERC_WEST and ERC_REST appears to not include the transfer capacity expansion enabled 

with the CREZ lines, as the CREZ lines were supposed to increase the transfer limit to 18,456 

MW.60 In New England, the assumed transfer limit from Maine to the rest of New England 

(NENG_ME to NENG_REST) is listed at 1600 MW for capacity and energy. That is the current 

limit, but this is increasing to 1,900 in 2015. Similarly, the transfer limit from NENG_REST to 

NENG_CT (Connecticut) is listed at 2600 MW, while the N-1 limit is 3050 MW today.

61

 

58 WECC Path Rating Catalog 2013.

59 Available at http://www.wiebgridtracker.com/.

60 Available at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0914/ML091420467.pdf, page 3.

61 Available at http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2014/11/rsp14_110614_final_read_only.docx, page 

64.
57 | P a g e

EPA should ensure that other recently completed or under construction transmission 

upgrades, such as the Tehachapi Project in Southern California, the Maine Power Reliability 

Program, some Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Open Season upgrades, the CapX lines 

in Minnesota and neighboring states, the Colorado-Wyoming Intertie, and many others, are also 

accounted for. Transmission lines that have had their cost allocation approved and will almost 

certainly be proceeding to construction, such as the MISO Multi-Value Projects, the SPP Priority 

Projects, the Colstrip Upgrade Project, and other BPA Open Season lines, should also be 

included. Finally, as described above, EPA should account for transmission expansions that are 

expected to be completed by or during the compliance time period of 2020-2030. 

Our non-exhaustive list of discrepancies between the WECC Path Rating Catalog and the 

IPM assumptions table follows, listed in the order used in the WECC catalog: 

1. The WECC_PNW (Pacific Northwest) to CN_BC (British Columbia) tie is listed 

at only 1,000 MW in the IPM assumptions, while the WECC rating catalog lists it 

at 3,000 MW.

2. The WECC_ID to WECC_PNW tie is listed at 1,800 MW in IPM, while the WECC 

rating catalog lists two components of it as West of Hatwai at 4,277 MW and 

Idaho to Northwest as 2,400 MW.

3. The WECC_MT to WECC_PNW is listed as 2,000 MW, slightly less than the 

2,200 MW listed in the WECC catalog.

4. The WECC_ID to WECC_NNV (Northern Nevada) is listed as 350 MW in IPM, 

while the WECC catalog lists it as 500 MW.

5. The WECC_WY to WECC_ID ties is listed as 2,200 MW, while the WECC catalog 

lists it as 2,400 MW, though the WECC catalog contains a nomogram that 

acknowledges the rating can be somewhat lower depending on flows on “Path C 

Northbound.”

6. The WECC_UT to WECC_ID is listed at 775 MW, while the reverse is listed at 

680 MW in IPM. The WECC catalog lists those (Path C, pre-Gateway) as 1,250 

MW and 1,600 MW respectively. That rating should increase as PacifiCorp’s 

Gateway South and Gateway West projects come into service.
58 | P a g e

7. WECC_NNV to WECC_CALN is listed as 100 MW, the WECC catalog lists Sierra 

to PG&E at 150 MW.

8. WECC_UT to WECC_LADWP is listed at 1,920 MW, but the WECC catalog lists 

it (Intermountain) as 2,400 MW.

9. WECC_UT to WECC_NNV is listed at 360 MW, but the WECC catalog lists it as 

440.

10. WECC_CO to WECC_UT is listed at 650 MW, but the WECC catalog lists it 

(Bonanza West) as 735 MW to 785 MW, and the TOT2B1 path adds another 600 

MW of bi-directional capacity.

11. WECC_SNV to WECC_UT is listed as 250 MW and the reverse as 140 MW, but 

the WECC catalog lists the transfer limits as 580 MW and 400 MW respectively.

12. WECC_SNV to WECC_LADW and WECC_SCE are listed as 2,300 MW and 

1,700 MW respectively, while the WECC rating catalog lists them (under West of 

Colorado River) as 2,592 MW and 2,509 MW respectively.

13. The WECC_AZ to WECC_SCE and WECC_AZ to WECC_LADW transfer limits 

are listed as 1,600 MW and 362 MW respectively, while the West of Colorado 

listing in the WECC rating catalog puts them at 1,934 MW and 468 MW 

respectively.

14. The WECC_PNW to WECC_ID is listed as 500 MW in the IPM assumptions, 

while the WECC catalog rates the “Brownlee East” lines, a subset of the lines 

running from Oregon to Idaho, at 1,915 MW. The other set of lines between 

Oregon and Idaho, the Hemingway-Summer Lake lines, are rated at 550 MW 

from Oregon to Idaho. The “TotBeast” tie, which encompasses both, is listed at 

2,465 MW in the WECC catalog.

15. The WECC_ID to WECC_PNW is listed at 1,800 MW, but the HemingwaySummer Lake line alone has 1,500 MW of transfer capacity from Idaho to 

Oregon, and the Brownlee East adds further transfer capacity that is not defined 

in the WECC catalog.

16. The WECC_PNW to WECC_LADW transfer limit is listed as 2,600 MW in IPM, 

with no other deliveries to Southern California utilities listed, while the WECC 

catalog rates the Pacific DC Intertie at 3,100 MW, with 40% to LADWP, 50% to 

SCE, and the remainder to Southern California municipal utilities.

17. The WECC_PNW to WECC_CALN (Northern California) limit is listed at 4,200 

MW in the IPM assumptions, while the WECC catalog puts it at 4,800 MW.
59 | P a g e

18. The WECC_UT to WECC_AZ tie, and the reverse, are listed as 250 MW. The 

WECC catalog lists the UT to AZ tie at 265 MW and the reverse at 300 MW.

19. The WECC_MT to WECC_WY is listed as 400 MW and the reverse 200 MW in 

IPM, while the WECC catalog lists Southeast Montana tie as up to 600 MW in 

both directions, though acknowledges it can be lower depending on generation 

and load.

xix. IPM’s assumption of 2.8% inter-regional transmission losses is much 

higher than reality. 

The EIA data that the IPM documentation62 references as support for the 2.8% figure 

appears to include lower-voltage distribution system losses, which account for the vast majority 

of total power system losses and should not be included in calculating the transmission losses 

between regions. In contrast, PJM’s data are based only on losses on the high-voltage 

transmission system, which are significantly less than 1% of total generation on average. This 

figure is consistent with other reports of transmission-system losses. Because inter-regional 

power transfers will typically occur on high-voltage transmission lines, this is a more appropriate 

loss factor for this calculation. If possible, IPM’s modeling of transmission losses should also be 

indexed for transmission line loading level and for winter and summer periods, to account for the 

fact that losses tend to be higher when transmission lines are heavily loaded and when ambient 

temperatures are higher.

xx. IPM’s modeling assumption of “perfect foresight” biases generation 

investment decisions against stably-priced renewable energy.

 

IPM’s modeling assumption63 of perfect foresight biases generation investment decisions 

against stably-priced renewable energy, as it fails to account for the uncertainty associated with 

 

62 “The EPA Base Case 5.13 assumes a 2.8 percent inter-regional transmission loss of energy transferred. This is 

based on the average loss factor for the transmission grid calculated from the U.S Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles 2010 report.” Page 14 available at 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_3.pdf.

63 “IPM’s assumption of perfect foresight implies that agents know precisely the nature and timing of conditions
60 | P a g e

other energy sources, particularly fuel prices. In particular, fossil generation faces significant 

uncertainty about future fuel prices, as well as uncertainty about pending and future 

environmental regulations. Many utilities and state regulators have publicly noted wind energy’s 

value for reducing fuel price risk in explaining their reasons for investing in wind energy.64 A 

risk-averse decision-maker assigns a real financial cost to the fuel price volatility risk associated 

with fueled generation sources, while non-fueled resources like renewable energy would 

correspondingly be viewed as having greater value, as they are not subject to those risks. 

By analyzing how natural gas forward price contracts trade at a premium relative to gas 

price forecasts, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers were able to use this market 

price signal to quantify the cost of gas fuel price risk. Their analysis quantified the gas price risk 

premium at “$0.4-$0.8/MMBtu ($0.6/MMBtu on average) [in 2003 dollars] for terms ranging 

from 2-10 years. At an aggressive heat rate of 7,000 Btu/kWh, this “premium” translates into 

0.3-0.6¢/kWh (0.4¢/kWh on average) [in 2003 dollars].” They concluded, “[t]hus, utilities and 

others that have relied on EIA reference case gas price forecasts in resource acquisition, 

modeling, and planning exercises over the past three years have likely produced results that are 

biased in favor of gas-fired generation relative to fixed-price renewable generation (again, 

presuming that long-term price stability is an important consideration).”

65

 EPA should make a 

similar adjustment to the IPM resource cost calculations to appropriately account for the cost of 

fuel price risk and appropriately value wind generation’s lack of fuel price risk. 

a. IPM underestimates the wind plant availability factor. 

 

in future years that affect the ultimate costs of decisions along the way. For example, under IPM there is complete 

foreknowledge of future electricity demand, fuel supplies, and other variables (including regulatory requirements) 

that in reality are subject to uncertainty and limited foresight.” Page 11 available at 

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_2.pdf.

64 Available at http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/AWEA%20White%20Paper-Consumer%20Benefits%20final.pdf.

65Available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/REPORT%20lbnl%20-%2053587.pdf, page 60.
61 | P a g e

IPM assumes a wind plant availability factor of 95%,66 though more recent data 

indicate that current wind plant availability is significantly higher. A report by Sandia National 

Laboratory finds that a large sample of existing wind projects has an average availability factor 

of 97.6%.67 Others report that the availability for newly installed turbines is even higher, and 

that improvements in availability are expected to continue. EPA should use this value to best 

account for the expected availability of turbines that will be added in the future. Moreover, when 

assessing the impact of the availability factor on wind plant generation, EPA should take into 

account that planned outages are typically scheduled for low wind periods to minimize the loss 

of generation and so that, if needed, cranes can be safely operated at the wind plant site.

b. EPA should verify that IPM’s Turn Down/Area Protection 

Constraints properly account for the actual and future 

capabilities of conventional generators to cycle and provide 

power system flexibility.

EPA should ensure that the IPM turn-down limit assumptions68 properly account for the 

evolving capabilities of conventional generators to cycle and provide power system flexibility. 

EPA should also ensure that the modeling captures solutions, like transmission upgrades or the 

conversion of conventional generators to synchronous condensers, that can be used to meet Area 

Protection Constraints.

For the Turn-Down Limit assumptions, new gas generators are demonstrating 

significantly enhanced flexibility, and future gas generators are expected to continue this trend. 

 

66 Available at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/docs/v513/Chapter_4.pdf., page 29. Availability refers to 

the share of time a wind plant is available to produce power and not experiencing a forced or planned outage. 

67 Available at http://energy.sandia.gov/energy/renewable-energy/wind-power/materials-reliabilitystandards/continuous-reliability-enhancement-for-wind-crew-database/, page 29.

68 “Turn Down/Area Protection Constraints: The model uses these constraints to take into account the cycling 

capabilities of the units, i.e., whether or not they can be shut down at night or on weekends, or whether they must 

operate at all times, or at least at some minimum capacity level. These constraints ensure that the model reflects the 

distinct operating characteristics of peaking, cycling, and base load units.”
62 | P a g e

In addition, many coal generators demonstrated their ability to move to a more flexible operating 

profile during 2012 when gas prices were anomalously low, causing some gas generators to be 

dispatched as baseload while coal generators were dispatched as mid-merit cycling units. 

For the Area Protection Constraints, based on the demonstrated experience of 

successfully building transmission, adding Static VAR Compensators69 (SVCs), or converting 

existing conventional generators to synchronous condensers to provide local voltage support,

allowing local reliability concerns to be met while allowing uneconomic generating resources to 

retire,70 EPA should also ensure that the modeling captures solutions that can be used to meet 

Area Protection Constraints, including the conversion of conventional generators to synchronous 

condensers as well as transmission upgrades and the addition of devices such as SVCs.

xxi. EPA should not use the Proposed RPS Approach, though if it does it 

should improve it using the following adjustments. 

To estimate the carbon emission reductions from affected EGUs achievable based on 

increases in renewable generation, EPA has developed a “best practices” scenario for renewable 

energy generation based upon RPS requirements already established by a majority of states. 

Because of the existing state framework and proven track record of existing RPS requirements, in 

the preamble to the Clean Power Plan, EPA states that it views RPSs as a reasonable foundation 

upon which to develop such a scenario. 

This methodology, however, represents a significant understatement of the renewable 

energy potential available to states for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, 

seven states had more renewables in 2013 than EPA’s 2030 targets for those very states, and 17 

 

69 Available at http://www.rtoinsider.com/atsi-plants-retire-early-1402/.

70 See the discussion of the conversion of Eastlake units to synchronous condensers on pages 5 and 7 at 

http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees-groups/committees/teac/20120614/20120614-pjm-board-whitepaper.ashx, 

and at http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20140527/firstenergy-in-middle-of-converting-eastlake-powerplant-coal-generating-units.
63 | P a g e

states would develop less renewable generation under EPA’s target than under their existing

mandatory RPSs. Under EPA’s proposed method, 25 states also would not reach the proposed 

regional target by 2030. EPA’s approach effectively assumes that renewable generation grows at 

0.65 percent of total electric sector market share per year, well below the recent market share 

growth rate of 1 percent per year.

71

 As such, the proposed approach’s renewables targets fail to 

meet the CAA standard for “best” system of emissions reductions. 

AWEA believes that an approach that incorporates all renewable energy resources and 

takes into account established trends in market growth would provide a better basis for 

determining feasible renewable generation growth in each state as part of building block 3. 

However, to the extent that EPA continues to rely on state policy as a proxy for evaluations of 

technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness, AWEA urges EPA to modify the methodology to 

more accurately reflect those state determinations. To that end, if EPA selects the Proposed RPS 

Approach, AWEA recommends the following modifications: 

xxii. The Proposed RPS Approach is flawed because state RPSs, which are 

policy commitments, are not necessarily based on the amount of costeffective, achievable renewable energy within a given state’s or region’s 

borders. 

The Clean Power Plan assumes that state RPS programs are set based on an assessment of 

the costs and feasibility of target percentages of renewable energy. However, the establishment 

of the BSER, including evaluations of cost and feasibility, is the responsibility of EPA and not 

the states. By resting the justification for the level of achievable renewable energy generation on 

the fact that “states have already had the opportunity to assess those requirements against a range 

of policy objectives including both feasibility and costs,”

72 EPA’s Proposed RPS Approach does 

 

71 Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/Strengthening-the-EPA-Clean-PowerPlan.pdf.
64 | P a g e

not directly demonstrate that the Administrator has determined that building block 3 meets the 

standard for BSER, as Section 111(d) requires.

The Proposed RPS Approach also finds that “renewable resource development potential 

varies by region, and the RPS requirements developed by the states necessarily reflect 

consideration of the states’ own respective regional contexts.”73 We agree that the recognition 

of regions to cost-effectively support renewable generation is an important insight that should be 

used in establishing the BSER. However, this conclusion does not mean that the responsibility to 

determine BSER for each region should be left to the political decisions reflected in some state 

policies, which may have been developed for purposes other than reducing carbon emissions at 

affected EGUs.74 It is unlikely that state RPS were set based on the same criteria that EPA is 

required to use when determining BSER. Indeed, the political process is likely to result in 

policies that underestimate what is technically and cost-effectively achievable.

In addition, RPS requirements developed by the states do not necessarily reflect 

consideration of regional achievability. For instance, many of the existing state RPSs do not 

take into consideration renewable energy trading markets, achievability of regional emission 

reduction goals, and the full extent to which renewable generation may be implemented within a 

particular region. Further, by only examining the impact of one policy framework, the analysis is 

inherently conservative, as many other policy options are available in addition to RPS 

frameworks for EPA to establish best practices for renewable generation expansion. 

 

72 Clean Power Plan at 34866.

73 Id. at 34866.

74 Using EPA’s AVERT model, AWEA has calculated that in 2013, wind energy alone reduced emissions nationally 

by 127 million tons, or more than 5% of power sector emissions. Additional detail is included later in these 

comments. For more information, also see AWEA’s Clean Air Benefits of Wind white paper available at: 

http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/AWEA_Clean_Air_Benefits_WhitePaper%20Final.pdf.
65 | P a g e

a. The Proposed RPS Approach only expects a state to meet a 

regional average rate of renewable energy generation, even if 

the state’s renewable generation already is above that average. 

If EPA retains the Proposed RPS Approach in the final rule, AWEA recommends that 

EPA not apply the regional growth factor to each state and instead assume that each state can 

meet the average of the existing RPSs in the region. Under EPA’s proposal, states with 

renewable generation below the regional targets make pre-determined incremental annual 

progress; however, once a state reaches that goal, renewable generation remains flat through 

2030. This produces an “average-based” system that results in markedly slower growth in 

renewable generation than is achievable to best reduce carbon emissions and is not consistent 

with statutory mandate to create “best practices.” In addition, using the proposed regional 

approach to establish generation targets, EPA would effectively be giving some states renewable 

generation targets lower than the state’s actual reported generation amounts for 2012. 

Under EPA’s Proposed RPS Approach, a region’s annual growth factor is determined by 

using each state’s historic 2012 renewable generation level to calculate a new level of renewable 

generation for that state in 2017, the initial year for compliance. This calculation is then repeated 

for each subsequent year from 2017 to 2029. If a state reaches a renewable energy generation 

level that equals or exceeds the regional renewable energy generation percentage target, its 

renewable generation target is made equal to the renewable percent generation target as applied 

to the state’s 2012 generation. This target is then kept at that level for the remainder of the time 

period. 

This methodology means that if a state’s renewable generation in 2012 has already 

exceeded the regional renewable target, its annual renewable generation levels are held to the 

regional target for the entirety of the compliance duration, 2017 to 2029. This would result in an 
66 | P a g e

unintended outcome whereby a number of states would not need to reduce carbon emissions 

below their 2012 levels under building block three, and the same regional renewable generation 

target in percentage (share of total generation) terms is imposed on all states in a given region. 

In addition, because of the application of the regional growth factor to the 2012 renewable 

generation in a state, the absolute megawatt-hour target would be smaller for states starting with 

a lower amount of renewable generation, and larger for a state starting with a higher absolute 

amount of renewable generation. As such, some states would effectively be rewarded for not 

pursuing cleaner energy portfolios before 2012. EPA’s final rule should reflect a more equitable 

solution. 

b. The Proposed RPS Approach should use each state’s RPS goals 

as a floor for achievable renewable generation in that state, not 

for establishing a ceiling.

The Proposed RPS Approach assumes that each state can generate a percentage of its 

2012 electric generation consistent with the average of state RPS policies in that state’s region. 

As discussed above, however, if a state’s own RPS is more ambitious than its regional average, 

the regional average is nevertheless used. By failing to incorporate a state’s own RPS 

commitments in its BSER determination, EPA undermines its own justification for the Proposed 

RPS Approach.

This analytical error is particularly acute for the five states that already generate as much 

or more renewable electricity than their regionally calculated average for 2030.75 For example, 

Minnesota currently generates 18 percent of its electricity from renewable generation; however, 

the regional average RPS target is only 15 percent. Therefore, Minnesota’s goal is set on the 

assumption that sourcing only 15 percent of total generation from renewable energy is the best 

 

75 Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota all currently have a higher renewable energy generation 

rate than is deemed achievable and cost effective by 2030 under the Proposed Approach.
67 | P a g e

system of emission reduction. Perversely, such a state could increase affected EGU use as a 

proportion of generation—and therefore emissions—and still meet its BSER targets for 

renewable energy.

EPA is taking comment on whether the level of 2012 renewable energy generation in 

each state should serve as a floor for the amount of renewable energy generation expected for 

that state under building block 3. AWEA strongly supports such a floor; however, to more 

accurately reflect the level of renewable generation a state has actually achieved, we recommend 

that the floor be set at a state’s renewable energy generation when the Clean Power Plan is 

finalized in 2015. Further, the Clean Power Plan should determine that for states with an RPS 

policy more ambitious than the regional average, the BSER should require that renewable energy 

targets are at least as high as the state RPS requirement. This approach is consistent with EPA’s 

general “no backsliding” policy approach.

c. The Proposed RPS Approach assumes no renewable energy 

growth between 2012 and 2017, even though deployment of 

these resources in the market is increasing rapidly. 

Under the Proposed RPS Approach, state level renewable energy targets begin in 2017

and continue to ramp up through 2030, even though compliance would not be required until 

2020. For each state that has not yet met the regional average RPS target, the Clean Power Plan

assumes that the state can increase its level of renewable generation consistent with the rate it 

would take the region as a whole to meet the regional average RPS target. However, the 

methodology assumes the increase starts to occur only after 2017. To determine a state’s 2017 

baseline generation levels, EPA takes 2012 renewable generation and assumes that as the starting 

point in 2017. This approach inadequately assesses renewable potential as it assumes no growth 

in renewable generation from 2012 through 2017, even though significant renewable capacity 
68 | P a g e

that was not generating in 2012 (including a large amount of renewable capacity added during 

2012 that contributed less than a full year’s output to 2012 generation) has been installed, is 

currently under construction, or is under advanced stages of development and will be online by 

2017. 

More specifically, wind energy generation increased from 141.8 million MWh in 2012 to 

167.7 million MWh in 2013.76 Moreover, there are currently 13,600 MW of new wind capacity 

under construction in the United States, which will significantly increase generation in the 

coming years.77 The Clean Power Plan should assume each state’s renewable energy generation 

is able to grow beginning in 2012 until it meets the regional target, rather than expecting zero 

growth from 2012 to 2017. In particular, if EPA adopts the Proposed RPS approach, the growth 

factor assumption should be adjusted to reflect growth throughout those years. If this 

modification is not made, the best practices scenario for renewable energy expansion will be 

based on an underestimation of the growth factor used for each state in that region. EPA should 

instead use 2012 generation data as a base, and assume an increase in each state’s level of 

performance prior to the 2017 scenario start year. There should be an established trend from 

2012-2029 using data that yields an annual growth factor unique to each region and based upon 

each region’s current and target renewable generation levels. 

We also believe the Proposed RPS Approach should use a state’s renewable energy 

generation rate at the time the Clean Power Plan is finalized as the starting point from which its 

renewable generation is expected to grow, rather than 2012. It is clearly technically feasible and 

cost-effective for a state to increase renewable energy generation from the amount of generation 

it has already produced beginning when the Clean Power Plan is finalized.

 

76 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_year/february2014.pdf

77 http://www.awea.org/3Q2014
69 | P a g e

d. The Proposed RPS Approach should set the 2030 regional 

targets based on 2030 RPS targets.

EPA uses 2020 RPS goals to set 2030 targets for a region. While it is true many RPSs 

have deadlines in 2015 or 2020–well before the 2030 compliance deadlines set forth within the 

Section 111(d) proposed guidelines–the Clean Power Plan includes no justification as to why 

states should only be expected to meet 2020 targets by 2030, rather than 2020. This approach is 

not consistent with EPA’s justification for using state RPS policies in the first place. If states in 

a region have determined that a certain level of renewable generation is achievable by 2020, 

shifting that target back 10 years does not constitute adequate demonstration of BSER. The 

Proposed RPS Approach should, at a minimum, use the target in the final year of a state RPS 

requirement to set 2030 targets, rather than using 2020 RPS requirements to set 2030 targets. In 

that way, the calculation of achievable renewable generation as part of building block 3 would 

not ignore the commitment by policymakers in some states to add renewable generation after 

2020. For states with requirements that do not continue to increase through 2030, the Proposed 

RPS Approach should determine a reasonable growth rate based on historical market trends or 

the historical rate at which that state RPS increased to estimate an achievable level of renewable 

energy growth between the last year in which a state has an increasing requirement and 2030. 

e. If EPA adopts the Proposed RPS Approach, it should revise it 

by adding a national benchmark to better reflect the 

demonstrated growth of renewable energy deployment.

 

If EPA does adopt the Proposed RPS Approach in the final rule, AWEA recommends that 

EPA revise it to ensure that state emissions rate reduction targets and, in particular, renewable 

growth rates, better reflect deployment rates already being achieved by many states (what has 

been adequately demonstrated) and reasonable projections of deployment (what is achievable). 
70 | P a g e

To that end, EPA should revise its preferred alternative to ensure that a “demonstrated growth 

approach” for setting renewable energy targets is used. 

To calculate state renewable energy targets, EPA should use EIA data to calculate each 

state’s renewable energy growth rate over the five-year period from 2009 to 2013. EIA data 

show that states, on average, have increased the share of their total generation coming from 

renewable energy by 1 percentage point annually over this time period (e.g., increasing from 

providing 4 percent of all electricity in one year to 5 percent of all electricity in the next year). 

This demonstrated growth rate should be used to set the future renewable generation targets. 

This is not a particularly onerous target to use as a national benchmark, since 11 of the 15 leading 

states that have achieved annual growth rates at or above one percentage point annual growth 

have maintained this over the past ten years. Establishing a national benchmark accounts for 

recent rapid growth in wind and solar generation and captures much of the historic development 

spurred by state RPSs.

Secondly, for states below the one percentage point national benchmark growth rate, 

2017 to 2020 would function as a period for states to ramp up deployment, allowing states that 

have not been active in renewable development to catch up to the national benchmark. After 

2020, it would be assumed that renewable energy within these states would grow at the one 

percentage point national benchmark growth rate through 2030.

For the 15 leading states that have deployed renewable energy at or above the national 

benchmark, AWEA proposes that EPA increase their respective renewable energy targets from 

2017 to 2030 at each state’s average annual percentage point growth rate during the 2009-2013

benchmark period, up to 1.5 percentage points annually. We believe that this is a reasonable 
71 | P a g e

upper limit that is capable of being sustained over time, and a 1.5 percentage point growth rate is 

consistent with renewable energy targets set by many leading state RPSs.

Finally, to account for full compliance with mandatory state RPS laws, states should 

achieve the greater of two measures: either the generation projected by this growth rate 

approach, or the level needed to meet states’ respective RPS targets for each year from 2017 to 

2030, as projected by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL 2013). To ensure reasonably achievable renewable energy penetration rates during the 

compliance period, EPA could cap the total share of renewable generation for any state at not 

less than 40 percent of total state electricity sales, a level that several studies by grid operators, 

utilities, and government agencies have shown can be achieved at the state and regional level in 

this timeframe while maintaining reliability.

While this approach places constraints upon renewable developments, such as a 1.5

percentage point annual growth cap and a 40 percent overall target cap, these restrictions are 

reflective of current conditions and should remain flexible. As EPA undertakes regular reviews 

of the Clean Power Plan, these constraints could be adjusted upward or eliminated entirely to 

account for new renewable technologies, grid integration techniques, other changes in the 

generation mix, and falling costs over the compliance period.

f. If EPA adopts the Proposed RPS Approach, it should include 

load growth in the calculation of the MWh-based renewable 

energy targets.

If EPA maintains its Proposed RPS Approach, it should also account for load growth 

when calculating the MWh required to meet the future percent-based renewable energy targets. 

The calculations included in the TSDs that accompany EPA’s June 2 release indicate that, under 

the Proposed RPS Approach, the growth rate calculated from the percent-based renewable target 
72 | P a g e

that was derived from the regional RPS average target was multiplied by 2012 electricity 

consumption to arrive at the 2030 renewable energy MWh target. In reality, state RPS targets are 

almost always written as a share of future electricity consumption, so the conversion to the 2030 

MWh target should have used an estimation of future load growth and 2030 load, such as the 

state and regional estimates provided in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook.

B. Building block 1—using only heat rate improvements would not represent the 

“best” system of emissions reductions. 

As previously discussed, AWEA supports the use of all four building blocks proposed by 

EPA in the determination of the BSER; however, we oppose the proposed alternative BSER 

calculation method that relies upon solely building block 1’s heat rate improvements at coal 

facilities. Such an approach would not be consistent with the statutory requirement for the “best” 

system of emissions reductions. Building blocks 2, 3, and 4 must be components of the BSER, 

as a failure to include them would result in emissions reductions that are not the most costeffective and would exclude activities that reduce carbon emissions at affected EGUs. The 

increased use of lower emitting power sources, broader implementation of renewable and nuclear 

generation, and increases in energy efficiency are all adequately demonstrated as they have been 

widely adopted by utilities and others even in the absence of regulation of carbon emissions. 

These resources have been widely adopted because they are highly cost-effective; as a result, a 

failure to include them would not be the best system of reducing emissions. The adoption of an

alternative BSER calculation only dependent upon building block 1 does not adequately consider 

proven existing state frameworks for reducing carbon emissions, or the greater usage reductions 

from existing coal facilities through efforts put forth in blocks 2, 3, and 4.

i. Building blocks 1 and 2—EPA should not limit the BSER to only those 

blocks to calculate the BSER.
73 | P a g e

AWEA also opposes the alternative BSER calculation method that relies solely upon heat 

rate improvements for coal facilities (Block 1) and natural gas combined cycle dispatch (Block 

2). This strategy would also result in a higher cost of compliance than an approach that 

considered all four blocks. Section 111(a)(1) requires that the BSER should take into account the 

cost of achieving such reductions and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts. 

AWEA created a model that finds the most economic options for states and regions to use to 

comply with the Clean Power Plan. Using this model, AWEA finds that deploying economic 

wind energy as a part of state compliance plans lowers the overall cost of compliance by $2 

billion to nearly $9 billion annually, depending on gas prices, as indicated in the chart below.

Figure: Emissions Compliance Cost Savings of Wind at Various Natural Gas Prices

By considering only heat rate improvements and increases to NGCC generation, EPA

would not be effectively considering the reduced costs or non-air health and environmental 

benefits of other approaches, such as the water conservation benefits of wind energy, as required 
74 | P a g e

under the CAA. Renewable generation produces no emissions and requires no fuel for

generating electricity, thus drastically lowering the aggregate emission rate and energy use for a 

state that chooses to use renewable resources for compliance with EPA’s emission reduction 

requirements. 

Failure to adequately include beyond-the-unit renewable energy and grid efficiency

emissions reductions measures thus produces a more costly and less effective means of reducing 

carbon emissions, as the strategies in building blocks 3 and 4 often offer significant amounts of 

carbon reductions at a lower cost than those within the first two building blocks.78 Moreover, the 

coal-to-gas shifting included under building block 2 relies on the interconnected nature of the 

power system to reduce emissions at a regulated EGU using actions occurring outside the EGU’s 

fence line, in the same way that building blocks 3 and 4 do. Strategies encompassing all building 

blocks have also already been successfully used by states for reducing carbon emissions.

ii. The proposed alternate set of state goals reflects an overly conservative 

approach.

EPA’s proposed set of alternate goals, which call for a different level of emissions 

reductions to be achieved by 2025 instead of 2030, reflect a less stringent application of the 

building blocks and a shorter implementation period, ultimately reflecting an overly conservative 

approach. In particular, the alternate goals underestimate the extent to which the key elements of 

the four building blocks—including penetration of renewable resources—can be achieved rapidly 

while preserving reliability and remaining reasonable in cost. In addition, the alternate approach 

 

78 See Lazard Cost of Carbon Abatement matrix on page 6 of its Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 8.0, 

September 2014, available at: http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-

%20Version%208.0.pdf; IEA, Renewables to surpass gas by 2016 in the global power mix, 

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/june/name,39156,en.html.
75 | P a g e

proposal for a less stringent program with a 2025 goal year is overly conservative with respect to 

achievability by that time. 

iii. State-specific emission goals should not be adjusted after the final rule is 

issued absent extraordinary circumstances.

AWEA agrees with EPA’s proposal that once the final goals have been promulgated, a 

state should no longer have an opportunity to request that EPA adjust its carbon target to reflect a 

change in any one building block analysis unless the state also demonstrates that it could not get 

additional reductions from application of any other of the blocks, or comparable measures. To 

demonstrate, states should be required to show that they availed themselves of all reasonable and

flexible compliance options, including from out-of-state sources.

iv. Creation of the BSER: The proposed BSER framework appropriately 

recognizes renewable energy as a means of emissions reduction.

In determining the BSER, the Clean Power Plan proposes a “system-based approach” to 

the BSER, accounting for emission reduction opportunities that can be taken beyond the affected 

unit. AWEA supports this proposal to allow beyond-the-unit measures in building blocks 2, 3, 

and 4 to be considered components of BSER. A system-based approach is the best means to set 

carbon pollution emission standards from the existing power sector and is well within EPA’s 

discretion under the terms of Section 111(d). Such an approach also substantially simplifies and 

expands the answer to the question of technical feasibility, because it changes the inquiry from 

what emission reductions are available to each source acting on its own, to what emission 

reduction choices are available to each source across the system. 

AWEA also agrees with EPA’s assessment that the “at-the-unit” or “beyond-the-unit” 

distinctions are not meaningful when it comes to the methods of emissions reduction as they are 

both reductions from electric generating units in the interconnected electrical grid. This 
76 | P a g e

distinction between at-the-unit and beyond-the-unit measures is largely artificial, because all of 

the emission reductions under consideration—whether from at-the-unit measures (e.g., fuelswitching or efficiency upgrades) or from beyond-the-unit measures—are, in fact, emission 

reductions at or from electric generating units on the interconnected electric grid. There are more 

than 1,500 existing carbon-emitting power plants, located in every state,79 that operate in an 

interdependent, grid-linked system. This network also includes non-emitting power plants, as 

well as consumers who can adopt measures to reduce electricity demand. The interdependent 

nature of the power system means that the emission impacts and costs of potential control 

measures cannot be accurately assessed by looking at each power plant in isolation. For instance, 

source-specific measures that reduce a given plant’s emissions typically also affect its utilization. 

As such, if those measures increase a plant’s cost of generation, the plant will be used less, and 

others will be used more, affecting the emissions of other plants and of the system as a whole.

While renewable generation itself does not reduce atmospheric carbon emissions, 

renewable generation does allow for the reduced usage of fossil EGUs and, therefore, 

subsequently decreases the amount of carbon emissions in the aggregate by EGUs. From a legal 

perspective, it can be argued that all of the systems of emission reduction considered by EPA, 

including replacing fossil EGUs with renewable generation, can be viewed as at-the-unit systems 

of emission reduction since there will be a reduction in overall emissions from existing fossil 

EGUs, thus the at-the-unit/beyond-the-unit distinction becomes largely irrelevant.

The definitions of “standard of performance” and “emissions guideline” in Section 111 

both specify that standards must achieve as much emission reduction as is technically and 

 

79 In 2011, 1,596 power plant facilities emitting at least 25,000 metric tons per year of greenhouse gases —

predominantly carbon—reported their emissions pursuant to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPA, 

2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities, available at http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do.
77 | P a g e

economically achievable by the sources subject to them. This can only be accomplished with a 

system-wide approach. In addition, nothing in the language of Section 111(d) limit EPA’s 

consideration to measures implemented at the source itself when setting carbon pollution 

standards for existing sources. Indeed, the term “best system of emission reduction” requires a 

broader perspective and suggests a system-based analysis is required in order to understand the 

net emission reductions of any potential standard. Any other approach would fail to achieve as 

much emission reduction from carbon-emitting power plants as is technologically and 

economically achievable. 

EPA thus has correctly not set the emissions guideline (carbon pollution standards) for 

existing power plants merely on the basis of the limited reductions achievable at reasonable cost 

within the fence line. Such an approach would be contrary to statute because the resulting 

standard would fall far short of delivering as much emission reduction as existing plants can 

achieve at reasonable cost using the permissible compliance options. In other words, if there are 

systems of emission reduction that can better optimize pollution reductions considering cost, 

impacts on energy, and other considerations, EPA must consider such systems in setting the 

standards for emission reduction targets that can be achieved from the existing power plant fleet 

at a reasonable cost. If EPA were to adopt a narrow scope of inquiry, closing its eyes to systemwide reduction opportunities, the agency would clearly violate its statutory responsibility to 

identify the “best system of emission reduction” by ignoring opportunities for greater or more 

cost-effective emission reductions.80 Looking only at what is achievable at a given source is an 

 

80 Under Section 111(d), state plans must include an enforceable emissions limitation on “any existing source” 

within the category, i.e., on each carbon-emitting power plant. Thus, as a legal matter, the final obligation to comply 

with standards of performance lies with each such plant. To minimize legal uncertainty, the compliance obligation 

should be kept to only covered source units, with the assumption that system-wide compliance tools, such as 
78 | P a g e

inadequate system of emission reduction. In short, EPA has rightfully coupled the potential 

compliance options considered when setting the performance target; in order to achieve the 

maximum feasible reductions, as the statute directs, both must be system-based. 

a. Proposed interpretation of the term “system” in the Clean Air 

Act is reasonable.

AWEA agrees with EPA’s “plain meaning” interpretation of the term “system” under the 

CAA, which does not define the term. The language of Section 111(d) of the CAA is sufficiently 

broad to encompass a system-based approach to securing carbon pollution reductions from 

existing power plants. Indeed, the constraints provided by Section 111—directing EPA to 

identify the system of emissions reduction best able to secure rigorous carbon emission 

reductions considering cost, impacts on energy use, and other environmental considerations—

strongly suggest that a system-based approach is optimal for satisfying those statutory 

requirements. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Chevron v. NRDC that the first step 

in assessing whether an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute is permissible hinges 

on whether Congress has spoken directly to the matter and “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, 

that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the 

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”81 However, under Chevron, if a court has found 

that Congress has not directly spoken to the matter or “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with 

respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on 

a permissible construction of the statute.”82 

 

renewable energy generation, would reduce overall electricity generation at covered sources, thereby reducing 

overall emissions. 

81 Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–843 (1984).

82 Id.
79 | P a g e

By failing to define “system” as it is used within the CAA, EPA’s “everyday” 

interpretation of the term “system”, i.e. the integrated electric system, should stand. Indeed, 

AWEA agrees with EPA that the term should be given its ordinary definition: “a set of things 

working together as parts of a mechanism or interconnecting network; a complex whole.” 

Moreover, EPA’s interpretation of the term to include system-wide measures is valid as 

reasonable construction under Chevron’s second step. By considering that the integration of 

renewable generation reduces the demand for electricity produced from existing fossil EGUs, 

thereby reducing carbon emissions, it is a permissible interpretation to include renewable energy 

in building block 3 as part of a system of emission reduction for existing fossil EGUs under 

Section 111(d) of the CAA.

b. BSER should be based on more than what is merely 

“reasonably” achievable.

Under EPA’s draft proposal, in order to achieve state emissions reductions goals, only 

estimates of what is reasonably achievable are calculated and considered for each building block

rather than considering the maximum capabilities of each state. Courts have recognized that 

identification of BSER is an expansive, flexible endeavor. In the service of securing the 

maximum emissions reductions, the D.C. Circuit Court has held that EPA may weigh “cost, 

energy, and environmental impacts in the broadest sense at the national and regional levels.”83 

While the costs of implementing the BSER may not be unduly burdensome or exorbitant,84 this 

certainly does not mean the standard must only achieve the minimally reasonable reduction 

 

83 Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d, 298, 321, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

84 Costs must not be “exorbitant”, Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d at 433, see Lignite Energy 

Council v. EPA, 198 F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999); “greater than the industry could bear and survive,” Portland 

Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 513 F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975); or “excessive” or “unreasonable,” Sierra Club v. Costle, 

657 F.2d at 343
80 | P a g e

goals. Rather, EPA should assess the technically feasible amount of emissions reductions 

possible within a region when considering emissions reductions goals.85

c. EPA employs an overly narrow construction of the “energy 

requirements” language in Section 111(d).

EPA’s explanation of the “energy requirements” language in Section 111(d), as it relates 

solely to reliability and providing sufficient flexibility to enable affected sources to follow state 

energy plans, is more narrow than warranted. Indeed, the legislative history does not support 

such a construction of this statute. The 1990 Senate Committee Report explained that “the 

incentives created by the allowance market should stimulate innovations and technologies and 

strategies used to reduce emissions... [T]he allowance market should encourage sources to 

exploit energy efficiency, enhanced emission reduction or control technologies...; fuel-switching 

and least-emissions dispatching in order to maximize emission reductions.”86 Thus, 

Congressional intent shows that energy impacts should be considered at the source level, the 

industry level, and the national level over time. 

While heat rate improvements for coal EGUs and integration of lower emitting natural 

gas combined cycle units might be essential in the interim for a number of states to lower their 

emissions levels drastically, exclusive reliance upon just those two building blocks, for purposes 

of compliance, would not address long-term considerations of fuel price risk, climate action, or 

system reliability. In other words, EPA should design the final rule with a consideration of the 

energy impacts over time, such as avoiding a rule that just results in fuel-switching from one 

fossil fuel source to another. 

v. The BSER’s stringency should be increased over time.

 

85 See 1970 Senate Committee Report No. 91–1196 at 15 (“The maximum use of available means of preventing and 

controlling air pollution is essential to the elimination of new pollution problems”).

86 1990 Senate Committee Report at 316, reprinted in 1990 Legislative History, vol. V, at 8656.
81 | P a g e

The CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for EPA to review, and if appropriate, revise federal 

standards of performance for new sources at least every eight years.87 This requirement provides 

for regular updating of performance standards as technical advances provide technologies that 

are cleaner or less costly. AWEA believes this same concept should also apply to Section 

111(d), as it keeps implementation of state plans current with technological and programmatic 

trends. It is unreasonable to interpret the absence of any express updating authority in Section

111(d) as reflecting a congressional intent that EPA regulate a source category only once under 

Section 111(d). An interpretation that tied EPA’s hands in that way would be grossly 

inconsistent with the strong emphasis in Section 111—and in the Clean Air Act generally—on 

protecting the environment and public health and promoting technological innovation.

vi. Permanent Reductions: EPA should establish BSER-based state emission 

performance goals for affected EGUs that extend beyond the proposed 

planning period.

Congress intended for the emission performance improvements required under Section 

111(d) to be permanent. Indeed, EPA has set other Section 111(d) emission limits to be met 

permanently. To that end, AWEA agrees that EPA should establish BSER-based state emission 

performance goals for affected EGUs that extend further into the future (e.g., beyond 2030) and 

that the level of emission performance for affected EGUs represented by the final goal should 

continue to be maintained in the years after 2030. A state should be required to compare actual 

 

87 “The Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following the 

procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards. Notwithstanding the requirements of the 

previous sentence, the Administrator need not review any such standard if the Administrator determines that such 

review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard. Standards of 

performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulgation. When implementation and enforcement 

of any requirement of this chapter indicate that emission limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by 

the standards promulgated under this section are achieved in practice, the Administrator shall, when revising 

standards promulgated under this section, consider the emission limitations and percent reductions achieved in 

practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B).
82 | P a g e

plan performance against the final goal on a rolling three-year average basis starting in 2030, and 

to be allowed to implement corrective measures if necessary.

vii. The Clean Power Plan correctly concludes that wind energy is an 

appropriate “outside of the fence line” compliance option that satisfies the 

“best system of emission reduction requirements” and should be factored 

into determining state emission targets.

As the Clean Power Plan recognizes, wind energy is an achievable and adequately 

demonstrated source of carbon reductions under a system-based approach. In support thereof, 

we refer EPA to AWEA’s U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report for the Year Ending 2013

(2013 AWEA Wind Market Report).

88

 The 100-plus page market report provides a 

comprehensive look at the U.S. wind energy industry, including a large body of data that 

demonstrate that wind energy is an achievable, adequately demonstrated, and affordable 

technology. Additional data can be found in the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2013 Wind 

Technologies Market Report (DOE Market Report).89 

As recognized in the Clean Power Plan, wind energy is an “outside of the fence line” 

compliance option that satisfies the BSER and, therefore, is available to states in achieving the 

emission guidelines set by EPA in the Clean Power Plan. The language of Section 111(d),

which directs EPA to identify the system of emission reduction best able to secure rigorous 

carbon emission reductions while considering cost and impacts on energy use and other 

environmental considerations, requires that a system-based approach be permitted to satisfy the 

statutory requirements of the Act. Failure to incorporate system-based emission reductions, 

including wind energy, would not be the most cost-effective and therefore not the best system of 

 

88 Available at: http://www.awea.org/AMR2013. In addition, AWEA’s quarterly market reports for the first three 

quarters of 2014 are available at: http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=6386. The fourth 

quarter 2014 report, which will include full year data on several issues, will be available in late January 2015. 

89 Available at: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/2013%20Wind%20Technologies%20Market%20Report_1.pdf
83 | P a g e

emissions reductions. Given this, EPA’s standard of performance in the Clean Power Plan 

correctly takes wind energy into account in setting performance standards for states; indeed, the 

Clean Power Plan would fall far short of delivering the maximum emission reductions existing 

plants can achieve at a reasonable cost, as required by the statute, if it did not include wind 

energy in that calculation. 

Below we place evidence in the record that EPA acted consistently with the statutory 

requirements of Section 111(d) by factoring wind energy into setting targets and allowing it to be 

used as a cost-effective compliance option. In turn, the Clean Power Plan will better be able to 

deliver real cuts in carbon pollution, while driving the expansion and use of clean, non-polluting 

energy sources. Indeed, it would have been inconsistent with the 111(d) statutory scheme to set a 

weak standard that adequately demonstrated systems already achieve and exceed.

a. Wind Energy is an achievable and adequately demonstrated 

means to comply with emissions standards under a systembased approach. 

EPA must set emission guidelines based on the BSER. Specifically, under both 

Section 111(a)(1) and EPA’s rules and regulation at 40 CFR 60.21(e), a “standard of

performance” must be an objective, enforceable, and generally quantitative limit that 

reflects the emissions reductions achievable using the BSER.41 Further, Section 111(a)(1) 

defines a “standard of performance” as:

“[A] standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission 

reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 

nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” 42 U.S. Code 

Section 7411 (emphasis added).
84 | P a g e

In other words, a “satisfactory” approvable state plan needs to contain standards of performance 

that meet the statutory requirement to obtain the emission reductions that are “achievable”90

using the BSER that is “adequately demonstrated,”91 taking into account the cost and other 

factors. These statutory directives establish the principle that any achievable and adequately 

demonstrated system of emission reduction available for compliance with a performance 

standard must also drive the standard’s stringency.

We provide data below that demonstrate how wind energy has proven to be an achievable 

and adequately demonstrated option to reliably and verifiably reduce carbon emissions at a 

reasonable cost and in an environmentally friendly way, consistent with the requirements laid out 

in the definition of a standard of performance in the CAA. These attributes of wind energy will 

likely lead many stakeholders to use it as a compliance method for meeting carbon pollution 

standards under Section 111(d)92, just as EPA, in the Clean Power Plan, accounted for achievable 

emission reductions from wind energy programs in setting the stringency of its emission 

guidelines for existing power plants. 

b. Wind energy is adequately demonstrated because it is 

currently a significant source of electric energy capacity and is 

growing rapidly. 

The Third Quarter 2014 AWEA Market Report found there are 62,300 MW of wind 

energy capacity installed in 39 states and Puerto Rico (see graphic below) as of September 30, 

 

90 Case law has established that “achievable” constitutes a combination of what “has been achieved” and “what may 

fairly be projected, ”,” and that methods for determining compliance should track the methods used for setting the 

standard. See, e.g., Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

91 The D.C. Circuit has described “[a]n adequately demonstrated system as: one which has been shown to be 

reasonably reliable, reasonably efficient, and which can reasonably be expected to serve the interests of pollution 

control without becoming exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way.” Essex Chem. Corp. v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973). 

92 For instance, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) wrote an August 21, 2013 letter to 

Administrator McCarthy asking that: “EPA should establish a flexible program that recognizes that . . . renewable 

energy investments, policies and programs (‘programs’) and shifting utilization towards lower emitting power plants 

reduce GHG emissions from the electrical system as a whole.” 
85 | P a g e

2014, representing more than 46,000 operational utility-scale wind turbines. There are now 16 

states with 1,000 MW or more of installed wind energy capacity. This represents 5.7 percent of 

total installed U.S. electric generating capacity. 

Figure: Installed U.S. Wind Energy Capacity in MW, by State through 2013

93

In terms of actual electricity production, wind energy accounted for 4.1 percent of electric 

generation in 2013 (up from 2.9 percent in 2011 and 3.5 percent in 2012). The existing wind 

turbine fleet provides the electrical output equivalent to 53 average coal plants, or 14 average 

nuclear plants.

Over the last five years, wind energy has accounted for 31 percent of all newly installed 

electric generating capacity, second only to natural gas.94 In 2012, wind energy was the single 

largest source of all new capacity at 42 percent. In some regions, such as the Pacific Northwest, 

 

93 AWEA, U.S. Wind Industry Third Quarter 2014 Market Report, available at http://awea.files.cmsplus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/3Q2014%20AWEA%20Market%20Report%20Public%20Version.pdf

94 AWEA, U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report for the Year Ending 2013.
86 | P a g e

Plains states and the Midwest, wind energy has been the primary source of new capacity over the 

last three years, providing 60 percent or more of all new electric generating capacity. In the 

Upper Midwest, wind energy provided more than 80 percent of all new generating capacity from 

2011-2013.

Further evidence that wind energy is adequately demonstrated can be found in the percent 

of total generation that wind energy provides in individual states (see graphic below). On an 

average annual basis, wind energy produces more than 25 percent of the electricity in two states, 

12 percent or more in nine states, and five percent or more in 17 states.

Figure 2: U.S. Wind Energy Share of Electricity Generation during 2013, by State.

95

Wind energy technology is rapidly improving, mostly through taller towers that allow 

access to higher wind speeds and longer blades that make lower wind speed sites more economic. 

As a result, wind companies are now showing interest in developing projects in states where 

wind energy was not previously viable, such as much of the Southeast. In addition to the 39 

states with existing installed wind energy capacity, wind energy project developers have publicly 

 

95 AWEA’s U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report for the Year Ending 2013
87 | P a g e

proposed wind projects in Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Alabama, with initial 

prospecting also being done in Georgia and Louisiana.96 Moreover, utilities in Tennessee, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have already signed power purchase contracts to 

buy electricity from wind energy facilities in other states, demonstrating that wind energy is a 

widely available compliance option.97

As our nation’s transmission grid is upgraded and expanded, previously untapped highquality and low-cost wind resources are increasingly being developed, making wind energy 

available to even more Americans. The Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) lines in 

Texas, which have already enabled more than 9,000 MW of proposed wind projects in high 

quality wind resource areas to sign agreements to connect to the grid, are a prime example.98 

The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and MISO are following suit with “Priority Projects”99 and 

“Multi Value Projects,”100 respectively, which when completed are likely to bring a combined 

total of 15,000-20,000 MW of new wind generation online.

 

96 The following list provides examples: http://www.windcapitalgroup.com/locations.html, 

http://shinbonewind.com/about/, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/usa-energy-iberdrolaidAFN0316807320110503; https://www.dom.com/about/stations/renewable/virginia-wind-projects/; 

https://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/sep/11/duke-energy-explains-proposed-kentucky-wind/; 

http://iberdrolarenewables.us/power-wind-development.html; 

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Flordia_company_considers_wind_turbines_for_n_Kentucky_124129244.ht

ml; http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/07/louisianas_first_wind_farm_pla.html. 

97 See, for example http://www.tva.com/power/wind_purchases.htm, 

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/blog/capitol_vision/2014/05/regulators-ok-georgia-power-windenergypurchase.html, http://www.alabamapower.com/environment/news/chisholm-view-project-provides-low-costpower.asp, https://www.swepco.com/info/projects/WindPowerPurchase/, http://www.aecc.com/renewableresources/wind-energy. 

98 Available at 

http://www.ercot.com/content/committees/board/keydocs/2014/ERCOT_Monthly_Operational_Overview_201409.p

df, page 19.

99 The "priority" high voltage electric transmission projects are estimated to bring benefits of at least $3.7 billion to 

the SPP region over 40 years and will facilitate, among other things, the addition of new renewable and nongeneration to the electric grid. Available at http://www.spp.org/Section.asp?pageID=125.

100 These projects meet one or more of three goals, including reliably and economically enabling regional public 

policy needs (such as state renewable energy portfolios) to be met. Available at

https://www.misoenergy.org/Planning/Pages/MVPAnalysis.aspx.
88 | P a g e

As can be seen from the maps above, wind energy is one of the most geographically 

dispersed energy sources available. Currently, the wind industry supports over 50,000 jobs with 

a supply chain of over 500 facilities.101 In fact, there is either a wind project or wind-related 

manufacturing facility and wind-related jobs in all 50 states. The Department of Energy 

anticipates that at 10% wind energy penetration nationwide by 2020, the number of Americans 

employed by the wind industry could grow to 139,000, with an additional 106,000 induced jobs 

in communities where wind manufacturing and deployment occur.102 At 20% wind energy by 

2030, these numbers jump to 230,000 wind-related jobs with 175,000 induced jobs; and 35% 

wind energy by 2050 corresponds to an estimated 400,000 wind related jobs and 295,000 

induced jobs.103 Wind projects directly benefit the local economy of communities that host them. 

A 2012 study evaluating county-level economic development effects determined that between 

2000 and 2008, wind power installations increased personal income by approximately $110,000

per megawatt (MW) of installed capacity.104

A. Wind energy is adequately demonstrated because 

affected entities have already directly invested in 

wind energy, and there is even a greater potential 

for them to do so to meet emission target levels for 

purposes of Section 111(d) compliance.

EPA explains that the components of the BSER, including the use of renewable energy, 

are part of a “system of emission reduction” for the affected EGUs because they either improve 

the carbon intensity of the affected EGUs in generating electricity, or because of the integrated 

nature of the electricity system and the fungibility of electricity, they displace the need for 

 

101 U.S. Department of Energy Wind Vision presentation, May 2014, available at: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f16/2014%20Wind%20Vision%20Presentation%20at%20AWEA%20WI

NDPOWER_3.pdf .

102 Id. at 18.

103 Id. at 20.

104 DOE Wind Vision 2014 Report at xxvi.
89 | P a g e

generation from those sources and thereby reduce the emissions from those sources. And, EPA 

correctly concludes that those measures may be undertaken by the affected EGUs themselves. 

With respect to wind energy, affected entities have already directly invested in wind energy, and 

there is even a greater potential to do so to meet emission target levels for purposes of Section 

111(d) compliance. 

The investment in wind energy by affected EGUs themselves is “adequately 

demonstrated” and “achievable” because it is already well-established in numerous states, and 

there are many options for affected EGUs to make further investments in renewable energy. 

Many EGUs have already relied on wind energy to reduce GHGs and other air pollutants from 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Owners of fossil units operating across a wide range of corporate, 

institutional and market structures (e.g., vertically integrated utilities in regulated markets, 

independent power producers, municipal utilities, and rural cooperatives) have taken advantage 

of emission reduction opportunities from wind energy, and can tap into this potential for 

compliance with EPA’s proposed carbon emission performance standards. 

Large vertically integrated utilities generally have multiple options for investing in 

renewable energy, including building their own renewable generating capacity or procuring 

renewable generation under a long-term power purchase agreement. For example, investor 

owned utilities (IOUs) currently own or have long-term contracts for over 36,000 MW of wind 

assets that are either online or under construction. Some of the top IOUs for purchasing or 

owning wind power include Xcel Energy, which will have over 6,900 MW of wind capacity 

under contract or direct ownership by the end of 2015, including roughly 700 MW of direct 

ownership, and Berkshire Hathaway Holdings, formerly MidAmerican Energy, which is 

expected to have over 5,800 MW of owned or under contract wind capacity by the end of 2015, 
90 | P a g e

including around4,500 MW through direct ownership. In total, 71 of the nation’s 192 IOUs own 

or purchase wind power or have contracts for wind power projects under construction. 

Some of the investor-owned utilities that currently own or purchase wind power include 

the following: AEP - Appalachian Power Company; AEP - Public Service Company of 

Oklahoma (PSO); AEP - Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO); AEP (Indiana 

Michigan Power Co); AEP (Ohio Power); Alabama Power Company; Alliant Energy (Interstate 

Power & Light); Alliant Energy (Wisconsin Power & Light); Ameren Illinois; Arizona Public 

Service Company; Avista; Bangor Hydro Electric Company; Black Hills Energy; Central Maine 

Power Company; Central Vermont Public Service; Cheyenne Light, Fuel & Power; ComEd; 

United Illuminating; Connecticut Light & Power; Consumers Energy Co; Delmarva Power and 

Light; Detroit Edison; Duke Energy Indiana; El Paso Electric; Empire District Electric Company; 

Exelon; Georgia Power Company; Green Mountain Power; Hawaiian Electric Co.; Idaho Power; 

Indianapolis Power & Light; Kansas City Power & Light; KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations 

(GMO); Madison Gas & Electric; Massachusetts Electric Company; Maui Electric Co.; 

MidAmerican Energy Company; Minnesota Power; Montana-Dakota Utilities; National Grid; 

North Central Power Co., Inc.; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; NorthWestern 

Energy; NorthWestern Energy (Montana Power); Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company; 

NSTAR Electric Company; NV Energy; Oklahoma Gas & Electric; Otter Tail Power; Pacific 

Gas & Electric; PacifiCorp; Portland General Electric; Public Service Co. of New Hampshire; 

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM); Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

(PREPA) Puget Sound Energy; Rocky Mountain Power; San Diego Gas & Electric; Southern 

California Edison; Tucson Electric Power; Unisource Energy Services; Vectren Energy; We 

Energies; Westar Energy; Wisconsin Public Service; Xcel Energy (Northern States Power 
91 | P a g e

Company); Xcel Energy (Public Service Co of Colorado); and Xcel Energy (Southwestern Public 

Service).

Municipal utilities and rural cooperatives that own generating asset portfolios, 

particularly generation and transmission cooperatives and larger municipal utilities, have also 

used wind energy to reduce carbon emissions.105 For example, Austin Energy, the nation’s 8th 

largest publicly owned utility, currently has contracted over 1,300 MW of wind power within 

Texas. CPS Energy, representing the city of San Antonio, also purchases more than 1,050 MW 

of wind power. Large generation & transmission cooperatives like Basin Electric and Associated 

Electric Cooperative Inc. also purchase significant quantities of wind power for their members. 

Basin Electric has more than 1,000 MW of wind power under contract, and AECI has nearly 800 

MW. In total, over 14,000 MW of wind power is owned or contracted by municipal utilities, 

cooperatives, joint action agencies and political subdivisions like the Omaha Public Power 

District and the Grand River Dam Authority. 

An additional 1,700 MW is owned or contracted by federal power-marketing agencies, 

with Tennessee Valley Authority purchasing more than 1,500 MW of wind power under longterm contracts. For cooperatives and municipal utilities with smaller fleets, these owners can 

also use wind energy to reduce carbon emissions, and in many cases financing is available at taxadvantaged or subsidized rates. At the same time, in formulating their compliance plans, states 

will be in a position to recognize the distinctive attributes of smaller utilities – and, of course, 

may consider participating in integrated multi-state compliance strategies to increase the 

 

105 The NRECA provides a list of all the coops that are buying output from various renewable generation 

technologies, available at http://www.nreca.coop/wp-content/plugins/nreca-interactive-maps/RenewableEnergy/.
92 | P a g e

flexibility and cost-saving opportunities that would be available to these covered EGUs seeking 

to invest in renewable energy.

c. Wind energy is adequately demonstrated because its emission 

reductions are quantifiable and verifiable. 

The fact that wind energy’s emission reductions are readily quantifiable and verifiable 

further indicates that wind energy is adequately demonstrated in practice. All utility-scale wind 

projects have revenue-grade metering equipment that measures the amount of wind energy 

production. Among other reasons, such equipment and verification is necessary to ensure 

compliance with power purchase contract requirements and for purposes of claiming the federal 

production tax credit (PTC), which is based on electricity generated. In addition, rigorous 

accounting mechanisms for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are used for RPS compliance in 

29 states and the District of Columbia, and accounting mechanisms are in place nationwide for 

verifying renewable energy production to satisfy voluntary REC purchases.106 These wellestablished accounting mechanisms could be readily adopted to support compliance with Section

111(d) by ensuring that renewable energy production is precisely and rigorously quantified and is 

not double counted. In addition, as explained earlier in our initial comments, several tools, such 

as marginal emissions calculations, fossil plant average emissions rates, and power system 

modeling, allow carbon emissions reductions to be calculated based on measured wind energy 

production.107

In short, the broad deployment of wind energy across the country and the fact that its 

emission reductions are easily quantifiable shows that it is adequately demonstrated in practice.

 

106 See, for example: http://www.resource-solutions.org/pub_pdfs/Tracking%20Renewable%20Energy.pdf, and 

http://www.cesa.org/assets/2014-Files/RECs-Attribute-Definitions-Hamrin-June-2014.pdf. 

107 See Appendix A II, at 22-25.
93 | P a g e

d. Wind energy is achievable because it is a cost-effective means 

to reduce carbon emissions.

Wind energy directly offsets fossil fuel use and emissions at other power plants on a 1:1 

basis. Because power plants are interconnected on an electrical grid that operates based on 

market principles, electricity produced by wind yields an equivalent decrease in electricity 

production at the most expensive power plant operating at the time, which is typically the least 

efficient operating fossil-fired power plant for the fuel type that is on the margin.

108

 As such, 

bringing wind energy online to replace the least efficient operating fossil-fired power plant 

means that, rather than supplying energy from a source with a high rate of carbon pollution, 

energy is produced with zero associated carbon pollution. Wind energy has deployed more new 

zero-emission energy capacity than any other source for the past three decades.

Using zero carbon generation resources like wind energy to reduce or replace the use of 

fossil generation is necessary to maximize emissions reductions and improve the prospects of 

mitigating climate change. As the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, 

Maria van der Hoeven, said earlier this year, "[L]et me be clear: an expansion of gas alone is 

no panacea for climate change.” Hoeven went on to say the temperature increase that would 

be caused by a continued expansion of natural gas use "is well above the globally agreed 

maximum target of 2 degrees Celsius."109 Importantly, wind energy delivers sustained 

emissions reductions, in contrast to the more fleeting emissions reductions that had occurred in 

 

108 See EPA, Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and 

Tribal Implementation Plans, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eere/pdfs/EErenewable energymanual.pdf. 

In apparent recognition of this fact, EPA has expressly provided that “fuel switching” (producing more energy from 

renewable sources) is an effective strategy to reduce carbon emissions. See Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions, EPA, available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/carbon .html.

109 “IEA: Lawmakers need to protect renewables, foster clean innovation,” SNL Financial, February 25, 2014. 

Available (for subscribers) at: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=27027293&KPLT=4
94 | P a g e

2012 from increased gas generation as the price of natural gas generation temporarily dipped 

below that of coal, but were to some extent reversed in 2013.

110

AWEA used EPA’s new AVERT modeling tool to quantify the state-by-state pollution 

reductions wind energy currently provides, and the results are shown in the map and tables 

below. The 167.7 million MWh of wind energy produced in the U.S. in 2013 reduced CO2

emissions by 126.8 million short tons, the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by 

more than five percent or taking 20 million cars off the road. These emissions savings were 

broadly distributed across nearly every state, accounting for the fact that wind energy is widely 

deployed and that many utilities in states without wind plants are purchasing wind energy from 

other states. In fact, according to the AWEA analysis, 11 states are achieving emissions savings 

of 10 percent or more from wind energy alone, with three additional states just under 10 percent. 

Emissions savings are reported in the states where the AVERT model indicates fossil-fired power 

plants are reducing their emissions due to wind generation, which in interstate power markets are 

not always the states in which the wind plants are located.

 

110 EPA released data showing that power plant carbon dioxide emissions declined 10 percent between 2010-2012, 

though DOE data indicate that emissions have likely increased in 2013, available at 

http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=5748.
95 | P a g e

Figure: Short Tons of CO2 Emissions Reduced by Wind Power, by State.

According to the results from the AVERT tool, on average one MWh of wind energy 

avoids .75 short tons, or 1,500 pounds, of carbon dioxide emissions. A typical 2 MW wind 

turbine avoids around 4,000-4,500 tons of carbon emissions annually, equivalent to the annual 

carbon emissions of more than 700 cars. 

Importantly, the AVERT analysis prepared by AWEA also demonstrates that wind 

energy plays an important role in reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx, facilitating compliance 

with EPA regulations limiting those pollutants. Wind energy currently reduces SO2 emissions by 

nearly 347 million pounds per year and NOx by 214 million pounds per year. And, AWEA has 

calculated that in 2013 wind energy saved 36.5 billion gallons of water that would have been 
96 | P a g e

consumed at conventional power plants, the equivalent of roughly 116 gallons per person in the 

U.S. or 276 billion bottles of water, providing critical relief in drought-stricken areas.111

As impressive as wind energy’s contribution to emissions reductions is, it is poised to 

play an even more significant role going forward. DOE estimated the net present value of 

wind’s carbon emission reductions through the year 2050 at around $400 billion, and the air 

pollution benefits at around $108 billion.112 

Independent system operators and regional transmission organizations have also 

conducted studies that identify the impact of wind generation on system-wide carbon

emissions, and have concluded that wind energy displaces between 0.44 – 0.74 metric tons 

of carbon per MWh generated, generally consistent with the AVERT findings discussed 

above.

113 These regional variations in average emissions displacements are due to variations 

in the generation mix, primarily driven by variations in the share of coal and natural gas 

providing marginal generation from region to region. 

AWEA’s AVERT analysis similarly found that wind produces large emissions 

savings nationwide, with some variations among regions. More than half of U.S. wind is in 

regions where wind displaces 65 percent or more high-carbon generation, according to the 

AVERT analysis.

 

111 AWEA Annual Market Report for the Year Ending 2013.

112 Available at http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-the-us-will-get-a-third-of-its-energy-from-wind-bymidcentury/335423/.

113 AWEA Annual Market Report for the Year Ending 2013.
97 | P a g e

Figure: Wind Energy Emissions Reduction by Geographic Region

Wind’s 2013 

savings, 

CO2 (tons)

Wind’s 2013 

savings, SO2

(tons)

Wind’s 2013 

savings, 

NOx (tons)

Wind’s CO2 

savings

rate, 

lbs/MWh

% of wind 

MWh 

displacing 

highcarbon gen

Wind 

MWh, 

share of 

national

MISO 34,344,200 56,391 30,042 1,834 85.4% 22.3%

Texas 22,235,300 29,681 11,998 1,341 38.2% 19.6%

SPP 19,099,400 26,544 18,772 1,675 67.1% 13.3%

PJM 13,906,200 33,281 12,238 1,545 66.4% 10.7%

California 10,044,500 900 7,532 985 10.0% 12.2%

CO+WY 10,242,200 7,878 10,057 1,771 70.8% 6.7%

Northwest and 

Interior West 9,005,700 5,805 9,976 1,404 41.8% 7.6%

Southeast 3,805,700 9,216 2,523 1,350 53.9% 3.4%

Northeast 2,948,600 2,564 1,925 1,109 14.2% 3.2%

Southwest 642,600 151 465 1,116 24.2% 0.7%

AK+HI 551,781 1,150 1,785 1,722 14.9% 0.4%

Total 126,826,000 172,300 105,500 1,500 54.1% 100%

A renewable integration study released in March 2014 for PJM,114 the regional grid 

operator for the Mid-Atlantic and part of the Great Lakes region, indicates that wind energy 

tends to disproportionately displace higher-emitting electricity sources, particularly at higher 

levels of wind energy use. In the scenario in which 14 percent of PJM generation comes 

from renewable resources, 100 MWh of renewable energy displaces 51 MWh of coal and 

imported generation (imports are primarily coal generation from other regions), with nearly 

 

114 PJM study results, slide 11, available at http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committeesgroups/committees/mic/20140303/20140303-pjm-pris-final-project-review.ashx. 
98 | P a g e

all of the remainder offsetting gas generation. In the 20 percent renewable energy scenario

that primarily deployed land-based wind, coal and imports displacement from 100 MWh of 

wind increases to 62 MWh, and in the 30 percent scenario it reaches 72-73 MWh. PJM’s 

study found that power sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 27-41 percent in the 30 

percent renewable scenarios, with the cases with the largest amount of land-based wind 

energy producing the largest emissions reductions.

Other nations have also seen significant declines in carbon emissions as they have 

ramped up their use of wind energy. Tables 1 and 2 present International Energy Agency 

data for five countries that produce the largest share of their electricity from wind energy: 

Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Ireland.

115 Table 1 shows how these countries

greatly increased their use of wind energy between 1999 and 2010

Table 1: Wind Energy Growth in the Five Highest Wind Energy Use Countries

Country

Wind

Energy’s Percent 

Share of

Electricity in 2010

Wind

Energy’s Percent 

Share of

Electricity in 1999

Increase in wind’s

electricity percentage 

share from 1999 to 2010

Denmark 22.6 8.8 13.8

Portugal 20.2 0.3 19.9

Spain 17.0 1.6 15.4

Ireland 11.0 0.9 10.1

Germany 6.9 0.03 6.9

All OECD Europe 4.3 0.5 3.8

Table 2 shows that the countries that added the most wind energy saw the greatest

declines in electric sector carbon emissions intensity, while countries that added less wind 

energy (like Germany and the aggregation of all OECD Europe) saw smaller declines in their 

 

115 IEA, Statistics, available at http://www.iea.org/statistics/.
99 | P a g e

emissions intensities. By drastically increasing their use of wind energy, Spain and Portugal 

have cut the carbon emissions intensity of their electric sectors in half.

Table 2: Percent Change in Electric Sector Carbon Emissions/kWh from 1999-2010

Country

Percent Change in 

carbon 

emissions/kWh from

1999-2010

Increase in wind’s 

electricity percentage

share from 1999 to 

2010

Portugal -53.07

percent

19.9

Spain -46.45

percent

15.4

Denmark -24.96

percent

13.8

Ireland -34.24

percent

10.1

Germany -12.58

percent

6.9

All OECD Europe -12.60

percent

3.8

Further, the emissions reductions attributable to wind energy persist even when any 

additional cycling of fossil generation is included in the analysis. A peer-reviewed analysis

by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory examined real-world 

hourly emissions from every power plant in the western U.S., focusing on any impact wind 

energy has on the efficiency of other power plants by causing them to change their output

more frequently by modestly increasing the total variability of all sources of supply and 

demand. The study found that for a scenario with wind and solar providing 33 percent of 

electricity on the Western U.S. power system, one MWh of wind energy saves more than 

1190 pounds of carbon pollution on average, with those savings reduced by only 0.2 percent, 

or 2.4 pounds, as a result of increased cycling of fossil-fired power plants.

116 DOE data also 

confirm that states that have ramped up their use of wind energy the most have seen the

 

116 Available at http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/western_wind.html. 
100 | P a g e

efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants hold up as well or better than states that use the 

least wind energy.

117

This occurs because wind energy only minimally adds to total power system 

variability and flexible reserve needs, as most changes in wind output are offset by other

changes in supply or demand.

118 For example, system operators in Texas have integrated 

more than 10,000 MW of wind energy with only very small increases in their need for flexible 

reserves.

119 Further analysis of this data by AWEA demonstrates that the impact of wind 

energy on the need for and cost of flexible reserves is less than 1/17th of the cost for the 

flexible reserves used to manage abrupt outages of large conventional power plants.120 The

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) has also stated that the impact wind 

power has on its need for the flexible reserves used to accommodate variability in electricity

supply and demand has been “little to none.”

121 In addition, the previously noted PJM wind 

integration study confirms that wind energy only minimally contributes to total power system 

variability, with the increase in operating reserve needs in the 14 percent renewable energy 

scenario amounting to 340 MW, about 1/10th of the 3,350 MW of the operating reserves PJM 

needs at all times to maintain reliability in case a large conventional power plant abruptly 

fails.122

 

117 See Goggin, Michael. “Wind energy’s emissions reductions: A statistical analysis.” Presented at IEEE PES, July 

2013. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6672865&url=http percent3A percent2F

percent2Fieeexplore.ieee.org percent2Fiel7 percent2F6657332 percent2F6672065 percent2F06672865.pdf

percent3Farnumber percent3D6672865. 

118 For a comprehensive list of wind integration studies that support this conclusion, available at 

http://variablegen.org/resources/.

119 Available at http://variablegen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MaggioReserve_Calculation_Methodology_Discussion.pdf. 

120 Available at http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-winds-integration-costs-are-lower-than-those-for-otherenergy-sources

121 Available at http://variablegen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Navid-Reserve_Calculation.pdf

122 PJM study results, slide 111, available at: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/committeesgroups/committees/mic/20140303/20140303-pjm-pris-final-project-review.ashx.
101 | P a g e

Wind energy is also competitively priced. Lazard, a well-respected financial and asset 

management firm, in a September 2014 report123 found that the levelized cost of energy for 

wind power has decreased 58% since 2009, and 15% in the last year alone. The analysis finds 

that wind energy is one of the most affordable options for new electric generation, with an 

unsubsidized levelized cost of $37-$81 per MWh, compared to NGCC at $61-$87, coal at

$66-$151, coal IGCC at $101-$171, and nuclear at $92-$132/MWh. The U.S. Energy 

Information Administration has also found that wind energy is one of the most affordable 

options for new electric generation.124

The Lazard report also calculated that wind energy is the most cost-effective 

generation option for carbon abatement by a wide margin. Separately, an economic model 

AWEA created for its internal analysis of wind market opportunity finds that using renewable 

energy as a compliance tool will lower overall compliance costs with the Clean Power Plan by 

around $2 billion to $9 billion nationally, depending on natural gas prices, compared to a 

scenario without that renewable energy being available, as shown in the graphic below. 

A May 2013 report by Synapse Energy Economics found that doubling the use of wind 

energy in the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes states would save $6.9 billion per year on net, after 

accounting for all wind and transmission investment costs.125 More than a dozen other studies 

confirm the finding that wind energy drives electricity prices down.126 The Department of Energy 

 

123 Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Report, Version 8.0, September 2014, available at: 

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf. 

124 Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. 

125 Synapse Energy Economics, The Net Benefit of Increased Wind Power in PJM, by Bob Fagan, Patrick Luckow, 

Dr. David White, and Rachel Wilson (Cambridge, MA, 2013), available at: http://www.synapseenergy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2013-05.EFC.Increased-Wind-Power-in-PJM.12-062.pdf. 

126 See, e.g., Annual Report: The Costs and Benefits of Renewable Resource Procurement in Illinois Under the 

Illinois Power Agency and Illinois Public Utilities Acts, available at http://www2.illinois.gov/ipa/Documents/April2012-Renewables-Report-3-26-AAJ-Final.pdf; Recent Electricity Market Reforms in Massachusetts: A Report of 

Benefits and Costs, available at http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/publications/electricity-report-jul12-2011.pdf; 
102 | P a g e

estimates that under a scenario in which wind generation reaches 35% of energy by 2050, 

cumulative system costs from 2013-2050 for capital expenditures, operations and maintenance, 

and fuel costs across the entire power sector would decrease by $150 billion, primarily due to 

reduced fossil fuel consumption costs.127 The Department of Energy estimates that with 35 

percent of the U.S. power supply coming from wind by 2050, the nation would see electricity 

price savings of roughly 3 percent, or a $4 per MWh decline in prices.128

Wind energy is affordable, and can be purchased under long-term (15-25 year) contracts 

that offer stable pricing, a feature not available for non-renewable sources due to their fluctuating 

fuel prices.129 Wind energy keeps energy prices low much like a fixed rate mortgage protects 

 

European Wind Energy Association ,Wind Energy and Electricity Prices: Exploring the ‘merit order effect, available 

at http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/MeritOrder.pdf (lists 6 studies); 

CRA, First two Loops of SPP EHV Overlay Transmission Expansion :Analysis of Benefits and Costs, available at 

http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/renewable 

energyLATING_MATERIALS/Publications/BC/Energy_and_Environment/files/Southwest percent20Power

percent20Pool percent20Extra-High-Voltage percent20Transmission percent20Study.pdf; 

Synapse, The Potential Rate Effects of Wind Energy and Transmission in the Midwest ISO Region, available at 

http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2012-08.EFC.MISO-T-and-Wind.11-086.pdf; Duke 

University, Nicholas Institute, Renewable Energy in the South, available at 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.seealliance.org/ContentPages/824124081.pdf; NYSERDA, available 

at http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Program-Planning-Status-and-EvaluationReports/~/media/Files/EDPPP/Energy percent20and percent20Environmental percent20Markets/RPS/RPS

percent20Documents/rps-performance-report-2009.ashx; GE Energy, New England Wind Integration Study, 

available at

http://variablegen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/newis_report.pdf.

127 DOE Wind Vision Presentation at 24.

128 These price estimates are dependent upon the volatility of fossil fuel markets and so may be markedly higher if 

fossil fuel shortages occur or a carbon tax is enacted. DOE Wind Vision Presentation 2014 at 23.

129 The following quotes provide examples of utilities acknowledging the affordability of wind energy: “Wind Prices 

are extremely competitive right now, offering lower costs than other possible resources, like natural gas plants. 

These projects offer a great hedge against rising and often volatile fuel prices.” David Sparby, president & CEO of 

Xcel Energy’s Northern States Power announcing 600 MW of new wind power contracts on July 16, 2013, available 

at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-power-said-to-beat-natural-gas-in-midwest; an AEP 

subsidiary in Oklahoma tripled the amount of wind energy it planned to buy last year because “extraordinary pricing 

opportunities that will lower costs for PSO customers by an estimated $53 million in the first year of the contracts . . 

. annual savings are expected to grow each year over the lives of the contracts.” available at 

www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12588; John Kelley, Alabama Power’s Director 

of Forecasting and Resource Planning stated: “These agreements [referring to contracts to purchase wind power] are 

good for our customers for one very basic reason, and that is, they save our customers money.” available at 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/10/alabama-power-wants-more-affordable-windpower; MidAmerican Energy’s 2013 press release after the Iowa Utilities Board approved the addition of 1,050 MW 

of wind generation in Iowa “The expansion is planned to be built at no net cost to the company’s customers and will 
103 | P a g e

homeowners from interest rate spikes. As the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab reported, wind 

energy acts as a hedge to keep energy prices depressed even if natural gas prices are low.130 A 

graphic from another Lawrence Berkeley National Lab report shows how fixed-priced wind 

energy becomes an even more economic option if one compares the costs of wind energy versus 

other fuels that have variable and increasing prices over the life of both generation options.131 

The following chart demonstrates that contracts signed for wind energy over the last several 

years all come in below EIA’s projected range of gas prices going forward.

AWEA has also conducted analysis quantifying the production cost and consumer 

benefits provided by wind energy in Independent System Operator areas, using grid operator data 

 

help stabilize electric rates over the long term by providing a rate reduction totaling $10 million per year by 2017, 

commencing with a $3.3 million reduction in 2015.”

http://www.midamericanenergy.com/wind_news.aspx

130 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Revisiting the Long-Term Hedge Value of Wind Power 

in an Era of Low Natural Gas Prices 21 (March 2013), available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6103e.pdf 

(“. . . even in today’s low gas price environment, and with the promise of shale gas having driven down future gas 

price expectations – wind power can still provide protection against many of the higher-priced natural gas 

scenarios . . .”).

131 Available at http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/2013_Wind_Technologies_Market_Report_Final3.pdf, page 62.
104 | P a g e

and generation supply curve data provided by SNL Energy. The analysis for ERCOT found 

gross production cost savings of $973 million from ERCOT’s wind fleet in 2013, savings that 

expand to an annual average of $1.526 billion once the costs of natural gas price increases and 

volatility are taken into account.132 The consumer benefits of wind energy from reducing 

electricity prices were found to average $1.187 billion annually over the life of ERCOT’s wind 

projects. Similar results were found for the Southwest Power Pool region, with gross production 

cost savings of $1.22 billion annually over the life of the wind projects, and annual consumer 

benefits of $1.95 billion.133 Analyses of wind’s benefits in other grid operating areas are 

forthcoming.

Department of Energy data134 show that states that use the most wind energy have tended 

to have lower retail electricity prices on average than states that use less wind energy. The 

eleven states that produce more than seven percent of their electricity from wind energy have 

seen their load-weighted average electricity prices fall by 0.37 percent over the last 5 years, 

while all other states have seen their electricity prices increase by 7.79 percent over the same 

time period. Between the end of 2008 and the end of 2013, these eleven top wind states more 

than doubled their operating wind power, increasing their wind capacity by 116 percent. 

e. Wind Energy is an adequately demonstrated resource, and 

large deployments are achievable because large quantities of 

wind energy can be reliably integrated.

Wind energy is also a reliable source of electric power. Dozens of wind integration 

studies in the United States and Europe have found that wind energy can supply at least 20-30

 

132 Available at http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/ERCOT%20report%2011-7FINAL.pdf.

133 Available at http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/SPP%20report%20November%202014%20final.pdf.

134 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly with Data for November 2013 (January 2014), 

available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf; Additional analysis available in the AWEA report 

Wind Power’s Consumer Benefits available at: http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/AWEA percent20White

percent20Paper-Consumer percent20Benefits percent20final.pdf 
105 | P a g e

percent of electricity on the power system,135 with some studies analyzing wind providing 40

percent or more of total electricity on an annual basis, all without any reliability problems.

136

 

Wind energy currently accounts for more than 25 percent of the electricity in Iowa and South 

Dakota; in 9 states, wind energy provides 12 percent or more of the generation; and in a total of 

17 states, wind energy provides 5 percent or more of the generation.137 In addition, over the last 

year, at the regional grid operator level, wind energy has at times produced 7 percent of the 

electricity in PJM, 17 percent in CAISO, 25 percent in MISO, 40 percent in ERCOT, and 33

percent in SPP. At times, Xcel Energy’s Colorado power system has obtained more than 60

percent of its electricity from wind energy.

 

135 The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study, available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47078.pdf, 

and the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47434.pdf) by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory are the largest of the U.S. studies, while more than a dozen state and regional studies 

have also been conducted, available at http://variablegen.org/resources/#!/3700/u-s-regional-and-state-studies. 

136 For example, the Nebraska wind integration study found that the Southwest Power Pool could reliably 

accommodate 40 percent wind energy at a very low integration cost of around $2/MWh, available at 

http://variablegen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ne_study.pdf. NREL’s in-depth Renewable Energy Futures 

study found that wind and solar energy could reliably provide nearly 50% of electricity, with total renewable energy 

providing 80% or 90% of electricity, available at: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ Another example is the 

just-released Minnesota Renewable Integration and Transmission Study, which found that 40% wind and solar 

energy penetration in Minnesota is achievable, and that the variability associated with 50% wind and solar energy 

can also be reliably accommodated. This study is available at: 

https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={D607F

B96-F80C-49EE-A719-39C411D5D7C3}&documentTitle=201411-104466-01. 

137 Available at http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=6184.
106 | P a g e

Figure: Wind energy instantaneous output records 

Some commenters have raised concerns about the impact of significant growth in variable 

generation like wind energy on essential services needed to maintain grid reliability. The reality 

is that in many cases renewable resources actually exceed conventional resources in their ability 

to provide and in their provision of essential reliability services.

Wind turbines are able to provide services that help with frequency response, system 

inertia, voltage and frequency ride-through, voltage control, and other reliability needs. For 

example, as explained by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, wind 

and solar “may provide voltage regulation and reactive power control capabilities comparable to 
107 | P a g e

that of conventional generation.”138 Wind plants meet a higher standard for and far exceed the 

ability of conventional power plants to “ride-through” power system disturbances, which is 

essential for maintaining reliability when voltage and frequency disturbances occur, such as 

when large conventional power plants experience forced outages.139

All modern wind turbines have sophisticated power electronics that allow the turbine to 

provide significant voltage and reactive power control at all times, even when the wind turbine is 

not producing electricity. As illustrated by the actual power system data presented in the chart 

below,

140 wind turbines can significantly improve power system voltage stability, indicated by 

the fact that power system voltage is much better regulated when wind turbine generators 

(WTGs) are online than when they are not.

Regarding inertia and system stability, analysis by WECC in 2013 found that in a 

scenario with very high renewable penetration across the West, “the system results did not 

 

138 NERC, “Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation,” April 2009, available at 

http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf, page 22.

139 FERC Order 661A provides strict ride-through requirements for wind turbines, requirements that do not apply to 

conventional generators and that many conventional generators are unable to meet. http://www.ferc.gov/whatsnew/comm-meet/052505/E-1.pdf

140 Miller, N., GE Presentation, June 2008.
108 | P a g e

identify any adverse impacts due to the lower system inertia or differently stressed paths due to 

the higher penetration of variable generation resources.”141

Analysis conducted for the California grid operator identified no major concerns for 

frequency response in a transition to a high renewable future, finding that “[n]one of the credible 

conditions examined, even cases with significantly high levels of wind and solar generation (up 

to 50% penetration in California), resulted in under-frequency load shedding (ULFS) or other 

stability problems.”142 Adding wind generation can increase total power system frequency 

response by causing conventional power plants to have their output reduced, which provides 

them with more range to increase their output and provide frequency response.143 

In addition, new techniques employing wind plants’ sophisticated controls and power 

electronics enable wind plants themselves to provide fast-acting frequency response. NREL 

recently released in-depth analysis that concluded “wind power can act in an equal or superior 

manner to conventional generation when providing active power control, supporting the system 

frequency response and improving reliability.”144 The report further documented how major 

utilities like Xcel Energy are using this capability of wind plants in some hours to provide some 

or all of the frequency response and regulation needed to maintain power system reliability, 

which has enabled Xcel’s Colorado power system to at times reliably obtain more than 60

percent of its electricity from wind energy.

 

141 Available at http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/RS/RPEWG%20-

%20RS%20Meetings8-21-13/Lists/Minutes/1/VGSStudy7-15-13.doc

142 Available at http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Report-FrequencyResponseStudy.pdf

143http://web.mit.edu/windenergy/windweek/Presentations/GE%20Impact%20of%20Frequency%20Responsive%20

Wind%20Plant%20Controls%20Pres%20and%20Paper.pdf

144 Available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60574.pdf.
109 | P a g e

NREL also performed a study145 on frequency response in the Eastern Interconnection, 

including in scenarios with high wind energy penetration, which found adding wind generation is 

unlikely to significantly reduce frequency response and can actually improve it.

It should also be noted that many conventional generators currently provide little to no 

frequency response. NERC has explained that a failure of conventional generators to provide 

frequency response is the primary cause of observed declines in system-wide frequency 

response, while NERC explicitly notes that the growth of wind and solar is not responsible for 

the decline.146 In sum, as EPA correctly recognizes in the Clean Power Plan, wind energy offers 

a highly affordable (i.e., economically achievable) and reliable means of reducing carbon 

emissions and, therefore, is rightfully incorporated into the BSER and made available as a 

compliance option.

B. Comments related to compliance issues. 

i. The crediting treatment of the interstate effects of renewable energy.

a. A state should be able to take into account all of the carbon 

emission reductions from renewable energy measures 

implemented by the state, regardless of where they occur, as 

long as the environmental attributes of the energy are retired 

in that state.

Renewable energy, along with the environmental attributes associated with it, is regularly 

sold across state boundaries. The ability to sell the environmental attributes of renewable power 

to buyers that will retire the attributes for compliance or other purposes is a critical component of 

the business model of renewable energy developers. As discussed above, around 13,000 MW, or 

more than 20% of currently installed U.S. wind generating capacity, are under power purchase 

agreements with a utility in another state. The Clean Power Plan, when finalized, should not 

 

145 Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58077.pdf.

146 Available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/FinalFile_Comments_Resp_to_Sept_Freq_Resp_Tech_Conf.pdf.
110 | P a g e

disrupt current and expanding interstate markets for renewable energy and associated 

environmental attributes or credits. These transactions contribute to compliance with state RPSs 

and other renewable energy policies.

The Clean Power Plan offers states a number of options for the treatment of these 

emission reduction activities. AWEA concurs with EPA’s proposed option that states may take 

into account all the carbon emission reductions from renewable energy measures, consistent with 

existing state RPS policies, regardless of whether they occur in that state, as long as the 

environmental attribute of the energy is retired in the state. In general, therefore, the 

implementing state or entity (i.e., the entity that created the measure that led to the production of 

the energy) should be able to claim the environmental attributes of purchased renewable 

electricity from out-of-state generation in its state compliance plan. 

b. Accounting for emissions reductions from low- or zeroemitting resources.

Nearly every state experiences significant interstate power flows that cause a large share 

of the emissions reductions associated with renewable energy and other low- or zero-emission 

resources to occur in other states. As a result, accounting measures will be necessary during both 

the compliance plan development and approval phase and the compliance demonstration phase to 

ensure that the full emissions reductions associated with use of these resources are credited back 

to the entity making the investment and that other states cannot “free-ride” on the emissions 

reductions that occur in their state due to renewable energy being used elsewhere. These 

accounting measures will be needed under either a rate-based or a mass-based system, and for all 

zero- and low-emitting resources, as any state or region experiencing interstate power flows will 

face the challenge that a significant share of the emissions reduction benefits of any emissions 

reduction strategy occur outside of that state or region. Anything less than full crediting for the 
111 | P a g e

actual emissions reductions produced by the use of renewable energy will result in an inefficient 

outcome by skewing incentives, reducing the incentive for a state to use renewable energy to 

comply and allowing other states to do less than they optimally can to reduce emissions.

Fortunately, various accounting measures provide sufficient accuracy to make these 

accounting adjustments during both the plan development and approval phase and the 

compliance demonstration phase. These include marginal emissions calculations and power 

system modeling. EPA should allow the use of a simpler but less precise accounting method 

during the plan development and approval phase, out of recognition of the fact that it is 

impossible to predict with any certainty how fuel prices, generator additions and retirements, and 

other factors affecting generator commitment and dispatch will change in the future. This could 

include allowing states to simply credit generation from anon-emitting resource at the state or 

regional average fossil emissions rate. More sophisticated but easily implementable approaches, 

such as a marginal emissions calculation, could also be used. EPA’s AVERT tool is particularly 

well-suited for conducting such calculations with a combination of ease and accuracy, and the 

AVERT tool even allows the user to include forward-looking information about expected 

generator additions and retirements.147

For the purposes of developing and evaluating state plans, EPA could even assist states 

by providing region-wide quantifications of the emissions reductions produced by non-emitting 

resources. This would also avoid “chicken and egg” problems whereby the emissions reductions 

produced by one state’s compliance action will change due to power system changes caused by 

another state’s compliance action. By jointly assessing state plan and/or using regional 

modeling, EPA can also avoid some of these challenges.

 

147 Available at http://epa.gov/avert/.
112 | P a g e

Because more detailed empirical data will be available during the compliance time period 

for validating what and where emissions reductions have actually occurred, more precise 

accounting methods can be used. EPA’s AVERT tool is accompanied by annual updates to the 

underlying dataset that statistically determines which power plants had their output reduced by 

the addition of non-emitting resources, so this updated data can be used during the compliance 

timeframe. Because this data for future years is obviously not available during the plan 

development phase, it would be sufficiently accurate to allow states to use the most recent year’s 

dataset for purposes of plan development and approval. Other approaches for a marginal 

emissions calculation or power system modeling can also be made more precise and accurate 

during the compliance timeframe by incorporating empirical data on fuel prices and other factors 

affecting actual dispatch patterns.

c. Different levels of credit should be awarded to different nonemitting resource types based on each resource type’s output 

profile and the region to which its generation is physically 

delivered.

The carbon emission reductions provided by renewable energy and energy efficiency 

vary significantly depending on the time and location in which the resource is delivered. For 

example, a non-emitting resource that produces more energy during off-peak periods or in a 

region where coal generation is typically on the margin will produce significantly larger 

emissions reductions than a resource that produces on-peak or in a region where gas generation is 

typically on the margin. Calculations using EPA’s AVERT tool confirm that emissions 

reductions from a non-emitting MWh in one region can be twice as large as those in another 

region.

 The impact of location and time of production on emissions reductions should be 

accounted for during both the plan approval phase and also during the compliance phase. During 
113 | P a g e

the plan approval phase, states can use the emissions calculations tools described above to 

quantify the expected emissions reductions from different resources, or EPA can provide 

standardized regional estimates for the emissions reductions from different types of resources. 

During the compliance phase, in the process of retiring a REC, a state or other entity should be 

required to demonstrate the type and region of the resource that produced the REC so that its 

emissions reductions can be properly accounted for. Information about the type and region of the 

resource should already be included in the provenance documentation that accompanies a REC, 

and energy efficiency measures are also likely to specify the type and region of the resources

being deployed, so this step should not require additional documentation beyond what already 

exists. When renewable energy produced in one region is physically delivered to another region, 

such as through a pseudo-tie, dynamic scheduling, or a dedicated transmission line, the credit 

should be awarded based on the avoided emissions rate in the receiving region.

d. A tradable crediting approach for accounting for avoided 

emissions.

When renewable energy is to be used for 111(d) compliance purposes, avoided emissions 

should be tracked using some common instrument to avoid double counting and underreporting 

within and between states. RECs are the most effective instrument to track renewable energy for 

the purposes of 111(d) and prevent the double counting that could otherwise occur under the 

proposed rule. RECs are an established mechanism for conveying renewable electricity 

attributes and the use of renewable electricity to individual grid users in the United States. They

also convey avoided grid emissions associated with renewable generation. In short, if RECs 

determine claims on renewable energy for 111(d) compliance (electricity is not required for 

renewable energy claims for 111(d) compliance), then there is no double counting within 111(d) 

and no double counting with RPSs and the voluntary market, provided that adjustments are made 
114 | P a g e

to rates and masses based on REC ownership and to true up the physical emissions reductions 

provided by renewable energy. 

EPA correctly proposes to allow renewable energy regulations and programs that meet 

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) requirements to generate RECs, based on of 

the quantity of energy savings or renewable energy generation. Depending on the formula 

ultimately adopted by states and EPA, this accounting credit should include both the MWh and 

emissions reductions associated with renewable energy. Based on the proposed rule, credits 

could be used by affected EGUs toward demonstration of compliance with state rate-based 

carbon emission limits within a particular region. Credits could also be issued on a program or 

project basis. State accounting for interstate emission effects would be done though a tradable 

credit market, or some other means, and determined based on credits held by affected EGUs. 

Under a tradable credit approach, credits should be issued for all avoided carbon 

emissions resulting from applicable state plan measures, without regard to where the avoided 

emissions occurred. Consistent with this approach, renewable energy actions that meet 

applicable requirements of quantification, monitoring, and verification would be issued tradable 

credits that could be applied by affected EGUs to their reported carbon emission rates when 

demonstrating compliance with an emission limitation in a state plan. Because the tradable credit 

system would be limited to affected EGUs, use of the credits by these entities, when 

demonstrating compliance with rate-based emission limits, would functionally apply the avoided 

carbon emissions to the state that was responsible for the measure, as long as the environmental 

attribute associated with the energy was retired therein. This approach would provide a clear 

policy signal and incentives that reward state actions that reduce EGU carbon emissions on a 

system-wide, regional basis. We note that some state RPSs require that electricity from 
115 | P a g e

qualifying renewable energy sources be produced within the state or a specified grid region, or if 

outside the states or region, that electricity be delivered to the state or grid region. However, 

EPA should not impose any such restrictions, as they are not necessary for purposes of 

verifiability, although states could be free to consider such limitations. 

All‐generation tracking systems, where they exist, can also be used to calculate instate

emissions from affected EGUs and to allocate emissions, where these are regulated under state 

plans. Tracking systems are currently in existence in many regions of the country and can serve 

as a method of accounting for the transfer of renewable energy. If used properly, these systems 

could effectively avoid double counting and aid states in demonstrating compliance with the rule. 

 Example 1:

148 When the renewable energy produced by in-state renewable 

electricity generator is used to comply with renewable energy requirements, the

renewable energy produced is transferred from the generators to the load-serving 

entity (LSE) in the same state. The LSE then retires the renewable energy credit 

and can use it for in state compliance. This can easily be tracked and accounted 

for using existing systems.

 Example 2:

149 When renewable generators in State A sell to LSEs in State B, the 

renewable energy credit, through the tracking system, would be taken from one 

account and deposited into the LSE in State B. State B would then retire the 

renewable energy credit and be able to account for it in State B. 

 

148 Robin Quarrier and David Farnsworth, Tracking Renewable Energy for the US EPA’s Clean Power Plan: 

Guidelines for States to Use Existing renewable energy Tracking Systems to Comply with 111(d), Regulatory 

Assistance Program, June 25, 2014, available at CRS_QuarrierFarnsworth_Trackingrenewable 

energyforEPACleanPowerPlan_2014_JUL.pdf.

149 Id.
116 | P a g e

 Example 3:

150 State C has a “capacity-based” renewable requirement that 

generators are able to meet by claiming the installed capacity to the state 

regulator. There is potential for double counting here, if the State C generators sell 

renewable energy to State D, and the renewable energy credits are not taken out of 

the State C account. The rule should make clear that in this situation State C 

should not include capacity associated with renewable energy bought by the LSE 

in State D towards their 111(d) compliance. 

EPA should not, however, dictate the form of the credit. State plans should be able to use 

renewable energy generated as part of a new or existing RPS program, as part of the voluntary 

renewable energy market, or as separate credits developed specifically as part of a Clean Power 

Plan state plan. EPA should be clear, though, that existing renewable energy and environmental 

crediting platforms— including voluntary renewable energy tracking systems—are acceptable 

tools, and that any new system must ensure that the same renewable MWhs do not generate 

credits that can be double counted. 

e. Avoided emissions must not be disaggregated from RECs for 

111(d) compliance.

EPA should not constrain state policy as to whether credits are bundled with electric 

power or not. Such decisions should be left to the market and individual state policies.

Furthermore, avoided emissions must not be disaggregated from RECs for 111(d) compliance. 

Disaggregating this benefit would not simplify 111(d) compliance since a tracking mechanism 

for avoided emissions would still be required.151 Disaggregation would also disrupt RPSs, many 

 

150 Id. 

151 Most state definitions of RECs and green attributes support the use of RECs for tracking avoided emissions from 

renewable energy under 111(d), but, variations in state REC or attribute definitions should be not be used as grounds 

to disaggregate the REC or allow double counting of avoided emissions attributes under 111(d).
117 | P a g e

of which are intended to help reduce emissions from electricity. If emissions are displaced out of 

state and those avoided emissions remained in that state, the RPS and customers in the RPS state 

could not claim the full emissions benefit of their generation. As such, disaggregation would 

limit the use of RPSs for 111(d) where RPSs allow unbundled RECs. Finally, disaggregation 

(whether this involves creating a new instrument or not, but especially if it involves creating a 

new instrument) will increase the costs of compliance for states, since they will have to buy the 

new instrument on top of the RPS or otherwise obtain and probably pay for avoided emissions 

which are now separate from the REC.

f. The crediting of renewable energy must avoid double counting.

The fundamental question with respect to the crediting of renewable energy is whether 

the generation creates emissions reductions either in state or out of state and whether these 

reductions have been allocated without double counting. Beyond this, for 111(d) purposes, it is 

not material whether the state with the REC (avoided emissions) also uses the electricity 

generated at the renewable plant. Renewable energy can be supported by multiple policies and 

by multiple states, but that doesn’t mean that each policy or state can count (i.e., adjust their rate 

or reflect in their mass) the same generation or benefits (reductions) for 111(d). In other words, 

a single REC must not be counted for multiple states’ 111(d) compliance (e.g., in multiple state 

RPSs), under multiple state programs within a state plan, or by multiple compliance entities 

within a state. 

EPA should attempt to prevent double counting of renewable energy before it occurs, as 

it undermines the intent of the regulations. And, it will be hard to address double counting after 

it has occurred and state plans have been approved. To that end, EPA should cross reference 

state plans to check for double counting and duplicative standards where there is known trading 
118 | P a g e

of electricity across state boundaries. EPA can also account for the expected interstate impacts 

of renewable energy on the emissions of EGUs when reviewing and approving plans, particularly 

by jointly assessing state plan and using regional modeling. For example, a state whose fossil 

generators will have their output reduced by renewable generation from another state should not 

be allowed to use a compliance plan that relies on reducing the output of its fossil generators due 

to that renewable energy. Responsibility for the generation must be allocated or divided such 

that there is no double counting. 

It is possible that two states will both seek to claim credit for the same renewable energy 

MWhs (double counting), and such uncertainty may delay or impede renewable energy projects 

and the approval of state plans. Double counting can also occur between states due to rate‐ and 

mass‐based compliance and interstate effects of renewable generation. Mass‐based reporting 

will automatically reflect the impact of trading electricity, and in turn, states using a mass‐based 

approach will reflect the activities of neighboring states. Thus, if only the location of renewable 

energy and displaced generation determines claims on renewable energy for 111(d) compliance 

and RECs are not used to track avoided emissions for 111(d)), there is likelihood for double 

counting or under reporting if trading states don’t use the same reporting method (rate or mass).

For example, a state using rate‐based reporting uses in‐state renewable energy to adjust its rate 

(using either avoided emissions or MWh crediting) while a neighboring state using mass-based 

reporting in the same power pool also reflects avoided emissions associated with that renewable 

energy in its mass total. This can be avoided by using RECs in combination with the interstate 

emissions accounting and true-up methods discussed above.
119 | P a g e

In addition, double counting may arise where a voluntary buyer152 of RECs uses the REC 

for its own benefit, but then a state or affected EGU seeks to claim the benefit of the same MWh 

of renewable electricity. For instance, there would be a potential for double counting with RPSs 

and the voluntary market whenever RECs (used in RPSs and the voluntary market) and displaced

generation are not in the same state.153

A. EPA should provide clarification to avoid double 

counting.

While we think EPA’s proposal is generally on the right track regarding the crediting of 

renewable energy, the lack of clarity in the proposed rule as to the approaches EPA will require 

and approve for crediting interstate sales is already creating uncertainty for project developers 

and buyers. AWEA urges EPA to finalize the Clean Power Plan with clearer and more certain 

treatment of out-of-state renewable energy, consistent with our suggestions herein.

EPA’s statement that “a state could” count out-of state renewable energy creates 

uncertainty as to whether EPA will only approve state plans that allow for the interstate transfer 

of renewable attributes, or whether states may develop plans that mandate that the environmental 

attributes of renewable generation within the state be used for that state’s compliance.154 EPA’s 

failure to specify acceptable and unacceptable attribution approaches also introduces significant 

uncertainty as to how conflicts among states will be resolved. 

Without clear crediting rules, it will be hard to distinguish whether renewable energy 

generated in a state is due to measures implemented by another state, as a result of a policy in the 

 

152 Voluntary buyers purchase renewable above the minimum standards required by government regulations, and just 

like a buyer in an RPS market, a voluntary customer purchases the exclusive rights to claim that REC for itself. 

153 The renewable energy industry in the United States has been boosted by a vibrant voluntary market for RECs. 

According to NREL, in 2012, total retail sales of renewable energy in voluntary purchase markets exceeded 48 

million megawatt-hours (MWh) and represented approximately 1.3% of total U.S. electricity sales. J. Heeter and T. 

Nicholas, Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(2012 Data).

154 Clean Power Plan at 34922.
120 | P a g e

state where generation is located, or for non-policy (e.g., market) reasons. For instance, a state 

compliance plan that claims credit for in-state renewable energy generation even when the 

environmental attributes are sold out-of-state could introduce significant uncertainty into the 

marketplace, the 111(d) compliance process, and may lead to the double counting of renewable 

energy. In order to clear up this uncertainty and avoid the conflict between states seeking to 

count the same renewable electricity as part of their compliance plans, EPA should provide more 

defined guidance.

EPA should provide clarification on how states should avoid double counting in instances 

in which one state claims credit for emissions reductions caused by renewable generation and 

another state that holds the environmental attributes of the same energy also claims credit. To 

that end, AWEA recommends that the Clean Power Plan encourage states to develop or 

participate in an environmental crediting accounting system for renewable energy. Under such a 

system, REC ownership would determine the claim on avoided emissions from renewable energy 

for 111(d). For state renewable policies that do not currently involve the transfer of RECs (e.g.,

performance tax incentives, net metering, R&D support, etc.), states will need to “add” 

accounting using REC ownership in order for the renewable energy to be assigned to these 

different policies and counted under 111(d). These policies have not historically involved the 

transfer of RECs (or attribute claims of any kind necessarily) because the benefiting renewable 

energy or attributes/benefits were not being claimed or counted toward a target, but 111(d) 

creates the need for a common instrument across policies. States need not change these 

programs to require the transfer of RECs, provided that the RECs retired in a state are not also 

counted toward another mechanism or policy being used for 111(d) compliance.
121 | P a g e

EPA should encourage any state wishing to use renewable energy MWhs to demonstrate 

compliance with its state goal to establish an environmental attribute credit accounting system. 

Each unit (e.g., MWh) of renewable energy would generate an environmental attribute credit 

originating with the project. The state where that credit is ultimately retired would be the state 

able to count the credit towards demonstration of its compliance with its target. Thus, renewable 

energy generation would be associated with credits regardless of the contractual arrangement 

regarding the electricity—including bilateral contracts, participation in wholesale markets, 

utility-owned renewables, distributed generation, or other instruments. Because renewable 

energy tracking systems follow the credit from the point of issuance to retirement, including all 

interim transactions, it minimizes the opportunity for renewable energy to be double counted. 

States could use such a system to allow private actors to contract for environmental credits 

associated with renewable power, letting the market determine the best use of the credit. 

EPA should thus provide guidance that RECs for 111(d) compliance should be identified 

in a tracking system and retired on behalf of 111(d) compliance or a state mechanism that has 

been included in the state plan. The state must demonstrate to EPA sufficient REC retirement to 

satisfy the RPS or other measure included in the state plan. This does not require that the retiring 

party, e.g. LSEs or individual generation owners/users complying with the RPS, have a 111(d) 

compliance obligation. Tracking systems can identify RECs that have been included in a state 

plan. RECs for 111(d) compliance should not be tracked separately from other RECs, but rather 

should be tracked using existing renewable tracking systems already in place covering the 

country.

If a state chooses not to use a REC tracking system, EPA should only allow a state to 

include renewable energy MWhs in its compliance plan if it can demonstrate that an entity in that 
122 | P a g e

state has submitted environmental attributes (i.e., credits) for those MWhs. Therefore, for states 

that choose not to include a crediting policy as part of their compliance plan, EPA should 

establish a default rule whereby a state wishing to count renewable power in demonstrating 

compliance with its target should demonstrate—through clear contractual agreements—that the 

holder of the environmental attribute associated with that power is located in that state. In 

addition, EPA should make clear that state plans do not alter current contractual agreements 

between renewable energy project developers and purchasers of power and/or environmental 

credits.

Similarly, in order to account for voluntary REC purchases in rate-based state plans, EPA 

should provide guidance that the party claiming 111(d) compliance benefits must own and retire 

the associated REC. In order to account for voluntary REC purchases in mass-based plans, EPA 

should provide guidance along the lines of California’s practices in its AB 32 cap and trade 

program. California has enacted a voluntary renewable energy program that retires emission 

allowances equivalent to the avoided emissions associated with voluntary REC purchases.155

RGGI’s cap and trade program has also adopted allowance set‐asides for voluntary renewable 

energy purchases to ensure that this benefit is retained for the voluntary market in that region. 

The retirement of these allowances ensures that the owner of the REC is able claim the emission 

reduction benefits from their purchase. In the absence of this allowance retirement, parties other 

than the REC owner would be able to claim the benefits of the REC’s avoided emissions, thereby 

negating the emissions reductions benefits owned by the REC purchaser. 

 

155 See California Air Resources Board, Chapter 7: The Process for Retiring Allowances from the Voluntary 

Renewable Electricity Reserve Account (Apr. 2012), available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/chapter7.pdf. 
123 | P a g e

EPA should also provide guidance regarding the requirements for RECs under 111(d) and 

adjustments to rates and masses to avoid double counting of renewable energy. Adjustments to 

rates caused by renewable energy must be limited to renewable energy generation that has 

avoided emissions at affected EGUs, (as a result of which there has been an actual reduction of 

emissions at an affected EGU), that has not been double counted, and that was included in the 

state plan. EPA should also provide that no adjustments be made to rates for renewable energy

without RECs and for renewable energy not included in a state plan. EPA should also provide 

clarity that it will require an upward adjustment to masses for renewables without RECs (both 

power that is imported without the RECs and in‐state renewable generation where RECs are sold 

out of state) and for renewable energy not included in a state plan. Unless the renewable energy

is included in a measure in its plan and it has the RECs, a mass-based state must demonstrate that 

renewable energy is not affecting the mass in order to avoid adjustment of the mass. Further, 

EPA should signal that even under a mass‐based approach, adjustments will be necessary to

address interstate effects, such as when measures undertaken pursuant to one state’s plan are 

expected to be associated with decreases in fossil fuel‐fired generation and carbon emissions in 

another state. 

Adjustments for renewable energy can be applied on a statewide basis as an adjustment to 

the statewide rate after the rate has been calculated. This was the method used by EPA for 

calculations of proposed state goals. Adjustments for renewable energy could also be applied to 

individual EGUs’ rates, provided there is no double counting, since the renewable energy MWh 

wouldn’t be used to support anyone else’s compliance and someone else’s rate or mass would be 

going up or not allowed to go down as a result. Mass‐based multi‐state regions must also make 

similar adjustments as mass‐based states since even multi‐state regions are not isolated. For 
124 | P a g e

example, even though RGGI is effectively one big mass‐based state, because there is trading 

between RGGI and surrounding states, particularly the RGGI states in PJM, there could be 

double counting between RGGI and these states unless RGGI adjusts its mass to account for 

imported and exported renewable energy and renewable energy not included in the multi‐state 

plan.

g. States should be able to distribute avoided emission credits

how they see fit if they enter multi-state or regional agreements 

to do so.

AWEA agrees with EPA’s proposal that multiple states should be allowed to come to 

agreements amongst each other as to how they will distribute the avoided carbon emissions from 

state plan measures across their respective EGU fleets. In particular, states should be able to 

address the crediting of the interstate effects of renewable energy through cooperative 

agreements between states and regional determinations. This gives flexibility to the states to 

choose from a variety of pathways to credit emission reductions in a manner that best addresses 

how they want to distribute credits, and likely will encourage multi-state/regional compliance 

approaches. 

States that are participating in multi-state plans should thus be able to distribute carbon 

emission reductions among states in the multi-state area, as long as the total carbon emission 

reductions claimed are equal to the sum of each state’s in-state emission reductions from 

renewable energy measures. Similarly, states should be able to jointly demonstrate carbon 

emission performance by affected EGUs though a multi-state plan for a coterminous electric grid 

region, in which case, attribution among states of emission reductions from renewable energy

measures would not be necessary. In this manner, avoided carbon emissions are distributed 

among states by an agreed upon formula they derive. For example, an accounting “credit” in
125 | P a g e

one state for out-of-state avoided carbon emissions is complemented by an accounting “debit” in 

the other state where the avoided carbon emissions occurred (e.g., through an increase in reported 

carbon emissions or carbon emission rate). Ultimately, a regional credit market could be 

premised on an agreement between the states, that the accounting of interstate effects would be 

based on prices in the credit market. This approach would potentially avoid double counting of 

emission effects of state measures among participating states. 

AWEA believes that these modifications and clarifications to the proposed rule would 

resolve the uncertainty created by the proposed rule and provide a strong signal to renewable 

energy developers and purchasers that their existing and future contracts for the environmental 

attributes of the energy will be honored. We also request that EPA encourage the expansion of 

the existing framework for tracking/crediting renewable energy to an even larger footprint in 

order to further enable the verification and quantification of emission reductions from renewable 

energy.

In sum, AWEA recommends that the Clean Power Plan encourage states to develop or 

participate in an environmental crediting accounting system for renewable energy. If a state 

chooses not to do so, EPA should only allow a state to include renewable energy MWhs in its 

compliance plan if it can demonstrate entities in the state have submitted environmental attributes 

(i.e., credits) for those MWhs. AWEA believes that these modifications should resolve the 

uncertainty created by the proposed rule and provide a strong signal to renewable energy 

developers and purchasers that their existing and future contracts for the environmental attributes 

of the energy will be honored.

We also note that customers in many states purchase renewable generation from out of 

state for reasons other than compliance with a state RPS or other regulatory requirements, such 
126 | P a g e

as reducing electricity costs, diversifying supply, or meeting corporate sustainability 

commitments. In some cases renewable generators sign bilateral contracts to provide purchasers 

of energy from renewable generation with all current and future environmental attributes 

associated with that energy (bundled renewable energy). However, the proposed rule says little 

about how states with renewable energy policies that do not include a renewable energy trading 

system can account for renewable generation in demonstrating compliance with the state goals. 

For instance, power purchase agreements (PPAs) for out-of-state renewables under a stateapproved integrated resource plan should be able to be used as a compliance option. The final 

rule should clarify all of these issues.

ii. Timing issues related to state compliance. 

The challenge inherent in predicting the technological progress that will take place by 

2030 and beyond creates several issues in the Clean Power Plan. AWEA is concerned that the 

proposed plan, based on timing issues, might fail to achieve emissions reductions as fast or as 

deep as are possible. Our concern stems from the considerable flexibility the proposal gives to 

states with respect to timeframes for plan development and implementation. 

Given the rapid rate of improvement in renewable energy, as well as other energy 

technologies, any 2014 EPA projection of emission reduction potential in 2030 is likely to 

underestimate the technological improvements and associated cost reductions for renewable 

energy. 

a. EPA should follow the proposed compliance time frame.

EPA should also follow the requirements of the implementing regulations, and not extend 

the proposed timetables unless the state has a valid reason for an extension. At a minimum, 

states should file an initial proposal within one year and then can submit their complete plans to 
127 | P a g e

EPA if they get an extension. This approach for compliance timing is reasonable and appropriate 

and would best support the optimization of overall carbon reductions consistent with the statutory 

requirements. Accordingly, AWEA does not support EPA’s alternative option, a 5-year period 

for compliance, in combination with a less stringent set of carbon emission performance levels.

AWEA firmly believes that existing state programs could immediately play a role in 

helping to achieve this rule’s proposed emission performance levels; thus for many states, 

development of compliance strategies need not wait for over five years from the plan’s 

announcement. In anticipation of this proposal, many states were already contemplating design 

strategies that would achieve carbon reductions equivalent to those that could be required by 

Section 111(d) emission standards. 

EPA recognizes that, with many measures, states can achieve emission reductions in the 

short-term. However, we take issue with EPA’s conclusion that renewable generating capacity 

can take longer than other methods to ramp-up. Renewable energy, such as wind, is rapidly 

scalable and deployable. Land-based wind power is readily available for development, and totals 

more than 8,000,000 MW of potential capacity in the United States, enough to meet the total 

electricity needs of the U.S. more than 7 times over.

156

 The wind industry has seen tremendous 

growth in the past decade, increasing from 6,723 MW of installed capacity in 2004 to 61,946 

MW in 2014,157 and shows continued growth with 13,600 MW under construction as of the end 

of the third quarter of 2014.

158

 As explained above, EPA grossly underestimates the ability of 

renewable energy to be quickly installed and integrated into the grid as a compliance measure.

 

156 DOE, 20% Wind Energy by 2030, 2008, available at 

http://20percentwind.org/report/Chapter1_Executive_Summary_and_Overview.pdf.

157 U.S. Wind Industry Fast Facts, http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/about-wind-energy/us-wind-industry-fastfacts.

158 Id.
128 | P a g e

b. EPA should engage in interim reviews and milestones for state 

plans to ensure they are on course.

AWEA supports EPA’s decision that a state plan should include a process for reporting 

on plan implementation, progress toward achieving carbon goals, and implementation of 

corrective actions, if necessary. In addition to demonstrating the projected plan performance will 

meet the interim goals, state plans should contain milestone requirements for tracking actual plan 

performance during implementation. For plans that do not include enforceable requirements for 

affected EGUs that ensure achievement of the full level of required emissions performance and 

interim progress, the state plans should be required to include periodic program implementation 

milestones and emission performance checks, and include corrective measures to be 

implemented if mid-course corrections are necessary. 

Further interim emission performance checks during the plan’s performance period and 

milestones should be added in the final rule to ensure that states are on the trajectory of meeting 

their final targets. To that end, we support EPA’s alternative proposal with respect to this issue, 

under which, in addition to submitting a plan demonstrating emission performance through 2030, 

states would be required to make a second submittal in 2025 demonstrating that their plan 

measures will achieve the level of emission performance required in 2030. If the plan is not on 

course to do so, the state submittal should be required to strengthen or add to measures in the 

state plan to the extent necessary to achieve that level of performance. 

States should report the reasons for deficient performance and should be required to 

implement corrective measures if actual emission performance is inferior to the projected 

performance by eight percent or more, as proposed. A lower percentage would allow even 

earlier identification of a trajectory that is falling short of targets. State legislative and/or 

regulatory action to adopt corrective measures after a deficiency is discovered will take 
129 | P a g e

significant time; therefore, state processes to activate corrective measures should be triggered 

earlier if corrective measures are not adopted in regulation and ready to implement. This allows 

for a faster and more efficient approach and ensures compliance by the target date. For plans 

without corrective measures adopted into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, a higher 

percent emission performance deviation trigger is appropriate.

EPA proposes that some types of plans would be “self-correcting” in that they would 

inherently assure interim performance and full achievement of the state plan’s required level of 

emission performance through requirements that are enforceable against affected EGUs. AWEA 

agrees that self-correcting plans do not need to contain interim milestones consisting of program 

implementation steps because these state plans would require both interim progress and 

achievement of the full level of required emission performance in a manner that is federally 

enforceable against affected EGUs.

For plans that are not self-correcting, EPA proposes that the state plan must identify 

periodic program implementation milestones (e.g., increase in portfolio percentage requirements 

under a renewable portfolio standard) that are appropriate to the programs and measures included 

in the plan. AWEA agrees that if, during plan implementation, a state were to miss program 

implementation milestones in its plan, it should report the delay to EPA, explain the cause, and 

describe the steps the state will take to accelerate subsequent implementation to achieve the 

planned improvements in emission performance.

EPA should promulgate a mechanism under 111(d) similar to the SIP call mechanism in 

Section 110. Under this approach, after the agency makes a finding of the plan’s failure to 

achieve the state goal during a performance period, EPA would require the state to cure the 

deficiency with a new plan within a specified time period (e.g., 18 months). If the state still 
130 | P a g e

lacked an approved plan by the end of that time period, EPA would have the authority to 

promulgate a federal plan under Section 111(d)(2)(A).

iii. State compliance considerations.

a. EPA correctly uses existing carbon reduction frameworks and 

recognizes the interconnected nature of the grid for reducing 

carbon emissions.

AWEA believes that EPA’s reliance on existing carbon reduction frameworks and the 

interconnected nature of the electric grid creates an effective means to reduce carbon emissions 

from existing fossil EGUs. EPA has appropriately provided a flexible framework for compliance 

with carbon emissions reduction plans and builds upon existing company, state, and regional 

approaches. As such, these plans can continue to rely on the interconnected nature of the grid to 

reduce carbon reductions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs, including by flexible state approaches 

such as market-based instruments, interstate trading, and regional approaches. 

b. EPA should consider non-air environmental impacts when 

approving compliance plans.

Under Section 111(d), state plans must establish standards of performance that reflect the 

degree of emissions limitations achievable through the application of BSER that takes into 

account not only the costs of performance but also any non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. While non-air health and environmental benefits are discussed 

as they pertain to building blocks 1, 2, and 4, EPA minimizes the broader positive environmental 

and public health benefits of renewable, pollution-free energy generation, such as wind energy. 

In particular, even though EPA acknowledges that generation from renewable energy, including 

wind energy, has associated non-air health and environmental benefits, the agency does not state 

that it will factor these benefits into its review of state plans. 
131 | P a g e

AWEA believes the fact that wind energy should be given consideration in the agency’s 

review because its generation produces no solid waste, requires no cooling water, and lacks a fuel 

supply that brings its own environmental and health impacts, in addition to numerous other nonair health and environmental benefits. DOE has stated that wind power has the potential to 

reduce national electric-sector water withdrawals (6 percent in 2020, 15 percent in 2030, 20

percent in 2050) and consumption (6 percent in 2020, 16 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2050),

which helps reduce competition for scarce water resources in water-stressed areas.

159

 Indeed, 

these benefits are one of the driving reasons for the broader implementation of renewable 

generation, alongside the reduction of carbon emissions. Specifically, EPA should ensure that 

state compliance measures do not impose greater non-air health and environmental benefits than 

would be the case if, for example, renewable generation were used as a compliance tool rather 

than switching to another energy source.

iv. EPA should clarify what the term renewable energy “measures” 

encompasses.

EPA states that the definition of an:

Existing state program, requirement, or measure means, in the context of a state plan, a 

regulation, requirement, program, or measure administered by a state, utility, or other 

entity that is currently established. This may include a regulation or other legal 

requirement that includes past, current, and future obligations, or current programs and 

measures that are in place and are anticipated to be continued or expanded in the future, 

in accordance with established plans. An existing state program, requirement, or measure 

may have past, current, and future impacts on EGU carbon emissions.

160

However, EPA never defines what “measures” constitutes even though it uses it to mean 

something separate from a state “program” in many instances throughout the plan. While we 

 

159 DOE Wind Vision 2014 Report at xxxiv.

160 Clean Power Plan at 638.
132 | P a g e

support a broad definition of that term, EPA should clarify, from a compliance perspective, what 

types of measures might constitute a “measure” as long as it is incorporated into a state plan. 

AWEA seeks clarification in the final rule as to whether “measure” can be merely 

included in a state plan to make it a “legal requirement.” EPA should also clarify the standard 

for “legal requirement” so that it provides flexibility for bilateral contracts to be used as 

compliance tools, as long as they are enforceable at the state or federal level.

v. Incorporating renewable energy measures under a rate-based approach.

AWEA supports EPA’s proposal that renewable energy measures may be incorporated 

into a rate-based approach through an adjustment or tradable credit system applied to an EGU’s 

reported carbon emission rate. We also support EPA’s alternative approach to provide an 

adjustment based on the estimated carbon emissions that are avoided from the power pool or 

identified region as a result of renewable energy. This approach implicitly assumes that the 

avoided carbon emissions come from the electric power pool or other identified region as a 

whole, rather than an individual EGU. 

As an alternative to EPA’s proposed approach of allowing a broad range of renewable 

energy programs to be included in state plans, provided that supporting evaluation, measurement, 

and verification (EM&V) documentation meets applicable minimum requirements, EPA is 

requesting comment on whether guidance should limit consideration to certain well-established 

programs, such as those characterized in Section 4.2.1 of the State Plan Considerations TSD. 

AWEA strongly discourages EPA from limiting the type of renewable energy “measures” that 

may be considered as compliance tools. By placing limitations on the types of renewable energy

measures considered, EPA establishes a more onerous burden on states to comply with EPA 
133 | P a g e

mandates and impairs the ability of building block 3 to be implemented to its full potential as a 

low-cost means of reducing carbon emissions. 

vi. States should be able to comply under either a rate-based or mass-based 

plan approach as long as equivalency is ensured.

AWEA supports that a mass-based goal should be approvable based upon a 

demonstration that the state’s plan would achieve equivalent stringency, including compliance 

timing, to the state-specific rate-based goal set by EPA. As outlined above, that should include 

truing up actual load growth to that projected in a rate- to mass-based conversion to ensure 

equivalent stringency. We also support EPA’s finding that renewable energy measures may be 

incorporated into a rate-based approach through an adjustment or tradable credit system applied 

to an EGU’s reported carbon emission rate. Under such a process, measures that avoid carbon

emissions from affected EGUs, such as quantified and verified renewable energy generation, 

could be credited toward a demonstrated carbon emission rate for EGU compliance purposes or 

used by the state to administratively adjust the average carbon emission rate of affected EGUs 

when demonstrating achievement of the required rate-based emission performance level in a state 

plan.

AWEA believes that credit should be provided as an adjustment based on the estimated 

carbon emissions that are avoided from the power pool or identified region as a result of 

renewable energy measures. This approach should implicitly assume that the avoided carbon

emissions come from the electric power pool or other identified region as a whole, rather than an 

individual EGU. The avoided carbon emissions should be determined based on the MWh saved 

or generated and then multiplied by a carbon emission rate for the power pool or region. This 

carbon emission rate should be based on the average or marginal emission rate in the power pool 
134 | P a g e

or region, or should be based on the emission rate that represents the required rate-based 

emission performance level in the plan.

EGUs should be able to comply with a carbon emission rate limit in part through the use 

of credits for actions that avoid carbon emissions from affected EGUs. If a state is implementing 

a portfolio approach, then the state should administratively adjust the average carbon emission 

rate of affected EGUs through a similar process, provided that the carbon-avoiding measures are 

enforceable elements of the state plan.

vii. EPA should issue guidelines for states.

AWEA supports the Clean Power Plan’s inclusion of greater detail on approvability 

criteria, requirements for state plan components, the process and timing for state plan submittal,

and the process and timing for demonstrating achievement of the carbon emission performance 

level in the state plan. AWEA also supports that the proposal provides for more guidance to

states on options for meeting the state-specific goals established by EPA in a flexible manner that 

accommodates a diverse range of state approaches. 

EPA should provide clarity as to the technologies that can be used as compliance options, 

provide guidance on incorporating them into state plans, and factor them into the BSER. While 

EPA should provide as much specific guidance as possible on approvable measures and policies, 

it should also reiterate and make clear that additional measures and policies can be approved 

even if not specifically named in the Clean Power Plan. This guidance should contain as many 

default approvable policies as possible and criteria on which additional state policies will be 

evaluated. 

The Clean Power Plan notes that there is a broad range of compliance options available to 

states as they develop their implementation plans. Natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear, 
135 | P a g e

energy efficiency, transmission and distribution improvements, and energy storage are listed as 

options. While EPA has indicated that states can propose options outside of that list, there is a 

great deal of uncertainty as to what other options EPA might allow. In the final rule, EPA should 

explicitly recognize the technologies that can serve as compliance options and provide guidance 

to states on the use of these technologies in compliance plans. Furthermore, to the extent EPA 

expands the available compliance options, the emissions reductions that can be provided by those 

resources should also be factored into the BSER in order to ensure symmetry. 

In particular, EPA should put forth a model rule for an interstate emissions credit-trading

program that could be easily adopted by states who wanted to use such a program for its plan. 

This will help states establish a sensible trading and ceiling policy that is in compliance with 

EPA requirements.

viii. EPA should permit and encourage multi-state/regional plans.

AWEA supports EPA’s proposal for states to be allowed to develop multi-state/regional 

compliance programs. Such regional approaches could offer cost-effective carbon solutions and 

allow for multi-state coordination to address compliance issues. Multi-state compliance plans 

help deal with technical challenges such as cross-state power flow and crediting and they 

simplify the work of businesses by decreasing the number of markets created and increasing the 

size of each region. Regional approaches would also lower implementation costs.

EPA’s proposal that only one multi-state plan could be submitted on behalf of all 

participating states should help encourage the adoption of such approaches. But, states 

participating in a multi-state plan should also be given the option of providing a single submittal

for their respective state. We support the proposal that if a state develops a plan that includes a 

multi-state approach, it would have additional time to submit a complete plan. While compliance 
136 | P a g e

timeframes should be as short as possible, giving more time in this respect could serve to 

incentivize more states to embrace a multi-state approach.

AWEA also supports EPA’s effort to encourage cooperation and urges EPA to further 

help states see the benefits of engaging in regional compliance discussions. We also encourage 

EPA to make clear that states need not form full multi-state compliance plans to benefit from

regional coordination. Multi-state agreements on discrete issues—such as the treatment of 

interstate renewable energy flows and related accounting and compliance issues—can help 

reduce interstate conflict. Such plans also simplify compliance obligations and market structures 

for businesses operating in multiple states and increase market transparency and competition, 

ultimately leading to lower implementation costs. EPA should provide states a clearly 

approvable avenue to realize the benefits of issue-specific multi-state agreements even if they 

cannot come to an agreement on drafting a comprehensive multi-state compliance plan. For 

instance, we urge EPA to provide states an avenue to form and join multi-state compliance plans 

over time—potentially as part of the regular Section 111(d) review cycle proposed herein.

ix. State plans should specify reporting requirements.

AWEA agrees with EPA that a state plan should specify appropriate periodic reporting 

requirements for each affected entity in a state plan that will be electronically reported at least 

biennially and disclosed on a state database accessible by the public and EPA. Reports should be 

submitted directly by the affected entities to EPA, as well as to the state.

x. Alternative compliance payments (ACPs) should not be a compliance tool.

Many states allow an RPS compliance alternative which requires obligated entities to pay 

a predetermined fee to the state for each MWh of RPS shortfall. Although these ACP payments 

may be directed to programs to promote the deployment of renewable energy technologies, these 
137 | P a g e

payments are not equivalent to renewable energy generation and should not be counted as such in 

state plans. Accordingly, we agree with EPA that ACPs should not be a compliance option.

xi. EPA should explicitly allow for carbon pricing as a compliance option. 

AWEA believes that EPA should allow for regional assignments of carbon pricing as a 

“beyond-the-fenceline” approach to state compliance. In order to clarify the use of this 

compliance, EPA should consider drafting a model rule for states on the adoption of regional or 

state-wide administered carbon pricing schemes. This approach could look to use existing 

energy market infrastructure, such as RTOs and ISOs, to achieve emission reduction targets 

while ensuring reliability and minimizing cost impacts. The goal would be to disincentivize the 

dispatch of higher emitting plants and correspondingly incentivize the dispatch of lower-emitting 

resources. 

This approach would utilize the existing market structure to determine the least-cost 

compliance solutions on a regional level and automatically account for factors affecting 

compliance costs, such as operational constraints of plants, transmission congestion, and the 

timing and magnitude of previous investments and retirements. This approach would also 

explicitly reflect reliability contributions of plants, as it would fit within the current organized 

market bidding procedures, which consider reliability concerns when dispatching.

This could be done, for instance, by translating carbon emission reduction targets 

proposed by EPA into targets for regional power markets (RTOs/ISOs), applying those 

reductions through a market-administered carbon price to the existing processes for economic 

dispatch of electric generation within the market. Under such an approach, the market would 

charge carbon-emitting power plants at a rate per ton of carbon emissions; thus, plants with 

higher carbon emissions would face a higher charge per megawatt-hour produced. 
138 | P a g e

Setting the carbon prices would necessarily incorporate short-term and long-term 

operational and reliability concerns, while ensuring that the prices are sufficiently high to achieve 

the required emissions reductions. The carbon price would also be reflected in wholesale prices, 

which would send an efficient price signal to both buyers and sellers in the wholesale power 

market. By adding appropriate carbon prices to the bids of individual generators, lower carbonemitting resources will be dispatched more frequently than higher carbon-emitting resources and 

also will enjoy higher generator energy margins. 

Given that RTOs/ISOs often have the best insights into the resources needed to ensure 

reliable supply of electricity, they should likely be involved in the analytical efforts. AWEA 

believes that allowing states to implement carbon prices administered by an independent not-forprofit entity could provide for a predictable and stable system of carbon pricing, thus reducing 

uncertainty for all market participants. RTOs/ISOs currently already implement a least-cost 

approach to dispatch subject to reliability constraints; thus, carbon pricing could be more 

efficient than direct control of individual generation sources. 

AWEA believes that a regional carbon price will be more efficient than “state-by-state” 

carbon pricing approach and would likely lower the average cost to consumers of meeting the 

requirements of Section 111(d). The ability to use a regional carbon pricing initiative as a 

compliance tool could also provide states with an alternative, market-based approach to 

complying with such regulations and would leave the compliance-related investment decisions in 

the hands of market participants, potentially reducing total compliance costs. 

For these reasons, AWEA urges EPA to allow for regional carbon pricing as a 

compliance tool for states in reducing their carbon emissions and asks that EPA prepare a model 

rule for state compliance through such pricing initiatives.
139 | P a g e

xii. Banking: EPA should give credit to new emission reductions from 

actions taken after January 1, 2014, as long as they are part of a 

submitted compliance plan.

The Clean Power Plan only gives credit to emission reductions that occur during the 

interim compliance period (2020-2029) or beyond. This approach could significantly distort the 

marketplace for renewables in the near term. It could encourage states and/or developers that 

otherwise would implement new renewable energy measures prior to 2020 to wait until such time 

as they are eligible for credit under a state compliance plan. For example, wind developers 

would have an incentive to wait to expend their capital until the compliance period begins in 

order to maximize the potential benefits received under a state plan. In addition to economic and 

business risk, such a delay risks reducing the overall environmental effectiveness of the Clean 

Power Plan, as emission reductions that may have occurred before 2020 absent the rule are 

pushed off to the compliance period. EPA should have a strong preference for securing emission 

reductions as early as possible, as there are significant environmental and economic costs 

associated with delay. With that end in mind, granting credit to specified actions prior to 2014 

would stimulate the market, accelerate emission reductions, and give states a longer period for 

ramping up compliance activities.

In the proposed rule, EPA requests comment on a range of possible approaches to this 

type of credit for early action. In the first approach, full accounting of emission reductions 

continues to begin in 2020 but credit could be received for certain pre-2020 reductions that 

would lower the amount of emission reductions needed during the 2020-2029 period. EPA also 

requests comment in the proposed rule on a second approach in which states could choose early 

(e.g., pre-2020) implementation of state goal requirements, which could provide states with the 
140 | P a g e

ability to achieve the same amount of overall emission reductions but do so by making some 

reductions earlier. 

In the NODA, EPA discusses potential technical challenges, described by some 

stakeholders, associated with achieving all of the reductions that states would be required to 

make as early as 2020, when the compliance period begins. To address this situation, the agency 

announced in the NOPR it would seek further comment on two specific adjustments to the 

proposed regulations, including whether it should allow credit for reductions earlier than 2020 to 

enable a more gradual reduction of emissions between 2020 and 2030. 

In order to avoid market distortions and encourage emission reductions before 2020, 

AWEA supports the alternate proposal (second approach) from the Clean Power Plan in which a 

state would be permitted to provide credit to emission reductions that occur prior to 2020 so long 

as the emission reduction measures are put in place after the date the Clean Power Plan was 

published in the Federal Register (June 18, 2014), but EPA should modify it slightly. 

While there are a number of policy approaches to encourage pre-2020 emission 

reductions, AWEA believes the most workable and flexible option would be to allow banking 

under which states could credit any new emission reductions achieved through approved 

compliance options, as long as they occur after January 1, 2014, and are the result of new 

emission reduction measures. In other words, EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction 

actions, including increasing existing policies, adopting new policies and deploying new 

facilities, taken after that date and before the plan performance period (2020) to count toward 

achievement of the state's carbon emission targets.

This would help ensure that the states have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions 

through the use of new renewable energy measures, as well as other “additive” compliance tools, 
141 | P a g e

prior to 2020. This would also allow states to make themselves better positioned to achieve their 

final compliance goals; in other words, it would give states more time to meet their targets. 

Finally, by limiting the proposal to “new” emission reduction measures (which could include 

expanding existing programs/measures/actions or establishing new ones), states would be in a 

better position to meet the required emission performance standards beginning in 2020.161 This 

would also be consistent with EPA’s “no backsliding” principle on overall plan emission 

performance set forth in the proposed rule,162 as it would only allow additive actions taken 

pursuant to an existing state program, requirement, or measure (such as compliance with a 

regulatory obligation or initiation of an action related to a program, action or measure) and, 

therefore, would sustain the overall stringency of emission reductions in the compliance period, 

as the actions would not have been taken but for compliance with the final rule.

The approach of banking is not foreign to states, as many states already permit the 

carryover of renewable energy produced in one year to satisfy RPS requirements in a subsequent 

year, and EPA already proposes to allow banking during the plan performance period. The 

accounting for year-to-year carryover should be addressed in a state plan. EPA could signal to 

states that it will approve plans that include banking provisions by describing, in some detail, the 

type and quantity of banking it will find acceptable. It will be particularly important to provide 

up-front clarity on this issue in the final rule because uncertainty is already contributing to 

unnecessary slowdowns in energy project development, as purchasers and developers wait to see 

what regulatory obligations and benefits will apply to a project. 

 

161 EPA’s proposed state-specific goals already reflect actions that many states have already taken to reduce or avoid 

EGU carbon emissions. Carbon emission reductions due to shifts to existing lower carbon-emitting power 

generation are also represented in the 2012 base period that was used to assess certain building blocks that are 

applied in calculating a state emission performance goal.

162 Proposed Rule at 34917.
142 | P a g e

C. Comments related to enforcement issues. 

i. States should be able to choose approaches in their compliance plans 

under which responsibility for actions achieving reductions is not placed 

entirely upon emitting EGUs.

AWEA agrees that states should be able to choose approaches in their compliance plans 

under which responsibility for actions achieving reductions is not placed entirely upon emitting 

EGUs; instead, state plans should be able to include measures and policies (e.g., renewable 

portfolio standards) for which the state itself is responsible. EPA reasonably interpreted Section

111(d)(1) to allow states to adopt plans that require EGUs and other entities to be legally 

responsible for actions required under the plan that will, in aggregate, achieve the emission 

performance level. 

AWEA also agrees that EPA should authorize states either to submit plans that hold the 

affected EGUs fully and solely responsible for achieving the emission performance level, or to 

submit plans that rely in part on measures imposed on entities other than affected EGUs to 

achieve at least part of that level, as well as on measures imposed on affected EGUs to achieve 

the balance of that level. This approach is preferable to the approach under which state plans 

simply would be required to hold the affected EGUs fully and solely responsible for achieving 

the emission performance level. State plans should include measures enforceable against other 

entities that support reduced generation by, and therefore carbon emission reductions from, the 

affected EGUs. 

Plans with rate-based emission limits could incorporate enforceable renewable energy

measures by adjusting an EGU’s carbon emission rate when demonstrating compliance through 

either an administrative adjustment by the state or use of a tradable credit approach. As such, 

states should be able to rely on certain renewable energy programs as complementary measures 
143 | P a g e

to reduce costs for, and otherwise facilitate, EGU emission limits without including those 

measures in the Section 111(d) state plan. The EGU emission limits would be federally 

enforceable, but certain renewable energy measures could serve as complementary measures and 

would not be enforceable under federal law; instead, they would remain enforceable under state 

law. This approach would work for certain types of state programs, such as RPSs, particularly 

because they are well-established and can be expected to achieve their intended results. The state 

plan would include an enforceable commitment (state commitment approach) by the state itself 

to implement state-enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that would achieve a 

specified portion of the required emission performance level on behalf of the affected EGUs.

A state plan that imposes a mass limit on affected EGUs that is sufficiently stringent to 

achieve the emission performance level should not need to include renewable energy measures as 

an enforceable component of the plan to assure the achievement of that performance level. The 

mass limit itself would suffice. However, the state may wish to implement renewable energy

measures as a complement to the plan to support forward-looking achievement of the mass limit 

at lesser cost.

D. Comments related to miscellaneous issues.

i. EPA should combine the two existing 111(d) categories and codify in the 

Code of Federal Regulations.

In 1971 and 1979 EPA listed fossil fuel-fired steam generating boilers and fossil fuelfired combustion turbines, respectively, as categories subject to Section 111 rulemaking. 

In regards to the proposed rulemaking at issue here, AWEA supports combining the two existing 

categories into a single category for purposes of carbon emissions from existing affected EGUs. 

AWEA further supports EPA’s proposal to codify all of the proposed requirements for the 

affected EGUs in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60 subpart “UUUU.” Combining the two 
144 | P a g e

categories would offer additional flexibility by facilitating implementation of carbon mitigation 

measures, such as emission trading among sources in both categories. 

AWEA agrees that because the two categories are pre-existing, and EPA would not be 

subjecting any additional sources to regulation, that the combined category should not be 

considered a new category that EPA must list under Section 111(b)(1)(A). Therefore, EPA

should not be required to make a finding that the combined category causes or contributes 

significantly to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. 

ii. Accounting for emissions changes from the substitution of new natural 

gas generation.

Emissions resulting from substitution of generation by new natural gas generation for 

generation by affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required emission performance level 

for affected EGUs. Incorrectly treating new gas generators as if they have zero carbon emissions 

would result in less overall carbon emission reductions, as the actual emissions associated with 

operating the new gas generators would not be bound by the cap created by 111(d). A failure to 

account for the emissions associated with new gas generators would effectively allow a state to 

treat new gas facilities as if they were zero-emission resources, skewing investment and dispatch 

decisions away from true zero-emission resources and even creating a strong distortionary 

incentive to substitute new gas generation for existing combined cycle generation in investment 

and dispatch decisions. EPA should also periodically reevaluate, such as during the eight-year 

review process (as suggested above), to provide a mechanism for updating the fleet of facilities 

subject to the regulation in order to ensure that the 111(d) regulations continue to achieve 

significant emission reductions from fossil-fuel power plants, consistent with the no backsliding 

policy.
145 | P a g e

E. Comments related to legal issues.

i. EPA’s Legal Authority to Issue the Rule and to Regulate Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions.

AWEA agrees with EPA that it has the legal authority to regulate carbon emissions from 

EGUs under Section 111(d). EPA has identified carbon as a pollutant subject to Section 111(d) 

regulation under a reasonable construction of the provisions of Section 111(d)(1)(A)(i) that 

identify air pollutants subject to regulation. And, two Supreme Court decisions support EPA’s 

position on the issue of carbon dioxide regulation.163 The Court has held that greenhouse gases, 

including carbon dioxide, are an “air pollutant” under the CAA.164 Further, the Court has ruled 

that “the Clean Air Act and EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to 

seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants,” and 

importantly, premised that holding on the Court’s understanding that Section 111, including 

111(d), applies to carbon emissions from those sources.165

a. EPA reasonably interprets the provisions identifying which air 

pollutants are covered under Section 111(d) to authorize EPA

to regulate carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs.

Drafting errors that occurred during enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments do not call 

EPA’s legal authority into question. Both houses of Congress passed an amendment to Section 

111(d)166 and the two versions differed from and conflicted with each other, creating ambiguity. 

As they were not reconciled during the House-Senate Conference Committee, both were 

 

163 [cite] EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 U.S. ___ (2014); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 

418 (2013).

164 Massachusetts. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

165 American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2537-38 (2011).

166 Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 108(g), 104 Stat. at 2467 (Nov. 15, 1990).
146 | P a g e

approved by both houses and enacted into law—one in title I of the bill, the other in title III of 

the bill (both amendments were to be codified in Section 111(d)).167

AWEA agrees with EPA that the enacted law, with both conflicting and thus ambiguous 

amendments, signed by the President (as recorded in the U.S. Statutes at Large) is controlling, 

not the U.S. Code that inaccurately presents only one of the two amendments. Under such 

circumstances, EPA may reasonably construe the provisions of Section 111(d) to authorize 

regulation of carbon thereunder.

Before the 1990 CAA Amendments, Section 111(d)(1) read:

The Administrator shall prescribe regulations . . . for any existing source for any 

air pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not 

included on a list published under Section 7408(a) or 7412(b)(1)(A) [§ 

112(b)(1)(A)] of this title, but to which a standard of performance under this 

Section would apply if such existing source were a new source. . .”168

In this version, there was a provision (Section 112 Exclusion) excluding from regulation, 

pollutants that were provided in Section 112. The 1990 CAA Amendments altered the Section 

112 Exclusion ambiguously because there were two different versions both enacted into law. 

As presented in the U.S. Code, the House written version of Section 111(d)(1) reads:

The Administrator shall prescribe regulations . . . for any existing source for any 

air pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not 

included on a list published under Section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a 

source category which is regulated under Section 7412 [Section 112] of this title 

but to which a standard of performance under this Section would apply if such 

existing source were a new source, and provides for the implementation and 

enforcement. . .169

 

167 The Senate version would exclude the regulation of any pollutant which is “included on a list published under 

[Section] 112(b). Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 302(a), 104 Stat. at 2574 (Nov. 15, 1990).

168 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) (1970).

169 42 U.S.C. §7411, 111(d)(1).
147 | P a g e

The conflict in interpreting the statute comes from the revision of the Section 112 Exclusion 

defining one category of air pollutants that are “emitted from a source category which is 

regulated under [Section 112]” as excluded from regulation. This alters the Section 112 

Exclusion from applying to Section 112 pollutants to categories of sources that emit those 

pollutants. Therefore, the U.S. Code version can be constructed to read that the provision 

(Section 112 Exclusion) precludes GHGs because they are emitted from EGUs and those 

regulated entities are a source category regulated under Section 112.170 But, under this 

construction, the Section 112 Exclusion would be read to exclude almost every pollutant from 

regulation under Section 111(d), as it would be challenging to identify any pollutant that is not 

emitted from at least one source category that is regulated under Section 112. This circular 

construction of Section 111(d) would render itself ineffective, and as such, can be neither a 

reasonable construction nor the intent of Congress. Such an unreasonable construction can only 

be derived by looking at only the text of Section 111(d) as presented in the U.S. Code, but this 

does not accurately reproduce the Section 112 Exclusion as enacted by Congress and signed by 

the President in the 1990 CAA Amendments.

The Senate written version reads as follows:

The Administrator shall prescribe regulations . . . for any existing source for any 

air pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not 

included on a list published under Section 7408(a) or 7412(b) [Section 112(b)] of 

this title, but to which a standard of performance under this Section would apply 

if such existing source were a new source. . . S.1630.ENR, 101st Cong. (1990).

 

170 “ Electric utility steam generating unit - The term “electric utility steam generating unit” means any fossil fuel 

fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale. A unit that 

cogenerates steam and electricity and supplies more than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more 

than 25 megawatts electrical output to any utility power distribution system for sale shall be considered an electric 

utility steam generating unit.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(8) (1970).
148 | P a g e

This version simply revises the list of pollutants to which it refers because in the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, Congress amended Section 112 to include a statutory list of hazardous air 

pollutants for EPA to regulate, as opposed to relying on EPA to develop its own list.

As shown, these two versions conflict and are thus ambiguous. The controlling statement 

of the Section 112 Exclusion, found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, has both conflicting versions 

(each passed by each house of Congress) and is thus ambiguous. Under these circumstances, 

EPA may reasonably construe the Section 112 Exclusion to allow for and authorize the 

regulation of GHGs under Section 111(d). In doing so, it would not be reasonable to give little 

or no effect to the Senate version and instead defer entirely or almost entirely to the House 

version because a strict reading of the House version would mean that EPA could not regulate 

any air pollutant from a source category regulated under Section 112 and would render Section

111(d) ineffective, which was not the intent of Congress. Moreover, Congress desired the 1990 

CAA Amendments to require EPA to regulate more substances, and not eliminate EPA’s ability 

to regulate large categories of air pollutants.171 Further, EPA has historically regulated nonhazardous air pollutants under Section 111(d), even where those air pollutants were emitted from 

a source category actually regulated under Section 112.

EPA reasonably interprets the provisions identifying which air pollutants are covered 

under Section 111(d) to authorize EPA to regulate carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

EGUs. And, EPA has reasonably interpreted the ambiguous Section 112 Exclusion in a manner 

to give effect to both amendments, and thus the apparent intent of Congress. Specifically, EPA

has interpreted the Section 112 Exclusion to mean that “[w]here a source category is regulated 

under Section 112, as Section 111(d) standard of performance cannot be established to address 

 

171 See 70 Fed. Reg. 16031-32.
149 | P a g e

any hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112(b) that may be emitted from that particular 

source category.”172 EGUs are a source category that is regulated under Section 112, but GHGs 

are not a hazardous air pollutant regulated under Section 112. Accordingly, the Section 112 

exclusion in Section 111(d) does not apply to GHGs, and 111(d) does not preclude EPA from 

establishing guidelines covering GHGs from EGUs. Therefore, this interpretation authorizes 

EPA to establish Section 111(d) guidelines for GHG emissions from EGUs, and this 

interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference. This authority is not divested by the fact 

that EPA has regulated EGU emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants under 

Section 112 under the agency’s established construction of the ambiguous provisions in Section

111(d)(1)(A)(i) that identify air pollutants subject to Section 111(d). 

b. Section 111 does not require that EPA issue a formal 

endangerment finding.

EPA has stated that it is rational to regulate GHGs from fossil-fuel fired EGUs, through 

the Clean Power Plan, based upon previous EPA findings that GHG emissions endanger public 

health and welfare, and that the electric generating industry emits a significant amount of GHGs. 

AWEA agrees with EPA that Section 111 does not require that EPA issue a formal 

endangerment finding, and that even if Section 111 did require such a finding, EPA’s rational 

basis would qualify as one. AWEA also agrees that parallel EPA rulemakings under Section

111(b) properly address and resolve the endangerment question: specifically, the discussions of 

endangerment from carbon emissions put forth in EPA’s 111(b) regulation of new or modified 

power plants.173 

 

172 “Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units and the Removal of Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 

From the Section 112(c) List,” 70 FR 15994, 16029-32 (March 29, 2005).

173 79 Fed. Reg. 1429, Jan. 8, 2014.
150 | P a g e

c. EPA has the authority to determine the BSER, not the states.

AWEA supports EPA in its determination that the regulation makes clear that it is EPA, 

not the states, that determines the BSER. AWEA believes the statutory directive that Section 

111(d) regulations shall establish procedures “similar to that provided by Section 110” supports 

an interpretation of the former section that allows states sufficient flexibility in meeting the state 

goal set thereunder to include in their compliance plans other measures (i.e., measures that are 

neither performance standards nor measures that enforce or implement performance standards). 

Section 111(d)(1) further requires each state to submit a plan that “(A) establishes standards of 

performance for any existing source [for certain air pollutants] . . . and (B) provides for the 

implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance.” And, Section 111(a)(1) 

defines a “standard of performance” as “a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of 

emission reduction ... adequately demonstrated.”

174

 These provisions make it abundantly clear 

that emission limits that are enforceable against affected EGUs appropriately belong in state 

plans because they clearly are “standards of performance.” 

d. State plans may include measures, other than limits on EGUs, 

for achieving the required emission performance goals.

The terms of Section 111(d)(1) do not explicitly address whether, in addition to emission 

limits on affected EGUs, state plans may include other measures for achieving the required 

emission performance goals. The terms of the CAA also fail to address whether entities other 

than affected EGUs may be subject to requirements that contribute to reducing EGU emissions. 

The U.S. Supreme Court determined in its 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC that 

where the statute leaves a gap, the agency has discretion to fashion an interpretation that is a 

 

174 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1), (1970).
151 | P a g e

reasonable construction of the law.175 Hence, EPA’s reasonable construction of 111(d) is a valid 

interpretation as long as it is reasonable.

EPA’s proposed interpretation is based, in part, on Section 111(d)’s requirement that 

states set performance standards “for” affected sources. Although “for” could reasonably be read 

as meaning that the standards must apply to affected sources, “for” is also reasonably interpreted 

to have a more capacious meaning to include standards with an effect on affected sources. EPA 

standards, such as renewable energy, are reasonably considered to be “for” affected sources if 

they would have an effect on affected sources by, for example, causing reductions in affected 

EGUs’ carbon emissions by decreasing the amount of generation needed from affected EGUs. 

Under EPA’s specific interpretation, and depending on the specific provisions of a state’s plan, 

renewable energy would be “for” fossil fuel-fired EGUs, even if the standards do not apply 

directly to fossil fuel-fired EGUs.

The “standards of performance for [affected sources]” is reasonably read, consistent with 

EPA’s interpretation, to include the emission performance level (i.e., the state goal) on the 

grounds that the level is “a standard for emissions” because it is in the nature of a requirement 

that concerns emissions and it is “for” the affected sources because it helps determine their 

obligations under the plan. Measures, such as renewable energy deployment, may be considered 

“implement[ing]” measures in state plans if they are not directly tied to emission reductions that 

affected sources are required to make through emission limits, and if they are requirements on 

entities other than the affected sources.

e. EPA has the legal authority to allow a portfolio approach.

 

175 Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842–843 (1984).
152 | P a g e

AWEA agrees with EPA’s proposal to interpret Section 111(d)(1) to allow state plans to 

include components of the portfolio approach that are measures that would reduce emissions 

from affected sources, even if those measures are neither “standards of performance for existing 

sources” nor measures “for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance.” There is no specific language in Section 111(d) or elsewhere in the act that 

prohibits states from including measures other than performance standards, implementation, and 

enforcement measures, provided that they reduce emissions from affected EGUs.

AWEA applauds EPA for finding that the BSER includes a system that goes beyond the 

fence line of individual EGUs. In justifying the beyond the fence approach to BSER, EPA 

accurately cites the interconnected nature of the electric system.176 Ultimately, the electric power 

system is not simply a set of individual generation units, but rather an interconnected system of 

generation, transmission and distribution facilities and end users managed in real-time to keep 

the system in balance. The utilization and ultimate emissions of individual EGUs operating 

within this system are a function of the performance of the entire system and should not and need 

not be artificially viewed in isolation.

Achievable and cost effective emission reduction opportunities can be found beyond the 

fence line of EGUs with application of technologies such as renewable energy. These 

technologies, like renewables, are well established, cost effective, and are already contributing to 

emission reductions at affected EGUs. EPA’s approach to determining the level of emission 

reductions that have been adequately demonstrated—whether justified as the application of four 

BSER “building blocks” to the broadly conceived electric system or as a quantification of the 

 

176 Clean Power Plan at 34875.
153 | P a g e

emission reductions achievable through reduced utilization of affected EGUs—is consistent with 

its legal authority.

f. Section 111(d) continues to apply even after a modification or 

reconstruction of a source.

Because Section 111(d) does not address whether an existing source that is subject to a 

Section 111(d) program remains subject to that program even after it modifies or reconstructs, 

EPA has authority to provide a reasonable interpretation, under the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v NRDC. AWEA agrees with EPA’s proposal that an existing source 

becomes subject to requirements under Section 111(d) will continue to be subject to those 

requirements even after it undertakes a modification or reconstruction. 

Under this interpretation, a modified or reconstructed source would be subject to both: 

(1) the Section 111(d) requirements that it had previously been subject to; and (2) the modified 

source or reconstructed source standard being promulgated under Section 111(b) simultaneously 

with this rulemaking. This interpretation, which is supported by the statutory text, is a sensible 

policy and will further the goals of the statute. 

AWEA agrees with EPA that owners and operators of units might have incentives to 

modify purely because of potential discrepancies in the stringency of the two programs, which 

would undermine the emission reduction goals of Section 111(d). And, the uncertainty about 

whether units would remain in the program could be very disruptive to the operation of the 

program. EPA’s interpretation of Section 111(d) will avoid creating incentives for sources to 

seek to avoid their obligations thereunder by undertaking modifications and, therefore, will 

assure the integrity of the Section 111(d) program.

IV. CONCLUSION
154 | P a g e

Thank you for your careful consideration of the recommendations and other issues raised 

by AWEA in these comments. AWEA looks forward to continuing its productive relationship 

with EPA on this critical issue in the coming months as it finalizes the Clean Power Plan.

Sincerely,

 Tom Vinson

Vice President of Regulatory Affairs

Michael Goggin

Director of Research

Gene Grace

Senior Counsel

American Wind Energy Association

Suite 1000

1501 M St, NW

Washington DC 20005

Phone: (202) 383‐2500

Fax: (202) 383‐2505

E‐mail: ggrace@awea.org
155 | P a g e

V. APPENDIX: EPA’s SPECIFC QUESTIONS AND AWEA’S ANSWERS

Questions taken from the “Listing of EPA’s Requests for Comment,” Proposed Clean Power 

Plan for Existing Power Plants, available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

08/documents/clean-power-plan-comment-categories.pdf. Further explanation of many of these 

issues is offered above in our detailed comments,

Category Comment Page No.

in Federal

Register

General The EPA is offering the opportunity to comment on the

proposed BSER, the proposed methodology for 

computing state goals based on application of the BSER, 

and the state-specific data used in the computations.

34835

AWEA Response AWEA believes that the BSER should be a system-wide 

framework. 

Compliance Time The agency is also requesting comment on an alternative

option, a 5-year period for compliance, in combination 

with a less stringent set of CO2 emission performance

levels.

34839

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the EPA’s consideration of time as a 

component of the BSER, especially given that climate 

change may be mitigated best through prompt and early 

action; however, the alternate approach proposed for a 

less stringent program with a 2025 goal year is overly 

conservative with respect to achievability by that time. 

Building blocks The EPA is also seeking comment on different 

combinations of building blocks and different levels of

stringency for each building block.

34839

AWEA Response The stringency of building block three should be 

drastically increased as renewable generation is an 

inexpensive, proven, reliable, and clean form of emissions 

reduction and is underestimated by the Clean Power Plan. 
156 | P a g e

Stakeholder

Proposals

Other stakeholders suggested that an ‘‘inside the fence’’

plant- or unit-specific assessment linked to the availability

of control at the source such as heat rate improvements 

should be considered. They indicated that once plantspecific goals are established based on on-site CO2

reduction opportunities, the source should have the

flexibility to look ‘‘outside the fence’’ for the means to

achieve the goals, including the use of emissions trading 

and averaging. The EPA invites comment on these

suggestions.

34848

AWEA Response AWEA agrees on the use of emissions trading and 

averaging as a means for affected EGUs to reduce their 

emissions levels however, and we disagree with the sole 

use of “inside the fence” actions as a sole means of 

compliance for states and EGUs. 

Legal

Interpretation

The EPA discusses its legal interpretation in more detail 

in other parts of this preamble and discusses certain issues 

in more detail in the Legal Memorandum included in the

docket for this rulemaking. The EPA solicits comment on 

all aspects of its legal interpretations, including the

discussion in the Legal Memorandum.

34853

AWEA Response AWEA believes that the EPA has authority to regulate 

carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act and that 

it is rational to regulate greenhouse gases based upon 

previous findings of endangerment to public health and 

welfare. AWEA also believes that 111(d) of the CAA gives 

the EPA authority to determine the BSER and that state 

plans may include measures other than limits on EGUs to 

meet emission performance goals, as well as allow for a 

portfolio approach and that 111(d) continues to apply 

even after a modification or reconstruction of a source. 

Combining

Categories

The EPA is soliciting comment on combining the two 

existing categories for the affected EGUs into a single

category for purposes of facilitating emission trading

among sources in both categories.

34855

AWEA Response EPA should combine the two existing categories for the 

affected EGUs into a single category for purposes of 

facilitating emission trading among sources in both 

categories. 

Combining

Categories

The EPA is proposing emission guidelines for the two 

categories and is soliciting comment on combining the

two categories into a single category for purposes of the

CO2 emissions from existing affected EGUs.

34855
157 | P a g e

AWEA Response AWEA supports combining the two existing categories into 

a single category for purposes of carbon emissions from 

existing affected EGUs. 

Combining

Categories

The EPA solicits comment on whether combining the two 

categories would offer additional flexibility, for example, 

by facilitating implementation of CO2 mitigation 

measures, such as shifting generation from higher to

lower-carbon intensity generation among existing sources 

(e.g., shifting from boilers to NGCC units) or facilitating

emissions trading among sources.

34855

AWEA Response AWEA believes that combining the two categories would 

offer additional flexibility, by facilitating implementation 

of carbon mitigation measures, such as emission trading 

among sources in both categories. 

Building blocks For some states, the renewable energy generation targets 

developed using the proposed approach are less than the

states’ reported renewable energy generation amounts for

2012. We invite comment on whether the approach for

quantifying the renewable energy generation component 

of each state’s goal should be modified to include a floor

based on reported 2012 renewable energy generation in 

that state.

34868

AWEA Response If this approach is adopted, the renewable energy 

generation component of each state’s goal should be 

modified to include a floor based on reported 2012 

renewable energy generation in that state. 

Building blocks The EPA invites comment on whether the approach for

quantifying the renewable energy generation component 

of each state’s goal should be modified so that the

difference between a state’s renewable energy generation 

target and its 2012 level of corresponding renewable 

energy generation does not exceed the state’s reported 

2012 fossil fuel-fired generation.

34868-

34869

AWEA Response AWEA does not believe that there should be such a cap 

placed upon the expansion of renewable energy 

generation.

Building blocks We invite comment on the proposed approach to 

treatment of renewable generating capacity as a basis for

the best system of emission reduction adequately

demonstrated and for quantification of state goals.

34869
158 | P a g e

AWEA Response AWEA believes that renewable energy generation should 

be considered a basis for the best system of emission 

reduction because it is adequately demonstrated and 

readily quantifiable. 

Building blocks We invite comment on the alternative approach to

quantification of renewable energy generation to support 

the BSER described on pages 34869-70. We note that the

three specific requests for comment made above with 

respect to the proposed quantification approach—

addressing, first, the possibility of a floor based on 2012 

renewable energy generation, second, the possibility of a

limitation based on 2012 fossil fuel-fired generation and, 

third, the treatment of hydropower generation—apply to 

this alternative approach as well.

34870

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the alternative approach to 

quantification of renewable energy and believes that 

renewable energy should be calculated using an 

economic and technical feasibility assessment, subject to 

the modifications discussed in our detailed comments. 

Building blocks The EPA invites comment on other possible technoeconomic approaches to quantification of renewable 

energy generation to support the BSER. For example, a

conceptual framework for another techno-economic

approach is provided in the Alternative

renewable energy Approach TSD.

34870

AWEA Response We strongly recommend that EPA strengthen the targets 

for renewable energy by adopting the NODA’s 

Regionalized Technical and Economic Renewable 

Approach for calculation of building block 3 of the BSER, 

but modifying it to better reflect an assessment of what 

levels of increased generation from renewable energy are 

technically and cost-effectively achievable. 

Building blocks As discussed in Section VII.E below, the EPA is also

taking comment on a less stringent alternative for setting

state goals.

34873

AWEA Response AWEA does not support the less stringent alternative to 

establishing state goals. 

Building blocks We invite comment on a potential BSER comprising a

combination of building blocks 1 and 2.

34878

AWEA Response AWEA disagrees with a potential BSER comprised of only 

building blocks 1 and 2 as the improvement of fossil 

power efficiency and replacement of coal with natural gas 

does not constitute a “best” system of emissions 

reduction. 

34885
159 | P a g e

Building blocks We note that some stakeholders have argued that CAA

section 111(a)(1) does not authorize the EPA to identify

redispatch, low- or zero-emitting generation, or demandside energy efficiency measures (building blocks 2, 3, 

and 4) as components of the ‘‘best system of emission 

reduction . . .adequately demonstrated.’’ According to 

these stakeholders, as a legal matter, the BSER is limited 

to measures that may be undertaken at the affected units, 

and not measures that are beyond the affected units; the

measures in building blocks 2, 3, and 4 are ‘‘beyond-theunit’’ or ‘‘beyond-the-fenceline’’ measures because they

are implemented outside of the affected units and 

outside their control; and as a result, those measures 

cannot be considered components of the BSER. We

welcome comment on this issue.

34888

AWEA Response Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, where the statute leaves a 

gap, the agency has discretion to fashion an 

interpretation that is a reasonable construction of the 

law. Hence, the EPA’s reasonable construction of 

111(d) is a valid interpretation as it is reasonable. 

Building blocks As discussed above, the EPA is soliciting comment on 

combining the category of steam EGUs and the category

of combustion turbines (which include NGCC units)

into a single category for fossil fuel-fired EGUs, for

purposes of promulgating emission guidelines for

CO2 emissions.

34892

AWEA Response AWEA supports combining the two existing categories into 

a single category for purposes of promulgating carbon 

emissions guidelines from existing affected EGUs.

Building blocks The EPA solicits comment on whether combining the

categories is, as a legal matter, a prerequisite for (i)

identifying as a component of the BSER re-dispatch 

between sources in the two categories (i.e., re-dispatch 

between steam EGUs and NGCC units), or (ii) facilitating

averaging or trading systems that include sources in both 

categories, which states may wish to adopt.

34892

AWEA Response AWEA supports the EPA codifying all of the proposed 

requirements for the affected EGUs in a new subpart 

UUUU of 40 CFR part 60.
160 | P a g e

Building blocks We invite comment on all aspects of our proposed

interpretation and alternate interpretation of the BSER 

for CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, 

both as identified above and as further discussed in the

Legal Memorandum in the docket. In particular, we

invite comment on our analysis of the four building 

blocks as components of the BSER, whether any other

potential measures should be considered, our analysis of

the combinations of building blocks 1 and 2 and of all 

four building blocks, and the legal, technical, and

economic bases of our conclusions.

34892

AWEA Response AWEA believes that all four building blocks should be 

considered when determining the BSER for CO2 

emission reductions. We oppose consideration of solely 

building block 1 or a combination of blocks 1 and 2 as 

these methods fail to provide drastic reductions of 

emissions in a least-cost manner. 

Building blocks Some commenters noted that trading programs like

RGGI have been successful at reducing GHGs, and other

commenters provided specific BSER 

proposals based on trading and/or emissions 

averaging approaches. We specifically

request comment on whether any of these

approaches should be considered as the

BSER.

34892

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the implementation of regional 

emissions trading programs. The EPA should put forth 

a model rule for an interstate emissions credit trading 

program that could be easily adopted by states who 

wanted to use such a program for its plan. This will 

help states establish a sensible trading and ceiling 

policy that is in compliance with EPA requirements.

State Goals We are requesting comment on a second set of statespecific goals that would reflect less stringent application 

of the same BSER, in this case by 2025, with interim

goals that would apply over a 2020–2024 phase-in 

period.

34892

AWEA Response AWEA does not support a reduction in the stringency of 

the application of BSER. 
161 | P a g e

State Goals A state’s inability to meet the level of emission 

reductions anticipated through use of one building 

block may free up resources that the state could then 

devote to more stringent implementation of another

building block. This approach would mean that 

overall, the same nationwide level of emission 

reductions as proposed would be achieved. The

EPA invites comment on this aspect of the proposal.

34893

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the use of all the building blocks 

to facilitate emissions reductions; however, this 

should not lead to an over-reliance upon efficiency 

improvements and/or gas redispatch to address 

emissions reductions. 

State Goals The details of how states could attain emission 

performance levels consistent with the goals through

different state plan approaches that recognize emission 

reductions achieved through all the building blocks are

discussed further in Section VIII on state plans. We

invite comment on all aspects of the goal computation 

procedure. (Note that we also invite comment on certain 

specific alternate data inputs to the procedure in Section 

VI.C above). We also specifically invite comment on the

state-specific historical data to which the building blocks 

are applied in order to compute the state goals, as well as 

the state-specific data used to develop the state-specific

data inputs for building blocks 3 and 4.

34896-

34897

AWEA Response AWEA believes that the EPA should take a number 

of steps to better compute state compliance goals 

including the use of more recent renewable energy 

data, inclusion of growth between 2012-2017, and

less reliance on RPS figures.

State Goals In addition to the proposed state specific emission ratebased goals described above, the EPA has developed for

public comment an alternate set of goals reflecting less 

stringent application of the building blocks and a shorter

implementation period. The alternate final goals 

represent emission performance that would be

achievable by 2025, after a 2020–2024 phase-in period, 

with interim goals that would apply during the 2020–

2024 period on a cumulative or average basis as states 

progress toward the final goals. 

34898

AWEA Response AWEA does not support a reduction in the stringency of 

the application of BSER. 
162 | P a g e

State Goals We request comment on whether, and if so how, the EPA

should incorporate greater consideration of multi-state

approaches into the goal setting process, and on the issue

of whether, and if so how, the potential cost savings 

associated with multi-state approaches should be

considered in assessing the reasonableness.

34899

AWEA Response AWEA supports the EPA’s proposal for states to be 

allowed to develop multi-state/regional compliance 

programs. Such regional approaches could offer costeffective carbon solutions and allow for multi-state 

coordination to address compliance issues. See III.J.8 of 

comments.

State Goals The flexibility inherent in the rule is responsive to the

CAA’s recognition that state plans for emission 

reduction can, and must, be consistent with a vibrant and

growing economy and reliable, affordable electricity to 

support that economy. The EPA welcomes comments 

and suggestions on this issue.

34900

AWEA Response The plan’s flexibility allows for economic growth and 

reliability as it provides states with the ability to use 

renewable energy and energy efficiency to comply with 

goals. This complies with the CAA as renewable energy 

and EE are demonstrated cost effective and reliable 

means for emissions reductions. 

State Plans With this in mind, we are proposing to provide states 

with additional time to submit complete plans if they do 

so as part of a multistate plan, and we solicit comment on 

other potential mechanisms for fostering multi-state

collaboration.

34900

AWEA Response We support the proposal that if a state develops a plan 

that includes a multi-state approach, it would have 

additional time to submit a complete plan. While 

compliance time frames should be as short as possible, 

giving more time in this respect could serve to 

incentivize more states to embrace a multi-state 

approach. 

State Plans The EPA requests comment on this proposed approach, 

as opposed to the approach under which state plans 

simply would be required to hold the affected EGUs 

fully and solely responsible for achieving the emission 

performance level.

34901
163 | P a g e

AWEA Response AWEA agrees that the EPA should authorize states either 

to submit plans that hold the affected EGUs fully and 

solely responsible for achieving the emission 

performance level, or to submit plans that rely in part on 

measures imposed on entities other than affected EGUs 

to achieve at least part of that level, as well as on 

measures imposed on affected EGUs to achieve the 

balance of that level. 

State Plans In addition, the EPA is soliciting comment on several 

other types of state plans that may assure the requisite

level of emission performance without rendering certain

types of measures federally enforceable and that limit the

obligations of the affected EGUs.

34901

AWEA Response We support the proposed state commitment approach, 

under which the state requirements for entities other than 

affected EGUs would not be components of the state plan 

and, therefore, would not be federally enforceable. 

Instead, the state plan would include an enforceable 

commitment by the state itself to implement state 

enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that 

would achieve a specified portion of the required emission 

performance level on behalf of affected EGUs. This 

flexible approach should incentivize more states to 

embrace renewable energy programs and measures as 

compliance tools. 

State Plans EPA requests comment on what we refer to as a ‘‘state

commitment approach.’’ This approach differs from the 

proposed portfolio approach, described above, in one

major way: Under the state commitment approach, the

state requirements for entities other than affected EGUs

would not be components of the state plan and therefore

would not be federally enforceable. Instead, the state

plan would include an enforceable commitment by the

state itself to implement state-enforceable (but not

federally enforceable) measures that would achieve a

specified portion of the required emission performance

level on behalf of affected EGUs. The agency requests 

comment on the appropriateness of this approach.

34902
164 | P a g e

AWEA Response States should be able to choose approaches in their 

compliance plans under which full responsibility for 

actions achieving reductions is not placed entirely upon 

emitting EGUs; instead, state plans should be able to 

include measures and policies (e.g., renewable portfolio 

standards) for which the state itself is responsible. 

Therefore, we support the proposed state commitment 

approach, under which the state requirements for entities 

other than affected EGUs would not be components of the 

state plan and, therefore, would not be federally 

enforceable. 

State Plans The agency also requests comment on the policy

ramifications of the following: Under this approach, the

state programs upon which the state bases its 

commitment may, in turn, rely on compliance by third 

parties, and if those state programs fail to achieve the

expected emission reductions, the state could be subject

to challenges— including by citizen groups— for

violating CAA requirements and, as a result, could be

held liable for CAA penalties.

34902

AWEA Response We support the proposed state commitment approach, 

under which the state requirements for entities other than 

affected EGUs would not be components of the state plan 

and, therefore, would not be federally enforceable. 

Instead, the state plan would include an enforceable 

commitment by the state itself to implement state 

enforceable (but not federally enforceable) measures that 

would achieve a specified portion of the required 

emission performance level on behalf of affected EGUs. 

This flexible approach should incentivize more states to 

embrace renewable energy programs and measures as 

compliance tools. 

State Plans We also solicit comment on a variation of this state

commitment plan approach that is also designed to 

address stakeholder concerns, noted above, about 

imposing sole legal responsibility on affected EGUs for

achieving the emission performance level.

34902

AWEA Response AWEA believes states should be able to choose 

approaches in their compliance plans under which full 

responsibility for actions achieving reductions is not 

placed entirely upon emitting EGUs; instead, state plans 

should be able to include measures and policies (e.g., 

renewable portfolio standards) for which the state itself 

is responsible. 
165 | P a g e

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on another

approach: Whether ‘‘standards of performance for

[affected sources]’’ is reasonably read to include the

emission performance level (i.e., the state goal) on 

grounds that the level is ‘‘a standard for emissions’’

because it is in the nature of a requirement that 

concerns emissions and it is ‘‘for’’ the affected 

sources because it helps determine their obligations 

under the plan.

34903

AWEA Response The “standards of performance for [affected 

sources]”is reasonably read, consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation, to include the emission performance 

level (i.e., the state goal) on the grounds that the 

level is “a standard for emissions” because it is in 

the nature of a requirement that concerns emissions 

and it is “for” the affected sources because it helps 

determine their obligations under the plan. 

Measures, such as renewable energy deployment, 

may be considered “implement[ing]” measures in 

state plans if they are not directly tied to emission 

reductions that affected sources are required to 

make through emission limits, and if they are 

requirements on entities other than the affected 

sources. 

State Plans We solicit comment on the extent to which measures 

such as renewable energy and demand-side EE may be

considered ‘‘implement[ing]’’measures in state plans if

they are not directly tied to emission reductions that 

affected sources are required to make through emission 

limits, and if they are requirements on entities other than 

the affected sources.

34903

AWEA Response Measures, such as renewable energy deployment, may 

be considered “implement[ing]” measures in state 

plans if they are not directly tied to emission reductions 

that affected sources are required to make through 

emission limits, and if they are requirements on entities 

other than the affected sources. 
166 | P a g e

State Plans This alternative interpretation would be based on, for

example: A determination that CAA section 111(d)(1)

must be read as precluding a state plan from including

measures that are neither standards of performance nor

measures for the implementation or enforcement of such 

standards; an interpretation that the state’s obligation to 

set performance standards ‘‘for’’ existing sources means 

that the standards must apply to affected EGUs and not 

to other entities; and an interpretation that measures ‘‘for

the implementation and enforcement of such 

performance standards’’ do not include measures that are

not intended or designed to assist affected EGUs in 

meeting the performance standards. The EPA requests 

comment on whether it must adopt this alternative

interpretation. If so, the EPA also takes comment on 

whether there is a way, nonetheless, to allow states to 

rely on the portfolio approach to some extent and/or for

some period of time.

34903

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the EPA’s proposal to interpret 

Section 111(d)(1) to allow state plans to include 

components of the portfolio approach that are measures 

that would reduce emissions from affected sources, even 

if those measures are neither “standards of performance 

for existing sources” nor measures “for the 

implementation and enforcement of such standards of 

performance.” There is no specific language in Section 

111(d) or elsewhere in the act that prohibits states from 

including measures other than performance standards, 

implementation, and enforcement measures, provided 

that they reduce emissions from affected EGUs. 

State Plans The EPA invites comments on this interpretation of CAA

section 111(d)(1), including whether this interpretation is

supported by the statutory text and whether this 

interpretation is sensible policy and will further the goals 

of the statute.

34904

AWEA Response AWEA believes that the EPA’s interpretation of CAA 

section 111(d)(1) is rational and supported by statutory 

text that further the policies of the CAA. 
167 | P a g e

State Plans In Section VIII.B.2.f of this preamble, the agency also 

requests comment on alternative requirements aimed at 

continued emission performance improvement after

2029. In Section VIII.B.2.g of this preamble, the EPA

proposes flexibility for states to change from mass-based 

to rate-based goals in different performance periods and, 

in Section VIII.B.2.h, we solicit comment on planning

requirements that match the option of alternative, less 

stringent state goals.

34904

AWEA Response Congress intended for the emission performance 

improvements required under Section 111(d) to be 

permanent. Indeed, EPA has set other Section 111(d) 

emission limits to be met permanently. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on a second option in 

which, in addition to submitting a plan demonstrating 

emission performance through 2030, states would be

required to make a second submittal in 2025 showing

whether their plan measures would maintain the finalgoal level of emission performance over time. If not, the

state submittal would be required to strengthen or add to 

measures in the state plan to the extent necessary to 

maintain that level of performance over time.

34905

AWEA Response We support the EPA’s alternative proposal, under which, 

in addition to submitting a plan demonstrating emission 

performance through 2030, states would be required to 

make a second submittal in 2025 demonstrating that 

their plan measures will achieve the final-goal level of 

emission performance over time. 

State Plans The EPA alternatively requests comment on whether

states should be required to create legal authority and/or

adopt regulations providing for corrective measures in 

developing the state plan. The agency requests comment 

generally on the conditions that should trigger corrective

measure requirements.

34907

AWEA Response Legislative and/or regulatory action to adopt corrective 

measures after a deficiency is discovered will take 

significant time; therefore, state processes to activate 

corrective measures should be triggered earlier if 

corrective measures are not adopted in regulation and 

ready to implement. This allows for a faster and more 

efficient approach and ensures compliance by the target 

date. For plans without corrective measures adopted 

into regulation prior to complete plan submittal, a higher 

percent emission performance deviation trigger is 

appropriate. 
168 | P a g e

State Plans The EPA also requests comment on the milestone

approach and emission performance checks outlined in 

the context of the alternative 5-year performance period 

and the planning approach for alternative state goals.

34907

AWEA Response AWEA disagrees with the use of a shortened but lessstringent compliance period. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on the appropriate time

period(s) and final year for the EPA’s calculation of state

goals that reflect application of the BSER under this 

approach.

34908

AWEA Response AWEA feels that a ten year compliance period is an 

adequate amount of time for states to reach the CO2 

emission reductions goals. 

State Plans The EPA notes that CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) calls for

the EPA, at least every eight years, to review and, if

appropriate, revise federal standards of performance for

new sources. This requirement provides for regular

updating of performance standards as technical advances 

provide technologies that are cleaner or less costly. The

agency requests comment on the implications of this 

concept, if any, for CAA section 111(d).

34908

AWEA Response While Section 111(d) does not require regular review and 

revision, as it is silent on the issue, there is nothing 

preventing EPA from instituting such a review of the 

standards. In order to ensure that the BSER does not 

ultimately outpace requirements (new, innovative, or 

improved compliance tools have been adequately 

demonstrated) in the 111(d) context as well, EPA should 

review and revise the Section 111(d) standards as well to 

capture the technological advance. It would be 

inconsistent with the statutory scheme to set a weak 

standard that adequately demonstrated systems achieve 

and exceed in practice without updating them. Thus, the 

eight-year review concept should be applied to Section 

111(d). 
169 | P a g e

State Plans In Section VII, the EPA requests comment on 

alternative, five-year state emission performance goals

for affected EGUs shown in Table 9. The alternative

goals represent emission rates achievable on average

during the 2020–2024 period, as well as emission rates to 

be achieved and maintained after 2024. These alternative

goals are less stringent than the proposed goals in Table

8. To accompany the alternative goals, the EPA requests

comment on another approach for state plan performance

periods.

34909

AWEA Response AWEA disagrees with the use of a shortened but lessstringent compliance period. 

State Plans As discussed in section VIII.F.1, the EPA is seeking

comment on whether the agency should provide

guidance on enforceability considerations related to 

requirements in a state plan for entities other than 

affected EGUs (and if so, which types of entities). Also, 

as discussed in section VIII.F.4, the EPA intends to 

develop guidance for evaluation, monitoring, and 

verification (EM&V) of renewable energy and demandside energy efficiency programs and measures 

incorporated in state plans.

34909

AWEA Response EPA guidance on enforceability and EM&V of renewable 

energy and EE measures in state plans would be helpful 

in providing states with information on how to properly 

craft a state plan.

State Plans We request comment on all aspects associated with 

enforceability of a state plan and how to ensure

compliance. We are also seeking comment on

enforceability considerations under different state plan 

approaches, which is addressed in Section VIII.F.1.

34909-

34910

AWEA Response The EGU emission limits would be federally 

enforceable, but certain renewable energy measures 

could serve as complementary measures and would not 

be enforceable under federal law; instead, they would 

remain enforceable under state law. The state plan 

would include an enforceable commitment (state 

commitment approach) by the state itself to implement 

state-enforceable (but not federally enforceable) 

measures that would achieve a specified portion of the 

required emission performance level on behalf of the 

affected EGUs. 
170 | P a g e

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on whether states 

participating in a multi-state plan should also be given 

the option of providing a single submittal— signed by

authorized officials from each participating state — that

addresses common plan elements. Individual

participating states would also be required to provide

individual submittals that provide state- specific

elements of the multi-state plan.

34911

AWEA Response EPA’s proposal that only one multi-state plan could be 

submitted on behalf of all participating states should 

help encourage the adoption of such approaches. But, 

states participating in a multi-state plan should also be 

given the option of providing a single submittal. 

State Plans The EPA is soliciting comment on whether there are

other elements that a state must include in its initial 

submittal to qualify for a date extension. Specifically, the

EPA requests comment on whether the guidelines should

require a state to have taken significant, 

concrete steps toward adopting a complete plan 

for the initial plan to be approvable.

34916

AWEA Response The EPA should also follow the requirements of the 

implementing regulations, and not extend the timetables, 

as proposed, unless the state has a valid reason for an 

extension. At a minimum, states should file an initial 

proposal within one year and then can submit their 

complete plans to the EPA if they get an extension. The 

guidelines should require a state to have taken 

significant, concrete steps toward adopting a complete 

plan for the initial plan to be approvable.

State Plans The EPA requests comment on this option – that 

emission reduction effects that occur prior to the

beginning of the initial plan performance period could be

applied toward meeting the required level of emission 

performance in a state plan.

34919

AWEA Response EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction 

actions, including increasing existing policies, taken after 

January 1, 2014, and before the plan performance period 

(2020) to count toward achievement of the state's 2030 

carbon emission goal. The accounting for year-to-year 

carryover should be addressed in a state plan, in order to 

determine the credits that occurred in a respective 

reporting year or compliance period. This could include 

time differentiation on an hourly, daily, or seasonal 

basis. 
171 | P a g e

State Plans We are seeking comment on whether the emission effects 

of actions that are taken after proposal or promulgation of

the emission guidelines or the approval of a state plan, but 

which occur prior to the beginning of the initial state plan 

performance period, could be applied toward meeting the

required level of emission performance in a state plan.

34919

AWEA Response EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction actions, 

including increasing existing policies, taken after January 

1, 2014, and before the plan performance period (2020) to 

count toward achievement of the state's 2030 carbon 

emission goal. 

State Plans We are seeking comment on the suitability of these

approaches in the context of an approvable state plan, and 

on whether harmonization of state approaches, or

supplemental actions and procedures, should be required in 

an approvable state plan. In particular, we intend to 

establish guidance for acceptable quantification, 

monitoring, and verification of renewable energy and 

demand-side EE measures for an approvable EM&V plan,

and are seeking comment on critical features of such 

guidance, including scope, applicability, and minimum 

criteria. We are also seeking comment on the appropriate

basis for and technical resources used to establish such

guidance, including consideration of existing state and 

utility protocols, as well as existing international, national, 

and regional consensus standards or protocols.

34921

AWEA Response AWEA also supports the EPA developing guidance 

materials on acceptable EM&V methods that could be 

incorporated in an approvable EM&V plan that is 

included as part of an approvable state plan. The EPA 

should issue a guidance document as soon as possible and 

seek public comment on that document so that states will 

have a better idea of how to develop a state plan. Such a 

guidance document should include the analytic methods, 

assumptions, and data sources that the state will employ 

during the state performance periods to determine the 

energy savings and energy generation related to renewable 

energy and EE measures.

State Plans The EPA is requesting comment on the merits of this 

approach, including whether such guidance should identify

types of renewable energy and demand-side EE measures

and programs for which evaluation of results is relatively

straightforward and which are appropriate for inclusion in 

a state plan.

34921
172 | P a g e

AWEA Response AWEA strongly discourages the EPA from limiting the 

type of renewable energy “measures” that may be 

considered as compliance tools. However, a list of 

renewable energy and EE measures for which evaluation of 

results ins relatively straightforward may be of use to states 

as a way of identifying pathways to compliance. See III.J.5 

of comments.

State Plans As an alternative to the EPA’s proposed approach of

allowing a broad range of renewable energy and demandside EE measures and programs to be included in state

plans, provided that supporting EM&V documentation 

meets applicable minimum requirements, the EPA is

requesting comment on whether guidance should limit 

consideration to certain well-established programs, such as 

those characterized in Section V.A.4.2.1 of the State Plan 

Considerations TSD.

34921

AWEA Response AWEA strongly discourages the EPA from limiting 

the type of renewable energy “measures” that may be 

considered as compliance tools. By placing 

limitations on the types of renewable energy measures 

considered, the EPA establishes a more onerous 

burden on states to comply with EPA mandates and 

impairs the ability of building block Three to be 

implemented to its full potential as a means of 

reducing carbon emissions. AWEA strongly urges the 

EPA to signal that all renewable energy purchases that 

are not entered into pursuant to such things as state 

plans or measures, such as an RPS, can be used as 

compliance tools. See III.J.5 of comments.

State Plans The EPA is seeking comment on the options for treatment 

of interstate effects summarized below, as well as

alternatives.

34921

AWEA Response We agree with EPA’s proposal that a state should be 

able take into account all of the carbon emission 

reductions from renewable energy measures 

implemented by the state, whether they occur in the 

state or in other states. See III.G of comments.

State Plans The EPA is also seeking comment on how to avoid double

counting emission reductions using the proposed approach

for accounting for CO2 emission reductions from 

renewable energy measures implemented by the state.

34922
173 | P a g e

AWEA Response Tracking systems currently in existence can serve as a 

method of accounting for the transfer of renewable energy. 

If used properly these systems could effectively avoid 

double counting and aid states in demonstrating compliance 

with the rule. See II.E and III.G.5 of comments.

State Plans We also request comment on the option of allowing

a state to take into account only those CO2 emission 

reductions occurring in its state.

34922

AWEA Response AWEA disagrees with the option of allowing a state 

to take into account only those emission reductions 

occurring in state as a robust trading and regional 

market allows for more effective emissions 

reductions and lower compliance costs. 

State Plans We also request comment on whether a state should be

able to take credit for emission reductions out of state due

to renewable energy measures if the state can demonstrate

that the reductions will not be double counted when the

relevant states report on their achieved plan performance,

and on what such a demonstration should entail.

34922

AWEA Response AWEA agrees with the crediting of emissions reductions 

from out of state sources due to renewable energy 

measures if the state can demonstrate that double 

counting has not occurred. State can use a number of 

existing measures to prevent double counting. 

State Plans We are seeking further comment on whether the EPA

should develop guidance that describes acceptable

projection approaches, tools, and methods for use in an

approvable plan, as well as providing technical resources 

for conducting projections.

34923

AWEA Response AWEA believes that EPA guidance for states on crafting 

an approvable plan will provide for faster and smoother 

adoption of state plans.

State Plans The agency solicits comment on whether certain other

measures not used to set state goals are appropriate to 

include in a state plan to achieve CO2 emission reductions 

from affected EGUs. In addition to the specific requests for 

comment related to specific technologies identified, we

also request comment on other measures that would be

appropriate. In addition, we request comment on whether

the EPA should provide specific guidance on inclusion of

these measures in a state plan.

34923
174 | P a g e

AWEA Response EPA should provide clarity as to the technologies that 

can be used as compliance options, provide guidance on 

incorporating them into state plans, and factor them into 

the BSER. In the final rule, EPA should explicitly 

recognize the technologies that can serve as compliance 

options and provide guidance to states on the use of 

these technologies in compliance plans. 

State Plans The agency requests comment on how emission changes 

under a rate-based plan resulting from substitution of 

generation by new NGCC for generation by affected EGUs 

should be calculated toward a required emission 

performance level for affected EGUs.

34924

AWEA Response Emissions changes under a rate-based plan resulting from 

substitution of generation by NGCC for generation by 

affected EGUs should be calculated toward a required 

emission performance level for affected EGUs. If not, some 

states with modest targets could achieve their 111(d) goals 

by merely closing existing coal plants and replacing them 

with natural gas plants, resulting in less overall carbon 

emission reductions.